The concept of practice in San-lun thought
·期刊原文
The concept of practice in San-lun thought: Chi-Tsang and the "concurrent insight" of the two truths
Koseki, Aaron K.
Philosophy East and West
Volume 31 no.4
pp.449-466
The University of Hawaii Press
(C)by the University Press of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
p.449
This inquiry takes as its point of departure a
commonly held view of San-lun thought,namely, this
lack or neglect of the practical. Richard Robinson
spells this characterization out more fully: Three
Treatises doctrine is quite simply a restatement of
Naagaarjuna's teaching in a new vocabulary, with few
additional theses on matters such as the Two Truths
where Naagaarjuna was too brief and vague. The Three
Treatises lineage died out after Chi-tsang. He was
not a meditation master, and the Chinese were not
prepared by their type of education to pursue
enlightenment through the therapeutic exercise of
dialectic.(1)
While we share the observation of "new vocabulary"
and the view that the two truths theory was
subjected to exhaustive analysis in Chi-tsang's(549-
623) writings, we need to suspend judgment on the
meaning of "restatement" and the matter of pursuing
illumination through reasoning alone. The basic
underlying assumption of this study is that, despite
the fact that a San-lun Buddhist such as Chi-tsang
was committed to the scholarly exposition of the two
truths theory, which necessarily implies a concern
with the use of dialectic, the aim of his writings
was not simply the theoretical analysis of doctrine,
but also the clarification of various points
concerning the meaning of the religious goal of
enlightenment. While Chi-tsang's writings seem to
favor the theoretical at the expense of the
practical, it was to the conclusion of practice with
which he was concerned. Proper understanding of
san-lun thought, therefore, requires an orientation
toward this aspect as well.
In describing the dimension of practice in San-lun
thought, it is neither the aim of this study to
demonstrate the Maadhyamika system, nor is it my
pupose to analyze again the transmission of this
dctrine to China. Rather, our task is to isolate an
historical and theoretical framework for practice in
Chi-tsang's thought and to examine how the two
truths theory provided both the foundation for
systematic doctrine and the substance of the
practical life. Specifically, we will explore a
theory of practice called "concurrent insight" (erh-
ti ping-kuan(a) ) described in one of Chi-tsang's
earliest works, the Erh-ti-i (Essay on the two
truths) .(2) This practice is significant and
deserves explication for two reasons. First, it
raises the question of whether Chi-tsang's religious
insight was a variation of an old Maadhyamika theme,
or was in fact an innovative theme determined by a
very practical concern for wisdom. This question,
however, will only be considered on points where it
is specifically related to the pivotal issue of the
relationship between the theory and practice of the
two truths. Second, it is also important to consider
the relationship between the San-lun interpretation
of the two truths and several practical elements
present in the Buddhist world between the end of the
North-Sound
p.450
period (circa 420-589) and the beginning of the
Sui-T'ang period: the need to clarify Mahaayaana
contemplaltive methods of practice, the definition
of the contemplative object (vi.saya), and the
description of the content of practice itself. The
emergence of a San-lun tradition of meditation
masters can also be understood within this
historical context. Because Chi-tsang's theory of
practice and the emergence of San-lun practioners
are historically and doctrinally related, this
period of early San-lun development deserves
examination. The presentation, therefore, will move
from a discussion of the history of the early
San-lun sa^ngha to a discussion of the relationship
between theory and practice in San-lun thought, and,
from that point, to an examination of "concurrent
insight."
MEDITATION MASTERS OF THE SHE-LING(b) TRADITION
In the period following Kumaarajiiva (350-409) and
Seng-chao (373-414), two ellements characterize the
San-lun Buddhist group centered on Mt.she near the
ancient city of Chin-ling (Nanking)(3):the exculsive
study of the primary San-lun texts and the
Praj~naapaaramitaa literature, and the increasing
emphasis on contemplative practice which was missing
(or at least dormant) in the "old theories of
Kuan-chung." (4) There was some irony in the manner
in which these developments occurred. It was
occasioned by the fact that the San-lun or
"She-ling" sa^ngha was split by internal dissension
during the tenure of the second San-lun patriarch,
Chih-kuan Seng-ch'uan.(5) Debates and discussions
within this group were concerned explicitly with
clarifying distinctions between San-lun doctrine and
the theories of the Liang (502-557) Ch'eng-shih
tradition.(6) Moreover, there was also a split among
San-lun advocates concerning the actual practice of
praj~naapaaramitaa and the limits of praj~naa
scholarship. During this period increasing efforts
were made to maintain a "pure" study of the San-lun
texts and the praj~naapaaramitaa canon. Evidence for
this may be seen in Chi-tsang's Ta-p'in ching i-su
( Commentary on the Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa-suutra )
which records the following:
The master of Chih-kuan [Seng-ch'uan] resided six
years on the mountain[that is, Mt.She.] He did not
lecture on other sutras, but only lectured on the
Praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras. In his later years stu-
dents asked him to lecture on the Nirvaa.na-suutras,
but the master said: "Since you understand the
praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras, why do you again want me
to lecture on the Nirvaa.na [-suutra?] It is merely
sufficient to read the Three Treatises and the
Praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras; it is not necessary to
lecture on other texts.(7)
During Seng-ch'uan's tenure as head monk, it appears
that students' interests in Ekayaana texts were
severely curtailed, and this passage may reflect his
desire to establish an independent tradition of
San-lun study in the south. Beginning with
Seng-ch'uan, we also see the development of a
tradition of contemplative practice within the
She-ling group. The biography of Chi-tsang's master,
Fa-lang (507-581), records that Seng-ch'uan would
frequently and abruptly stop
P.451
lecturing and leave for the forests to continue
meditation. At one tiem, upon his return,Seng-ch'uan
is reported to have told his students:
If this doctrine is profoundly understood, one can
practice it. There is no reason for leaving the room
and disclosing it. Therefore, a suutra says: "One
who holds to the view of self should not explain
this suutra, and one who enjoys the Dharma should
not speak about it too much." (8)
To certain members of the group it seemed that
debate and argumentation on the meaning of doctrine
was rather sterile, and sensitivity ot this problem,
if we may rely on the biographical material, seems
to have led Seng-ch'uan to place a stronger emphasis
on the cultivation of meditation practice. This
became a divisive element among Seng-ch'uan's four
eminent students:Fa-lang, Ch'i-hsia Hui-pu,Chang-kan
Chih-pien, and Ch'an-chung Hui-yung.(9) While
Seng-ch'uan was alive there may not have been a
balance between study and practice because, as
Fa-lang's biography again notes, "Lang and the
others obeyed Seng-ch'uan's wishes and dared not say
anything."(10) Given a choice between scholarship
practice, Seng-ch'uan, who was styled "`samatha-
vipa`syanaa" (that is, Chik-kuan), clearly preferred
the latter and apparently insisted that his students
emulate him. Among the four men who studied under
him, the most remarkable fact is that, with the
exception of Fa-lang, the lifestyles of the other
three individuals more strongly reflects the
practical side of early San-lun Buddhists:
Hui-pu: He was always happy sitting in meditation
far from the clatter and confusion; he vowed that he
would not lecture and maintained this as his
duty....He solely cultivated mental wisdom and was
happy staying alone in the pine forests [away from]
annoying worldly matters.(11)
Chih-pien: Therefore, Master Pien was equally
proficient in meditation and wisdom. He lectured
equally among the group of practioners, and this may
have been due to the encouragement of Master Ch'uan.
