The Yogaacaaraa and Maadhyamika interpretation

·期刊原文
The Yogaacaaraa and Maadhyamika interpretation of the Buddha-nature concept in Chinese Buddhism
By Ming-Wood Liu
Philosophy East and West
Volume 35, no. 2
April 1985
P.171-192
(C) by University of Hawaii Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

P.171

The idea of Buddha-nature was first made popular in
China in the early fifth century with the
translation of the Mahaayaana
Mahaaparinirvaa.nasuutra (hereafter cited as
MNS),(1) and since then, it has remained one of the
central themes of Chinese Buddhist thought. Already
in the fifth and early sixth centuries, a wide
variety of theories on the Buddha-nature had begun
to appear, but extant information about them remains
scanty and scattered.(2) It is in the writings of
Ching-ying Hui-yuan(a) (523-592) , (3) the
Yogaacaarin, and in Chi-tsang(b) (549-623), the
Maadhyamika, that we find the earliest available
full-scale treatments of the subject. Hui-yuan and
Chi-tsang hold a number of views in common with
respect to the question of Buddha-nature:

(a) Both regard the Buddha-nature doctrine as among
the principal tenets of Mahayana Buddhism.(4)

(b) Both accept the MNS as the final canonical
authority on the problem of Buddha-nature.(5)

(c) Both affirm that all sentient beings without
exception possess the Buddha-nature in the sense
that every one of them will attain Buddhahood
one day.(6)

Nevertheless, given their very different theoretical
upbringings and doctrinal affiliations, it is
inevitable that they would carry to their
explanations of the Buddha-nature concept some of
the basic principles and assumptions of their
respective philosophical traditions. In examining
and comparing the Buddha-nature teachings of
Hui-yuan and Chi-tsang our present study attempts to
show how the Buddha-nature concept has come to
assume divergent significances when read in the
context of the two main streams of thought in
Mahaayaana Buddhism: Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika.

I. HUI-YUAN `S TEACHING OF BUDDHA-NATURE(7)

Background

In calling Hui-yuan a Yogaacaarin, we have in
consideration his close connection with the
Ti-lun(c) and She-lun(d) schools, (8) which trace
doctrinal lineages back to the
Da`sabhuumikasuutra`saastra (Ti-lun) and
Mahaayaanasa.mgraha`saastra (She-lun) of Vasubandhu
and Asa^nga, the founders of Yogaacaara Buddhism in
India, respectively. The teachings of these two
schools represent the initial Chinese response to
Yogaacaara thought when the latter was first
imported into China in the sixth and seventh
centuries,(9) their most distinctive characteristic
being their belief in the existence in every
sentient being of an intrinsically pure
consciousness, from which evolves the entire
phenomenal world which the individual experiences.(10)
This belief finds its clearest expression in the
writings of Hui-yuan, who declares that "All dharmas
without exception originate and are formed from the
true[-mind], and other than the true[-mind], there
exists absolutely nothing which can

P.172

give rise to false thoughts."(11) Hui-yuan equates
this true-consciousness with the aalaya or the
eighth consciousness in the Yogaacaara scheme of
reality,(12) and designates it with such terms as
"the tathaagatagarbha, "(13) "the substance of
enlightenment, "(14) "the
tathataa-consciousness,"(15) and so forth. However,
despite its immaculate nature, the
true-consciousness gives birth to the first seven
consciousnesses and their corresponding objects,
that is, the entire sa.msaaric realm, due to the
permeation of ignorance and bad habits accumulated
from the beginningless past, like ocean forming
waves when stirred by wing.(16) But just as ocean
water never loses its wet nature even when assuming
an undulating appearance, the true-consciousness
also never forfeits its inherent purity when serving
as ground for the appearance of defiled phenomena.
And once ignorance is destroyed, the true-mind's
tainted functions will also cease, and it will be
its unpolluted self again.(17) Thus, enlightenment
in the Hui-yuan system of thought is basically the
revealing of a preexistent true essence:

