the commentaries of Ch’eng-kuan and Tsung-mi on Tu-shun’s Fa-chieh-kuan-men.
Mereology
Gandavyuha-sutra
Daśabhūmika-sūtra
Phenomena and principle
Six aspects and ten mysteries
The four dharma-dhātus
the dharma-dhātu of phenomena
the dharma-dhātu of principle
the dharma-dhātu of non-obstruction of phenomena and principle
the dharma-dhātu of non-obstruction of phenomena
One true dharma-dhātu
The cosmogonic map for Buddhist practice
ālayavijñāna
Key Teachers
Du Shun
Zhiyan
Fazang
Chengguan, the ‘fourth’ Huayan patriarch
Zongmi
Li Tongxuan (635–730)
Source: Huayan Buddhism / MNZencenter
Source: Reflecting Mirrors Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism
Source:Huayan Buddhism and the Phenomenal Universe of the Flower Ornament Sutra
Huayan Buddhism and the Phenomenal Universe of the Flower Ornament Sutra
Taigen Dan Leighton From the fall 2006 “Buddhadharma” magazine
Chinese Huayan Buddhism is considered by many Buddhist scholars to be one of the highpoints of Mahayana thought, or even of world philosophy. The Huayan worldview – which emphasizes interconnectedness and employs provocative holographic metaphors such as Indra’s Net – is a fascinating, illuminating resource that can be very useful to contemporary Buddhist practitioners, even though very few know much about it. It was hardly predominant in ancient times either. The major Huayan commentators were active in China for a relatively brief period – from the sixth to ninth century – and their profound, dense, and challenging writings were never widely read. Furthermore, the school they established in China never achieved any lengthy institutional prominence, and Huayan barely survives formally today in Japan as the Kegon school. Nevertheless, Huayan – with its intricate dialectical philosophy – provides the philosophical underpinning for Zen and much of the rest of popular East Asian Buddhism, and of its offshoots in the West. As a result, Huayan perspectives, and the practical instructions that grow out of them, have an enduring influence and applicability to modern Buddhist practice.
The Flower Ornament Sutra
The starting point for Huayan Buddhism is the extravagant, lengthy Flower Ornament Sutra, or Avatamsaka Sutra in Sanskrit, considered the most elevated scripture by the Huayan school. (Avatamsaka is translated as Huayan in Chinese, which is read as Kegon in Japanese.) The Chinese Huayan school features intricate, didactic philosophical speculations illustrated with fascinating metaphors, inspired by this sutra. Yet the Flower Ornament Sutra itself is a very different type of literature. It consists of highly sumptuous visions that offer a systematic presentation of the stages of development and unfolding of the practice activities of bodhisattvas, enlightening beings functioning in the world to promote awakening and ease suffering. This sutra is sometimes described as the very first awareness of Shakyamuni Buddha upon his great enlightenment, too lofty for anyone else at that time to hear. Over 1600 pages in Thomas Cleary’s translation, the Flower Ornament Sutrais a samadhi text, designed to inspire luminous visions and exalted experiences of mind and reality through its use of lush psychedelic, evocative imagery.
Because of the book’s length, but also because of its unique quality as a text, most practitioners need some guidance as to how to read the Flower Ornament Sutra, which may seem impenetrable at first glance. This is not a book to read to gain intellectual comprehension. Rather, the cumulative impact of the profusion of its imagery inspires heightened states of samadhi, or concentrated, meditative awareness. This effect can best be appreciated by bathing in the imagery, as if listening to a symphony, rather than trying to decipher a textbook. Reciting it aloud, by oneself or together with a small circle of practice friends, is a traditional approach.
This extensive sutra also need not be read in its entirety to experience its impact. Of the thirty-nine chapters of the sutra, two stand out as inspiring, independent sutras in their own right. One is the chapter on the Ten Stages or Grounds (Dasabhumika Sutra in Sanskrit), one of the earliest Mahayana sutras, which details the ten stages of development of bodhisattvas before buddhahood, even the first of which is quite lofty. The other separate sutra is the final chapter, the Entry into the Realm of Reality (Gandhavyuha Sutra in Sanskrit), which relates the journey of the pilgrim Sudhana to a sequence of fifty-three different bodhisattva teachers. These great bodhisattvas present a democratic vision of Dharma, as they include women and men, laypeople and priests, beggars and kings and queens. The chapter culminates with Sudhana’s entry into the inconceivably vast tower of Maitreya Bodhisattva, the next future Buddha, a lofty mind-boggling episode that even the special effects wizardry of George Lucas and his colleagues could not begin to capture. Maitreya’s tower, as extensive as all of space, contains a vast number of equally spacious towers overflowing with amazing sights, each without interfering with the space of any of the others.
Although these two sutras within a sutra stand out, any chapter of the larger Flower Ornament Sutra can serve as an entryway to its awareness, because of the holographic quality of the text, in which each part in itself fully exemplifies the entirety of the whole. This interfusion of the particular with the totality becomes the heart of the Huayan philosophy and practice. The larger sutra is replete with myriad buddhas and bodhisattvas, described as filling every grass-tip or atom. But the primary Buddha of the Flower Ornament Sutra is Vairocana, the Reality Body Buddha (Dharmakaya in Sanskrit) whose body is the equivalent of the entire phenomenal universe, which is known in Buddhism as the Dharmadhatu. Vairocana is also the primary buddha in many mandalas in Vajrayana, or tantric Buddhism. The heroic bodhisattva most prominently featured in the sutra is Samantabhadra (Puxian in Chinese; Fugen in Japanese), whose name means “Universal Virtue.” Often depicted riding an elephant, Samantabhadra with his calm dignity specializes in performing devotional observances and artistic, aesthetic expressions of the sacredness. He also resolutely practices the Bodhisattva Vow through accomplishing many varieties of helpful projects, all aimed at benefiting all beings and engaging all the societal systems of the world. As a result, Samantabhadra can serve as a great encouragement and resource both for artists and for modern “engaged” Buddhism and its renewal of Buddhist societal ethics.
The Fourfold Dharmadhatu
Inspired by this Flower Ornament Sutra, the Chinese Huayan teachers were able to articulate a profound dialectical vision that is a part of the foundation for all East Asian Buddhism. The basic teaching of this philosophy of interconnectedness is the Fourfold Dharmadhatu. The first two of these four aspects of Huayan reality clarify the two fundamental aspects of spiritual practice, and indeed of our whole lives: the universal and the particular. These first two aspects have also been described with the terms ultimate and phenomenal, absolute and relative, real and apparent, or sameness and difference.
The ultimate, absolute reality – the first part of the fourfold dharmadhatu – is glimpsed in introspective meditation; the practice of turning the attention within can serve to deepen awareness of the universal truth. In many religious traditions, seeing the universal oneness or reality is considered the goal of spiritual awareness and practice. But in Huayan Buddhism and in all East Asian Mahayana thereafter, the bodhisattva’s integration of that awareness back into ordinary, everyday activities and reality, into the particular – the second part of the fourfold dharmadhatu – is of crucial importance. As the eighth century Chan master Shitou (Sekito in Japanese) declared, “Merging with sameness is still not enlightenment.” Seeing the oneness of the Universal is only half of the practice, if that. The relevance of this insight must be realized and expressed in the realm of the relative particularities and diversities of our world.
The third aspect of the Huayan fourfold dharmadhatu is the mutual, non-obstructing interpenetration of the universal and particular. Admittedly, this is difficult to take in at first, but with patience we can see that universal truth can only exist in the context of some particular situation. There can be no abstract universal truth apart from its active presence in the particular circumstance of some specific causal condition. Also, every individual particular context, when fully examined, completely expresses the total universal truth. Moreover, the particular being or event and its universal aspect completely interact and coincide without hindering each other.
Based on this integration of universal and particular, the fourth part of the fourfold dharmadhatu is the mutual, non-obstructing interpenetration of the particular with other particulars, in which each particular entity or event can be fully present and complementary to any other particular. Viewed from the vantage point of deep interconnectedness, particular beings do not need to obstruct each other, but rather can harmonize and be mutually revealing. This has significant implications for how we can see our world as a field of complementary entities, rather than a world of competitive and conflicting beings.
Indra’s Net
A frequently cited expression of this vision of reality is the simile of Indra’s Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra, which was further elaborated by the Huayan teachers. The whole universe is seen as a multidimensional net, and at every point where the strands of the net meet jewels are set. Each jewel reflects the light reflected in the jewels around it, and each of those jewels in turn reflects the lights from all the jewels around them, and so on, forever. In this way each jewel, or each particular entity or event, including each person, ultimately reflects and expresses the radiance of the entire universe. All of totality can be seen in each of its parts.
Huayan teaching features a range of holographic samadhi instructions drawn from the Flower Ornament Sutra. These practices help clear away limited preconceptions, foster fresh perspectives on reality, and expand mental capacities by expressing our deep interconnectedness.
One example is the “lion emergence” samadhi, in which upon every single hair tip abide numerous buddha lands containing a vast array of buddhas, bodhisattvas, and liberating teachings. Another model is the “ocean mirror” or “ocean seal” samadhi. In this image, awareness is like the vast ocean surface, reflecting and confirming in detail all phenomena of the entire universe. Waves of phenomena may arise on the surface of the ocean, distorting its ability to mirror plainly. But when the waves subside as the water calms and clears, the ocean mirror again reflects all clearly. Our individual minds are like this, often disturbed by turbulence, but also capable of settling serenely to reflect clear awareness.
The Golden Lion and the Hall of Mirrors
Fazang (643-712), the third of the five patriarchs of the Huayan school, was a brilliant teacher who might be considered the true founder of the school. He was particularly adept at devising models and metaphors to readily illustrate the profound Huayan truths to people.
Fazang once taught the powerful Empress Wu, a dedicated patron and student of Buddhism, using as a metaphor a golden lion sitting nearby them in her palace. He explained the non-obstructing interpenetration of the universal and particular by describing in detail how the gold, like the universal principle, pervaded the object completely, but that its particular unique form was that of a lion. We can see it either as gold or as a lion. But each part of the golden lion is completely gold, and each part is also completely part of the lion.
Another time, Fazang illustrated the Huayan teachings for Empress Wu by constructing a hall of mirrors, placing mirrors on the ceiling, floor, four walls, and the four corners of a room. In the center he placed a Buddha image with a lamp next to it. Standing in this room, the empress could see that in the reflection of any one mirror clearly reflected the reflections from all of the other mirrors, including the specific reflection of the Buddha image in each one. This fully demonstrated the unobstructed interpenetration of the particular and the totality, with each one contained in all, and with all contained in each one. Moreover, it showed the non-obstructed interpenetration of each particular mirror with each of the others.
Along with these more accessible models, Fazang and the other Huayan masters, such as the fourth patriarch Chengguan (738-839), developed many intricate philosophical descriptions of various aspects of interconnectedness, such as the ten-fold causes for realization of totality, the non-obstruction of space and of time, and the ten non-obstructions of totality. These various conceptual presentations require lengthier study and dialectics to fully appreciate and benefit from. However, they do not contain new and separate teachings; rather they expand on and elaborate the Huayan dialectical philosophy of the interconnectedness of totality with all individual beings.
Implications for Practice
The Huayan teachings present splendorous, inspiring visions of the wonders of the universal reality, far beyond the limited perspectives caught within the physical details and conditioned awareness of our everyday life. This teaching first of all encourages the possibility of a fresh, deeper way of seeing our world and its wonders. With the encouragement of these teachings, we can sense levels of spiritual interconnection with others and with the wholeness of reality that lift us beyond our ordinary attachments and prejudices. Such vision can help to heal our individual confusion, grasping, and sense of sadness or loss.
But beyond this deeper connection with wholeness, the Huayan teachings also offer guidance for more complete balance in practice. The emphasis on integration of glimpses into the ultimate with the particular problems and challenges of our everyday situations can help practitioners not get caught up in blissful absorption in awareness of ultimate reality. Attachment to the ultimate is considered the most dangerous attachment. But attending to the conventional realities of our world with some sense of the omnipresence of the totality helps to balance our practice, and can also further inform our deeper sense of wholeness.
Among the Huayan tools for bringing the universal into our everyday experience are gathas, or verses, which include many practice instructions to be used as enlightening reminders in all kinds of everyday situations. Specifically, the eleventh chapter of the Flower Ornament Sutra, called “Purifying Practice,” includes one hundred forty distinct verses to be used to encourage mindfulness in particular circumstances. Some of the following situations are cited: awakening from sleep; before, during, and after eating; seeing a large tree, flowing water, flowers blooming, a lake, or a bridge; entering a house; giving or receiving a gift; meeting teachers, or many various other kinds of people; or proceeding on straight, winding, or hilly roads.
All the verses use the situation mentioned to encourage mindfulness and as reminders of the fundamental intention to help ourself and others more fully express compassion and wisdom, as in the following example:
Seeing grateful people They should wish that all beings Be able to know the blessings Of the Buddhas and enlightening beings.
Historically, a selection of these verses has been recited in East Asian monasteries as rituals before and after bathing, brushing teeth, taking meals, or while doing begging rounds. A number of present-day teachers, such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken Roshi, have rewritten such verses for everyday mindful awareness, bringing them into our contemporary contexts such as when driving on the freeway or using the telephone.
Huayan models of interconnectedness point to the experience of wholeness that is one of the great joys of zazen. From the perspective of zazen, meditation practice is not about attaining some special, new state of mind or being, but rather of fully realizing the inner dignity of this present body and mind. Huayan further explicates the importance of the relationship of wholeness to everyday activities, matching the central emphasis of Zen training on expressing clear awareness amid ordinary conduct.
Huayan in Chan and Zen
The strong influence of Huayan on Chan and Zen was initiated in the person of Zongmi (780-841), the fifth Huayan patriarch, who was also a Chan master descended from the famous Chinese Chan Sixth patriarch, Huineng. A prolific scholar, Zongmi commented extensively on aspects of the Flower Ornament Sutra and Huayan teaching, but also wrote insightfully on many Chan issues. Much of what we know about the historical realities of early ninth century Chan is from Zongmi’s writings. In his teachings, Zongmi synthesized not only Chan and Huayan, but also integrated native Chinese Confucian and Daoist traditions in an understanding that strongly influenced all subsequent Chinese Buddhism.
The Huayan Fourfold Dharmadhatu is the direct inspiration and starting point for the important Zen teaching of the Five Ranks by Dongshan (806-869), the founder of the Caodong Chan lineage, later brought to Japan as Soto Zen by Dogen (1200-1253). The five ranks or degrees teachings, which detail the five aspects of unfolding of the relationship between the universal and particular, became the philosophical foundation for Zen. This was not only true in the Soto school; Linji (Rinzai in Japanese) also developed teachings that echoed the Fourfold Dharmadhatu. Hakuin (1686-1769), the great Japanese founder of modern Rinzai Zen, also commented on the Five Ranks, which remain one of the highest stages in the koan curriculum of modern Rinzai Zen.
Huayan in Japan
The Japanese Kegon school is descended from the Chinese Huayan. One of the six early Nara schools from seventh century Japan, Kegon is a very small school today. But Kegon is still known for its Todaiji temple in Nara, home of the largest wooden building in the world, and the largest bronze statue, the “Great Buddha,” which depicts Vairocana, the Dharmakaya Buddha.
Probably the best-known Japanese Kegon teacher is the passionately devotional Myoe (1173-1232), a fascinating figure who has recently drawn attention from Western scholars for his forty-year dream journal, celebrated by modern Jungian psychologists. Myoe made considerable efforts to develop practical applications of the Huayan teachings and the Flower Ornament Sutra. For example, he presented his own dreams and meditative visions in terms of understandings from Huayan teachings, and he encouraged others to use Avatamsaka visions to support and clarify their own practice.
Myoe was also a Shingon (Japanese Vajrayana) priest. Among his numerous other colorful activities, as an ardent young monk he cut off his ear like Van Gogh to demonstrate his sincerity, and he is often depicted doing zazen on his sitting platform up in a tree at the temple where he taught.
Huayan in the West
Apart from its power to inform and illuminate meditation practice, Huayan philosophy is highly relevant to Buddhism’s potential contribution to environmental and ecological thinking. The dynamics of the mutual relationship of universal and particular in Huayan has already been influential in the modern deep ecology movement in its clear expression of the interrelationship of the total global environment to the well-being of particular ecological niches.
The implications of this interconnectedness and the importance of the bodhisattva’s responsibility in Huayan is also a great encouragement and resource for modern Engaged Buddhism and Buddhist societal ethics. This can be seen, for example, through the main Avatamsakabodhisattva Samantabhadra, who engages in specific projects for worldly benefit through his dedicated practice of Vow as applied to benefiting all beings and all the societal systems of the world.
Huayan models of the interconnectedness of totality also have implications for modern science. Especially in cutting-edge realms of physics such as string theory, Huayan visions may provide inspirations for clarifying the dynamic interactions of various dimensions of reality.
Given how much Huayan Buddhism has to offer contemporary practitioners seeking to deepen their experience and understanding, even in realms outside of practice, it is fortunate that more material about this ancient teaching is becoming available. We can perhaps look forward to a renaissance of this profound teaching of interconnectedness in response to the pressing needs of our day.
Source: Huayan Buddhism / Chinaconnectu
Source: 5. Pure Land, Hua-yan and Tantric Buddhism
Hua-yan Buddhism
The Hua-yan school is based on a collection of Mahayana sutras called the avatamsaka (flower wreath). Although most of these scriptures have been lost, some remain, notably the dhasabhumika and gandavyuha Sutras. The Hua- yan’s philosophies were primarily systematised by Fa-zang (643-712). Perhaps the most important teaching is that of “interpenetration”. This principle of interpenetration is illustrated by the Hindu myth of “Indra’s net”.
Indra’s net [Edited excerpt from Sangharakshita’s lecture: “the Universal Perspective of Mahayana Buddhism”]
According to mythology which Buddhism inherited from Hinduism, Indra is the King of the Gods. He is said to dwell in the “heaven of the thirty-three gods”. And Indra possesses a number of treasures. Amongst these treasures is a net made entirely of jewels. This net has the extraordinary characteristic that each and every one of its jewels reflects all the other jewels. In other words each jewel reflects the rest of the net; and all the other jewels are reflected in that individual jewel. All in each, and each in all.
The gandhavyuha sutra, which is so important to the Hua-yan school, says the whole universe with everything in it is like Indra’s net of jewels. The universe consists of innumerable phenomena of various kinds, just as Indra’s net consists of innumerable jewels of all shapes and sizes. From the standpoint of the highest spiritual experience all the phenomena of the universe, whether great or small, near or distant, all mutually reflect one another; in a sense they even contain one another. All contain each, and each contains all. This truth applies throughout space and also throughout time. Space and time are, in effect, transcended, because everything that happens is happening now, and everything that is happening anywhere is happening here.
Of course we usually we do not think of the universe like this, or experience it like this. We usually think of the things that make up the world as irreducibly distinct from one another. And we usually experience the universe as consisting of things that are completely distinct from one another.
There is a very popular scriptural saying that is quoted in mahayana Buddhist countries again and again, and which enters deeply into their literature.. Eventually it even influences their everyday life. And this saying is that “every grain of dust in the universe contains all the Buddhafields” (ie. all the worlds throughout space and time). This might seem a rather bizarre and exotic insight, but we have something rather like it in a verse by the English poet, painter and visionary William Blake. He must have had a glimpse of this reality when he wrote:
To see a world in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold the universe in the palm of one’s hand, And eternity in an hour.
Although this is a very popular verse of English literature, some people may not take it very seriously. They tend to think of these lines as just a flight of poetic fancy. But Blake was not just a poet, he was also a visionary, and this verse of his expresses a realization that in essence is not very different from that of Indra’s net.
The various teachings of Buddhism are also like Indra’s net. They comprise a number of different paths, teachings and practices, all of which are interconnected. They all reflect one another each gives you a clue to all the others. Each is contained in all the others.