Hence, at that time, the essence of his theories
differed from Master [ FA-] Lang's, and this caused
Hsing-huang [ that is, Fa-lang], sitting in the
middle, to criticize him as a "follower of the
middle and provisional."(12)
Hui-yung: He practiced emptiness and cultivated
wisdom. He sought the winds of the broad forests.
Hence, he stayed at the Chih-kuan temple, and from
morning to night was in peace and harmony.(13)
The importance of this period in the history of
Praj~naapaaramitaa in China is that the introduction
of contemplative practice determined the course of
the development of the San-lun tradition. It is
signaled the emergence of a new generation of
San-lun practioners who appeared from the She-ling
sa^ngha following Seng-ch'uan. Based on biographical
data, it is also clear that from this period there
was a close interchange of ideas and historical
figures between San-lun scholars and the early
practioners of Ch'an Buddhism.(14)
In contrast ot his fellow students, after Seng-
ch'uan's death, Fa-lang continued the tradition of
scholarship and passed this on to his disciple
Chi-tsang. While both mnonks lived in a sa^ngha of
practioners and scholars, the
P.452
continuing presence of Ch'eng-shih advocates, whose
theories were judged to be misrepresentations of
Praj~naapaaramitaa thought, forced them to take up
the task of clarifying and systematizing San-lun
doctrine. In light of the enormous amount of
material written by Chi-tsang, it is clear that he
carried on the tradition of San-lun scholarship.
There were other San-lun disciples, however, who
specifically emphasized the meditative life. For
example, among the thirteen disciples of Fa-lang
listd in the Hsu Kao-seng-chuan, (15) one individual
who sharply contrasts the scholarly life of
Chi-tsang is a meditation master known as Ta-ming
("Great Ming"). Biographical references to Ta-ming
indicate that he entered Fa-lang's sa^ngha at a late
age, spent a few years studying at the Hsing-huang
temple, and then left with a group of practioners
for a Taoist hermitage on Mao-shan. The biographical
material also shows that there were several
individuals closely associated with the early
development of Ch'an Buddhism who appeared from his
tradition of San-lun practioners centered on Mt.
Mao.(16) One of Ta-ming's immediate disciples, for
examples, was Fa-jung (594-657), the founder of the
Niu-tou (Ox-Head) tradition of Ch,an.Another "grand
disciple" was a somewhat obscure practioner named
Fa-ch'ung(587-665?) who was closely tied to the
La^nkaavataara tradition of Ch'an. His biography
records that he was a student of the "One vehicle
tradition of India" and that his doctrinal
standpoint was "beyond conceptualization and
verbalization, true insight into non-acquisition
(anup-alambha)." (17) This is a remarkable statement
in view of the fact that the San-lun doctrinal
standpoint was also based on similar insights.(18)
As far as Ta-ming's status in the She-ling tra-
dition is concerned, the biography of Fa-min
(597-645), Ta-ming's disciple, records that Ming was
the "real" successor of the "Hsing-huang temple" and
the "She-shan" (that is, She-ling) traditions. (19)
That is to say, a San-lun practioner and his group
on Mt.Mao were, in the eyes of Tao-hsuan (the
compiler of the biographies) , the legitimate
transmitters of San-lun thought in the period
following the death of Seng-ch'an and Fa-lang. In
light of the absence of any work written by Ta-ming
or other San-lun practioners, it is difficult to
determine the reasons for Tao-hsuan's reference to
Ta-ming as the legitimate heir of the San-lun
tradition. There simply may have been several
"branch" lines of San-lun thought. However, the
biographical reference to Ta-ming has important
implications with regard to the breakup of a
"scholarly" San-lun sa^ngha and the continuation of
a tradition of San-lun practioners which survived
well into the T'ang period. That is to say, apart
from the question of an "orthodox" San-lun line, to
conclude that the San-lun tradition ends with
Chi-tsang is to consider him as the only line of
San-lun thought following Fa-lang. Again, as the
biographical data indicates,scholars and practioners
equally appeared from Fa-lang's center of activity
at the Hsing-huang temple in Chin-ling. Because it
is evident that the study of praj~naa and the
practice of praj~naapaaramitaa continued in one form
or another in succeeding generations of San-lun
P.453
disciples, it is necessary that we examine
Chi-tsang's thought in this context. Although
Chi-tsang was not a meditation master, one should
not overlook the historical circumstances that led
to the development of a tradition of practice in the
She-ling tradition or ignore the contemplative life
of such San-lun meditation masters as Ta-ming. The
matter under consideration here, therefore, is not
to determine whether Chi-tsang was a meditator.
Rather, it is important to determine if there were
practical considerations in his development of
doctrine. Since the San-lun meditation masters left
no written works, our best and only alternative is
to examine the doctrine of practice contained in
Chi-tsang's writings. What is sometimes clouded by
his formal explanation of the two truths theory is
the fact that this theory was also referred to as
"insight into the two truths" (erh-ti kuan(c)), a
phrase which expresses the theoretical and practical
integrity of this doctrine.
THEORY AND PRACTICE: ESSENCE AND FUNCTION
One major feature of Chi-tsang's thought is that it
follows a basic and repeated pattern of "essence and
function" (t'i-yung(d) ) . This Chinese mode of
thought was also used to explain the relationship
between the theory and practice of the two truths.