By "true awakening, " [we have in mind those
practitioners who understand perfectly that] the
true nature of enlightenment has always been the
substance of their being. [In the past,] their
[true-] mind was covered by false thoughts. As they
were unaware of what is actually present [in
themselves], they considered [the nature of
enlightenment] as something external, and tried to
procure it by reaching outward. Later, having
brought an end to false thoughts, they apprehend
fully their own [true] essence. Knowing that
enlightenment has always been the substance of their
being, they do not turn to outside sources to obtain
it.(18)

The preceding constitutes the general conceptual
framework within which Hui-yuan constructs his
interpretation of the Buddha-nature tenet.(19)

What is "Buddha-Nature"?

"Buddha-nature" (fo-hsing(e) ) is the Chinese
translation of a number of closely related Sanskrit
terms such as "buddhadhaatu, " "buddhagotra, "
"buddhagarbha," "tathaagatagarbha," and so forth(20)
and its connotation usually varies with context. In
the MNS, it is primarily used to indicate what
constitutes a Buddha, that is, the nature or realm
of the Buddha.(21) Since Hui-yuan, like most of the
theorists of the Buddha-nature of his time. takes
the MNS as the point of departure of his expositions
of the Buddha-nature, this explains why it comes to
be associated with such apparently mutually
exclusive concepts as sa.msaara and nirvana,
identity and difference, being and emptiness,
external and internal, and so forth in the MNS.(23)
He also describes the Buddha-nature as something
that "in truth trascends [all] forms and names, and
can not be comprehended by thought and language. It
is the object of the true knowledge which neither
procures nor abandons; and embodies [all] the
mysteries [pertaining to] the wonderful
understanding of the holy wisdom."(24) But unlike
the MNS, in which discussions of the Buddha-nature
are in general devoid of ontological
implication, (25) in Hui-yuan's philosophy of
true-mind, the nature of the Buddha is pictured as a
metaphysical principle which all sentient beings
share and which ensures their final enlightenment.
This conception of Buddha-nature is clearly
reflected in Hui-yuan's ex-

P.173

planation of the four meanings of Buddha-nature,
when the word "nature" is interpreted as "essence"
(t'i(f)):(26)

i. The essence of the cause of Buddhahood is known
as Buddha-nature. This is the
true-consciousness.

ii. The essence of the fruit of Buddhahood is known
as Buddha-nature. This is the dharmakaaya.

iii. The same nature of enlightenment which is
present in both the cause of Buddhahood and the
fruit of Buddhahood is known as Buddha-nature.
While the cause and the fruit [of Buddhahood]
are always distinct, their essence is not
different.

The preceding three meanings constitute the
cognitive aspect" (neng-chih ksing(g) ) [of
buddha-nature]. They pertain only to sentient beings
and are not shared by the nonsentient.

iv. We designate in general the essence of dharmas
as "nature." This nature is perfectly
comprehended by the Buddhas only. Considering
the essence of dharmas as [the object of
comprehension of] the Buddhas, we call it
Buddha-nature.

This last meaning constitutes the "cognized aspect"
(so chih hsing(h)) [of Buddha-nature]. It covers
both the internal (that is, sentient beings) and the
external (that is, nonsentient objects)
[realms].(27)

By the "cognitive" and "cognized" aspects of
Buddha-nature, Hui-yuan is referring primarily to
the essence of enlightenment (iii) and the essence
of reality (iv). respectively; the former "pertains
only to sentient beings" because only the sentient
can attain enlightenment, whereas the latter covers
both the realms of the sentient and the nonsentient
because reality comprises inanimate as well as
animate objects.(28) In the Yogaacaara teaching of
Hui-yuan, the essence of enlightenment is conveived
of as embodied in all sentient beings as their
true-mind, which forms the metaphysical ground of
their eventual deliverance from ills. So the
true-mind is known as "the essence of the cause of
Buddhahood" (i). When the true-mind of sentient
beings is set free from its association with
adventitious defilements and fully realizes its
originally endowed nondefiled nature, it becomes the
Buddha-body per se, that is, the dharmakaaya (ii).
So the dharmakaaya is known as "the essence of the
fruit of Buddhahood." Since the true-mind and the
dharmakaaya are actually two states of the same
essence of enlightenment, they can be designated as
"Buddha-nature" in the same manner that the essence
of enliphtenment itself and the essence of reality
are called the "Buddha-nature."