Source: THE PROBLEMATIC OF WHOLE – PART AND THE HORIZON OF THE ENLIGHTENED IN HUAYAN BUDDHISM
Source: “Dharmadhātu: An Introduction to Hua-Yen Buddhism.”
My Related Posts
You can search for these using Search Posts feature in right sidebar.
Indira’s Net: On Interconnectedness
Indira’s Pearls: Apollonian Gasket, Circle and Sphere Packing
The Great Chain of Being
Holons and Holarchy
On Synchronicity
Process Physics, Process Philosophy
Networks and Boundaries
Networks and Hierarchies
Five Types of System Philosophy
Levels of Human Psychological Development in Integral Spiral Dynamics
Cosmic Mirror Theory
Key Sources of Research
The Vedic metaphor of Indra’s Net
The metaphor of Indra’s net, with its poetic description of the indivisibility of the universe, captures the essence of Hinduism’s vibrant and open spirit.
A Jewel in Indra’s Net: The Letter Sent by Fazang in China to Ŭisang in Korea
Volume 8 of Italian School of East Asian Studies occasional papers Occasional papers
Author Antonino Forte Edition illustrated Publisher Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2000 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jul 1, 2009 ISBN 4900793167, 9784900793163 Length 105 pages
The Chintamani Crystal Matrix: Quantum Intention and the Wish-Fulfilling Gem
By Johndennis Govert, Hapi Hara
Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism
Volume 151 of Asiatische Forschungen, ISSN 0571-320X Editor Imre Hamar Edition illustrated Publisher Harrassowitz, 2007 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jul 1, 2009 ISBN 344705509X, 9783447055093 Length 410 pages
A study of the relations between the doctrine of Huayan Buddhism and the legends surrounding some of the Huayan school patriarchs in China, Korea, and Japan.
Did Huayan’s teachings influence Dōgen’s Thought ? : Dōgen’s Treatment of Huayan Concepts of Mind-Only and One-and-Allness (Part 1 : The Intellectual relationship Between Dōgen and Huayan).
Skanda, The Multifaceted God: Skanda in Korean Buddhism and Beyond
위태천의 다양한 변모: 한국불교 그리고 보다 넓은 아시아적 관점에서 김수정 Sujung Kim 드포대학교 종교학과 부교수 Associate Professor of Religious Studies, DePauw University 31 March 2021. pp. 51-96
The Huayan school is a form of Buddhism that reflects unique East Asian understanding and interpretation of Indian Buddhism. It flourished the most in China during the Tang dynasty when the renowned “five patriarchs” of the school, Du Shun, Zhiyan, Fazang, Chengguan, and Zongmi, were active. One of the best-known concepts of Huayan Buddhism is “dependent arising of the dharma-dhatu” often translated as “realm of reality.” In the Avatamsaka-sutra, the Buddha preaches at three human locales, and four heavenly realms. All chapters of the sutra revolve around two central topics: eulogy of the Buddha’s unique abilities, and description of the bodhisattva’s career. There is a story about Zhiyan meeting a strange monk, who advised him to meditate in seclusion on the six aspects of the Dasabhumika-sutra. Another notable example of the Huayan school’s comprehensive and creative systematization of Buddhist teachings is the doctrine of “ten mysterious gates.”
Drawing on a panjiao similar to that of Zhiyi, the Huayan school chose the Huayan Sutra (Sanskrit title Avataṃsaka Sutra, Chinese Huayan jing) for its foundational scripture. What immediately differentiates Huayan from typically Indian approaches is that instead of concentrating on a diagnosis of the human problem, and exhorting and prescribing solutions for it, Huayan immediately begins from the point of view of enlightenment. In other words, its discourse represents a nirvanic perspective rather than a samsaric perspective. Instead of detailing the steps that would lead one from ignorance to enlightenment, Huayan immediately endeavours to describe how everything looks through enlightened eyes.
Like Tiantai, Huayan offers a totalistic, encompassing ‘round’ view. A lived world as constituted through a form of life experience is called a dharma-dhātu. Chengguan, the ‘fourth’ Huayan patriarch, described four types of dharma-dhātus, each successively encompassing its predecessors. The first is shi, which means ‘event’, ‘affair’ or ‘thing’. This is the realm where things are experienced as discrete individual items. The second is called li (principle), which in Chinese usage usually implies the principal metaphysical order that subtends events as well as the rational principles that explicate that order. Often li is used by Buddhists as a synonym for emptiness. The first sustained analysis based on the relation of li and shi was undertaken by the Korean monk Wônhyo in his commentary on the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, which influenced early Huayan thinkers like Fazang. The li–shi model went on to become an important analytic tool for all sorts of East Asian philosophers, not just Buddhists. In the realm of li, one clearly sees the principles that relate shi to each other, but the principles are more important than the individual events. In the third realm, one sees the mutual interpenetration or ‘non-obstruction’ of li and shi (lishi wu’ai). Rather than seeing events while being oblivious to principle, or concentrating on principle while ignoring events, in this realm events are seen as instantiations of principle, and principle is nothing more than the order by which events relate to each other.
In the fourth and culminating dharma-dhātu, one sees the mutual interpenetration and non-obstruction of all events (shishi wu’ai). In this realm, everything is causally related to everything else. Huayan illustrates this with the image of Indra’s net, a vast net that encompasses the universe. A special jewel is found at the intersection of every horizontal and vertical weave in the net, special because each jewel reflects every other jewel in the net, so that looking into any one jewel, one sees them all. Every event or thing can disclose the whole universe because all mutually interpenetrate each other without barriers or obstruction.
This form of nondualism is not monistic because shishi wu’ai does not obliterate the distinctions between things, but rather insists that everything is connected to everything else without losing distinctiveness. Identity and difference, in this view, are merely two sides of the same coin, which, though a single coin, still has two distinct sides that should not be confused for each other. Mutual interpenetration is temporal as well as spatial; past, present and future mutually interpenetrate. Hence according to Huayan, to enter the path towards final enlightenment is, in an important sense, to have already arrived at that destination.
One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness (Oxford, 2014; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 May 2014), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688258.003.0011, accessed 29 June 2023.
Mereology concerns part-whole relations, which is to say that mereological discussions focus on (1) the relation between the parts of a whole and the whole of which they’re a part, and (2) the relations between the parts within a whole. But mereological discussions extend beyond mere articulation of mereological axioms. Mereologies—or part-whole theories—play a central role in many aspects of metaphysics. While this has been the case since the time of the Stoics, there has recently been a noteworthy revival of interest in mereology. Some are interested in mereology out of a genuine interest in the field itself, whereas others turn to it to find a toolkit to help them tackle problems that arise in other discussions, as many problems, it turns out, feature a mereological component. Mereology has, for instance, played a key role in motivating a variety of views. Do, for instance, any two objects “mereologically fuse” to form a further object? Some cases seem clear, like the molecules in my body and me; other more gerrymandered cases, like your nose and the Eiffel Tower, seem less clear. Our mereological views here—whether we want to be mereological nihilists, universalists, or restricted composition theorists—will, at a minimum, play a crucial role in forming our ontological commitments. Also notice that while mereological discussion typically focuses on material entities, sometimes our interests gravitate toward the mereological structure of space-time regions, or to the relations that hold between regions and the objects that occupy them, or to the mereology of such entities as events. Mereology has its fingers in many pies. But no matter how we might want to answer mereological concerns, we might further wonder if this is putting the cart before the horse. That is, should mereology take priority? Or should we work out which metaphysical theses we want to defend, and then determine which mereological principles best serve our ends? Different authors take different position here. This article highlights many of the key mereological concepts and principles, but it also outlines some of the fundamental problems that confront philosophers who think about mereology. The article also focuses on philosophical issues, rather than formal ones. For the sake of accessibility, this article avoids technical presentations of, for instance, mereological axioms. It’s also noteworthy that there is a nontrivial contribution to mereology from non-English writers, especially from Eastern Europe.
General Overviews
While there are no introductory textbooks on mereology, there are a number of good introductions, surveys, and general overviews of the field. Varzi 2016 stands out in this regard, as it is detailed, up-to-date, extensive, and clearly written. Simons 1987 assumes little on the part of the reader, and is worth reading in its entirety given the central place it holds in contemporary discussions of mereology. In addition, the introductory chapters of the anthologies on mereology can play the right role for readers interested in particular topics; for example, those unfamiliar with mereology who have a particular interest in locative relations would find the introduction to Kleinschmidt 2014 (cited under Anthologies) a good place to start.
Simons, Peter. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. The first three chapters of this contemporary locus classicus on parthood act as an excellent introduction to mereology.
Varzi, Achille. “Appendix: Formal Theories of Parthood.” In Mereology and the Sciences. Edited by Claudio Calosi and Pierluigi Graziani, 259–370. Berlin: Springer, 2014. This is a succinct technical overview of many mereological principles and the ways in which they’re connected. A valuable reference to have on hand.
Varzi, Achille. “Mereology.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward Zalta. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2016. Surveys the range of standard mereological principles, with an emphasis on the contemporary, and gradually introduces formal presentations. Varzi also highlights the controversies and problems in the process. A comprehensive introduction, with an extensive bibliography.
Hua-Yen – Buddhism and Daoism in Dialogue
The interpenetration of phenomena as the noumenon
A revolutionary move: phenomena restored to respectability
“To Be is To Inter-Be”: Thich Nhat Hanh on Interdependent Arising
MIRJA ANNALENA HOLST AUV, Vietnam (mianho@gmx.de)
The “Thought of Enlightenment” in Fa-tsang’s Hua-yen Buddhism
Dale S. Wright
The Prevalence of Huayan-Chan 華嚴禪 Buddhism in the Regions of Northern Chinaduring the 11th Century
Focusing on Chinese Language Texts from the Song, Liao and Xixia (Tangut) Kingdoms
WANG Song 王頌 Professor, Peking University, Beijing, China wangsong_pku@163.com
Journal of Chan Buddhism 1 (2019) 146–177
Exegesis-Philosophy Interplay:
Introduction to Fazang’s 法藏 (643-712) Commentary on the Huayan jing 華嚴經 (60 juans) [Skt. Avataṃsaka Sūtra; Flower Garland Sūtra] — the Huayan jing tanxuan ji 華嚴經探玄記 [Record of Investigating the Mystery of the Huayan jing]
by Weiyu Lin
The University of British Columbia (V ancouver)
July 2021
References
Chen, Jinhua. “ Philosopher, Practitioner, Politician: The Many Lives of Fazang (643–712).” Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Forte, Antonino. “ A Jewel in Indra’s Net: The Letter Sent by Fazang in China to Uisang in Korea.” Italian School of East Asian Studies Occasional papers 8. Kyoto: Istituto Italiano di Cultura Scuola di Studi sull’ Asia Orientale, 2000.
Gimello, Robert M. “ Li T’ung-hsüan and the Practical Dimensions of Hua-yen.” In Robert M. Gimelllo and Peter N. Gregory, eds. Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1983, pp. 321– 87.
Gregory, Peter N. Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002. [ Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991].
Gregory, Peter N. Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity: An Annotated Translation of Tsung-mi’s Yüan jen lun with a Modern Commentary. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1995.
Gregory, Peter N. “ The Problem of Theodicy in the Awakening of Faith.” Religious Studies 22/1(1986): 63– 78.
Hamar, Imre. “ Buddhism and the Dao in Tang China: The Impact of Confucianism and Daoism on the Philosophy of Chengguan.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52/3–4 (1999): 283– 92.
Hamar, Imre. A Religious Leader in the Tang: Chengguan’s Biography. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 2002.
Hamar, Imre. “ The History of the Buddhāvatamsaka-sūtra: Shorter and Larger Texts.” In Imre Hamar, ed. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007a, pp. 139– 67.
Hamar, Imre. “ A Huayan Paradigm for Classification of Mahāyāna Teachings: The Origin and Meaning of Faxiangzong and Faxingzong.” In Imre Hamar, ed. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007b, pp. 195– 220.
Hamar, Imre. “ Manifestation of the Absolute in the Phenomenal World: Nature Origination in Huayan Exegesis.” Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 94 (2007c): 229– 52.
Hamar, Imre. “ The Impact of Dilun School on Huayan Exegesis.” In The Formation and Transformation of Dilun Thought / Jiron shisō no keisei to henyō. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 2010a, pp. 371– 63.
Hamar, Imre. “ Interpretation of Yogācāra Philosophy in Huayan Buddhism.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37/2 (2010b): 181– 97.
Lai, Whalen. “ Chinese Buddhist Causation Theories: An Analysis of the Sinitic Mahāyāna Understanding of Pratītya-samutpāda.” Philosophy East and West 27/3 (1977): 241– 64.
Liu, Ming-Wood. “ The Teaching of Fa-tsang: An Examination of Buddhist Metaphysics.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1979.
Nattier, Jan. “ Indian Antecedents of Huayan Thought: New Light from Chinese Sources.” In Imre Hamar, ed. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007, pp. 109– 38.
Ōtake, Susumu. “ On the Origin and Early Development of the Buddhāvatamsaka-sūtra.” In Imre Hamar, ed. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007, pp. 87– 107.
Poceski, Mario. “ Huayan School.” In Robert Buswell, ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004, pp. 341– 47.
Takasaki, Jikidō. “ The Tathāgatotpattisambhava-nirdeśa-sūtra of the Avatamsaka and the Ratnagotra-vibhāga: With Special Reference to the Term Tathāgatagotra-sambhava.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 7/1 (1958): 48– 53.
Ackrill, J. L. 1963. Aristotle: Categories and De Interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon Press.BookGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Andrew M., and Andrew Brenner. 2020. “Why Composition Matters.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 50.8: 934–949. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.52
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. 2000a. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, Volume I. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
______. 2000b. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, Volume II. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
______. 2012. The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Cleary, Thomas. 1983. Entry into the Inconceivable: An Introduction to Hua-yen Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
______. 1993. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of The Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston: Shambhala.
Cook, Francis H. 1970. Fa-tsang’s Treatise on the Five Doctrines: An Annotated Translation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Cotnoir, A. J. 2014. “Composition as Identity: Framing the Debate.” In Composition as Identity, edited by A. J. Cotnoir and Donald L. M. Baxter. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Vignemont, Frederique, Manos Tsakiris, and Patrick Haggard. 2006. “Body Mereology.” In Human Body Perception from the Inside Out, edited by Maggie Shiffrar, Ian Thornton, Günther Knoblich, Marc Grosjean, and Günther Knoblich. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, Daniel C. 2019. “Autonomy, Consciousness, and Freedom.” The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 14. http://www.amherstlecture.org/dennett2019/ (last accessed on October 31, 2022).
Elstein, David. 2014. “Fazang, ‘The Rafter Dialogue’.” In Readings in Later Chinese Philosophy: Han Dynasty to the 20th Century, edited by Justin Tiwald and Bryan W. Van Norden. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Fazang 法藏. Contemplations on Exhausting Delusion and Returning to the Source by Cultivating the Mysteries of Huayan 修華嚴奧旨妄盡還源觀. Taishō Buddhist Canon 大正新脩大藏經, volume 45, number 1876.
______. Treatise on the Five Teachings of Huayan 華嚴五教章. Also known as Treatise on the Divisions within the One Vehicle Doctrine of Huayan 華嚴一乘教義分齊章. Taishō Buddhist Canon 大正新脩大藏經, volume 45, number 1866.
Garfield, Jay L. 2006. “Reductionism and Fictionalism: Comments on Siderits’ Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy.” APA Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies 6.1: 1–7.Google Scholar
Gethin, Rupert. 1998. The Foundations of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gimello, Robert Michael. 1976. Chih-Yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Huayan Buddhism. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University.
Gómez, Luis O. 1999. “The Elusive Buddhist Self: Preliminary Reflections on Its Denial.” Communication & Cognition 32.1/2: 21–52.Google Scholar
Graziani, Pierluigi, and Claudio Calosi. 2014. Mereology and Sciences: Parts and Wholes in the Contemporary Scientific Context. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
______. 2021. “Mereological Composition in Analytic and Buddhist Perspective.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 7.2: 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2020.41
Ñáóamoli, Bhikkhu, trans. 2010. The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). Kandhi: Buddhist Publication Society.
Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.
Ñāṇananda, Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde. 2012. Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought: An Essay on Papañca-Saññâ-Saïkhâ. Sri Lanka: Dharma Grantha Mudrana Bhāraya.
Plassen, Jörg. 2020. “Some Remarks on Influences from Silla in Some Works Commonly Ascribed to Du Shun 杜順, Focusing on Huayan fajie guanmen 華嚴法界觀門.” The Review of Korean Studies 23.1: 35–54.
Qian, Zhongshu. 1998. Limited Views: Essays on Ideas and Letters. Selected and translated by Ronald Egan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ronkin, Noa. 2005. Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making of a Philosophical Tradition. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.BookGoogle Scholar
Ruper, Stefani. 2014. “Metaphysics Matters: Metaphysics and Soteriology in Jerome Stone’s and Donald Crosby’s Varieties of Religious Naturalism.” Zygon 49.2: 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12095ArticleGoogle Scholar
Rhys Davids, T. W., trans. 1890. The Questions of King Milinda. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Siderits, Mark. 2003. Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy: Empty Persons. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
______. 2007. Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Śikṣānanda 實叉難陀. Avataṃsaka Sūtra of the Great and Vast Buddha 大方廣佛華嚴經. Taishō Buddhist Canon 大正新脩大藏經, volume 10, number 279.
Swearer, Donald K. 1973. “Control and Freedom: The Structure of Buddhist Meditation in the Pāli Suttas.” Philosophy East and West 23.4: 435–455.ArticleGoogle Scholar
Walshe, Maurice, trans. 1995. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Wegner, Daniel M. 2005. “Who Is the Controller of Controlled Processes?” In The New Unconscious, edited by Ran R. Hassin, James S. Uleman, and John A. Bargh. New York: Oxford University Press.
Westerhoff, Jan. 2009. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, David M. 1974. “The Translation and Interpretation of the Twelve Terms in the Paṭiccasamuppāda.” Numen 21.1: 35–63.Google Scholar
Williams, Paul. 2000. “Response to Mark Siderits’ Review.” Philosophy East and West 50.3: 424–453.Google Scholar
Wynne, Alexander. 2011. “The Ātman and Its Negation: A Conceptual and Chronological Analysis of Early Buddhist Thought.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 33.1–2: 103–171.Google Scholar
Source: The Three Major Traditions of Buddhism: A Comprehensive Overview
Buddhism is one of the world’s major religions and has been practiced for over two and a half thousand years. It was founded by Siddhartha Gautama, who became known as the Buddha, meaning “enlightened one.” Today, there are three main traditions of Buddhism in the world: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.
Theravada Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism is the oldest and most traditional form of Buddhism. It is commonly practiced in Southeast Asia, including countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar. Theravada Buddhism focuses on individual enlightenment, with a strong emphasis on meditation and self-discipline. The teachings of the Buddha are considered to be the ultimate authority in Theravada Buddhism, and the goal of the practitioner is to become an arhat, or fully enlightened being. The Pali Canon, a collection of texts in the Pali language, is the primary source of teachings in Theravada Buddhism.
Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism is a more liberal and diverse tradition that developed in East Asia, including China, Japan, and Korea. Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes compassion and the idea that all sentient beings have the potential to become enlightened. The goal of a Mahayana practitioner is to become a bodhisattva, someone who has attained enlightenment but chooses to stay in the cycle of rebirth to help others achieve enlightenment. Mahayana Buddhism is characterized by the use of rituals and devotional practices, and it has a rich and complex system of philosophy and cosmology. The Mahayana sutras, a collection of scriptures, are considered the primary source of teachings in Mahayana Buddhism.
Vajrayana Buddhism
Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tantric Buddhism, is the third and newest tradition of Buddhism. It is commonly practiced in Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal, and it emphasizes the use of meditation, visualization, and ritual to attain enlightenment. Vajrayana Buddhism incorporates elements of Hinduism and indigenous shamanistic practices and is known for its elaborate rituals and the use of mantras, mudras, and mandalas. The goal of a Vajrayana practitioner is to attain Buddhahood in one lifetime, and the Vajrayana teachings are transmitted through a system of guru-disciple relationships.