For example, in one of his most famous works, the
San-lun-hsuan-i, Chi-tsang explained the two truths
theory in the following way:
The true mark (shih-hsiang(e)) of dharmas is beyond
conceptualization and verbalization. Because it has
never been ultimate [truth] or phenomenal [truth],
it is called the essence. Because it severs errors,
it is called true, and hence, we speak of true
essence. What is meant by true function is that, if
this essence transcends verbalization there would be
no reason for the comprehension of things. Though
neither existent nor inexistent, we are compelled to
speak of ultimate and phenomenal, and this is called
function.(21)
Although this passage explains the theoretical
relationship between "teaching" (two truths) and the
ineffable essence, it does not specifically explain
how one is to comprehend this "true mark." In the
following passage from the Commentary on the Middle
Treatise, we are given a clear understanding of the
meaning of "function":
First, we explain the essence of the teaching,
namely, the two truths, and next we explain the
function of the two truths,viz; the "two knowledges"
(erh-chif(f) ) . We seek to explain truth and
knowledge as the interdependency between teaching
and practice. Again, we first explain the to truths
and then explain the two knowledges becaue the
former primarily explains the meaning of he
teaching, and the latter explains the experience of
the teaching. For this reason, we speak of the two
truths to cause sentient beings to give rise to the
two knowledges.(22)
Both passages are instructive in showing where
Chi-tsang's interest lay in describing and defining
the relationship between theory and practice. (23)
While the general pattern of essence and function is
the same in both passages, the
P.454
emphasis in the second passage has, in a subtle way,
shifted to more practical concerns: "practice."
namely, the two knowledges, is seen as a function of
the doctrine itself. The relationship between the
two truths and the two knowledges. then, is a
definition of the interdependency between teaching
and the cultivation of a method designed to
comprehend the ineffable essence. What is not
explicit in the above passages. however, is the idea
of a specific contemplative object. How the two
knowledges are to be applied may be seen in the
following passages from Chi-tsang's ta-ch'eng
hsuan-lun (A compendium on Mahaayaana doctrine): The
Tathaagata depends on the two truths to explain the
Dharma.Therefore,the two truths are called teachings.
They give rise to the two knowledges, and hence, the
two truths are called the object-of-congition.
The middle path of the two truths gives rise to the
two knowledges of insight into the middle. In turn,
the two knowledges intuit the middle path of the two
truths.
Dependent on these two truths, there arises two
knowledges, and because of the comprehension of the
true mark of dharmas, there arises praj~naa and
upaaya.(24)
What is significant in these passages, aside from
the fact that the two truths, the middle path, and
the true mark are seen as being substantially
identical, is that the "middle path of the two
truths" or the "true mark of the middle path" have
been sigled out as the appropriate object of
functional practice. Because terms associated with
the theoretical explanation of the two truths are
also found in the explanation of practice, it is
somewhat difficult to state precisely where theory
stops and practice begins. A shift from theoretical
to practical concerns is implied by a change in
vocabulary, but apart from this change there seems
to be very little difference in Chi-tsang's
understanding of the theory and practice of the two
truths. While this suggests that Chi-tsang did not
ultimately see a major distinction between them, in
the preceding passages there is one significant
difference, and that is, in its association with the
two knowledges, the importance of the two truths
lies more in its particular meaning as object than
in its archetypal form as ultimate (para-maartha)
and worldly (samv^rtti) truths.
Although the development of contemplative practices
in China is not our particular concern here, it
should be noted that this interpretation of a
theoretical concept as an object of contemplative
practice is not entirely new. By the beginning of
the Sui, Kumaarajiiva's translations of the
Praj~naapaaramitaa canont and other canonical works
dealing with meditation practice had already served
to clarify certain differences between Hiinayaana
and Mahaayaana methods of practice.(25) By
Chi-tsang's day the Mahaayaana idea of an
object-of-cognition did not refer to the stabilizing
of the mind on a concrete object, but to the
comprehension of such concepts and ideas as the
"first principle truth," the "true mark of dharmas,"
"true dharma," "Buddha-nature," and so forth. In
general, meditation practice was expressed in tems
of the comprehension of a
P.455
more abstract reality that was expressionless,
inconceivable, and transcendent.(26) Taken from the
context of various canonical writings, the preceding
terms and phrases all represent the fundamental idea
of an inexpressible and nonverbalized truth. The
San-lun model of practice can also be understood
within this context. By identifying the two truths
as a synonym for true mark and the middle path,
Chi-tsang is also suggesting that the practice of
perceiving the two truths can also be considered in
terms of praj~naapaaramitaa which is, of course, of
major importance to any Mahaayaana theory of
practice that draws its inspiration from the
Praj~naapaaramitaa teachings. Because the third
passage cited earlier defines the two knowledges as
praj~naa and upaaya, at this point it may be useful
to see how Chi-tsang uses these terms as the basis
for religious and practical considerations.
PRAJ~NAA, UPAAYA, AND THE TRUE MARK OF DHARMAS
Traditionally, the Mahaayaana concept of j~naana is
generally described as a function of the
Tathaagata's enlightenment, and, for the most part,
refers to an "ultimate knowledge of emptiness"
(shih-chih(g) ) and a "provisional knowledge of
dharmas" (chuan-chih(h)). J~naana, then, refers to
the functional aspect of enlightenment that is
applied to all worldly, transworldly, phenomenal,
ultimate, etcetera, matters. Chi-tsang also uses
these terms to describe his concept of the two
knowledges, but by and large he limits his
vocabulary to the transliterated Sanskrit terms of
pan-jo(i) (praj~naa) and ou-ho-chu-she-lo(j)
(upaaya-kau'salya). Praj~naa, of course, refers to
the perfection of wisdom, and in contrast to the
Tathaagata's "provisional knowledge," the knowledge
of praj~naa is frequently described as a
"fundamental non-discriminating knowledge, " a
"knowledge of tathaata, or a "knowledge of non-
arising" (anutpattika-dharmak.saanti) .(27) Again,
while the meaning of the two knowledges is quite
similar to these traditional terms, Chi-tsang does
not use them, but confines his discussion to
sarvaj~na,"praj~naa-knowledge," and sarvathaaj~naana,
"upaaya-knowledge." Further, while these two
categories of knowledge are traditionally associated
with the Tathaagata, Chi-tsang felt that they were
also part of the bodhisattva's practice leading to
enlightenment (that is, "wisdom" as j~naana).(28) In
this respect, Chi-tsang accepted the Ta-chih-tu-lun
definition of a dual bodhisattva path and distinguish
-ed between a "path of praj~naa-knowledge" and a
"path of upaaya-knowledge." (29) By using the term
"path," however, Chi-tsang did not mean a maarga
system. Rather, what Chi-tsang was suggesting by
using the terms "path of praj~na" and "path of
upaaya" was that the two knowledges were to be
understood within the practical framework of the
da'sabhuumi and the ten paaramitaa.