All in all, we can say that in the hands of
Hui-yuan, the Buddha-nature concept has been
integrated into the system of thought of Yogaacaara
Buddhism and as a consequence assumes distinct
ontological significances which are either not found
or only dimly suggested in the MNS.

Buddha-Nature qua Cause and Effect

Since the Buddha-nature indicates in the MNS the
realm of the Buddha, the category of cause and
effect, which pertains to the realm of conditioned
existence only, is strictly speaking not applicable
to it. Nevertheless, as the Buddha-nature is not yet
attained by sentient beings, and sentient beings are
beings of the

P.174

conditioned realm, the MNS often resorts to the
notions of "cause" and "effect" in discussing the
fulfillment of Buddha-nature in sentient beings.
This practice receives additional impetus in the
thinking of Hui-yuan, for as we have seen, Hui-yuan
considers the nature of the Buddha as a
transcendental reality which is at once present in
all beings, with life of the conditioned realm as
their intrinsically pure consciousness. The MNS
talks of two types of causes of Buddha-nature when
the Buddha-nature is considered with respect to
sentient beings:

Good sons! With respect to sentient beings, the
Buddha-nature also consists of two types of causes:
first, direct cause (cheng-yin(i)), and secondly,
auxiliary cause (yuan-yin(j)). The direct cause [of
Buddha-nature] is sentient beings, and the auxiliary
cause is the six paaramitaas.(29)

With respect to the fulfillment of the Buddha-nature
by sentient beings, sentient beings are the "direct
causes," for only animate creatures can assume the
excellences of the Tathaagata. However, enmeshed in
defilements in the realm of sa.msaara. sentient
beings would not be able to reach the state of
Buddhahood without first following proper religious
disciplines, among the most important of which are
the six paaramitaas of charity, virtuous conduct,
forbearance, zeal, meditation and wisdom. So the six
paaramitaas are designated as the "auxiliary
causes.'' Hui-yuan brings in the tenet of the
true-mind in commenting on the above passage:

It is because sentient beings are formed of [both
aspects of] the true and the false, just as mineral
stones [are constituted of both earth and mineral].
As [sentient beings] are formed of [both aspects of]
the true and the false, [their true aspect] can act
as the basis of the abandoning. of defilements and
the achieving of pure virtues. So they are described
as "direct causes." Since [the functions of] the
various paaramitaas are limited to the revealing of
the true [aspect] by bringing to an end the false
[aspect]. they are referred to as "auxiliary
causes."(30)

While the MNS regards sentient beings in general to
be the direct cause of Buddha-nature because only
beings with life can assume the excellences of the
Buddha, it remains entirely indefinite with respect
to the metaphysical ground of this belief.(31)
Hui-yuan gives this thesis of universal
enlightenment of the sentient of the MNS a definite
ontological twist by linking it with the idea of the
two aspects of the mind made famous by the Ta-ch'eng
ch'i-hsin lun(k).(32) Since the mind of sentient
beings possesses a true aspect, that is, the
true-mind, it "can act as the basis of the
abandoning of defilements and the achieving of pure
virtues." That explains why sentient beings are
called "direct causes'' of Buddha-nature. While the
mind of sentient beings is true in essence, it comes
to assume a false aspect due to the permeation of
ignorance, and so needs the practising of the six
paaramitaas to recover its original purity. So the
six paaramitaas are called the "auxiliary causes."
The six paaramitaas are called "auxiliary," because
they do not create but only "reveal" the nature of
enlightenment which is immanent.