While there are differences between the three traditions of Buddhism, they all share a common belief in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, which are the foundational teachings of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths state that suffering is a universal experience, the cause of suffering is craving and attachment, there is a way to end suffering, and the path to the end of suffering is the Eightfold Path, which includes right understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
In conclusion, Buddhism is a rich and diverse religion with a long history and a wide range of practices and beliefs. The three traditions of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana each offer a unique approach to achieving enlightenment, but they all share a common goal of reducing suffering and cultivating compassion. Whether you are interested in meditation, philosophy, or ritual, there is a form of Buddhism that can provide a path towards greater wisdom, peace, and understanding.
Key Terms
Theravada
Mahayana
Yogacara
Madhyamaka
Vajrayana
From its origin in India, Buddhism has spread to many parts of the world. It has become a world religion.
India
Nepal
Bhutan
Tibet
Mongolia
China
Korea
Japan
Vietnam
Sri Lanka
Myanmar (Burma)
Thailand
Cambodia
Laos
Europe
North America
In this post, I only outline schools of Buddhism in the following countries.
India, Tibet, China, Japan, and Korea.
Chinese Buddhism
Tiantai
Huayan
Chan
Source: Chinese Buddhist Philosophy
Chinese Buddhist philosophy primarily results from traditional Chinese Buddhist thinkers’ efforts to inherit, reinterpret, and develop theories and thoughts in various Chinese translations of Indian Mahayana scriptures and treatises. Five Chinese Buddhist schools or traditions are of philosophical significance: the Three-Treatise school, the Consciousness-Only school, the Tiantai school, the Huayan school, and Chinese Zen (Chan) Buddhism. Among them, the Three-Treatise and Consciousness-Only schools are the Chinese descendants of, respectively, Indian Madhyamaka and Yogācāra; however, both have all but disappeared after the Tang dynasty (618−907). The other three schools, Tiantai, Huayan, and Zen/Chan, are indigenous and can be seen as philosophically the most representative traditions of Chinese Buddhism. Considerably owing to the influence of Chinese thought and culture, Chinese Buddhist way of thinking is fundamentally nondualistic in character, emphasizing, more than Indian Mahayana does, the mutual sameness and interpenetration of the ultimate and the conventional. The thinking tends to be somewhat nondiscursive, involving holistic views expressed in paradoxical language, with particular concern on the practical. Meanwhile, Tathāgatagarbha thought receives much attention among Chinese Buddhist thinkers, and the widespread conviction is that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature and can attain Buddhahood.
Source: Chinese Buddhist Philosophy
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: Buddhist Schools/Quest for Wisdom
Chinese philosophy as a way of life: Buddhist schools
11 ― From: Rappard, H. van (2009). Walking Two Roads ― Accord and Separation In Chinese and Western Thought. Amsterdam: VU University Press. pp. 125-135.
Like the other Buddhist schools developed in China except for Chan the Huayan school was based on one particular sutra, the Avatamsaka sutra. Its Chinese name is Huayan or Flower Garland.
Translated in the fifth century, it was systematised by the third patriarch, Fazang (643-712). Because of its subtlety the Huayan school is often called the philosophical apex of Chinese Buddhism. It is also characteristically Chinese, which comes to the fore in its views on the relation between shi, variously rendered as objects, phenomena, form, or appearance, and li, principle, or reality.
In line with Mahayana Buddhism at large, Huayan holds that the phenomena, the things and events in the world that are perceived by the senses are interdependent or empty. This is so because, being conditioned by other phenomena they lack independent or intrinsic self-natures. There is nothing in them that really stands on its own as it were, no really independent or absolute core.
As Fazang said,
“Observe that all things are born from causes and conditions, and so have no individual reality, and hence are ultimately empty”.[2]
Shrine to a statue of the Eleven-Headed Guanyin[3]
In the breath-taking vistas conveyed by the Huayan sutra all phenomena are fully dependent on and related to each other.
Put thus however, the message of the Huayan school might seem to be no more than a pretty straightforward Buddhism and there would be little reason to call it a philosophical apex. But this qualification is easier to understand once it is understood that the sutra does not depict the world as seen by ordinary mortals but by a Buddha and that from such a perspective all phenomena in the universe interpenetrate. The Huayan is particularly famous for just this theme.
As seen by a Buddha, the world
“is one of infinite interpenetration. Inside everything is everything else. And yet all things are not confused”.[4]
A candle and a Buddha statue placed surrounded by mirrors
Such a perspective is difficult to appreciate and it is not surprising that Fazang, who had easy access to the court, found himself faced with an exasperated empress Wu (627-705) when he tried to explain the intricacies of the Huayan. But he was a good teacher with a characteristically Chinese knack of bringing highly abstract topics down to earth.
Recognising the difficulties experienced by the empress, Fazang had a candle and a Buddha statue placed surrounded by mirrors. When the candle was lit, the statue was reflected in every mirror, while each of these reflections were reflected in all the other mirrors so that in any one mirror were the reflections of all the others.
A 3D rendering of Indra’s net[5]
The background of this artful didactic device is found in the Huayan doctrine of Indra’s net, which would be less easy to replicate in one’s bathroom and considerably more expensive because it concerns a net of jewels. In Indra’s net each jewel reflects all the other jewels but the reflections of all the jewels in each individual jewel also contain the reflections of all the other jewels, ad infinitum. This illustrates the interpenetration of all things.
We are used to taking things purely at face value; a chair is a chair and that is all there is to it. We do not realise that it has been produced and that for this to happen trees have been cut, wood has been worked and other materials and energy have been used and that once manufactured, it has been transported to the shop where I bought it. And all this has been done by loggers, factory workers, drivers, sales persons and others, who required the services of yet other people such as mechanics and caterers in order to do their jobs. But then, all these people have been brought into existence by their parents, who themselves …
There is simply no end to what has gone into this particular chair. Even the simplest chair, in other words, is not an independent reality. Having come into existence because of numerous causes, it exists as the nexus of all of them. Applied along such lines,
Indra’s net provides an
“instrument for the achievement of balance and depth in understanding and, moreover, for the avoidance of one-sided views”.[6]
The Three Worthies of Huayan, Dazu Rock Carvings[7]
There is yet more to our chair. It may be seen as an economic object, a status symbol and a piece of furniture, and perhaps also as an antiquity or firewood. But each of these perspectives by itself elicits no more than one aspect of its totality, while the other perspectives are hidden.
Yet, the Huayan school insists,
“the display of this by no means annihilates that. On the contrary, at the very moment when this is displayed, all the infinite that’s are simultaneously and secretly established without the slightest hindrance or obstruction. It is a great pity that the human mind can only function in a one-at-a-time, from-one-level pattern, thus deprived of the opportunity of seeing the infinite versions of a given thing at once”.[8]
The mirror metaphor: not bound by a specific perspective
The Huayan school teaches us to be ‘round’, that is, not bound by a specific perspective. The obstacle that stands in the way of a round view is our ego,
“a persistent tendency to cling to a small, enclosed self and its interests. Its essence is to exclude, its function is to separate”.[9]
Fazang’s mirrors teach several things. The mirroring process takes place directly, not mediated by something else. A mirror mirrors, and when it does, it does so fully and completely ―
“it goes after nothing and welcomes nothing, it responds but does not store’.[10]
Aerial view of Huayan Temple, Datong[11]
This exemplifies the unimpeded interconnection of the phenomena that the sutra speaks of. But not only the Huayan sutra; unimpeded interconnection is found in all Buddhist schools in one way or another.
The mirror metaphor conveys the primordial accord and mutual resonance of things in the world. And also, if scratched or dirty a mirror won’t be able to function adequately and the image shown cannot but be partial and distorted. This demonstrates the disturbing role of the volitional intentions (fourth aggregate), which by and large come down to the Buddhist conception of the ego.
Whenever ego, self, or I interferes, as it cannot but do being itself the interfering volitional intention, the mirroring is disturbed and one-sided. But when the isolating sense of I is gone, awareness of the all pervading interconnection between all things arises.
The Huayan school has expressed this Buddhist insight as
“one in all and all in one’, and ‘one is all and all is one’.
Indra’s net has demonstrated the Huayan view of the relation between the phenomena as interdependent and interpenetrating without however, cancelling them out. Although their relativity is stressed, the phenomena do by no means disappear in an impenetrable fog of mutual dependence and interpenetration. This could be summarised by saying that the sutra sees the phenomena as separate yet identical, and at the same time as identical, yet separate.
Having dealt with the phenomena-phenomena level we are still left with the phenomena-principle level.
The metaphor of the golden lion
Lions pair, Bingling Si — photo Joke Koppius
How does li fit into the overall Huayan picture? In order to help empress Wu understand this dimension of the unimpeded interconnection propounded by his school, the resourceful Fazang thought of yet another didactic devise, the metaphor of the golden lion. In this metaphor gold symbolises the principle (li) and the lion a phenomenon or form (shi).
The relation between principle and form may be explained as follows. While the principle as such is formless it is inherent in all forms. Gold may be shaped into the form of a lion. But since the lion is merely a form it has no reality of its own ― it is entirely gold. Hence, the existence of the lion is wholly dependent on the existence of gold. No gold, no lion; without the principle there can be no phenomena or forms.
On the other hand, since the lion represents the form of the gold the latter cannot exist without the former. Thus, form reveals principle, and gold and lion co-exist harmoniously. Although they are merged together this impedes neither from being itself.
“One can see the golden lion as a lion, and one can see it as gold, and one can see both, and one can see neither. When the mutual conditioning of gold and lion is in harmony, the dichotomy of Li and Shih is gone; words are useless, the mind is at rest. Reality is appearance, appearance is reality. The gold is the lion, the lion is the gold”.[12]
In other words, just as the relation between the phenomena among themselves the relation between phenomena and principle is one of identity yet separation, and separation yet identity. Li and shi are mutually conditioned.
The metaphor of the golden lion also demonstrates why the Huayan school qualifies as a characteristically Chinese school of Buddhist philosophy.
The reason is that the principle (li) is not located in a separate world, a higher metaphysical or over-world if you please, but is conceived as inherent in the phenomena (shi). The principle operates and is to be found in this world.
Although it is often taken as propounding a purely intellectual Buddhism, what Huayan wants to convey is not just to cognitively understand the interconnection of all phenomena, and phenomena and principle but to actually live this insight.
Chan
Bodhidharma came from the West
Porcelain statuette Bodhidharma[13]
For all its lofty images and breathtaking scope the Buddhism of the Huayan school appeared to be highly Chinese in its concreteness. Nevertheless, in this respect the Chan school goes even further. This is probably the reason why it is often called the most Chinese form of Buddhism.
The earliest beginnings of the Chan school are foggy. When it began to emerge, Buddhism had already had four or five centuries to take root in Chinese soil and was solidly established.
There seems thus to have been little reason for an Indian meditation master to come from the West and set himself up as yet another teacher. But this is what the tradition tells us about Bodhidharma, a largely legendary character about whom nothing is known but who is assumed to have died in 532 at a ripe old age, which most accounts put at 150. He is said to have used not a single word in transmitting his teaching.
The oft-quoted stanza attributed to him was not formulated until the Tang dynasty. It runs as follows,
“A special transmission outside the teachings; Not standing on words and letters. Directly pointing to the human heart, Seeing into its nature and awakening.”[14]
When Chan began to be organised as an independent school it needed a history which would align it with the tradition of the already established Buddhist schools. It is not surprising therefore that a retrospective quality pervades the Chan tradition, McRae notes. Studying Chan history one deals
“not so much in facts and events as in legends and reconstructions, not so much with accomplishments and contributions as with attributions and legacies”.[15]
Bodhidharma the twenty eighth Indian patriarch and the first patriarch of Chan
Consequently, Bodhidharma went down in history as the twenty eighth Indian patriarch and the first patriarch of Chan.
After Bodhidharma four successive patriarchs seem to have carried on the tender Chan school: Huike (487-593), Sengcan (d. 606), Daoxin (580-635/651), and Hongren (602-675), who are traditionally presented as an unbroken line of master-disciple relationships although there is much historical uncertainty on this score.
This also applies to the third patriarch, Sengcan who has become known as the author of On trust in the heart(Xin xin ming) although it was probably produced during the Tang dynasty.
But from a practice point of view there is little reason to worry about Chan’s historical uncertainties. In view of what has been said about the tendency of the heart-mind to incline to either of two sides it is more pertinent to note Sengcan counsel about picking and choosing.
The first four lines of Trust in the heart run as follows,
“The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose; Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart; If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.”[16]
Not only is this yet another instance of the injunction to avoid one sidedness but it can also be argued that however different they may seem, ultimately the teachings of Chan and Huayan amount to the same: one must be ‘round’. To be round is to be free from specific points of view and limited perspectives. Not inclining toward any perspective, things are seen from all perspectives at once. Recall that the Huayan school is based on an orientation toward totality.
“Totality is a great harmony of the co-existence of all [perspectives]”.[17]
What is the Buddha?
Chang exemplifies this with the Chan story of a monk who asked Mazu what the Buddha was and on hearing the answer, ‘your mind is Buddha’, gained enlightenment. But after many years he was informed that Mazu had changed his teaching to ‘neither mind nor Buddha’.
The monk said,
“Let him have his neither mind nor Buddha, I still hold my ‘mind is Buddha’”.
Being informed of this reaction, Mazu was pleased and said that the monk had ripened.[18]
The monk had ripened to roundness because he was obviously not stuck in one point of view and did not become confused by Mazu’s change to another perspective.
Tang dynasty: Buddhism an exceedingly rich and powerful high church
By the time of the Tang dynasty Buddhism had developed a well entrenched position in Chinese society, amounting in fact to an exceedingly rich and powerful high church, maintained by the government at enormous expense. Its dignitaries enjoyed a wealth of privileges, such as exemption from forced labour and taxation, and when engaged in economic activities did not feel above charging usurious rates.
Systematic persecution
There had been protests before but in 845 this incited systematic persecution of the Buddhist church. Nearly 5000 temples were destroyed (along with a number of Nestorian and Zoroastrian ones for good measure), some 250,000 monks and nuns were forced to return to lay life, and properties were confiscated.
Although the anti-Buddhist regulations were already reversed after one year, only the Pure Land and Chan schools survived, the latter becoming the dominant school of Chinese Buddhism. None of the other schools ever recovered.
Although it did not emerge completely unscathed from the persecutions, Chan is the only school that was never interfered with by the government. One reason is political. In the early days the patriarchs and their students lived tough itinerant lives that were unlikely to attract much official attention.
Although this changed during the fourth patriarch, the monasteries that came to be established tended to be simple and located in remote places, while the monks earned their own livelihood instead of begging. Also important was that the governors of the out-laying regions where many monasteries were found were often of foreign origin and therefore treated rather off-handily by the central government. They did not feel much inclined therefore to obey its decrees. Moreover, many were Chan students themselves.
The Diamond sutra
Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra[19]
According to the sutra bearing his name, the sixth patriarch, Huineng (638-713) and his widowed mother suffered extreme poverty. One day, while he was selling firewood, he happened to hear one of his customers read parts of the Diamond sutra. We are told that his eyes were opened immediately, which prompted him to try and find the fifth patriarch.
Hungren, the fifth patriarch
The fifth patriarch carrying a hoe — Muxi[20]
But Huineng’s first encounter with Hungren was not all that encouraging. He was told that a barbarian from the south like him could never become a Buddha. Undaunted, the allegedly uneducated boy quoted from the Diamond sutra that
“although my barbarian’s body and your body are not the same, what difference is there in our Buddha nature?”.[21]
The fifth patriarch got the message but decided to keep silent and put Huineng on the humble job of threshing rice, which prompted him, the tradition has it, to wear a heavy stone around the waist to add weight. Receiving no specific instruction, the poor, illiterate, slight boy worked in the threshing shed for eight months. It must have been a fruitful period.
The succession
One day, the fifth patriarch, getting old and wanting to settle his succession asked the monks to produce a verse. The one who presented the deepest insight would become his successor. Since they were all convinced that this could only concern the head monk none of them even bothered to try and compose a verse.
The head monk himself however, was hesitant about his insight and waited until the dark of the night to brush his verse on the wall of a corridor without anyone else knowing about it.
“The body is the Tree of Awakening, The heart a bright mirror; Always wipe it carefully So that no dust can settle.”[22]
Next morning, having read it all the monks thought this was a splendid verse and that the succession had been settled. The fifth patriarch too judged it to be fine. The head monk’s verse became the talk of the monastery and eventually also reached Huineng in the threshing shed.
Huineng, the sixth patriarch
Having had one of the monks read it to him, he asked him to write the following verse next to it,
“There is no Tree of Awakening; The bright mirror has no stand; When all is emptiness [in later works: From the beginning not a thing is] Where then could dust settle?”[23]
The Sixth Patriarch Huineng[24]
Because he feared to arouse the jealousy of the monks, the fifth patriarch handed Huineng the patriarchal robe in the middle of the night and urged him to flee south. Nevertheless, the sixth patriarch was pursued and finally overtaken by a monk, who asked him for the robe. Without a moment of hesitation Huineng handed this sign of transmission over. But on finding that it was too heavy for him, the monk had a change of heart asked for instruction.
For a number of years, Huineng ripened in South China. On his re-emergence he started teaching and soon afterwards had gathered a couple of thousand monks and laymen. After a fairly short teaching period, on his deathbed, he detailed the Chan practice.
“If you are only peacefully calm and quiet, without motion, without stillness, without birth, without destruction, without coming, without going, without judgments of right and wrong, without staying and without going ― this then is the Great Way”.[25]
Clearly, there is nothing here that does not fit in with the practice of self-cultivation as presented in the Mean and the Daoist classics.
The four teachers
Although their relations with the sixth patriarch are again uncertain, traditionally the line of his successors is formed by Mazu (709-788), Baizhang, Huangbo (d. 847), and Linji (d. 867).
The four teachers are represented in the Chan literature by collections of stories, discourses, and sayings, in which the lofty heritage of India has been put in pretty straightforward colloquial Chinese called baihua (white language), conveying stunningly concrete and outright physical ways of teaching.
Understanding of gongan
Ten Verses on Oxherding (1278)[26]
Indeed, countless stories testify to the perplexing speed with which the Chan masters reacted to the doubts and questions of students struggling to escape from their incessant deliberations. In the 1950s, when Chan began to become known in the West, it tended to an unfortunate popularity with hippies and New Agers because of its apparently unconventional teachers, aggravated by an understanding of gongan, better known by their Japanese name of koan, as mysterious riddles and mind busters.
However, it is not exotic pedagogical devises that abound in the exchanges between teacher and student. The teachers simply reacted to the demands of the situation that had been set up by the perplexed student and, following the lines laid down by Bodhidharma’s verse, did so in an disconcertingly direct way.
Hence, the shouting and beating, but also the humorous paradoxes and nonsensicalities ― virtually everything was used to shock the student out of his inclinations. Looked at thus, the seemingly irate behaviour of the Chan teachers, although not rational in the sense of reasoned-out, does stand to reason. Moreover, as Jullien points out, the seeds of this indicative way of teaching may already be found in Confucius and his followers.[27]
Analects by Confucius[28]
It should be realised that Confucius too, did not teach an abstract truth but tried to guide human conduct towards accord with the present moment. Quite like other Chinese teachers we have met Confucius did not teach a creed ― he just indicated the Way.
As he said,
“Only one who bursts with eagerness do I instruct; only one who bubbles with excitement, do I enlighten. If I hold up one corner and a man cannot come back to me with the other three, I do not continue the lesson”
Analects Bk. VII, 8.
Since Confucius did by no means try to convert the student it was of the essence that the latter was enabled to find the Way by his own lights. Just a few words or, better still, a silent pointing should therefore suffice. True enough, many instances of Chan teaching seem pretty drastic (see story below) but does that make them basically different from the indicative approach taken by Confucius?