According to Chi-tsang, the path of praj~naa was
associated with the sixth stage of bodhisattva
practice and contained four functional attributes:
(1) praj~naa intuits the true mark, (2) it is the
perfection of non-attachment (anupalambha), (3) it
dispells delusion, and (4) it serves as a guide for
the path
P.456
of upaaya. (30) Nowhere does Chi-tsang's explanation
spell out in detail the specific procedures for the
sixth stage, expect to note that, within this stage,
emptiness is comprehended and the bonds of kle'sa
are severed. (31) Apart from these general descrip-
tions of praj`naa, Chi-tsang made no fruther attempt
to define its functions. since the sixth stage
represented the "praj~naa-insigh" or perspective of
emptiness, Chi-tsang felt that praj~naa itself
defied all expression. (32) In this respect, the
path of praj~naa was not perceived as a stage of
practice, but was understood as something akin to an
"inherent" or "fundamental" state of things
unblemished by dualistic thinking and erroneous
views. (33)
In contrast ot praj~naa, the following attributes of
upaaya were defined as the "skill of praj~naa": (1)
the skill of intuiting the object-of-cognition, (2)
non-substantiation of emptiness,and (3) the function
of practice. (34) According to Chi-tsang, these
attributes of upaaya define the direction of
Mahaayaana practice and give substantive meaning to
praj!naa. Specifically, this meant that, supported
by the attributes of praj~naa in the sixth stage,
the seventh stage was the occasion for the
demonstration of that religious insight. As far as
Mahaayaana practice is concerned, the attributes of
upaaya also suggest that the bodhisattva's practice
avoids both the error of conceiving enlightenment as
a self-essence and the error of conceptualizing
emptiness as the final goal. According to Chi-tsang,
however, the primary function of upaaya was
practice, namely, the "practice of emptiness"
(k'ung-hsing(k) ). By this expression, Chi-tsang
meant that, guided and informed by praj~naa, the
path of upaaya shifts the emphasis in practice away
from intuiting an effable and undifferentiated whole
and directs it toward the refutation of discursive
thinking:
Praj~naa, then, intuits the true mark of dharmas and
upaaya intuits the dharmas' true mark. Hence, one
does not sink into the perspective of emptiness.
This is called nonsubstantiation. As the
Ta-chih-tu-lun says: "Praj~naa enters the final
emptiness in which there is no prapa~nca and upaaya
appears from the final emptiness to teach men."
"Entering the final emptiness in which there is no
prapa~nca" is identical with intuiting the true
mark; it refers to non-grasping as well as the skill
of severing delusion. Upaaya appears from the final
emptiness and is guided by praj~naa. (35)
Since the refutation fo errors and discriminating
views is rather meaningless in the context of the
path of praj~naa, upaaya as the "practice of
emptiness" can only be understood in terms of the
phenomenal level. Inasmuch as the two paths are
understood to be complementary in the seventh stage,
the goal of practice is not associated with
praj~naapaaramitaa alone. Moreover, since praj~naa
is understood to guide upaaya, the seventh stage
also represents the occasion for the comprehension
of the middle path. Implicit in the preceding
passage is the idea that, through the perfection of
the two paths, one may, by a process unexplained,
comprehend the mutual identity between emptiness
(true mark of dharmas) and existence (dharmas' true
mark). This concept of mutual identity
P.457
is especially significant in terms of the perception
of a single true mark, and it may be approporiate at
this point, before turning to an examination of
"concurrent insight," to see how this basic model of
practice influenced Chi-tsang's interpretation of
the true mark, a traditional synonym for emptiness.
Although the term true mark can be traced to the
Praj~naapaaramitaa canon, Chi-tsang's description of
it as "beyond conceptualization and verbalization"
indicates that his textual source is the seventh
stanza from the Middle Treatise's chapter on aatman:
"The true mark of dharmas is beyond conceptualization
and verbalization; it is neither arising nor ceasing,
and like nirvaa.na, it is quiescent." (36) A
traditional way of explaining this concept was the
method of negation-the "eight neganations" are the
favorite example-that is, a series of refutations
designed to "reveal" the true mark. This traditional
view can be seen, for example, in Chi-tsang's
Commentary on the Twelve Topic Treatise. There, he
presents Seng-jui's (352-463) concept of the
"refutative middle of the true mark":
Master Jui explained true mark in terms of ten
negations: not within and not without, not men and
not dharmas, not object and not subject, not true
and not false, and not gained and not lost. Hence,
it is called the true mark. (37)
Here, and in the Middle Treatise's explanation of
the term, the use of negation essentially describes
the true mark by defining what it is not. The
primary purpose of this negative method is to
circumscribe, and hence avoid, the tendency to
conceptualize and hypostatize the true mark. As a
student of praj~naa, it is not surprising that
Chi-tsang also relies on this traditional method,
for in an absolute sense, he agrees with the Middle
Treatise that the true mark is"beyond conceptualiza-
tion and verbalization." However, as in the case of
the two knowledges where praj~naa and upaaya are
seen as complementary, to characterize the San-lun
view of true mark as just a series of negations, the
rejection of things, is somewhat misleading. Since
the two paths are directed toward the comprehension
of the middle path doctrine characteristic of the
seventh stage, one finds that Chi-tsang reexamined
the Middle Treatise verse from the standpoint of the
original paradigm of essence and function with the
motif of interdependency. This can be seen in the
following passage where he discusses the relation-
ship between the true mark and provisional reality:
Before the Three Treatises appeared, there were
Abhidharma followers, Ch'eng-shih followers, as well
as meditation masters, vinaya masters, practioners
of the Tao, and devotionalists. Individuals such as
these all adhere to arising and ceasing or to
impermanence or permanence. They obstruct the true
insight of the middle path and thus obstruct the
great funcction (ta-yung) of the unlimited
interdependency of provisional reality. If one
realizes the true mark, one then comprehends the
great function of the unlimited inter-dependency of
provisional reality. (38)
In this passage we see an attempt to describe the
true mark on a phenomenal level. This interpretation
also reflects his basic model of practice. In terms
of
P.458
upaaya, for example, the perception of "great
function" refers to the functional attribute of
"intuiting the object" which, in this case, means
the dharmas of pratiityasamutpaada. Accordingly,
while the traditional view expressed in the Middle
Treatise verse asserts the single dimension of
ineffability, Chi-tsang is attempting to validate
his assertion that, in the context of essence and
function, functional and provisional reality equally
reveals the true mark. This also means that the true
mark is not limited to nonverbalization, but
contains an aspect of verbalization as well:
Again, it is not simply that the true mark cannot be
expressed. That is, words are also the true mark.
Hence, the goddess addressed 'Saariputra, saying,
"You merely understand that the true mark is without
words, but have yet to understand that words are
identical with the true mark." Hence, words fill the
ten directions and always transcend the
tetralemma.(39)
By stressing the integral functions of the two
knowledges, there is greater emphasis in Chi-tsang's
thinking of the functional and provisional qualities
of the true mark. Insofar as praj~naa informs
upaaya, the purpose of perceiving the true mark is
not to grasp something immutable; it is not the
discovery of ultimate reality yonder, but in the
midstof the conventional order of things. Moreover,
since the attributes of upaaya shift the emphasis in
practice away from a noumenous goal, the perception
of the true mark is also consistent with the general
Mahaayaana spirit of bodhisattva practice described
in an earlier citation as the "teaching of men."
This basic structure of practice outlined in the
preceding sections is also evident in Chi-tsang's
explanation of the "concurrent insight of the two
truths."
"CONCURRENT INSIGHT" AND THE TWO KNOWLEDGES
When Chi-tsang began writing his essays on the two
truths, he was especially anxious to refute what he
regarded as the erroneous views of the Ch'eng-shih
school, a tradition of scholarship which began in
the Liang period based on a text known as the
Ch'eng-shih lun (Tattvasiddhi?). To a certain extent
the Liang theories were used as a foil to present
his own doctrinal views and to answer to the
recriminations that the San-lun tradition was a
variation of the earlier Ch'eng-shih lun studies. At
the root of his polemic spirit was his belief that,
in the intervening years of the Southern dynasties,
the Liang masters had misinterpreted the two truths
doctrine and, therefore, had produced unwarranted
assumptions concerning the middle path doctrine.
Chi-tsang, however, did not criticize the
Ch'eng-shih masters only on the basis of their
eroneous interpretations of doctrine.He also accused
them of holding wrong views of meditation practice.
Although in what follows we are more interested in
an analysis of "concurrent insight"⌒in relationship
with the two knowledges ⌒ than in details of the
Ch'eng-shih theories, it is of importance to note
here that the basic issue dividing the two
traditions was the view of the two truths as
"teachings" (erh-ti chiao(i) or as two independent
"principles" (li
P.459
erh-ti(M)). As an advocate of the middle path
doctrine, Chi-tsang could not explain the nature of
nonduality (pu-erh chung-tao(n)) by defining the two
truths as two objective norms, one a conventional
reality, and the other a qualitatively different,
unconditioned reality. This debate on the meaning of
the two truths is significant because it again
provides us with an historical and theoretical
context in which we might understand the San-lun
practice of "concurrent insight."
It is difficult to identify the exact source from
which this practice derives.In the Erh-ti-t Chi-tsang
simply notes that "concurrent insight" was a common
theory of practice which developed after
Kumaarajiiva and Seng-chao.(41) Although this term
does not appear in any of their writings, Chi-tsang
claims that this practice developed as part of the
Kuan-chung and She-ling theory of the "two truths as
teachings." We are also told tha the Ch'eng-shih
masters developed two theories of meditation
practice based on the two truths. In addition to
"concurrent insight, " the Liang mastwes also
advocated a practice known as "departing and
entering insight" (ch'u-ju kuan(o)). Again,Chi-tsang
made no attempt to identify the specific origin of
this practice. In examining the content of this
practice, however, it appears that "departing and
entering insight" originally developed within the
ch'eng-shih tradition. Although specific details are
not provided, Chi-tsang describes "departing and
entering" as "departing from one extreme and
entering another." (42) This type of practice could
only have developed within a theoretical context
postulating two "principles" or objective norms. The
San-lun and Ch'eng-shih versions of this practice,
then, may have developed in conjunction with the
debate between the "principle" and "teaching" of the
two truths. This can be seen in the following
passage where Chi-tsang criticizes the Ch'eng-shih
position:
Since they [that is, Ch'eng-shih masters] also speak
of the principle of non-duality, the middle path,
how can there be departing and entering insight?
There can only be departing and entering if there
are two objects. But how can there be departing and
entering if the two objects do not exist? Again, how
can one explain concurrent insight if the two
principles do not exist? One can speak of
"concurrent" only if there are two principles. (43)
Chi-tsang's rejection of the Ch'eng-shih theory is
used mainly to point out that the fundamental
disagreement between "principle" and "teaching"
equally applies to the practice of perceiving the
middle path. In the preceding passage it is evident
that the major flaw in the Ch'eng-shih argument is
that two contradictory views are presented: first,
the existence of a single, nondual middle path, and
second, the existence of two separate truths.
Although both traditions advocate the doctrine of
nonduality, the Ch'eng-shih position is unable to
resolve the paradoxical situation of a single
nondual reality described in terms of two
provisional truths. Chi-tsang's criticism of the
Ch-eng-shih version of "concurrent insight"
essentially rejects the untenable theoretical basis
for such a practice.
P.460
In contrast to the dual "object" theory, the
doctrinal basis for the San-lun world view is that
both ultimate and phenomental truths are empty of
self-essence and provisional designations. (44) The
inherent problem in the Ch'eng-shih position,
therefore, is the interpretaion of the two truths as
two independent orders which do not participate in a
process of mutual identity. This problem is avoided
by Chi-tsang who simply asserts the essential
identity of each truth. However, by retaining the
idea of a single "principle," Chi-tsang was also
open to criticism for the same reason that he
rejected the Ch'eng-shih theories. That is to say,
how can one practice "concurrent insight" or
"departing and entering insight," if one simply
postulates a single essence of nonduality? As the
terms themselves imply, both practices require two
objects. This paradoxical situation can be
understood if it is remembered that the relationship
between the two truths is pratiityasamutpaada:
The Ch'eng-shih tradition also explained the
existence of the two truths principle. But when is
this principle dual? In all the suutras and
'saastras, where is it explained that there are two
principles? The Mahaayaana suutras explain that two
principles do not exist. They all say that emptiness
is identical with form and form is identical with
emptiness; worldly truth is identical with the first
principle truth. (45)
From the San-lun standpoint the doctrine of the
middle path automatically eliminates "departing and
entering insight," because it implies a sequential
and dualistic view of the two truths; that is, one
"enters" the contemplation of worldly truth, and
following this, one then "departs" and moves to a
perception of ultimate truth. The movement from one
truth to the other is possible only if one first
asserts the existence of two objective categories.
Similarly, if the two truths are a single essence,
then, "concurrent insight" is also impossible
because two objects are again necessary. According
to Chi-tsang the Ch'eng-shih theories require a dual
perception of the middle path in the sense of one
straddling a fence. Thus, while the idea of
"concurrent" is possible, the doctrine of the
identity of the two truths cannot be established.