“Ummon was not satisfied with his knowledge of Buddhism which had been gained from books, and came to Bokuju to have a final settlement of the intellectual balance-sheet with him. Seeing Ummon approach the gate, Bokuju shut it in his face. Ummon could not understand what it all meant, but he knocked and a voice came from within: ‘Who are you? My name is Ummon. I come from Chih-hsing. What do you want? I am unable to see into the ground of my being and most earnestly wish to be enlightened.’ Bokuju opened the gate, looked at Ummon, and then closed it. Not knowing what to do, Ummon went away. This was a great riddle, indeed, and some time later he came back to Bokuju. But he was treated in the same way as before. When Ummon came for a third time to Bokuju’s gate, his mind was firmly made up, by whatever means, to have a talk with the master. This time as soon as the gate was opened he squeezed himself through the opening. The intruder was at once seized by the chest and the master demanded: ‘Speak! Speak!’ Ummon was bewildered and hesitated. Bokuju, however, lost no time in pushing him out of the gate again, saying, ‘You good-for-nothing fellow!’ As the heavy gate swung shut, it caught one of Ummon’s legs, and he cried out: ‘Oh! Oh!’ But this opened his eyes to the significance of the whole proceeding.”[29]
The teaching of Linji
Rinzai (Linji)[30]
In the teaching of Linji, Chan probably attained its zenith as the most Chinese form of Buddhism. From his rough, utterly down to earth sayings Linji comes to the fore as a ‘true man’. This expression was first used by Zhuangzi. The true man is nothing special, except that by virtue of having neither rank nor status he eludes qualification. Confucius would not have liked this because in traditional China everyone had a rank in the social hierarchy. But like many Hellenistic philosophers the Chan people of old were what the ancient Greeks called atopoi (unclassifiable).
To live in the present moment
Above all however, Linji emerges as someone who lived in the present moment. If, as he counselled, the heart-mind is set at rest, there is no inclination or intention and thus, there is no going beyond the ‘now’.
“Followers of the Way, if you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek, you have settled your affairs …
… Just put your heart at rest and seek nothing outside. When things come towards you, look at them clearly. Have faith in the one who is functioning at this moment, and all things of themselves become empty … Thus, (smoothly) functioning in response to the moment, what are you lacking….
… He who stands clearly revealed and distinct before your eyes, listening to the Dharma, this Independent Man of the Way lacks nothing at all … When the attitude of your heart does not change from moment to moment, this is called the living patriarch. For if it changes, then your essential nature and your actions come apart. But when your heart does not differ, there is also no difference between your essential nature and your actions …
I tell you this: There is no Buddha, no Dharma, no training and no realization. What are you so hotly chasing? … What are you lacking? Followers of the Way, the one functioning right before your eyes, he is not different from the Buddhas and patriarchs ….”[31]
Notes
[1] Source: Avatamsaka Sutra, vol. 12, frontispiece in gold and silver text on indigo blue paper, mid 14th century [2] Cleary, 1983, p. 23 [3] Source: Shrine to a statue of the Eleven-Headed Guanyin in the Drum Tower of Qita Temple (Yingzhou) [4] Williams, 1989, p. 124 [5] Source: A 3D rendering of Indra’s net [6] Cleary, 1983, p. 38 [7] Source: The Three Worthies of Huayan, Dazu Rock Carvings on Mount Baoding [8] Chang, 1972, pp. 127-128 [9] Chang, 1972, p. 26 [10] Watson, 1968, p. 97 [11] Source: Aerial view of Huayan Temple, Datong, built during the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) [12] Chang, 1975, pp. 99-100 [13] Source: A Dehua ware porcelain statuette of Bodhidharma from the late Ming dynasty, 17th century [14] Adapted from Schloegl, 1975, p. 14 [15] McRae, 2003, pp. 14-15 [16] Translation Waley, in Conze et al., 1990, p. 295 [17] Chang, 1972, p. 135 [18] Chang, 1972, p. 131 [19] Source: Chinese translation of the ‘Diamond Sutra’. The frontispiece to the world’s earliest dated printed book. This consists of a scroll, over 16 feet long, made up of a long series of printed pages. Printed in China in 868 CE, it was found in the Dunhuang Caves in 1907 (cave 17). [20] Source: The fifth Chan patriarch carrying a hoe — Muxi. The poem referring to the motif, signed Wu-I. H. Marjeyama Collection. [21] Yampolsky, 1967, p. 128 [22] Adapted from Schloegl, 1975, p. 15 [23] Adapted from Schloegl, 1975, p. 15 [24] Souece: The Sixth Patriarch Huineng, carrying a rod across his shoulder. Southern Song Dynasty, 13th century. (Gotoh Museum), Tokyo. [25] Yampolsky, 1967, p. 181 [26] Source: Ten Verses on Oxherding (1278) [27] Jullien, 2000, pp. 199, 270 [28] Source: Analects by Confucius [29] Suzuki, 1962, pp. 197-198 [30] Source: portrait of Rinzai (Linji) [31] Schloegl, 1976, pp. 28, 33-34, 37-38, 44-45
Japanese Buddhism
Jojitsu
Zen
Shingon
Jodo
Nichiren
Kegon
Sanron
Hosso
Kusha
Ritsu
Tendai
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: THE ESSENTIALS OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
Source: The Shortest History of Japanese Philosophy
It was only in the sixth century, at the beginning of the Asuka Period (538–710), that writing was introduced to Japan. Before that nothing was written down so, we assume, there was probably not a great deal of philosophical activity. What there was can hardly be called philosophy: it was an animistic spirituality that centred around the idea that everything in the universe is connected by a spiritual force or energy called musubi, manifestations of which were called kami, a rough translation of which is ‘gods’ but it is more accurate to describe them as spirits. National treasures could be kami, as could awesome natural features like Mt. Fuji and the sun, phenomena like hurricanes, venerated individuals like emperors and great warriors, and supernatural beings like the ‘gods of the earthly realm’, called kunitsukami, or the heavenly deities from the Japanese creation myths, called amatsukami, like Izanagi and Izanami, the (respective) male and female creators of the world. This spiritual, arguably religious, tradition was Shintō, though many don’t like to call it Shintō because they think ‘Shintō as we know it’ didn’t turn up until way later. They acknowledge that Shintō came out of whatever this was, though, and that its core tenets were present from earliest times, so there really is no harm in just calling it Shintō for the sake of simplicity.
It was the introduction of Buddhism in 552 that represents the beginning of Japanese intellectual history.
It was the introduction of Buddhism in 552, however, that represents the beginning of Japanese intellectual history. As the story goes, King Seong of the Korean Kingdom of Baekje sent a diplomatic mission to the Japanese Emperor Kinmei containing Buddhist artefacts and scriptures, Buddhism having reached the Korean Peninsula from China much earlier. At a similar time, merchants, monks and scholars began to emigrate to Japan from Korea, bringing with them Confucian texts from which the Japanese learnt to read and write. The language of the Japanese court was, therefore, Chinese; it would not be for hundreds of years until the Japanese could write their own language.
The first written document in Japanese history was the Seventeen-Article Constitution written by the pseudo-historical Prince Shōtoku in 604. Though it’s called a constitution (kenpō in Japanese), it is little more than a set of highfalutin moral aphorisms without much practical application. Most of the articles are pretty hollow, when it comes down to it, saying things like “let us cease from wrath, and refrain from angry looks” and “give clear appreciation to merit and demerit”. Many were clearly ignored, like the injunction that “decisions on important matters should not be made by one person alone”. In fact, the only articles that look like constitutional laws are the sixteenth, which mandates corvée labour in the winter months rather than in the summer, and the twelfth, which prohibits provincial governors from levying taxes. That makes the document a lot more interesting philosophically than politically or legally.
The heart of the constitution is a politico-ethical philosophy of harmony expressed in the first sentence: “Harmony is to be valued, and an avoidance of wanton opposition to be honoured”. The rest of the document is a means to achieving this harmonious ideal, which includes the reverence of Buddhism (officiating it as the state religion), absolute obedience to the imperial commands, and the cessation of ‘wrath’ and ‘angry looks’ – which is probably a call to the end of the civil war which had dominated the sixth century which Shōtoku and his clan had come out of on top.
Prince Shotoku with Two Princes by Kano Osanobu (1842).
The heart of the constitution is a politico-ethical philosophy of harmony.
Shōtoku was a statesman, not a philosopher prince. What puts the Shōtoku Constitution at the beginning of the history of Japanese philosophy is that it sets the scene for everything that comes after it because it is syncretic. What that means is that it is a synthesis of various intellectual sources; in this case, of Buddhism, Confucianism and Shintō – and arguably Taoism and Legalism too. They are mixed in the constitution in two ways. The first is that different articles are inspired by different sources, such as the obviously Buddhist urge to cease from gluttony and abandon covetous desires and the clearly Confucian expectation that ministers will act with propriety (li in Chinese, rei in Japanese).
The second way the document is syncretic is through the creation of new theories combining different intellectual traditions. The harmonious ideal is the best example of this, the statement that “harmony is to be valued” coming from Confucius’ Analects but, unlike in Confucianism, harmony is not to be obtained through ceremonial propriety alone, but through personal moral development, which has a source in Buddhism, and through natural balance, which comes not only from Confucianism but from Shintō and Taoism too.
For the next two hundred years there were still no Japanese philosophers. Buddhism continued to flow into Japan, increasingly dominating intellectual life. There was a great proliferation of temples sponsored by the imperial household and the elite families like the Soga and the Fujiwara. A monastic social class began to emerge which was closely connected with the aristocracy, their sons entering the priesthood and monks serving as teachers and advisors for the aristocrats. However, as Buddhism became increasingly united with Japanese politics, it began to divide on doctrinal grounds into different sects and, by the time of the Nara Period (710–794), Japanese Buddhism was defined by the Six Nara Schools. They were Ritsu, Kusha, Jōjitsu, Sanron, Hossō and Kegon. The first three of these belong to the Hīnayāna tradition of Buddhism and the others are Mahāyāna.
Rather than focusing on transcendent metaphysics, Japanese Buddhism leant into aesthetic practice grounded in phenomenal reality.
The distinction between Hīnayāna, or ‘small vehicle’, and Mahāyāna, or ‘great vehicle’, Buddhism was a construct of the Mahāyānists. Hīnayāna Buddhists believe in an impersonal path to enlightenment, hinged on self-restraint, introspection, and a gradual detachment from worldly emotions. Mahāyānists, on the other hand, advocate for a communal approach to enlightenment, emphasizing empathy, compassion, and interpersonal connections. The latter dominated Japanese Buddhism, distinguished by its distinctive heuristic methods that democratize access to enlightenment. This shift towards a more egalitarian ethos is a defining feature in the historical evolution of Japanese Buddhism, setting it apart from its Chinese counterpart. Rather than focusing on transcendent metaphysics, Japanese Buddhism leant into aesthetic practice grounded in phenomenal reality.
Another important idea of the Mahāyānists was the Buddha’s embodiments. The historical buddha is the individual buddha that was Siddhārtha Gautama (or Shakyamuni, in Japanese). The celestial buddha refers to eternal celestial beings who’ve never been human. They can be understood as personifications of various aspects of the enlightened mind, and their purpose is to aid sentient beings on their path to enlightenment. The third is the cosmic buddha, which is the universal principle whose presence permeates everything. Japanese Buddhism emphasized the cosmic buddha over the other two, which is perfectly consistent with its phenomenalistic bent: because the buddha is in everything, enlightenment can be found in everything; to attain buddhahood is to experience everything as it really is.
All Six Nara Schools were exoteric, which meant that their teachings were accessible to anybody willing to put the effort into understanding them through scriptural study and adherence to established doctrines and rituals. Two opponents to this orthodoxy emerged at the beginning of the ninth century. They were Saichō and Kūkai, who brought esotericism to Japan from China, which focussed on the transmission of teachings from masters to their disciples through secret rituals, advanced meditation techniques, visualization practices, and sacred utterances called mantras to attain enlightenment.
Saichō founded Japanese Tendai Buddhism and established the influential temple complex of Enryakuji at Mt. Hiei. He was trained by the Chinese Tiantai philosopher Daosui, ‘Tendai’ being the Japanese translation of ‘Tientai’, but Tientai was exoteric. Allegedly, whilst waiting for his ship to arrive and take him back to Japan, Saichō visited Yuezhou (modern Shaoxing) where he learnt about esoteric Buddhism which he would incorporate into the Tendai school. Saichō happened upon esotericism, but Kūkai was specifically trained in it by the Chinese Tangmi monk Huiguo, returning to Japan to father Shingon Buddhism which was esoteric through and through.
Eight Patriarchs of the Shingon Sect of Buddhism: Kukai
When Kūkai returned to Japan, Saichō befriended him, copying his esoteric texts and receiving instructions on rituals. Both abandoned the capital at Nara for the mountains. The Nara Schools were predominantly intellectual and often academic in nature, whereas Saichō and Kūkai were considerably more religious in the sense of combining intellectual and practical Buddhist pursuits. Saichō would send students to Kūkai for instruction when he set up residence in Kyoto at Mt. Takao, but the relationship between the two eventually soured as competition between their sects increased.
Shingon and Tendai defined Buddhism in the Heian Period (794–1185), but it was one specific topic which consumed mediaeval Japanese philosophy, and that was the Original Enlightenment Debates. The doctrine of original enlightenment is the idea that everything originally or inherently has within it the germ of buddhahood, and that everything can eventually attain enlightenment.
The doctrine of original enlightenment is the idea that everything originally or inherently has within it the germ of buddhahood…
The topic became a major point of disputation, especially between Saichō and the Hossō monk Tokuitsu, which grew into a four year long doctrinal debate that would become one of the most important in the history of Japanese Buddhism. Saichō propounded universal buddhahood, which was the view that all beings will ultimately become buddhas, which he thought to be an ideal expounded in the Lotus Sūtra. Tokuitsu, on the contrary, championed the Yogācāra division of men into five categories of different latent potential, one of which being those for whom buddhahood is hopeless, meaning that it could not be the case that all being will ultimately attain buddhahood. It was Saichō’s promotion of universal buddhahood that won this philosophical feud.
Original enlightenment discussions later developed from the basic claim that everything has the potential to become a buddha to a more radical position of absolute nonduality in which everything is connected together as part of one buddha reality. They took Mahāyāna phenomenalism to its logical extremes, eradicating any distinction between the phenomenal world and the ultimate reality of enlightenment. Ryōgen and Kakuun, both tenth century Tendai monks, would even come to accept plants as within the realm of buddhahood, a topic which was broached earlier in China in the seventh century by Jicang and later, in the eighth century, by Zhanran. It became a common aphorism to say that “the grasses, trees, mountains, and rivers all attain buddhahood”, and that “the worldly passions are precisely enlightenment”.
Eventually the idea of original enlightenment reached its apex in concluding not only that everything has within it the potential to become buddha, but that all beings are already enlightened as buddha. In Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism there was the idea that the mundane world is simply buddha reality misunderstood; that there is no mysterious buddha behind reality. Buddha nature is reality as it is experienced; all we have to do is correctly interpret our experience. Japanese Buddhism went a step further though to say that buddha nature is nothing but reality as it is experienced.
The rise of Pure Land Buddhism was an explicit rejection of original enlightenment. It centred on the achievement of rebirth in the Pure Land – a magical realm in which it is easier to achieve enlightenment than in this world. Pure Land Buddhists thought that they were in the final of the Three Ages of Buddhism: the Degenerate Age of the Buddhist Law, or mappō. The first two were the Age of the Right Buddhist Law, or shōbō, which was the first millennium after the death of the Buddha in which his disciples upheld his teachings, and the Age of Semblance Buddhist Law, or zōhō, which was the next millennium where his teachings were practiced. Following them was ten thousand years in which the Buddha’s teachings would decline. In the degenerate age, it’s thought by Pure Land Buddhists that they must rely on the ‘other-power’ of a buddha to escort them to enlightenment. Because their current era and everything in it was corrupted and that, far from everything already being buddha just as they are, buddhahood could no longer be achieved through ‘self-power’.
The rise of Pure Land Buddhism was an explicit rejection of original enlightenment.
The buddha relied on by Japanese Pure Land Buddhists was Amida. The main practice that Pure Land Buddists taught was ‘mindfulness of the Buddha’. Brought to Japan in the ninth century by Ennin (known posthumously as Jikaku Daishi), it was the repetition of the name of Amida (called nianfo in Chinese and the nembutsu in Japanese). The phrase normally recited is “Namu-Amida-Butsu” which means “I take refuge in Amida Buddha”. The twelfth century monk Hōnen, originally of the Tendai sect, decided that the religious goal of achieving buddhahood was no longer possible in the degenerate age and announced that the nembutsu and rebirth in the Pure Land was the only way of attaining enlightenment. He thereby became the founder of Pure Land Buddhism.
Even more radical, though, was True Pure Land Buddhism which was characterized by the absolute primacy of faith in Amida Buddha. Shinran, one of Hōnen’s disciples and founder of the new sect, completely gave up all monastic practice, relying wholly on his faith in Amida. He thought that true faith is bestowed upon a believer and does not arise from within them, and interpreted the nembutsu as nothing more than an expression of thanks or praise for this endowment. In the fifteenth century, thanks to the efforts of Rennyo, hailed as the ‘restorer of the sect’, True Pure Land grew to be the largest and most influential Buddhist sect in Japan, which it remains today.
Still more radical was the Pure Land sect called Jishū, founded by the twelfth century itinerant monk Ippen. Whereas Shinran maintained the primacy of faith for rebirth in the Pure Land, Ippen taught that not even faith was necessary for salvation; simply chanting the nembutsu alone was sufficient.
Pure Land Buddhism was one of the Kamakura New Religions; new Buddhist movements that emerged in Japan during the Kamakura Period (1185–1333). The other two were Nichiren Buddhism and Zen.
Like Pure Land Buddhists, the thirteenth century Tendai monk Nichiren tried to tackle the challenges to attaining enlightenment associated with the degenerate age. The Kamakura Period was stricken by civil war, so most Buddhist schools of this period accepted the idea that Japan had entered the degenerate age but differed in their solutions to this malaise. Nichiren did not think that entrusting oneself to Amida Buddha was the correct course of action. Instead, what he declared was exclusive reliance on the Lotus Sūtra. Rather than “Namu-Amida-Butsu”, his followers chanted “Namu-Myōhō-Renge-Kyō”, meaning “Devotion to the Mystic Law of the Lotus Sūtra”. His first concern was to restore Tendai Buddhism to an exclusive reliance on the Lotus Sūtra, and then to convert the entire nation to this belief. He therefore sought to make Buddhist theory practical and actionable so laymen could manifest buddhahood within their lifetime without committing themselves to monkhood and decades of dedicated study.
Nichiren studied all ten schools of Japanese Buddhism over a period of two decades.
Nichiren studied all ten schools of Japanese Buddhism over a period of two decades. He doubted the efficacy of the nembutsu, which he had been practicing, and therefore sought other means to attain enlightenment. He began his study at the Tendai temple on Mt. Kiyosumi in 1233 and it was there that he returned in 1253 to present his findings after twenty years; that it was the Lotus Sūtra on which they all ought to rely for enlightenment. However, he left the temple after only a short while and established himself in Kamakura. Between 1254 and 1260, half the population perished due to a succession of calamities; drought, earthquakes, epidemic, famine, fire, storms and the like. Nichiren claimed that these were the result of the mass adoption of Pure Land teachings. In 1260, he submitted a tract On Securing the Peace of the Land Through the Propagation of True Buddhism to the regent of the Kamakura Shōgunate, Hōjō Tokiyori, in which he attacked Pure Land Buddhism as a sinister cult and stated the need to embrace the Lotus Sūtra. If the shōgunate did not heed his advice, Nichiren predicted, further calamities would befall the nation, including a foreign invasion, which did in fact occur just over a decade later with the Mongol Invasion of Japan in 1274. The petition was ignored, though, and instead brought the other Buddhist schools down upon Nichiren. Ironically, one year after Nichiren submitted his remonstration to the shōgunate, it was he who was expelled from the capital.
He spent most of his life in three exiles in total. In his lifetime, ‘Nichiren Buddhism’ was unified under him. After his death, however, it fragmented massively into six sects, each following one of the six senior priests Nichiren had named to uphold his teachings: Nikkō, Nisshō, Nichirō, Nikō, Nitchō, and Nichiji.
Zen Buddhism, the most significant of the Kamakura New Religions, traces its origins back to an episode known as the Flower Sermon. In this legendary event, Shakyamuni Buddha stood before his disciples ready to give a sermon. However, he didn’t say anything and instead held up a white flower. This left his disciples scratching their heads, except for Mahākāśyapa (who lived in either the sixth or the fifth century BCE), known in Japanese as Daikashō or Makakashō. He alone smiled, supposedly signifying his understanding. This silent exchange symbolized the transmission of profound wisdom beyond language, which the Buddha acknowledged, saying, “The subtle Dharma Gate does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa”. Thus Mahākāśyapa earned his place as the inaugural figure in a lineage of twenty-eight Indian patriarchs, marking the birth of Zen Buddhism.
It was from China where it was called ‘Chan’ that Zen Buddhism came to Japan.
It was from China where it was called ‘Chan’ that Zen Buddhism came to Japan. Indian Buddhism was transmitted to China in the first century via the Silk Road where it underwent a process of Sinification as it was accommodated into Chinese culture. Of course, it was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit by scholars such as Kumārajīva and Buddhabhadra in the fourth and early fifth centuries, but it was also synthesized with Taoism and other native Chinese sensibilities in the same way that Confucianism and Buddhism were synthesized with Shintō in Japan.
Zen was established in Japan as an independent school called Daruma in the twelfth century by Dainichibō Nōnin. A Tendai monk, Nōnin encountered Zen texts that had made their way from China and were in the possession of the Tendai School. Inspired by these writings, he initiated his own solitary Zen practice and, in 1189, he sent two of his disciples to the Chan master Zhuoan Deguang with a letter outlining his revelations. Nōnin received back a letter certifying that he had awakened without a master but, because of his nonstandard spiritual bloodline, having awoken without a master, the Daruma School was thought of as teaching an unorthodox, syncretic ‘mixed Zen’ rather than a ‘pure Zen’ like in China. The school was short lived, however, for in 1194 the government shut it down at the Tendai School’s request.
The Rinzai school of Zen lasted much longer, however. In 1168, Myōan Eisai went to China where he studied Tientai Buddhism for two decades. He went again in 1187, this time learning about Chan from the Linji School. Upon his return in 1191, he established in his native land a Linji branch, in Japanese called Rinzai, and built the first Japanese Zen temple. Eisai never renounced his status as a Tendai monk, however; practicing in multiple schools was common within Mediaeval Buddhism. It remained for later masters to establish a pure Zen that was not an admixture of the doctrines of various Japanese Buddhist schools.
Dōgen thought that meditation isn’t about seeking answers. Instead, to meditate is to fully engage with the process of life itself.
The other main Zen school that was established in the Kamakura Period was the Sōtō School – the Japanese equivalent of the Chinese Caodong School of Chan. Sōtō Zen was brought to Japan by Dōgen in 1227 who had studied in China under Tiantong Rujing. Upon his return, he initially settled at Kennin-ji, but was driven out of Kyoto in 1230 by Tendai monks because of his extreme opinions about seated meditation and the primacy of Zen. For Dōgen, practice and enlightenment are not two separate stages but are fundamentally intertwined. To practice is to be enlightened, and enlightenment is nothing more than practice. His philosophy was deeply experiential and emphasized the importance of personal experience and direct understanding. He believed that the intellect could become an obstacle – even intellectual ‘understanding’ – if it led away from the immediate experience of reality. Dōgen thought that meditation isn’t about seeking answers. Instead, to meditate is to fully engage with the process of life itself.
The key difference between Zen and other Buddhist schools is that Zen instruction is based upon the ‘dharma transmission’ of a master to his disciples rather than upon doctrinal texts. That’s why Nōnin was considered an unusual case and his school impure; because he had awoken without a master. The principal practical difference between Sōtō and Rinzai Zen is that, in the former, meditation took the form of ‘just sitting’, or shikan taza, whereas the Rinzai sect employed riddles and metaphors known as kōan to reach enlightenment. In terms of doctrinal differences, the main one was their difference in understanding ‘non-thinking’, which was the aim of meditation. Rinzai began by negating discriminative thinking and went on to negate self-centred thinking; Sōtō, on the other hand, first eliminated self-centred thinking which they judged to be part of a later stage of negating all discriminative thought.
Buddhism had been closely connected to the political power structures in Japan since it was first introduced to the country, enjoying patronage from the ruling elites, which included the imperial family, the shōgunate, and the aristocracy. Fierce competition between the sects meant that they became increasingly militarized throughout the Muromachi Period (1336–1573), developing their own armies of warrior monks known as sōhei. Conflict between them came to a head in 1467 when the Ōnin War kicked off in Kyoto over who would succeed Shōgun Ashikaga Yoshimasa, commencing a century and a half of civil war known as the Sengoku Period (1467–1615).
Onin War (1467-1477). The Battle of Onin by Utagawa Yoshitora.
Tendai Buddhism had powerful armies of warrior monks; Pure Land Buddhism, however, amassed the Japanese citizenry. It had a broad following among the common people in Japan because of its egalitarian teachings. Unlike other sects, it taught that all people could attain salvation simply by expressing faith in Amida Buddha, and that complex rituals and ascetic practices were unnecessary. Faced with harsh conditions and heavy taxation, leagues of Pure Land Buddhists – both monks and laymen – rose up against the shōgunate and local feudal lords known as daimyo in peasant revolts throughout Japan called Ikkō-ikki. They formed self-governing communities, often centred around fortified temples, and at times they were even able to seize control of entire provinces.
However, more than a century of perpetual warfare had dire effects for Buddhism. The rampant violence often targeted Buddhist institutions, leading to the destruction of temples and the loss of religious texts and artefacts. This violence disrupted the Buddhist monastic system, eroding its economic base and diminishing its influence over society. What is more, the inability of Buddhism to prevent or mitigate the ongoing violence led to a crisis of faith among many Japanese. The Buddhist teachings, which emphasized impermanence and suffering, offered little solace or practical guidance in a time of social unrest.
The rampant violence often targeted Buddhist institutions, leading to the destruction of temples and the loss of religious texts and artefacts.
The death knell of Buddhist influence was sounded when Oda Nobunaga, the ‘Great Unifier’ of Japan who would bring the warring states period to a close, moved against the militant Buddhist sects who posed a threat to his authority. He first targeted the Tendai centre at Mt. Hiei in 1571, burning down the temple complex and slaughtering thousands of monks and civilians in the process. He then turned to the destruction of the Pure Land Ikkō-ikki, assaulting their fortress at Nagashima, setting it ablaze. Not one of its twenty thousand inhabitants survived. The other major fortress, the Ishiyama Hongan-ji, held out for eleven years, making it the longest siege in Japanese history, but the Abbot Kōsa was persuaded to surrender in 1580.
This crushed any potential for Buddhism to remain a powerful political force in Japan, bringing to a close the Buddhist Phase of the history of Japanese philosophy. This left a philosophical vacuum in the intellectual landscape. What would fill it was an ancient Chinese philosophy with a brand new finish.
◊ ◊ ◊
B.V.E. Hyde is a researcher with polymathic interests in philosophy, history, sociology and Japanology. He is currently employed as a philosopher of science and an ethicist, but has an enduring interest in Far Eastern philosophy. Some of his books on the topic (if a publisher will get around to accepting them) include The Tale of the Japanese Mind, a whistlestop tour of the history of Japanese philosophy, Lectures on Japanese Philosophy, an introduction to and overview of the subject, and a Commentary on the Shōtoku Constitution, which is a reference book much more academic than the other two. You can follow him on Twitter (@bvehyde) to stay up to date with his publications.
Source: Korean Buddhism has its own unique characteristics different from other countries
A brief review of Korean Buddhim
Korean Buddhism is distinguished from other forms of Buddhism by its attempt to resolve what it sees as inconsistencies in Mahayana Buddhism.
According to Wikipedia and various Korean reference materials, early Korean monks believed that the traditions they received from foreign countries were internally inconsistent.
To address this, they developed a new holistic approach to Buddhism.
This approach is characteristic of virtually all major Korean thinkers, and has resulted in a distinct variation of Buddhism, which is called Tongbulgyo (“interpenetrated Buddhism”), a form that sought to harmonize all disputes (a principle called hwajaeng 和諍) by Korean scholars.
Korean Buddhist thinkers refined their predecessors’ ideas into a distinct form.
As it now stands, Korean Buddhism consists mostly of the Seon Lineage, primarily represented by the Jogye and Taego Orders.
The Korean Seon has a strong relationship with other Mahayana traditions that bear the imprint of Chan teachings as well as the closely related Zen.
Other sects, such as the modern revival of the Cheontae lineage, the Jingak Order (a modern esoteric sect), and the newly formed Won, have also attracted sizable followings.
Korean Buddhism has contributed much to East Asian Buddhism, especially to early Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan schools of Buddhist thought.
When Buddhism was originally introduced to Korea from Former Qin in 372, about 800 years after the death of the historical Buddha, shamanism was the indigenous religion.
As it was not seen to conflict with the rites of nature worship, Buddhism was allowed by adherents of Shamanism to be blended into their religion.
Thus, the mountains that were believed by shamanists to be the residence of spirits in pre-Buddhist times later became the sites of Buddhist temples.
Though it initially enjoyed wide acceptance, even being supported as the state ideology during the Goryeo period, Buddhism in Korea suffered extreme repression during the Joseon era, which lasted over five hundred years.
During this period, Neo-Confucianism overcame the prior dominance of Buddhism.
Only after Buddhist monks helped repel the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) did the persecution of Buddhists stop.
Buddhism in Korea remained subdued until the end of the Joseon period, when its position was strengthened somewhat by the colonial period, which lasted from 1910 to 1945.
However, these Buddhist monks did not only put an end to Japanese rule in 1945, but they also asserted their specific and separate religious identity by reforming their traditions and practices.
They laid the foundation for many Buddhist societies, and the younger generation of monks came up with the ideology of Mingung Pulgyo, or “Buddhism for the people.” The importance of this ideology is that it was coined by the monks who focused on common men’s daily issues.
After World War II, the Seon school of Korean Buddhism once again gained acceptance.
A 2005 government survey indicated that about a quarter of South Koreans identified as Buddhist.
However, the actual number of Buddhists in South Korea is ambiguous as there is no exact or exclusive criterion by which Buddhists can be identified, unlike the Christian population.
With Buddhism’s incorporation into traditional Korean culture, it is now considered a philosophy and cultural background rather than a formal religion.
As a result, many people outside of the practicing population are deeply influenced by these traditions.
Thus, when counting secular believers or those influenced by the faith while not following other religions, the number of Buddhists in South Korea is considered to be much larger.
Similarly, in officially atheist North Korea, while Buddhists officially account for 4.5% of the population, a much larger number (over 70%) of the population are influenced by Buddhist philosophies and customs.
Buddhism in the Three Kingdoms:
When Buddhism was introduced to Korea in the 4th century CE, the Korean peninsula was politically subdivided into three kingdoms: Goguryeo in the north (which included territory currently in Russia and China), Baekje in the southwest, and Silla in the southeast.
There is concrete evidence of an earlier introduction of Buddhism than traditionally believed. A mid-4th century tomb, unearthed near Pyongyang, is found to incorporate Buddhist motifs in its ceiling decoration.
Korean Buddhist monks traveled to China or India in order to study Buddhism in the late Three Kingdoms Period, especially in the 6th century. In 526, The monk Gyeomik from Baekje traveled via the southern sea route to India to learn Sanskrit and study the Vinaya.
The monk Paya (562–613?) from Goguryeo is said to have studied under the Tiantai master Zhiyi. Other Korean monks of the period brought back numerous scriptures from abroad and conducted missionary activity throughout Korea.
Several schools of thought developed in Korea during these early times:
the Samlon (三論宗) or East Asian Mādhyamaka school focused on Mādhyamaka doctrine
the Gyeyul (戒律宗, or Vinaya in Sanskrit) school was mainly concerned with the study and implementation of śīla or “moral discipline”
the Yeolban (涅槃宗, or Nirvāna in Sanskrit) school based in the themes of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
the Wonyung (圓融宗, or Yuanrong in Chinese) school formed toward the end of the Three Kingdoms Period. This school lead to the actualization of the metaphysics of interpenetration as found in the Avatamsaka Sutra and was considered the premier school, especially among the educated aristocracy.
the Hwaeom (華嚴宗 or Huayan school) was the longest lasting of the “imported” schools. It had strong ties with the Beopseong (法性宗), an indigenous Korean school of thought.
The date of the first mission from Korea to Japan is unclear, but it is reported that a second detachment of scholars was sent to Japan upon invitation by the Japanese rulers in 577.
The strong Korean influence on the development of Buddhism in Japan continued through the Unified Silla period. It was not until the 8th century that independent study by Japanese monks began in significant numbers.
Goguryeo period:
In 372, the monk Sundo (順道, pinyin: Shùndào) was sent by Fu Jian (337–385) (苻堅) of Former Qin to the court of the King Sosurim of Goguryeo. He brought texts and statues (possibly of Maitreya, who was popular in Buddhism in Central Asia), and the Goguryeo royalty and their subjects quickly accepted his teachings.
Buddhism in China was in a rudimentary form, consisting of the law of cause and effect and the search for happiness. This had much in common with the predominant Shamanism, which likely led to the quick assimilation of Buddhism by the people of Goguryeo.
Early Buddhism in Silla developed under the influence of Goguryeo. Some monks from Goguryeo came to Silla and preached among the people, making a few converts.
In 551, Hyeryang (惠亮), a Goguryeo monk was appointed the first National Patriarch of Silla. He first presided over the “Hundred-Seat Dharma Assembly” and the “Dharma of Eight Prohibitions”.
Baekje period:
In 384, the Indian monk Marananta arrived in Baekje and the royal family received the strain of Buddhism that he brought.
King Asin of Baekje proclaimed, “people should believe in Buddhism and seek happiness.” In 526, the Baekje monk Gyeomik (겸익, 謙益) traveled directly to Central India and came back with a collection of Vinaya texts, accompanied by the Indian monk Paedalta (Sanskrit: Vedatta).
After returning to Baekje, Gyeomik translated the Buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit into seventy-two volumes.
The Gyeyul school in Baekje was established by Gyeomik about a century earlier than its counterpart in China. As a result of his work, he is regarded as the father of Vinaya studies in Korea.
Silla period:
Buddhism did not enter the kingdom of Silla until the 5th century.
The common people were first attracted to Buddhism here, but there was resistance among the aristocrats.
In 527, however, a prominent court official named Ichadon presented himself to King Beopheung of Silla and announced he had become Buddhist.
The king had him beheaded, but when the executioner cut off his head, it is said that milk poured out instead of blood.
Paintings of this are in the temple at Haeinsa and a stone monument honoring his martyrdom is in the National Museum of Kyongju.
During the reign of the next king, Jinheung of Silla, the growth of Buddhism was encouraged and eventually recognized as the national religion of Silla.
Selected young men were physically and spiritually trained at Hwarangdo according to Buddhist principles regarding one’s ability to defend the kingdom.
King Jinheung later became a monk himself.
The monk Jajang (慈藏) is credited with having been a major force in the adoption of Buddhism as a national religion.
Jajang is also known for his participation in the founding of the Korean monastic sangha.
Another great scholar to emerge from the Silla Period was Wonhyo.
He renounced his religious life to better serve the people and even married a princess for a short time, with whom he had a son.
He wrote many treatises and his philosophy centered on the unity and interrelatedness of all things.
He set off to China to study Buddhism with a close friend, Uisang, but only made it part of the way there.
According to legend, Wonhyo awoke one night very thirsty. He found a container with cool water, which he drank before returning to sleep.
The next morning he saw that the container from which he had drunk was a human skull and he realized that enlightenment depended on the mind. He saw no reason to continue to China, so he returned home.
Uisang continued to China and after studying for ten years, offered a poem to his master in the shape of a seal that geometrically represents infinity. The poem contained the essence of the Avatamsaka Sutra.
Buddhism was so successful during this period that many kings converted and several cities were renamed after famous places during the time of the Buddha.
Unified Silla (668–935):
In 668, the kingdom of Silla succeeded in unifying the whole Korean peninsula, giving rise to a period of political stability that lasted for about one hundred years under Unified Silla. This led to a high point in scholarly studies of Buddhism in Korea.
The most popular areas of study were Wonyung, Yusik (Ch. 唯識; Weishi) or East Asian Yogācāra, Jeongto or Pure Land Buddhism, and the indigenous Korean Beopseong (“Dharma-nature school”).
Wonhyo taught the Pure Land practice of yeombul, which would become very popular amongst both scholars and laypeople, and has had a lasting influence on Buddhist thought in Korea.
His work, which attempts a synthesis of the seemingly divergent strands of Indian and Chinese Buddhist doctrines, makes use of the Essence-Function (體用 che-yong) framework, which was popular in native East Asian philosophical schools.
His work was instrumental in the development of the dominant school of Korean Buddhist thought, known variously as Beopseong, Haedong (海東, “Korean”) and later as Jungdo (中道, “Middle Way”)
Wonhyo’s friend Uisang (義湘) went to Chang’an, where he studied under Huayan patriarchs Zhiyan (智儼; 600–668) and Fazang (法藏; 643–712).
When he returned after twenty years, his work contributed to Hwaeom Buddhism and became the predominant doctrinal influence on Korean Buddhism together with Wonhyo’s tongbulgyo thought.
Hwaeom principles were deeply assimilated into the Korean meditation-based Seon school, where they made a profound effect on its basic attitudes.
Influences from Silla Buddhism in general, and from these two philosophers in particular crept backwards into Chinese Buddhism.
Wonhyo’s commentaries were very important in shaping the thought of the preeminent Chinese Buddhist philosopher Fazang, and Woncheuk’s commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra had a strong influence in Tibetan Buddhism.
The intellectual developments of Silla Buddhism brought with them significant cultural achievements in many areas, including painting, literature, sculpture, and architecture.
During this period, many large and beautiful temples were built. Two crowning achievements were the temple Bulguksa and the cave-retreat of Seokguram (石窟庵).
Bulguksa was famous for its jeweled pagodas, while Seokguram was known for the beauty of its stone sculpture.
Current situation:
The Seon school, which is dominated by the Jogye order in terms of the number of clergy and adherents, practices disciplined traditional Seon practice at a number of major mountain monasteries in Korea, often under the direction of highly regarded masters.
The Taego order, though it has more temples than the Jogye Order, is second in size in terms of the number of clergy and adherents and, in addition to Seon meditation, keeps traditional Buddhist arts alive, such as ritual dance.
Modern Seon practice is not far removed in its content from the original practice of Jinul, who introduced the integrated combination of the practice of Gwanhwa meditation and the study of selected Buddhist texts.
The Korean sangha life is markedly itinerant for monks and nuns pursuing Seon meditation training: while each monk or nun has a “home” monastery, he or she will regularly travel throughout the mountains, staying as long as he or she wishes, studying and teaching in the style of the temple that is housing them.
The Korean monastic training system has seen a steadily increasing influx of Western practitioner-aspirants in the second half of the twentieth century.
It must be noted, however, that the vast majority of Korean monks and nuns do not spend 20 or 30 years in the mountains pursuing Seon training in a form recognizable to westerners.
Most Korean monks and nuns receive a traditional academic education in addition to ritual training, which is not necessarily in a formal ritual training program.
Those who do spend time in meditation in the mountains may do so for a few years and then essentially return to the life of a parish priest.
The four schools of Tibetan Buddhism are Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelug or Gelugpa.
Nyingma (founded in 8th century)
Kagyu (founded in the early 11th century)
Sakya (founded in 1073)
Gelug (founded in 1409)
The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism.