The Ch'eng-shih theories essentially perceive
nonduality with one eye on ultimate truth and the
other eye on phenomenal truth. For Chi-tsang,
however, "concurrent" did not mean the simultaneous
perception of two things; it was not a theory of
combination or union, but the perception of identity
and interdependency: "The suutras explain the
intuiting of existence which is identical with
emptiness and the intuiting of existence which is
identical with existence. When are there two
objects-of-congition?" (46)
While this type of thinking is coincident with Chi-
tsang's explanation of the relationship between the
two knowledges and the true mark, what remained to
be discussed was the relationship between"concurrent
insight" and the notion of a path leading to
enlightenment.In the Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun we are told
that disagreement and debate concerning the stage in
which "concurrent insight" occurred began when
Buddhists of the North-South period, based on their
p.461
exegesis of the Vimalakiirti-suutra, attempted to
define Vimalakiirti's bodhisattva stage. While there
may have been numerous methods used to determine the
differences between bodhisattvas on different stages
of practice, Chi-tsang believed that the direction
of bodhisattva practice should be concerned
specifically with the following question: "At what
stage does the bodhisattva concurrently perceive
ultimate and phenomenal truths? " (47) In other
words, at what stage can one speak of the integral
functions of praj~naa and upaaya? In response to
this question, Chi-tsang presented three earlier
theories:
1. Concurrent insight occurs in the first stage
(=bhuumi). This is the theory of Dharma-master
Ling-wei Pao-liang. Because one realizes the
non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-k.saanti)
in the initial stage, concurrent insight of the two
truths occurs in the first stage. (48)
2. Concurrent insight of the two truths occurs in
the seventh stage. Kumaarajiiva and Seng-chao, for
example, explained that the bodhisattva of the
seventh stage initially realizes the concurrent
insight of the two truths.
3. The three great masters of the Liang [ that is,
Ch'eng-shih masters ] said that the bodhisattva
realizes concurrent insight in the eighth stage.
(49)
Based on this information it appears that the div-
ergent theories of the earlier period were, for the
most part, based on the traditional view of ten
bodhisattva stages. In his review of these earlier
speculations, however, Chi-tsang rejected the idea
of a "correct" stage. In his discussion of a path
leading to the comprehension of "nonarising," he
suggested that the bodhisattva of the pre-bhuumi
stages was also inherently capable of "concurrent
insight":
Non-arising, the cultivation of concurrent insight,
occurs from the initial arising of the bodhicitta.
Hence, the Nirvaa.na-suutra says: "The initial
arising of the bodhicitta and the final [Buddha]
stage are not separate." (50)
The reason Chi-tsang makes the claim that the
pre-bhuumi stage and the final stage of practice are
identical, here meaning the identity of cause and
result,is because of the doctrine of interdependency.
That "nonarising" is characteristic of all the
stages between the initial activity of "faith" and
the Buddha-stage means that the bodhisattva's
practices are, from the outset, based on an
understanding of the path as "neither cause nor
result." Most often this view of identity is
supported by canonical references to the
Avata^msaka-suutra, but as seen in the earlier
passage, it is also characteristic of the
Nirvaa.na-suutra which asserted the a priori nature
of Buddhahood, namely., Buddha-nature. (51) Since
practice no longer has any reference to actual
production in time or a result stemming from an
antecedent cause, the enlightened perspective of "
concurrent insight" already exists in a certain
sense. Expressed in terms of essence and function,
this means that enlightenment, the essence of the
two truths or true mark as "neither cause nor
result," is the basis for the "functional practice"
of the two knowledges. The basic problem, therefore,
was to understand how the dynamics of enlightenment
functioned both within and
P.462
apart from a causative and temporal framework. While
this seems to contradict the commonsense view of
cause and result, the purpose of this approach is to
point out that the true mark, for example, exerts
its influence both in its capacity as an
inexpressible principle and in its functional aspect
as practice. This means that while the two stages
are not essentially different, they still retain
their distinct functional differences. The removal
of "concurrent insight" from a causative framework
led to the following sequence of events:
First stage: The pre-bhuumi stages,the stage of
ignorant worldings, is still a progression toward
concurrent insight, for one has yet to realize
non-arising or the concurrent insight of ultimate
and phenomenal truths. The first stage is called the
"sagely stage," and here one initially realizes
non-arising and concurrent insight.(52)
In the remaining stages,the idea of progression is
enlarged upon. In contrast to the view of fixed
"segments" of development, differing degrees of
meditational skills,that is,differing manifestations
of "concurrent insight." are used to distinguish the
bodhisattva on different stages. The bodhisattva on
the seventh stage, for example, is associated with
the "equality of meditation and wisdom" (teng-ting-
hui(p) ), and progress in the eights stage is
distinguished by the "absence of effort"
(wu-kung-yung(q)). But of the practice in the final
stage, Chi-tsang has little to say:
Seventh stage: Since non-arising is shallow in the
initial stage, it is still a progression toward
concurrent insight. The seventh stage is called the
stage of the equality of meditation and wisdom, and
it is here that one initially realizes non-arising
and concurrent insight. Meditation is the still
mirroring of praj~naa and wisdom is the moving
illumination of upaaya. In the sixth stage, the
still insight is profound, but movement is
unskilled. Hence, meditation and wisdom are not
equal. In the seventh stage, the two functions are
both equal.
Eighth stage: Although non-arising and concurrent
insight are realized in the seventh stage, effort is
still ncecssary. In the eighth stage the mind of
effort no longer arises, and this is called
non-arising.
Buddha stage: Although the eighth stage is effort-
less, it is still not the end, and the final
[comprehension of] non-arising occurs in the Buddha
stage. (53)
While it is regrettable that Chi-tsang does not
specifically describe the practice of "concurrent
insight" beyond the eighth stage, since these stages
represent a single continuous reality, a maturation
of the bodhisattva condition, more practice and
greater skill are probably called for in the
remaining stages. Although "concurrent insight" is
present throughout this practice, it is reasonably
certain that the seventh stage is the key to this
practice. To understand the relevance of this
duuramgama stage, it is important to recall the
correspondence between the da'sabhuumi and the ten
paaramitaa. While the specific terminology of the
ten stages is not used, the bodhisattva's
progression from the first stage to the seventh
stage is couched in terms of the perfection of
praj~naa and upaaya. The concurrent perception of
the truths, then, goes hand in hand with the
concurrent application of the two knowledges:
P.463
In the seventh stage there is no obstruction between
movement and stillness, and one wanders through the
two wisdoms (erh-hui(r)). This is what is meant by
concurrent. (54)
The language used here to describe the seventh stage
is taken from the Ta-chih-tu-lun. In this text we
are told that, in the first three stages of the
da'sabhuumi, wisdom is stronger than meditation
(samaadhi); in the next three stages the opposite is
true. (55) While it is difficult to see an exact
correspondence between Chi-tsang's definition of
praj~naa and upaaya and the Ta-chih-tu-lun's
description of bodhisattva practice in the first six
stages, Chi-tsang adapted the language of his
canonical source in the following way: meditation is
stillness (praj~naa) and wisdom is movement
(upaaya). This was understood to mean that the
skilled function of praj~naa, namely, the path of
upaaya, was identical with the stage of the
"equality of meditation and wisdom." Moreover, since
the Ta-chih-tu-lun refers to this stage of equality
as the "bodhisattva's stage," Chi-tsang saw in this
work a view similar to his own. Thus, when Chi-tsang
speaks of "wandering Through the two wisdoms," or
when he says that the bodhisattva's samaadhi
"mirrors" praj~naa and that his wisdom is the
"movement" of upaaya, he is again asserting that
praj~naa and upaaya complement each other in the
seventh stage.