The Nyingma or “ancient” tradition is the oldest of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Often referred to as “the ancient translation school”, it was founded in the eighth century following the first translations of Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit to Tibetan.
Around 760, the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen invited two Buddhist masters from the Indian subcontinent, Padmasambhava and Shantarakshita, to the “Land of Snows” to bring Buddhism to the Tibetan people. Thus began a massive translation project of all Buddhist texts into the newly created Tibetan language.
The legendary Vajrayana master Padmasambhava, who Tibetans call Guru Rinpoche, is considered the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. He supervised the translation of the tantras (the esoteric teachings of the Buddha) while Shantarakshita, abbot of the great Buddhist Nalanda University, supervised the translation of the sutras (oral teachings of the Buddha).
Together they founded the first monastery in Tibet, Samye, which became the main centre for Buddhist teaching in Tibet for around three centuries.
The Nyingma tradition classifies the Buddhist teachings into nine yanas or vehicles. The first three vehicles are common to all schools of Buddhism, the next three are common to all schools of Tantric Buddhism, and the last three are exclusive to the Nyingma tradition. The highest is known as Dzogchen or the Great Perfection.
Unlike the other schools, the Nyingma traditionally had no centralized authority or a single head of the lineage. However, since the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Nyingma school has had representatives.
Here is a list of the 8 representatives of the Nyingma school since this practice began in the 1960s:
Dudjom Rinpoche (c. 1904–1987), served from the 1960s until his death.
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (c. 1910–1991), served from 1987 until his death.
Penor (Pema Norbu) Rinpoche (1932–2009) served from 1991 until retirement in 2003.
Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche (c. 1930–2008), served from 2003 until his death.
Trulshik Rinpoche (1923–2011), selected after Chatral Rinpoche declined the position.
Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche (1926-2015), appointed head in 2012 and passed away in Bodhgaya in 2015
Kathok Getse Rinpoche (1954-2018), passed away ten months after being named to a three-year term as the supreme head of the Nyingma school.
Dzogchen Rinpoche Jigme Losel Wangpo was selected in January 2019 as the eighth head of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism by the heads of the principal monasteries of the Nyingma tradition.
The Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism
The Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism gets its name from the Tibetan བཀའ་བརྒྱུད། meaning “oral lineage” or “whispered transmission”. While it traces its origin back to Buddha Shakyamuni, the most important source for the specific practices of the Kagyu order is the great Indian yogi Tilopa (988-1069).
The practices were passed orally from teacher to disciple through a series of great masters. The transmission lineage of the “Five Founding Masters” of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism is as follows:
Tilopa (988-1069), the Indian yogi who experienced the original transmission of the Mahamudra
Naropa (1016–1100), the Indian scholar-yogi who perfected the methods of accelerated enlightenment described in his Six Yogas of Naropa
Marpa (1012–1097), the first Tibetan in the lineage, known as the great translator for his work translating the Vajrayana and Mahamudra texts into Old Tibetan
Milarepa (1052–1135), the poet and greatest yogi of Tibet who overcame Marpa’s reluctance to teach and attained enlightenment in a single lifetime
Gampopa (1079–1153), Milarepa’s most important student, who integrated Atisha’s Kadam teachings and Tilopa’s Mahamudra teaching to establish the Kagyu lineage.
The Kagyu lineage practices have a special focus on the tantric teachings of the Vajrayana and Mahamudra teachings. Some of the most distinguished works of the Kagyu Tibetan masters are the works of Marpa, the Vajra Songs of Milarepa, the Collected Works of Gampopa, of the Karmapas, of Drikhung Kyöppa Jigten Sumgön, and of Drukpa Kunkhyen Pema Karpo.
In the Kagyu school, there are a large number of independent sub-schools and lineages.
The Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism
The Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism dates to the 11th century. The name comes from the Tibetan ས་སྐྱ་ meaning “pale earth” describing the grey landscape near Shigatse, Tibet where the Sakya Monastery – the first monastery of this tradition and the seat of the Sakya School – was built in 1073.
The Sakya tradition developed during the second period of translation of Buddhist scripture from Sanskrit into Tibetan and was founded by Drogmi, a famous scholar and translator who had studied under Naropa and other great Indian masters.
The heart of the Sakya lineage teaching and practice is Lamdre, The Path and Its Fruit, a comprehensive and structured meditation path in Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism.
The head of Sakya School is the “Sakya Trizin” (“the holder of the Sakya throne”), who is always drawn from the male line of the Khön family. It was previously a lifetime position that rotated between the two branches of that lineage, the Phuntsok Potrang and the Dolma Potrang. The previous head of the Sakya School, His Holiness Ngawang Kunga Thekchen Palbar Samphel Ganggi Gyalpo, was born in 1945 in Tsedong, Tibet and served as Sakya Trizin from 1958 to 2017. It has now become a three-year position that rotates between the next generation of trained male offspring of those two families.
The Gelugpa School of Tibetan Buddhism
The Gelug or Gelugpa (དགེ་ལུགས་པ་) school is the newest and largest school of Tibetan Buddhism. Its story begins with Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), one of the period’s foremost authorities of Tibetan Buddhism who studied under Sakya, Kagyu, and Nyingma masters.
Tsongkhapa, the most renowned teacher of his time, founded Ganden Monastery in 1409 and, though he emphasized a strong monastic sangha, he did not announce a new monastic order. Following his death, his followers established the Gelug (“the virtuous tradition”) school. The Gelug school was also called “New Kadam” for its revival of the Kadam school founded by Atisha.
The Throne-Holder of Ganden (Ganden Tripa) is the official head of the Gelug school, a position that rotates between the heads of the two Gelug tantric colleges. Its most influential figure is the Dalai Lama, who is a monk of the Gelug tradition, but as the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet for over fifty years has always represented all Tibetans.
The Dalai Lamas are considered manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and the patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have chosen to be continuously reborn to end the suffering of sentient beings.
The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14th reincarnation. He was born in 1935, two years after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama encourages non-sectarianism.
The central teachings of the Gelug School are the lamrim (stages of the path to enlightenment) teachings of Tsongkhapa, based on the teachings of the 11th-century Indian master Atisha.
Source: “BRIEF GUIDE TO MAJOR SCHOOLS OF BUDDHISM.”
Brief Guide to Major Schools of Buddhism
Astronaut Images / Getty Images
Buddhism is not a monolithic tradition. As it spread through Asia over more than two millennia, it divided into several sects, each with its own liturgies, rituals, and canon of scriptures. There are also doctrinal disagreements. However, all are founded on the same basic teachings of the historical Buddha.
Buddhism can be divided into two major schools: Theravada and Mahayana. Today, Theravada is the dominant form of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma (Myanmar) and Laos. Mahayana is dominant in China, Japan, Taiwan, Tibet, Nepal, Mongolia, Korea and most of Vietnam.
You will sometimes hear there are three major schools of Buddhism, the third being Vajrayana. Vajrayana is associated with Tibetan Buddhism as well as a Japanese school called Shingon. But Vajrayana is founded on Mahayana philosophy and is more accurately understood as an extension of Mahayana. Further, you can find elements of Vajrayana in many schools of Mahayana beside Tibetan and Shingon.
Note that if you come across a discussion of schools of Buddhism called Sthaviravada or Hinayana, most of the time this refers to Theravada.
Anatta – The Doctrinal Divide Between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist Schools
The basic doctrinal difference that divides Theravada from Mahayana is an interpretation of anatta, the teaching that there is no soul or self. The self that seems to inhabit our bodies continuously through our lives is an illusion. All schools of Buddhism support this teaching.
However, Mahayana Buddhism takes anatta further and teaches a doctrine called shunyata, or emptiness. According to Mahayana, all phenomena take identity to us only in relation to other phenomena and cannot be said to either exist or not exist. The difference in interpretation of anatta impacts how many other doctrines are understood.
If you are scratching your head at this point, you are not alone. These are extremely difficult doctrines to understand, and many will tell you they cannot be understood by intellect alone. If you’re a beginner there’s not much point spinning your wheels over which school is right. Practice awhile, and come to your own conclusions as you gain more understanding.
If you are new to Buddhism, the most obvious difference you might see is that in Theravada, the ideal of practice is the arhat, the individual who has realized enlightenment. In Mahayana, the ideal of practice is the enlightened being who is dedicated to bringing all beings to enlightenment.
Divisions of Theravada
In Asia, there is a bigger difference between monastic and lay Theravada Buddhism than among different orders or sects of Theravada Buddhism. Monks meditate, study and teach; laypeople, on the whole (there are exceptions), do not. Laypeople practice by supporting the monasteries with alms, donations, chants, and prayers. They are encouraged to keep the five precepts and observe uposatha days.
In the West, those who come to Theravada as adults — as opposed to growing up with it in an ethnic Asian community — most commonly practice Vipassana or “insight” meditation and study the Pali Canon, which is the main body of scripture for Theravada. The more traditional monastic-lay symbiosis found in Asia hasn’t yet emerged among non-ethnic-Asian Western practitioners.
There are a number of different Theravada monastic orders in Asia. There are also beliefs and practices associated with Buddhism, often taken from local folk cultures, that are found in some parts of Southeast Asia but not others. But compared to Mahayana, Theravada is relatively homogenous.
Divisions of Mahayana
The distinctions among different sects of Mahayana Buddhism are so pronounced they might seem to be entirely different religions, yet they are all built on the same philosophical and doctrinal foundation.
The doctrinal differences tend to be minor compared to differences in practice, such as meditation, ritual, and chanting. Most people who come to Mahayana choose a school because its practices resonate well with them.
Here are some of the Mahayana traditions you are most likely to find in the West, but it is not an exhaustive list, and there are many variations and sub-sects. There are also traditions that combine elements of more than one sect. The practices described are all long-established means to enable practitioners to actualize the Buddha’s teaching.
Amitabha or Amida Buddhism also called Pure Land Buddhism. Pure Land emphasizes faithful devotion to the Buddha Amitabha. By the grace of Amitabha, one may be reborn in the Pure Land, where enlightenment may be realized and Nirvana is close at hand. The most distinctive practice of Pure Land Buddhism, called Nianfo in Chinese and Nembutsu in Japanese, is the mindful recitation of Amitabha’s name.
Nichiren Buddhism is a Japanese tradition that has gained a large following in the West. It emphasizes a mindful chanting practice that evokes the mystical power of the Lotus Sutra to bring all beings to enlightenment. Probably the largest Nichiren group in the West is Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay organization, but there are others.
Tendai is less widespread in the West than many other traditions but is a long-established Mahayana tradition in Asia. Tendai offers a number of meditation and other practices to enable enlightenment.
Tibetan Buddhism has gained a huge following in the West in recent years. There are four major schools and many sub-schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism combines meditation with ritual, chanting, and other practices. The most distinctive feature of Tibetan Buddhism is tantra or deity yoga. This is most simply translated as “a means to enlightenment through identity with tantric deities.”
Zen is the Japanese name of Chan, a sect that originated in 6th century China. Chan Buddhism also spread to Korea and Vietnam. The most basic practice of Zen is a mindful, silent meditation practice called zazen in Japanese. Zen has been predominantly a monastic school for most of its history, although there is a long tradition of lay practice also.
Not every temple you might visit will fit neatly into one of these sectarian niches. It’s not at all unusual to find temples that combine practices of more than one tradition, for example. There are many sects not listed, and those that are listed come in many denominations.
My Related Posts
You can search for these in Search Posts feature on right sidebar.
Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
Geometry of Consciousness
Process Physics, Process Philosophy
Consciousness of Cosmos: A Fractal, Recursive, and Holographic Universe
All Mahayana schools adopt some version of the Two Truths theory, with one exception: the Tiantai school, which alone among all Buddhist schools moves from the Two Truths epistemology to a Three Truths model of truth. The Three Truths are actually three different ways of looking at any object or state. Each implies the other two, and each is one way to describe the whole of that object, including its other two aspects. This cup is a cup: that is provisional truth, conventional truth, local coherence. This cup is not a cup: that is ultimate truth, its emptiness, its global incoherence. To be a cup is not to be a cup: that is its Centrality, its Non-duality, its Absoluteness. This cup is all things, all possible ways of being, all universes, as this cup.
The Buddhist idea of two “truths” (Pāli: sacca; Sanskrit: satya) refers to the idea that there is a “conventional” (Pāli: sammuti; Sanskrit: saṃvṛti) truth that must be distinguished from the “ultimate” (Pāli: paramattha; Sanskrit: paramārtha) truth. The two truths distinction may have emerged initially as a hermeneutic device which later interpreters employed to reconcile apparent inconsistencies among statements in the Buddhist scriptures. The two truths doctrine nevertheless came to hold a central philosophical position in Buddhist semantics, ontology, epistemology, and soteriology in the majority of philosophical schools including Theravāda, Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, and Madhyamaka.
Emptiness is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy; however, it has multiple meanings. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the most prominent meanings of emptiness in Mahāyāna Buddhism and highlight some important interpretive disputes. This chapter is also an exercise in comparative philosophizing; it discusses similarities between the emptiness concept and some Western philosophical ideas. The Madhyamaka assertion that all things are empty means that they are all dependently originating; they lack or are empty of autonomous existence because they are reliant on causes to bring them into and sustain their existence. Another concept of emptiness occurs in the buddha-nature teaching. The chapter presents Yogācāra as a form of ontological idealism, which claims that the external world of objects is actually a creation of the mind. It explains that the concept of emptiness in Mahāyāna Buddhism is contested and open to a variety of interpretations.
This chapter examines the six forms that the teaching of emptiness takes in Zen. Before doing this, the chapter comments briefly on Zen’s relation to the doctrinal sources upon which it critically and creatively draws. The Zen tradition understands itself to be based on Śākyamuni Buddha’s profoundest teaching of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which has been passed down not through texts and doctrines but by way of face-to-face acknowledgment of awakening. The six rubrics which the notion of emptiness is used in the Zen tradition are lack of ownbeing, formlessness of ultimate reality, distinctionless state of meditative consciousness, no-mind in the action of non-action, emptiness (or emptying) of emptiness, and emptiness of words. Each of the six rubrics contains a cluster of closely related teachings. Moreover, there are certainly many interconnections, and arguably some tensions, among the rubrics.
Chinese Buddhist Philosophy.
Ziporyn, Brook (2011).
In The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Ed. Jay Garfield and William Edelglass. New York: Oxford University Press, 68– 81.
Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jeweled Net of Indra.
Cook, Francis H. (1977).
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
The culminating philosophy and practice for Buddhist traditions in Tibet is what is found in tantra, or Vajrayāna. Yet Tibet is unique in the Buddhist world in that it is a place where not only the traditions of tantra are practiced, but where the epistemological traditions of valid cognition and what came to be known as Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka also took root. This chapter briefly surveys a range of ways in which Madhyamaka is represented in Tibet. Madhyamaka takes the place of the highest philosophical view among Tibetan Buddhist sects, and seeing how different traditions formulate the view of Madhyamaka is an important part of understanding how these traditions relate to tantra and negotiate the relationship between Madhyamaka and Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna in Tibet is pantheist to the core, for, in its most profound expressions all dualities between the divine and the world are radically undone.
Iconographic imagery in the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Tantric (i.e., Vajrayāna) tradition is replete with polymorphic symbolic forms. Tantric texts themselves are multivalent, addressing astronomy, astrology, cosmology, history, embryology, physiology, pharmacology, alchemy, botany, philosophy, and sexuality. The Sr? Kaālacakra, a medieval Indo-Tibetan manuscript of great import, describes ritual visualization sequences in which practitioners visualize elaborate manidiala designs and deified yab-yum (father-mother) consort couples. The Kālacakra system is the preeminent conduit for the globalization of Tibetan Buddhism, and contemporary enactments of its initiation ceremony incorporate a variety of aesthetic genres, including sand manidiala construction and ritual dance.
Practical Applications of the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra and Madhyamaka in the Kālacakra Tantric Tradition.
The Kālacakra tradition positions itself in the philosophical system of Madhyamaka, from whose perspective it criticizes the doctrinal tenets of Hindu philosophical schools and of Buddhist schools other than Madhyamaka. The concept of emptiness is the most essential tenet of the Kālacakratantra practice. Before analyzing the practical applications of the doctrine of emptiness in the Kālacakra tantric tradition, it may be useful to examine first the ways in which emptiness is defined and explained in this tantric system. Diverse manners of explaining emptiness result from the various contexts in which this tradition applies and actualizes the doctrine of emptiness. In conclusion, one can say that the sole purpose of the intricate system of the Kālacakratantra’s yogic practices is to awaken the yogi to the gnosis of emptiness. The tantra’s expositions on emptiness are adopted from the Perfection of Wisdom literature and from Madyamaka.
Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics, Vol. 3
Deepen your understanding of meaning and truth with the third volume of the Dalai Lama’s esteemed series Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics.
Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics compiles classical Buddhist explorations of the nature of the material world, the human mind, reason, and liberation, and puts them into context for the modern reader. This ambitious four-volume series-a major resource for the history of ideas and especially the history of science and philosophy-has been conceived by and compiled under the visionary supervision of His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself. It is his view that the exploratory thinking of the great masters of classical India still has much that is of interest to us today, whether we are Buddhist or not. These volumes make those insights accessible.
In this third volume the focus turns to exploring the philosophical schools of India. The practice of presenting the views of various schools of philosophy dates back to the first millennium in India, when proponents of competing traditions would arrange the diverse sets of philosophical positions in a hierarchy culminating in their own school’s superior tenets. Centuries later, relying on the Indian Buddhist treatises, Tibet developed its own tradition of works on tenets (grub mtha’), often centered on the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, using them to demonstrate the philosophical evolution within their own tradition, and within individual practitioners, as they progressed through increasingly more subtle expressions of the true reality.
The present work follows in this venerable tradition, but with a modern twist. Like its predecessors, it presents the views of seven non-Buddhist schools, those of the Samkhya, Vaisesika, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Vedanta, Jaina, and Lokayata, followed by the Buddhist Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra, and Madhyamaka schools, arranging them like steps on a ladder to the profound. But rather than following in the sharply polemical approach of its ancient predecessors, it strives to survey each tradition authentically, relying on and citing the texts sacred to each, allowing the different traditions to speak for themselves. What, it asks, are the basic components of the world we experience? What is the nature of their ultimate reality? And how can we come to experience that for ourselves? See how the rich spiritual traditions of India approached these key questions, where they agreed, and how they evolved through dialogue and debate.
This presentation of philosophical schools is introduced by His Holiness and is accompanied by an extensive introduction and survey by Professor Donald Lopez Jr. of the University of Michigan, who is uniquely qualified to communicate the scope and significance of this literary and spiritual heritage to modern readers.
A History of Indian Logic (ancient, Mediæval and Modern Schools.)
By Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana
Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon
By Arthur Berriedale Keith
The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy
By Jan Westerhoff
Oxford University Press, 2019, ISBN 9780198732662.
Reviewed by Ethan Mills, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Dr. R. Gopalakrisnan, M.A., Ph.D. Professor and Head, (Retired), Department of Philosophy, University of Madras, Chennai—600 005 +91 98411 71138 Email: gopalki_rls@yahoo.com
Nagarjuna is one of the most famous Buddhist philosophers and was even considered as the greatest Buddhist philosopher after Lord Buddha himself. According to Buddhist tradition, Nagarjuna was the founder of the Madhyamika School. Madhamaka School is one of the important schools where Buddhist monks and disciples are preached and taught about Mahayana Buddhism. It is said that Nagarjuna together with his disciple Aryadeva founded this famous school and Mahayana Buddhismthus became popular and famous. One of the greatest achievements of Nagarjuna was his work on the Middle Way. He wrote “Mula-Madhyamaka-karika” for Madhyamaka School which is also known as “Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way”. The Mula-Madhyamaka-karika is considered as the best-known work of Nagarjuna. In Mahayana Buddhism, Nagarjuna is depicted as the “titanic figure” and also depicted as Buddhist monk with naga characteristics. Many Buddhist scholars have praised him for his influence in the foundation of Mahayana Buddhism. According to Mahayana Buddhism, Nagarjuna was born in a Brahmin family and became Buddhist monk later.
Nagarjuna’s Philosophy
Nagarjuna was considered as the most important philosopher after Gautama Buddha in the history of Mahayana Buddhism. One of the most important philosophies that Nagarjuna contributed to Buddhism was the concept of Sunyata. The sunyata simply means “emptiness” and Nagarjuna concept of Sunyata was about bringing together main Buddhist doctrines. Nagarjuna particularly tried to bring Buddhist doctrines such as Anatman “not-self” and Pratityasamutpada “dependent origination”. According to Nagarjuna’s Concept on Sunyata, all sentient beings cannot exist independently thus these sentient beings are without any self-nature. Another greatest philosophy proposed by Nagarjuna was the concept of Two Truths. According toNagarjuna, there are two truths or two levels of reality in Buddha’s teachings. Thus, the concept of Two Truths was the key things in the development of Two Truths Doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism. The Two levels of reality or Truths represent two types of truths in Buddhist Course. These two truths are relative truth and absolute truth. The relative truth is also known as the commonsensical truth and the relative truth describes the experience in the concrete world or life. The absolute truth is also known as the ultimate truth and the absolute truth refers to the reality of Sunyata.
Nagarjuna as Friend of Nagas
The legend of Nagas can be found in the myths of Hinduism as well as Buddhism. Nagas are the snake beings and according to Buddhist tradition, they are from the unseen realms. According to legend related to Nagarjuna, nagas were keeping and protecting sutras that contained the teachings of Buddha and they are hiding these sutras from mankind. Nagas entrusted these sutras to Nagarjuna and asked him to take the sutras back to the human realm. The sutras entrusted to Nagarjuna were called Wisdom Sutras and Nagarjuna collected these sutras under the Prajnaparamita Sutra (Perfection of Wisdom). That’s why Nagarjuna is remembered for his work on Wisdom Sutras.
Madhyamaka School
Madhyamaka School is the school that refers to Mahayana Buddhist School that is based on the philosophy of Nagarjuna on Middle Way.
““Whatever is dependent arising; We declared that to be emptiness. That is dependent designation And is itself the middle way.””
– Nagarjuna
According to Madhyamaka, all phenomena are dependent and are empty and without essence. They have no independent reality of their own.
An Account of the Philsophical Schools of Buddhism
Honen, Pure Land Buddhism, Japan
by Jayaram V
Prior to the emergence of Mahayana school and its expansion beyond the borders of the Indian subcontinent, Buddhism developed along many paths. After the passing away of the Buddha, for the next few centuries, several schools of Buddhism emerged in in ancient India on account of differences in the interpretation of the teachings of the Buddha.
Although their total number was actually said to be 25 or 26, Buddhist tradition recognizes only 18 early schools formed between 5th century B.C.E and 4th century C.E. Of them presently the Theravada school only survives. The list of the 18 schools is provided below1
In the beginning there were only two schools, the Mahasanghikas and the Sthaviras. The former further split into
Branch-Mahasanghikas
Ekavyavaharins
Lokottaravadins
Bahusrutiyas
Nityavadins
Caityakas
Purvasailikas
Uttarasailikas
The Sthaviras were further split into
Haimavatas
Sarvastivadins
Hetuvadins
Vatsiputriyas
Dharmadesakas
Bhadrayanikas
Sammitiyas
Bahudesakas
Dharmadesakas
Bhadravarsikas
All the eighteen schools are grouped under Sravakayana branch of Hinayana (the smaller vehicle). In course of time there developed in Buddhism four major lines of thought namely the Vaibhasikas, the Sautrantikas, the Yogacaras and the Madhyamikas. The Vaibhasikas, who are also known as “existential dualists” interpreted existential reality in terms of experiential knowledge arising out of contact with substances, some of which they considered as transitory and some as eternal.
The Sautrantikas, who based their knowledge on the sutras, distinguished reality into that which was real and existing and that which was real but non-existing. The acknowledged the existence of phenomenal world but considered it to be transient. The Yogacara school, which is also called the vijnanavada school, held the opinion that the whole world was an ideal. They argued that all phenomena existed because of consciousness and that the illusion of existence was a fabrication of the mind or consciousness alone.
The school recognized various levels or gradations within consciousness created by the activity of the senses and the mind. The Madhyamika philosophy was based on the original teachings of the Buddha and the middle path suggested by him. One of the chief proponents of this school was Nagarjuna whose interpretation of reality borders on skepticism or agnosticism. This school had to major branches, the Svatantrikas and the Prasangikas.
Although there are essentially at present two major branches of Buddhism, namely Mahayana and Hinayana, Buddhism developed several local characteristics in each geographical area where it spread. Thus today Buddhism goes by several names such as Tibetan Buddhism, Burmese Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Thai Buddhism, Korean Buddhism, Cambodian Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism and so on.
1. This classification is based on the Buddhist Philosophy In Theory and Practice by Herbert V.Guenther 1971, Penguin Books
Although the ideas and literature of many different forms of Buddhism reached China – including Sarvāstivāda, Mahīśāsika, Saṃmitīya, Dharmaguptaka, Sautrāntika and others – only Madhyamaka and Yogācāra developed Chinese schools and lineages. Madhyamaka disappeared as an independent school after Jizang, but its influence and the preeminence of Nāgārjuna never abated. The sixth century was basically a battleground of competing Yogācāric theories.
In the seventh century the famous Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (600–64) spent sixteen years travelling in Central Asia and India. He returned to China in 645 and translated seventy-four works. Due in part to his accomplishments as a traveller and translator, and in part to the eminent favour bestowed on him by the Chinese emperor upon his return, Xuanzang became the most prominent East Asian Buddhist of his generation. He promoted an orthodox form of Yogācāra as it was then being practised in India, and students flocked to him from Japan and Korea as well as China. Not everyone was enamoured of the Buddhist ideology he had brought back. Zhiyan (602–68), who would later be considered one of the patriarchs of the Huayan school, was openly critical of Xuanzang’s teachings, and Fazang had joined Xuanzang’s translation committee late in Xuanzang’s life, only to quit in disgust at Xuanzang’s ‘distorted’ views. While in India, Xuanzang had discovered how far Chinese Buddhism had deviated from its Indian source, and his translations and teachings were deliberate attempts to bring Chinese Buddhism back in line with Indian teachings. The ideas he opposed (primarily but not exclusively those that had been promoted by Paramārtha’s school) were already deeply entrenched in Chinese Buddhist thinking. While he was alive his pre-eminence made him unassailable, but once he died his detractors attacked his successor, Kuiji (632–82), and successfully returned Chinese and East Asian Buddhism to the trajectory established by the conflationists. (Wônch’ūk, a Korean student of Xuanzang, was a rival of Kuiji who fared better with the revivalists since he attempted to harmonize the teachings of Paramārtha and Xuanzang.) The underlying ideology of this resurgence, which reached its intellectual apex over the course of the Tang and Song Dynasties (sixth–twelfth centuries), was neatly summarized by the label ‘dharma-nature’ (faxing), that is, the metaphysical ground of Buddha-nature quadharma-dhātuqua mind-nature quatathāgatagarbha. Fazang argued that orthodox Yogācāra only understood dharma characteristics (faxiang), that is, phenomenal appearances, but not the deeper underlying metaphysical reality, ‘dharma-nature’. After Fazang, all the Sinitic Buddhist schools considered themselves dharma-nature schools; Yogācāra and sometimes Sanlun were considered merely dharma characteristics schools.
Four dharma-nature schools emerged. Each school eventually compiled a list of its patriarchs through whom its teachings were believed to have been transmitted. Modern scholarship in Japan and the West has shown that these lineages were usually forged long after the fact, and frequently were erroneous or distorted the actual historical events. For instance, while Huiyuan was an active promoter of the Sarvāstivādin teachings introduced during his time by Sanghadeva and Buddhabhadra, the later Pure Land schools dubbed him their initial Chinese patriarch on the basis of his alleged participation in Amitābha rituals, allegations that were probably first concocted during the Tang Dynasty. Similarly, the lineage of six Chan patriarchs from Bodhidharma to Huineng is unlikely; the Huayan lineage (Du Shun to Zhiyan to Fazang to Chengguan) was largely an invention of the ‘fourth’ patriarch, Chengguan: his predecessors were unaware that they were starting a new lineage and rather thought that they were reviving the true old-time religion of Paramārtha. It was also during the Tang dynasty that Tantra briefly passed through China, from whence it was brought to Japan and became firmly established as the Shingon school.
The entry explores the introduction and development of Buddhist philosophy in China, with a focus on the classical systems that became dominant during the medieval period and continue to shape modern conceptions of Buddhist theory and practice. It covers the main traditions of Mahāyāna doctrine, initially developed in India, which were transmitted into China together with other aspects of Buddhism: Madhyamaka (Middle Way), Yogācāra (Yoga Practice), and Tathāgatagarbha (Embryo of Buddhahood). The translation, study, and exegesis of canonical texts that expound these central doctrines gave rise to a number of distinct Chinese schools, which represent discrete traditions of Buddhist philosophy. Some of the early schools are usually described as Chinese versions of Indian systems of Buddhist philosophy. For instance, Shelun, Dilun, and Faxiang are closely associated with Yogācāra philosophy, while Sanlun is said to be a Chinese version of Madhyamaka. In contrast, during the late medieval period (from the late sixth to the tenth century) there was the emergence of uniquely Chinese systems of Buddhist philosophy, which were subsequently exported to other parts of East Asia. The last two sections of the entry describe the two most notable philosophical systems of that kind, developed by the Tiantai and the Huayan schools, which represent the pinnacles of ingenious philosophical thinking within Chinese Buddhism.
Mahayana Maha Ati (Dzogchen) tradition of Buddhism
eighteen schools, the division of the Buddhist community in India in the first three centuries following the death of the Buddha in c. 483 BC. Although texts speak of the “18 schools,” the lists differ considerably; and more than 30 names are mentioned in various chronicles.
The first division in the Buddhist community occurred as a result of the second council, said to have been held 100 years after the Buddha’s death, at Vaisali (Bihar state), when the Acariyavadins (followers of the traditional teaching) split away from the Sthaviravadins (followers of the Way of the Elders) and formed their own school, known as the Mahasanghikas. The Mahasanghikas’s views on the nature of the Buddha and the arhat (“saint”) foreshadowed the development of the Mahayana form of Buddhism. Further subdivisions of the Mahasanghikas over the next seven centuries included the Lokottaravadins, the Ekavyavaharikas, and the Kaukkutikas.
A subdivision within the Sthaviravadins emerged in the 3rd century BC, when the Sarvastivadins (followers of the Doctrine That All Is Real) broke away from the Vibhajyavadins (Those Who Make Distinctions). Other prominent offshoots of the Sthaviravadins were the Sammatiyas and the Vatsiputriyas, both known for their theory of pudgala (“person”); the Sautrantikas, who recognized the authority of the sutras (words of the Buddha) but not of the Abhidharma, the more schematic part of the canon; the Mahisasakas and the Dharmaguptas, whose names probably reflect their place of origin and founding teacher; and the Theravadins (Pali form of Sthaviravadins), the school that traveled to Sri Lanka and gave origin to the modern Theravadins, now prevalent in Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, and Cambodia.
All the Tibetan schools emerged from the Mahayana School of Buddhism, which is also the dominant form of Buddhism in China, Korea and Japan. Theravada (Hinayana) is the dominant school in southern India, Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka. The emergence and development of competing sects in Tibetan Buddhism is best viewed as a struggle between the clerical side of Buddhism, with its emphasis and textual study, and the Tantric side, which emphasizes shaman-style rituals and techniques. Each Tibetan school addresses this struggle and in most cases emphasizes either the clerical side or the Tantric side over the other.
All the different schools struggled for dominance as they emerged. But for the most part the ones that remain today complement one another; don’t compete and try to remain in harmony. All of the “Four Major Schools of Tibetan Buddhism” follow the core beliefs of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths and other teachings. Each school traces its founding in Tibet to a particular person, who in turn is connected to a particular tradition in India.
There are four principal schools within modern Tibetan Buddhism: 1) Nyingmapa founded by Padmasambhava, 2) Kagyupa, founded by Tilopa (988-1069), 3) Sakyapa created by Gonchok Gyelpo (1034-1102) and his son Gunga Nyingpo (1092-1158), 4) Gelugpa (The Virtuous School, Yellow Hat) founded by Tsong Khapa Lobsang Drakpa (also called Je Rinpoche) (1357 – 1419) and headed by the Dalai Lama.
The Nyingmapa Order is the oldest, dating back to the 8th century. The Kagyupa order and the Sakyapa order emerged around the same time in the 11th century. The Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) order emerged in the 15th century as a purer form of Buddhism at a time when the other schools were regarded as corrupt. It became the dominant school in the 17th century. The previously thought-to-be-defunct Tibetan Buddhist school of Jonang turns out to be very much alive in Dzamthang.
The Gelugpa order is often called the Yellow Hat school while the Kagyupa is called the White Hat or Red Hat school. The hats refer to the elaborate crescent-shaped hats worn by followers during ceremonies. The Chinese originated the terms to help them sort out the different schools in easy-to-remember terms, the same reason the terms are widely used by foreigners today. Sometimes the Red Hat term is used to describe all non-Yellow Hat schools. The term Black Hats refers to the Karma Kagyupa, a suborder of the Kagyupa school. This is because the leader of the Karma Kagyupa, the Karmapa Lama, is often referred to as the Black-Hat Lama because that is the color of his ceremonial hat.
The Nyingmapa Order traces its origins to Guru Rinpoche, an Indian sage who arrived in Tibet in the 8th or 9th century, and King Songtsen Gampo (630-649), who helped to establish Buddhism in Tibet. See Above
In the 11th century Tibetan Buddhism became stronger and more politicized. The power of the ruling monks increased and the religion splintered into several sects. This period was marked by fierce rivalry between sects: first between the Kagyupa order established by Milarepa (1040-1123) and the Sakyapa order which emerged in 1073 from the Sakya monastery, a monastery funded by the Kon family, and later between Yellow, Red and Black Hat schools.
In the 13th century, with the help of Mongolian supporters, the Sakyapa school took control of much of Tibet. The Mongols under Genghis Khan had raided Tibet but converted to Tibetan Buddhism after a meeting between Genghis Khan’s grandson, Kokonor, and the head of the Sakya monastery. Sakyapa rule lasted for about 100 years. Three secular dynasties — the Phgmogru, the Ripung and the Tsangpa — followed between the years 1354 and 1642, when the Yellow Hat (Gelugpa) school emerged as the dominant order.
Gelupa (Yellow Hat) School and the Fifth Dalai Lama
Fifth Dalai Lama
The Yellow Hats (Gelupa) emerged in the 15th century. They were given a big boost in the 16th century when the Mongols decided to support them. The school became preeminent in the middle of the 17th century, through the efforts of Mongolian supporters and Tibetan supporters inspired by the charismatic 5th Dalai Lama. The Yellow Hats took control of the central plateau and maintained control until British and Chinese incursions into Tibet in 19th century.
The 5th Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (1617-82) is regarded as the greatest of the Dalai Lamas. Born in Chongye in the Yarlung Valley, he unified Tibet and set the precedent for future Dalai Lamas. He was the first Dalai Lama to exercise temporal power and ruled benevolently as both a spiritual and political leader and initiated construction of the Potala palace. In paintings he wears a yellow hat and holds a thunderbolt in his right hand and a bell in his left hand. He is sometimes shown holding a lotus flower, a Wheel of Law or another sacred object.
See Yellow Hats, Below
Nyingmapa (Red Hats)
Nyingmapa (or Nyingma) is the oldest of the Tibetan Buddhist schools and the second largest school of Tibetan Buddhism. The Nyingma school is based primarily on the teachings of Padmasambhava, called Guru Rinpoche, “Beloved Master,” who is the founder of Nyingmapa and revered by the Nyingma school as the “second Buddha.” Featured Nyingmapa monasteries in Tibet include: Samye Monastery, Mindroling Monastery and Dorje Drak Monastery. It is said Nyingmapa was founded by Padmasambhava and is recognized in the West for the teachings of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Sometimes referred to among Tibetans as the Old School, the Nyingmapa Order was surpassed by the other major orders in the 11th century and remained in villages under shaman-like figures until the rebirth of Buddhism, also in the 11th century, when it experienced a revival after the “discovery” of hidden texts and “power places” visited by Guru Rinpoche revealed in Tantric visions by Nyingmapa masters.The Nyingmapa Order was never centralized and organized to the extent of the others and was considered too extremist. The Nyingmapa order was given a lift by the 5th Dalai Lama, who encouraged the expansion of the Mindroling and Dorje Drak monasteries, in U, which became the main Nyingmapa monasteries.
The Nyingmapa Order places great importance on the Dzogchen, or Great Perfection, teachings, which deeply influenced the other schools but is largely sneered at by them today. Dzogchen philosophy argues that there was a state of purity that existed at the beginning of time that pre-dated the duality of enlightenment and earthly living and this offers a Tantric shortcut to nirvana.
Padmascambhava’s system of Vajrayana or Tantric Buddhism was synthesized by Longchenpa in the 14th century. Along with tantric practices, Nyingma emphasizes revealed teachings attributed to Padmasambhava plus the “great completion” or Dzogchen doctrines, also known as ati-yoga (extraordinary yoga). It also makes wide use of shamanistic practices and local divinities borrowed from the indigenous, pre-Buddhist Bon religion. Nyingma monks are not generally required to be celibate. The most recent head of the Nyingma tradition was Mindrolling Trichen, who died in 2008. A successor has not been named.
Kagyupa (White Hats)
Marpa Kagyupa (“Whispered Transmission”) is the third largest school of Tibetan Buddhism. It was founded by Tilopa (988-1069) and important teachers include Naropa, Marpa, and Milarepa. Some trace Kagyupa’s origin back to Marpa the Translator,(1012-1123), a married Tibetan yogi famous for his Tantric power, and Milarepa (1040-1123). One of Milarepa’s disciples, Gampopa (1079-1153) established a number of monasteries. The Kagyupa order initially emphasized the Tantric side of Tibetan Buddhism over the clerical, textual side. As it became more organized it emphasized the textual, clerical side more and became hierarchal, and at this stage was accused of placing to much power in the hands of lamas and being corrupt Over time several Kagyupa suborders emerged. The most well known of these is the Karma Kagyupa (see Below). Others include the Drigungpa and Taglungpa schools, which are based respectively at the Drigung Til and Talung Monasteries in U.
Kagyupa teachings were brought to Tibet by Marpa in the 11th century. He was a Tibetan householder who traveled to India to study under the master yogin Naropa and gather Buddhist scriptures. Marpa’s most important student was Milarepa, to whom Marpa passed on his teachings only after subjecting him to trials of the utmost difficulty. In the 12th century, the physician Gampopa synthesized the teachings of Marpa and Milarepa into an independent school. As its name indicates, this school of Tibetan Buddhism places particular value on the transmission of teachings from teacher to disciple. It also stresses the more severe practices of hatha yoga. The central teaching is the “great seal” (mahamudra), which is a realization of emptiness, freedom from samsara and the inspearability of these two. The basic practice of mahamudra is “dwelling in peace,” and it has thus been called the “Tibetan Zen.” Also central to the Kagyupa schools are the Six Doctrines of Naropa (Naro Chödrug), which are meditation techniques that partially coincide with the teachings of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
The Kagyupa tradition is headed by the Karmapa Lama. The current head is the Seventeenth Gyalwa Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, who was born in 1985 in the Lhathok region of Tibet. Important Kagyupa teachers include Naropa, Marpa, and Milarepa. Some accounts name Marpa “The Translator” (1012-1099) as the founder of the Kagyu school, while other accounts name as the founder Gampopa (1084-1161), also known as Dagpo Lhaje, who was a student of Marpa’s disciple Milarepa. Kagyu is best known for its system of meditation and practice called Mahamudra.