In retrospect, such practices as "concurrent
insight" and the attributes of bodhisattva practice
described earlier are still highly theoretical, and
yet, by including them in his system, it is clear
that his understanding of the two truths was not
merely along intellectual lines. There is evidence
to conclude that religious practice was an
indispensable part of his thinking despite the fact
that his writings give the impression that he was a
higly competent theoretician. As a San-lun scholar
Chi-tsang was, of course, committed to the task of a
reasoned exposition of the two truths. Reasoning
alone, however, was not sufficient, and by
discussing the two truths in terms of bodhisattva
practice, it is evident that the middle path was not
static principle, that is, something merely to
reason out. (56) Further, while Chi-tsang owes some
of his basic insights to the primary San-lun texts,
his interpretation of the true mark, for example,
indicates a more balanced view between what is
inconceivable and inexpressible and those aspects of
the true mark limited to verbalization and
provisional existence. While this is not a radical
departure from the middle path doctrine established
by the Middle Treatise, it is a conceptual shift in
perspective influenced by the practical manner in
which such concepts are interpreted. As part of the
bodhisattva's perspective developed in the seventh
stage, the two knowledges are not concerned with a
noumenal goal but with an active and thorough-going
experience in the phenomenal order. In this respect
the practice of "concurrent insight" is used as an
integral part of a larger system to explain the
relationship between the theory and practice of the
two truths. Thus, while Chi-tsang was not a
meditation master, the inclusion of this practice in
the two truths theory should be seen as a San-lun
P.464
development of Praj~naapaaramitaa thought which
cannot be regarded simply as an orthodox version of
Maadhyamika's therapeutic dialectic.
NOTES
1.Richard Robinson.The Buddhist Religion (Belmont,
California: Dickenson, 1970), p.84.
2.Taishoo shinshu Daizookyoo (hereafter cited as T
), 45, 109b-111a.
3.Chi-tsang does not refer to his school as San-lun,
but calls it the "She-ling" tradition because the
first patriarch of this tradition. Seng-lang,
settled on this mountain and began teaching the
Praj~naapaaramitaa doctrine. Chi-tsang frequently
refers to this monk as the "Great Master of
She-ling" or as the "Master of Mt. She." For
biographical data on this man, see the
Kao-seng-chuan (hereafter cited as KSC), T50, 380c.
Although the dates of this monk are not known, he
was apparently active in the Nanking area from 476.
For further discussion of Seng-lang, see Hirai
Shun'ei, Chuugoku Hannya Shishoo-shi Kenkyuu (Tokyo:
Shunjuu-sha, 1976),PP.244-275.
4." Kuan-chung " refers to the first tradition of
Chinese Praj~naapaaramitaa scholarship centered in
Ch'ang-an, that is, Kumaarajiiva and his immediate
disciples.The term serves to contrast his own She-ling
tradition of Praj~naapaaramitaa study in the south.
5.Seng-ch'uan's dates are not known. A T'ang work
by the T'ien-t'ai master Chan-jan (711-782), the
Fa-hua hsuan-i shih-ch'ien, records that during the
rule of Liang Wu-ti(502-549), Seng-ch'uan-and nine
other monks were ordered by the emperor to study
under Seng-lang on Mt.She. In contrast to Seng-lang,
Chi-tsang refers to Seng-ch, uan as "Master of
Shan-chung," "Master of Chih-kuan" (because of this
residence at the Chih-kuan temple on Mt. She), or as
" Shan-chung" His biography is found in KSC, T50,
369c.
6.During this period the foremost exponents of the
two truths doctrine were three monk-scholars
associated with the Ch'eng-shih lun
(Tattvasiddhi-saastra? ) : K'ai-shan Chin-tsang
(458-522; KSC, T50, 465c) , Chuang-yen Seng-min
(467-527; KSC, T50, 461c) , and Kunang-chai
Fa-yun(467-529; KSC, T50, 463). For a discussion of
the Liang Ch'eng-shih lineage, see Hirai, Chuugoku
Hannya, p.172. For an overview of Ch'eng-shih
doctrine, see Whalen Lai, "Further Developments of
the Two Truths Theory in China: Toward a
Reconstruction of Chou Yung's San-tsung-lun," in
Philosophy East and West 30, no.2(April, 1980) and
"Sinitic Understanding of the Two Truths Theory in
the Liang Dynasty," in Philosophy EAst and West 28,
no.3(July,1978).
7.Ta-p'in ching i-su, Dainihon Zokuzookyoo ( here-
after cited as ZZK), 1, 1, 38, recto a9. A similar
historical note may be seen in the Chung-kuan
lun-su, T42, 17c.
8.KSC, T50, 477c.
9.For an extensive discussion of the She-ling trad-
ition following Seng-lang, see Hirai, Chuugoku
Hannya, pp. 269-281. Also see his article on
Seng-ch'uan's disciples, "Shikan-ji Sosen to
monryuu," Indogaku Bukkyoogaku Kenkyuu (hereafter
cited as IBK) 16 (Tokyo, 1968), pp.770-779.
10.KSC, T50, 477c.
11.Ibid.,50, 480c.Hui-pu's biography notes that he
was friendly with Hui-k'o (487-593), the second
patriarch of the Ch'an tradition, from whom he
received the Ch'an Dharma. After his study with
Ch'an Buddhists in the north, he returned to Mt. She
during the early years of the Ch'en (CHih-te,
583-86), and together with his disciple, Pao-kung
(542-621), established a medoation hall on that
mountain. After his death, Hui-pu's disciples were
turned over to an obscure meditation master simply
known as Kung (T50, 512c). Based on biographical
date, it appears that an independent Ch'an tradition
(the Bodhidharma line) was active on Mt. She at the
Hsi-hsia temple. This tradition continued until 645,
the time when Tao-hsuan compiled his Hsu
kao-seng-chuan.Sekiguchi Shindai also sees a close
interchange of ideas and historical figures between
She-ling practioners and T'ien-t'ai practioners.
Hui-pu is also reported to have met with Nan-yueh
Hui-ssu (515-577) , the second patriarch of
T'ien-t'ai and Chih-i's teacher. See his work.
Tendai Shikan no Kenkyuu (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1969),
pp.131-132,215-216.
12.Ibid., 50, 477c. " Follower of the middle and
provisional" is an expression which refers to
San-lun meditation masters. These individuals were
apparently criticized for their rigid adherence
P.465
to, and conceptualization of, doctrines like the
middle path and the two truths. Although individuals
like Chih-pien abandoned scholarship, as practioners
they still held to a few doctrinal ideas. Their
dogmatic assertion of the reality of these concepts,
however, prompted Fa-lang to part from them. The
doctrinal basis for attacking these practioners is
found in the Ta-chih-tu-lun where "adherence to
neither arising nor ceasing" is defined as prapa~nca
(T25, 170c).
13.KSC, T50,478a.
14.Several Japanese scholars have documented the
relationship between San-lun doctrine and the
development of Ch'an thought. See, for example,
Yanagida Seizan, Shoki Zenshuu Shishoo no Kenkyuu
(kyoto: Hoozookan, 1967), PP.25-26,119, 444; Kamata
Shigeo, "Sanronshuu⌒⌒Gozuzen⌒⌒-Dookyoo o musubu
shisooteki keifu," Komazawa daigaku Bukkyoogakubu
Kenkyuukiyoo 26(Tokyo, 1968). pp.79-89, and "Shotoo
ni okeru Sanronshuu to Dookyoo, " Tooyoo Bunka
Kenkyujo Kiyoo 46(Tokyo, 1968), pp.49-108.
15.T50,701c.
16.For a discussion of this development, see Hirai,
Chuugoku Hannya, pp.324, 344, Kamata, "Shotoo ni
okeru Sanronshuu to Dookyoo, " pp.60-79, and
Yanagida, Shoki Zenshuu, pp.126-135.
17.T50,666b.
18.The phrase, " beyond conceptualization and ver-
balization." is from the Middle Treatise (T30,24a).
The perspective of nonacquisition is defined in
texts such as the San-lun hsuan-i as the central
doctrine of the San-lun school which, at one time,
was also called the "School of Nonacquisition" (cf.
T45,10c).
19.T50,538b-c.
20.See Hirai,Chuugoku Hannya,pp.130-139,who traces
this aspect of Chi-tsang's thought back to Seng-chao.
21.T45,7b.
22.Ibid,. 42,9b.
23.For the sake of clarity, the two passages may
be diagramed as follows:
True Mark of Dharmas
true function true essence
ultimate phenomental neither ultimate nor phenomenal
teaching principle
(function) (essence)
knowledge trutn
(practice) (object)
24.T45.55b,55c.
25.For a discussion of the development of contem-
plative practices in China, see Hirai
Shun'ei,"Kichizoo ni okeru ni-chi no koozoo." IBK
15, pp. 541-547. See, also, Chuugoku Hannya,
pp.653-666.
26.This general view of practice is reflected in
the following passage from the Ta-chih-tu-lun:
When one has yet to draw near to nirvaa.na, there
are still several paths, but when one is close to
nirvaa.na, there is only one path: emptiness, the
markless, and the unconditioned. The other samaadhi
al enter these three gates of liberation. [T25,373c]
27.How these terms are adapted are used by Chi-tsang
is discussed by Hirai, Chuugoku Hannya, p.596.
28.This is explained in the Ching-ming hsuan-lun
(Commentary on the Vimalakiirti-suutra) in the
following way: "Although the object-to-known
(j~neya) is the mother of knowledge, it is the
common perspective of the Two Vehicles; the two
knowledges, however, are the sole Dharma of the
bodhisattva (T38, 876a).
29.T25, 867a.
30.Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,54a.
P.466
31.Ibid., 45,54b.
32.Ibid., 45,50b.
33.In this case Chi-tsang again follows the Ta-chih-
tu-lun teaching:"Although the term wisdom can be
expressed, praj~naa cannot be expressed because it
corresponds to the true mark" (T25,552a).
34.ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,54b.
35.Ibid., 45, 54b.
36.T30,24a.
37.Ibid., 42, 171a-b.
38.Chung-kuan lun-su, T42,31b.
39.Ibid., 42,126b.
40.For further discussion of this distinction, see
Aaron K. Koseki, Chi-tsang's ta-ch'eng hsuuan-lun:
The Two Truths and the Buddha-nature (Ph.D.disserta-
tion, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1977) ,
pp.15-26.See also, Whalen Lai, "Further Developments
of the Two Truths Theory."
41.T45,110b.
42.Ibid., 45, 110b.
43.Ibid., 109b.
44. This perspective is described in the following
passage from the Chung-kwan lun-su:
The provisional designations of emptiness and exis-
tence express the middle path. We explain that
provisional existence does not abide in existence,
and hence, existence is not-existent: provisional
emptiness does not abide in emptiness, and hence,
emptiness is not-empty (a'suunya). Neither empty nor
existent is identical with the middle path. [T42,
142b]
45.T45, 110a-b.
46.Ibid., 45, 110b.
47.Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,66c.
48.Pao-liang(444-509) is a Nirvaa.na-suutra scholar
of the North-South period who also commented on a
whole range of texts (for example, the Lotus Suutra,
the Vimalakiirti-sutra, the Sriimaalaadevii-suutra,
and so forth) . The compilation of the Liang
collection of Nirvaa.na-suutra commentaries (Ta-pan
nieh-p'an ching chi-chueh) is also attributed to
him. See his biography in KSC, T50, 318b-382a.
49.T45, 66c. The discussion of the stages of "con-
current insight" that follows is taken from the
Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun. A similar discussion of these
stages is found in the Erh-ti-i, T45, 109b-c, 110a.
50.T45, 66c.
51.Avata^msaka-suutra, T9,452c, passim. Nirvaa.na-
suutra, T12, 838a.
52.T45, 66c.
53.Ibid., 45,66c.
54.Ibid., 45,54c.
55.T24, 417c.
56.While this perspective was influenced by his
understanding of the integral functions of the two
knowledges, Chi-tsang's middle path doctrine was
also strongly influenced by the Nirvaa.na-suutra and
its theme of universal salvation, namely,
Buddha-nature. While this aspect of his thought is
beyond the scope of the present study, it can be
noted here that the Buddha-nature theory gave his
middle path doctrine a religious significance,
namely, comprehending the universality of
Buddha-nature in both sentient and non-sentient
existence. The integrity of the two doctrines is
also discussed in the Erh-ti-i as follows:'If one
understands the two truths, he is apart from the
views of impermanence and permanence; one practices
the middle path and sees the Buddha-nature. Thus,
the nature of the Buddha exists' (T45, 86a).
欢迎投稿:lianxiwo@fjdh.cn
2.佛教导航欢迎广大读者踊跃投稿,佛教导航将优先发布高质量的稿件,如果有必要,在不破坏关键事实和中心思想的前提下,佛教导航将会对原始稿件做适当润色和修饰,并主动联系作者确认修改稿后,才会正式发布。如果作者希望披露自己的联系方式和个人简单背景资料,佛教导航会尽量满足您的需求;
3.文章来源注明“佛教导航”的文章,为本站编辑组原创文章,其版权归佛教导航所有。欢迎非营利性电子刊物、网站转载,但须清楚注明来源“佛教导航”或作者“佛教导航”。