Karmapa (Black Hats)
The Black Hat school is properly known as Kagyu Karma or Karmapa. It is a suborder of the Kagyupa (Red Hat) order and is led by the Karmapa Lama. It was once Tibet’s most politically powerful school but it was supplanted by the Yellow Hats of the Dalai Lama 350 years ago.
The Kagyo Karma order is credited with inaugurating the tradition of passing on leadership through the reincarnations of lamas when Dusim Khyenpa (1110-93), the abbot of Tsurphu Monastery, announced he would keep his position after death in a reincarnated form as someone else.
The Black Crown is the symbol of authority of the Karmapa Lama. Said to have been woven from the hair of female angels, it was presented to the 5th Karmapa by the Chinese emperor Yong-le in the 15th century. The 16th Karmapa Lama deposited it at Rumtek Monestray in Sikkim.
Tsurphu Monastery (70 kilometers northwest of Lhasa in Gurum in Doilungdêqên District) is a 12th century monastery in the Drowolung valley in central Tibet. It is the traditional seat of the Karmapa Lama, the head of the Karma Kagyu (Black Hat) lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. The last Karampa Lama was enthroned in a ceremony here. See NEAR LHASA factsanddetails.com
Sakyapa
Sakya Pandita Sakyapa is today the smallest of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It is named for the Sakya (“Gray Earth”) monastery in sourthern Tibet. In 1073, Khon Konchok Gyelpo (1034-l102) built Sakya Monastery in southern Tibet. His son and successor, Sakya Kunga Nyingpo (1092-1158)., founded the Sakya school. The abbots in the Sakya Monastery were devoted to the transmission of a cycle of Vajrayana central teaching and practice called Lamdrey, or “path and goal”, the systemization of Tantric teachings, and Buddhist logic.
The Sakya school had great political influence in the 13th and 14th centuries. Sakya teachers converted the Mongol leaders Godan Khan and Kublai Khan to Buddhism. Over time, the Sakya school gave rise expanded to two subsects called the Ngor lineage and the Tsar lineage. Sakya, Ngor and Tsar constitute the three schools (Sa-Ngor-Tsar-gsum) of the Sakya tradition. The headquarters of the Sakya sect today are at Rajpur in Uttar Pradesh, India. The current head is Ngawang Kunga Theckchen Rimpoche (b. 1945). Featured monasteries of Sakyapa in Tibet: Sakya Monastery
The Sakyapa Order emerged in the 11th and 12th centuries at monasteries where Indian Buddhist texts were being studied and translated into Tibetan. Its most well known figure was Kunga Pandita (1182-1251), who is often called Sakya Pandita (literally “Scholar for Sakya”). Regarded as manifestation of Jampelyang (Manjushri), the Bodhisattva of Insight, he served as a spiritual advisor for Kublai Khan and was involved in Chinese, Tibetan and Mongol politics.
The Sakyapa Order emphasizes the clerical-textual side of Tibetan Buddhism over Tantrism. It has largely been overshadowed by the Yellow Hat and Red Hat orders but remains alive today. Important Sakyapa lamas include Sakya Trizin, Ngawang Kunga, (head of the Sakyapa order), Chigye Trichen Rinpoche (head of the Tsarpa suborder) and Ludhing Khenpo Rnpoche (head of the Ngorpa suborder).
The Sakyapa Order established a number of monasteries that stressed the study of Buddhist scriptures. Among those who studied there was Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) school.
Gelugpa (The Yellow Hats)
The Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) order is the youngest school of Tibetan Buddhism, but is today the largest and the most important. It is lead by the Dalai Lama and was founded by Tsongkhapa (also called Je Rinpoche) (1357-1419), a lama who established a monastery at Ganden. Tsongkhapa attracted a number of followers who were disgusted by the corrupt rule of the Sakyapa and Kagyupa orders. After his death his followers established more monasteries and their movement came to be called the Gelugpa (“Virtuous”) order and the their leaders, the Dalai Lama. Featured Gelugpa monasteries in Tibet include: Drepung Monastery, Sera Monastery, Ganden Monastery, Tashilunpo Monastery.
Gelugpa practices are centered on achieving concentration through meditation and arousing the bodhisattva within. Three large monasteries were quickly established near Lhasa: at Dga’ldan (Ganden) in 1409, ‘Bras-spungs (Drepung) in 1416, and Se-ra in 1419. The abbots of the ‘Bras-spungs monastery first received the title Dalai Lama in 1578. The Gelugpa school has held political leadership of Tibet since the Dalai Lamas were made heads of state by the Mongol leader Güüshi Khan in 1642.
The Yellow Hats have dominated Tibetan Buddhism since the 17th century, when they pushed their rivals, the Black Hats, from power with the help of a Mongol prince. The Mongols coined the name Dalai Lama and helped the Yellow Hats gain dominance over the their rivals. The Red Hats have also traditionally been rivals of the Yellow Hats. The yellow hats are worn with red robes by monks during religious ceremonies. The hats look like large yellow bird claws or crescent moons and are worn with the concave side facing forward.
Tsong Kapa, Founder of the Yellow Hats
Tsong Kapa
Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) is the founder of the Yellow Hat order. He was a reformist monk who preached monastic discipline and doctrinal purity and called for a return to conservative doctrines. He called for stricter rules that prohibited monks from getting married (some did before then) and drinking wine.
Tsongkhapa is one of Tibet’s greatest scholars. He “enforced strict monastic discipline, restored celibacy and the prohibition of alcohol and meat, established a higher standard of learning for monks, and, while continuing to respect the Vajrayana tradition of esotericism that was prevalent in Tibet, allowed Tantric and magical rites only in moderation.” The first Gelug monastery, Ganden, was also built by Tsongkhapa in 1409.
Tsongkhapa is regarded as a manifestation of Jampelyan (Manjushri), the Bodhisattva of Wisdom. In paintings he is usually pictured with a yellow hat, holding two lotus flowers with his hands in the “teaching” mudra. He is often portrayed in a triad with his two main disciples, Kenrud Je and Gyastab Je.
Tsongkapa was born in Kokonor near present-day Xining in Qinghai Province. He left home at 17 and studied at all the major schools that existed in his time, but was particularly taken by the Sakyapa and Kadampa orders.
After moving to Netang (the home of the Ganden monetary) near Lhasa, his mother wrote him and asked him to return. He wrote her saying he couldn’t but, according to legend, around the same he wrote the letter, a pipal tree miraculously sprang up at his birthplace in Xining, the same way a Bodhi tree arose on the place where Buddha received the enlightenment. Taer monastery was established there in 1560. At Netamg Tsongkapa had a vison with the Indian scholar Atisha in it. The Ganden monastery was established there. The nephew of Tsongkhapa became the first Dalai Lama
Yellow Hat and Red Hat Beliefs
The Yellow Hat school emphasizes the scholarly approach to Buddhism and advocates following the traditional monastic code as a means of reaching nirvana. The Yellow Hats are regarded as a strict school. Their monks are known for their martial arts skills. By contrast its main rivals, the Red Hat school, emphasize a more Tantric approach.
Some have compared the Yellow Hats to Catholics and the Red Hats to Calvinists because the Yellow Hats donned colorful robes, lived in grand palaces, conducted elaborate ceremonies and put a great emphasis on following religious doctrines and texta like the Catholics while Red Hats are austere and mystical and look to the inner self rather than doctrines and books for answers.
The Yellow Hats are greatly influenced by the teachings of Atisha. They merged Mahayana doctrine with Tantric practices, while emphasizing scholarly study. The group does not condemn Tantric practices but argues that they take years to master and should not be viewed merely as shortcuts to enlightenment and nirvana.
Shugden
Some Yellow Hat Tibetan Buddhists, known as Shungdens, revere an avenging angel called Dorje Shugden. Mainstream Tibetan Buddhists and the Dalai Lama regard them as cultish and divisive. Shugden worship is particularly big around Litang.
The Shugdens have been called the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism because of their extreme views. Dorje Shugden is regarded as a vengeful protector god. He is often depicted as a sword-wielding warrior who wears a necklace of human heads and rides a snow lion through boiling blood. The Dalai Lama has been trying to discourage worship of Dorje Shugden since he first appeared in the 1600s.
Dorje Shugden is the renamed spirit of Tukla Dragpa Gyaltsen, a powerful 17th-century monk who challenged the 5th Dalai Lama and was murdered’suffocated to death by having ceremonial silk scarves stuffed down his throat — in his palace in 1656 by a close aide of the Dalai Lama. The name Dorge Shugen (“hurler of thunderbolts”) — is reference to his great power.
A senior monk named Kelsang Gyatso established a new Dorje Shugden order in England in 1991 and called it the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT). Followers of this school believe that the Dalai Lama is a traitor for being too compromising with China and too friendly with the Red Hat school (the Shugdens consider it a sin to talk to members of the Red Hat school or touch their religious objects).
Criticism the Shugdens
In 1996, the Dalai Lama denounced the NKT of being a dangerous and greedy commercial cult and warned followers of Tibetan Buddhism to stay clear of them. Two decades earlier he stop praying to the spirit of Dorje Shugden because he believed its negative energy worked against him and he was told by the oracle that Shugden was really an “evil spirit.”
The NKT is believed to be behind the murder of close associates of the Dalai Lama (SEE Above). Police believe the Dalai Lama’s condemnation of the NKT may have been the motive for the murder.
The NKT has also been accused of bilking its followers out of large amounts of money. One of it newsletters told followers” “if you are in the market for some merit (and who isn’t) here is a perfect opportunity” and then said buying a $4,800 NKT shrine cabinet, $3,200 NKT Buddha statue and a $48 tea-cup and saucer with mark of a senior monk were easy ways in which people could earn lots of merit..
Serthar Buddhist Institute
Serthar (Sertar) — a place in the remote, barren 13,000-foot-high Larung valley in the Tibetan region of western Sichuan — is the home of a unique Buddhist community. Founded in 1980 by Khenpo Jigme Phuntsog, who claims to be a reincarnation of the teacher of the previous Dalai Lama, the community boasted 10,000 followers who lived in spartan log cabins and mud huts, making it the largest group of its kind in the Tibetan regions. Most of the members were Tibetans but there were 1,000 ethnic Chinese members in the group.
The community was called Larung Gar (Gars means encampment) and Serthar Buddhist Institute. Located near the border with Tibet and Qinghai Province and 500 miles from the nearest city, it was surrounded by towering mountains and reached by dirt road Before the Buddhists arrived no one lived in the valley.
Larung was not a monastery. Its members included nuns, red-robed monks, scholars and laymen and women. It was not associated with any of the Tibetan schools. Doctrines from all three of the major Tibetan Buddhist schools are taught. The group was tolerated for while because Jigme Phuntosg went out of his way not to do anything to offend Beijing. Even so the “evil cult” law passed to combat Falun Gong in 2000 was used to crack down on the group, because it had grown so large and was perceived as a threat.
In 2001, armed police evicted hundreds of Tibetan nuns, monks and scholars from the Serthar. Houses were burned down and people who were evicted were forced to sign documents denouncing the Dalai Lama and threatened with arrest if they returned. Some nuns threatened to commit suicide rather than leave. The aim was not to close the community but to limit its size. See Places.
After the crackdown the community managed to survive. Many monks who were ordered to leave simply walked down te road and turned around and returned, sneaking past police. Members seemed to not care about the risks. After the crack down new members showed up. Their resistance called into question Beijing’s ability to crush religious and dissident groups.
As of early 2004, there were about 3,000 people at Serthar. Jogme Phuntsok continued to meet with small groups of students until his death in January 2004.
Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, National Geographic, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, Lonely Planet Guides, Compton’s Encyclopedia and various books and other publications.
Numerous Buddhist Acts emerged after the mid-11th century, including the Nyingma, Gatang, Sagya, Gagyu, Zhigyed, Gyoyul, Gyonang, Kodrag and Xalhu sects. The latter five were rather weak owing to the lack of political support. They were thus forced to join force or were otherwise annexed by other sects, and as individual entities fell into the oblivion of the long flow of history. The following five sects enjoyed impressive popularity:
Nyingma Sect. The sect, founded in the 11th century, is also known as the Red Sect and is the oldest sect of Tibetan Buddhism. The sect paid great attention to absorbing the fine points of the Bon religion and, at the same time, did its best to locate Buddhist sutras secreted away when Darma moved to suppress Buddhism. Based on its practice of Buddhism deeply rooted in the Tubo Kingdom of the 8th century, the sect called itself Nyingma, a word meaning ancient and old in the Tibetan language. Monks of the Nyingma Sect wore red hats, hence the name the Red Sect. The Red Sect mainly advocates the study of Tantrism. Its theory was strongly influenced by Han Chine language Buddhism, and is quite similar with the theory of Ch’an School of Buddhism in China’s hinterland. Today, the Red Sect is not only active in Tibetaninhabited areas in Ghina, but also in India, Bhuttan, Nepal, Belgium, Greece and France, as well as in the Unite States.
Gatang Sect. The Gatang Sect, founded in 1056, primarily advocated the study of Exoteric teachings, with later emphasis on Tantrism. In the Tibetan language, Ga refers to the teachings of Buddha, with tang meaning instruction. The combination Gatang thus refers to advising people to accept Buddhism based on the teachings of Buddha. Its doctrines were promoted far and wide and thus exerted great influence on various Tibetan Buddhist sects. However, along with the rise of the Gelug Sect in the 15th century, the Gatang Sect dissolved with its monks and monasteries merging with the former.
Sagya Sect. Sagya means “white land” in the Tibetan language. The Sagya Sect, founded in 1703, derived its name from the fact that the Sagya Monastery, the sect’s most important monastery, is grayish white in color. Enclosures in the sect’s monasteries are painted with red, white and black stripes, which respectively symbolize the Wisdom Buddha, the Goddess of Mercy and the Diamond Hand Buddha. Hence, the sect is also known as the Stripe Sect. The ever increasing influence of the sect and the expansion of feudal forces throughout its formation led to the increasing fame of the “five Sagya Sect Forefathers”. The Fourth Forefather Sapan Gonggar Gyaincain was summoned to Liangzhou in 1247 by the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) ruler to dialup matters concerning Tibet pledging allegiance to the Yuan Dynasty. This was followed by Sapan bringing various feudal forces in Tibet under control of the Mongols. Following the death of Sapan, Pagan, the Fifth Forefather of the Sagya Sect, emerged as a high-ranking official in the Yuan court. Pagba Was granted honorary titles such as “State Tutor”, ”Imperial Tutor” and ”Great Treasure Prince of Dharma.” Thereafter, the Sagya Sect emerged as the Yuan Dynasty representative in Tibet. During the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) , Gonggar Zhaxi, an eminent monk with the Sagya Sect, journeyed to Nanjing, capital of the Ming Dynasty, to pay homage to Emperor Yongle. Gongar was granted an honorary title as the “Mahayana Prince of Dharma”, one of the three Princes of Dharma.
Gagyu Sect. The Gagyu Sect, founded in the 11th century, stresses the study of Tantrism and advocates that Tantrist tenets be passed down orally from one generation to another. Hence the name Gagyu, which in the Tibetan language means “passing down orally.” Marba and Milha Riba, the founders of the Gagyu Sect, wore white monk robes when practicing Buddhism , leading to the name White Sect. In the early years, the White Sect was divided into the Xangba Gagyu which declined in the 14th and to 15th centuries, and the Tabo Gagyu. The Tabo Gagyu was powerful and its branch sects were either in power in their respective localities or otherwise dominant amongst feudal forces.
Gelug Sect. The Gelug Sect, founded in 1409, was the most famous Buddhist sect in Tibetan history dating to the 15th century. The sect was founded during the reform of Tibetan Buddhism initiated by Zongkapa. Zongkapa himself was born at a time when the Pagmo Zhuba replaced the Sagya Regime in power. At that time, upper-class monks involved in political and economic power struggle led a decadent life, and rapidly lost popularity with society. Faced with this situation, Zongkapa called for efforts to follow Buddhist tenets. He proceeded to undertake lecture tours in many areas and wrote books accusing decadent monks of failing to abide by Buddhist tenets. Zongkapa spared no effort to press ahead with Buddhist reform. For example, in the first month of 1409 according to Tibetan calendar, Zongkapa initiated the Grand Summons Ceremony in Lhasa’s Jokhang Monastery. The ceremony remains in practice even today. This effort was closely followed by the construction of the famous Gandain Monastery and the founding of the Gelug Sect which was famous for its strict adherence to commandments. The Tibetan language meaning of Gelug is “commandments”. Zongkapa and his followers wore yellow hats, and thus the Gelug Sect is also known as the Yellow Sect. Since its founding, the Yellow Sect has built the Zhaibung, Sera, Tashilhungpo, Tar and Labrang monasteries, which join the Gandain Monastery as the six major monasteries of the Gelug Sect. The Yellow Sect is also known for formation of the two largest Living Buddha reincarnation systems – the Dalai and Bainqen systems.
References
Jeffrey L. Broughton, trans. 2009. Zongmi on Chan. New York: Columbia University.
Francis Harold Cook, trans. 1999. Three Texts on Consciousness Only. Berkeley, CA: Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai and Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
Swanson, Paul L. 1989. Foundations of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
Ziporyn, Brook. 2000. Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Asia Center.
Thurman, Robert A. F. & Ruegg, David Seyfort (1985). The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (2):380.
MacKenzie, Matthew D. (2007). The illumination of consciousness: Approaches to self-awareness in the indian and western traditions. Philosophy East and West 57 (1):40-62.
MacKenzie, Matthew (2015). Reflexivity, Subjectivity, and the Constructed Self: A Buddhist Model. Asian Philosophy 25 (3):275-292.
Kriegel, Uriah (2019). Dignāga’s Argument for the Awareness Principle: An Analytic Refinement. Philosophy East and West 69:144-156.
Kellner, Birgit (2011). Self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) and Infinite Regresses: A Comparison of Arguments by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. Journal of Indian Philosophy 39 (4-5):411-426.
Kellner, Birgit (2010). Self-Awareness in Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya and -vṛtti: A Close Reading. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38 (3):203-231.
Hattori, Masaaki (1970). Dignāga, on Perception. Philosophy East and West 20 (2):195-196.
Garfield, Jay L. (2006). The conventional status of reflexive awareness: What’s at stake in a tibetan debate? Philosophy East and West 56 (2):201-228.
Ganeri, Jonardon (2017). Mental Time Travel and Attention. Australasian Philosophical Review 1 (4):353-373.
Finnigan, Bronwyn (2015). Madhyamaka Buddhist Meta-ethics: The Justificatory Grounds of Moral Judgments. Philosophy East and West 65 (3):765-785.
Bernier, Paul (2015). Dignāga on Reflexive Awareness. Philosophy East and West 65 (1):125-156.
Arnold, Dan (2010). Self-Awareness (svasaṃvitti) and Related Doctrines of Buddhists Following Dignāga: Philosophical Characterizations of Some of the Main Issues. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38 (3):323-378.
Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981). The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Siderits, Mark ; Thompson, Evan & Zahavi, Dan (eds.) (2011). Self, no self?: perspectives from analytical, phenomenological, and Indian traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfield, Jay L. (2015). Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy. New York, US: Oxford University Press USA.
Siderits, Mark (2021). Buddhism as Philosophy. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Arnold, Daniel Anderson (2005). Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. Columbia University Press.
Coseru, Christian (2012). Perceiving Reality: Consciousness, Intentionality, and Cognition in Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Cowherds, The (2011). Moonshadows: Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy. Oup Usa.
Siderits, Mark (2007). Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Hackett Pub. Co..
Finnigan, Bronwyn (2017). Buddhist Idealism. In Tyron Goldschmidt & Kenneth Pearce (eds.), Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 178-199.
Finnigan, Bronwyn (2018). Madhyamaka Ethics. In Daniel Cozort & James Mark Shields (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Ethics. Oxford University Press. pp. 162-183.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/buddha-figurine-and-candles-on-ledge-457977385-5ab2dd69a474be001947f353.jpg)
Viewpoints which Matter 