Besides the thesis of the two types of causes of
Buddha-nature, the analysis of the Buddha-nature in
the MNS into "cause,'' "cause vis-a-vis cause,''
"effect,"

P.175

"effect vis-a-vis effect," and "neither cause nor
effect" also receives considerable attention from
posterity:

Good sons! The Buddha-nature has [the aspects of]
cause, cause vis-a-vis cause, effect, and effect
vis-a-vis effect. The cause is the twelvefold chain
of dependent origination, the cause vis-a-vis cause
is wisdom, the effect is the mose perfect
enlightenment, and thhe effect vis-a-vis effect is
the supreme nirvaa.na....As for to be "neither cause
nor effect, " it is what is known as the
Buddha-nature.(33)

Hui-yuan again resorts to the idea of the true-mind
in explaining why the twelvefold chain of dependent
origination (Buddha-nature qua "cause") can be
described as the "cause" of the supreme nirvaa.na
(Buddha-nature qua "effect vis-a-vis effect"):

[THe realm of] dependent origination is formed of
[both aspects of] the true and the false. Viewed
from [the aspect of] the false, it is the creation
of the false mind. Being illusory and empty,
it[can]not be called Buddha-nature. Viewed from [the
aspect of] the true, it is totally the product of
the true mind.... Since it is formed from the
true[-mind], the complete disclosure of its real
substance is known as nirvaa.na. So [the realm of
dependent origination] can be taken as the cause
[of nirvaa.na]. And as the cause [of nirvaa.na], it
can be called [Buddha-] nature.(34)

Since the mind of sentient beings comprises the
double aspect of the true and the false, the
sa.msaaric realm of dependent origination, which is
regarded in Yogaacaara Buddhism as formation of the
mind,(35) also shares the same feature. On the on
hand, the realm of dependent origination is false,
for it stems directly from the activities of the
false aspect of the mind, and is in nature "illusory
and empty." On the other hand, the realm of
dependent origination is true, for the false aspect
of the mind from which it originates arises in turn
dependent origination has as true aspect, and so
ultimately speaking, the realm of dependent
origination has as its "real substance" the true
aspect of the mind, that is, in the true-mind. In
Hui-yuan's opinion, when the MNS calls the
twelvefold chain of dependent origination the
"Buddha-nature qua cause" and gives as its "effect"
and "effect vis-a-vis effect" the most perfect
enlightenment and nirvaa.na, it has in view this
"true-mind" which is its "real substance."

Buddha-Nature and the Phenomenal World

Our discussions thus far have shown that the term
"Buddha-nature" is employed by Hui-yuan not only to
indicate the nature of the Buddha per se as in the
MNS, but also to denote this nature in its capacity
as the true essence of man, that is, as the
intrinsically pure mind.(36) If we remember that in
the Yogaacaara teaching of Hui-yuan the
intrinsically pure mind is given as the origin of
the phenomenal world as well as the ontological
basis of enlightenment, (37) it would not be g to
find Hui-yuan telling us that the Buddha-nature is
the cause of both sa.msaara and nirvaa.na,(38) and
that all forms of existence, be they soiled or
unsoiled, are the creations of the "Buddha-nature as
the true-mind" (fo-hsing chen-hsin(l)).(39)

P.176

The idea that the Buddha-nature as the true-mind
is the source of the false phenomenal order is
clearly brought out in Hui-yuan's division of
Buddha-nature into the three aspects of "substance"
(t'i(f) ) , "characteristic" (hsiang(m) ) , and
"function" (yung(n)), in which the Buddha-nature is
said to have defiled as well as pure functions:

As is taught by A`svagho.sa [in the Ta-ch'eng
ch'i-hsin lun, the Buddha-nature can be] divided
into three aspects according to its substance,
characteristic, and function:

i. Greatness of "substance," that is, the nature of
the tathataa.

ii. Greatness of"characteristic, " that is, the
excellent qualities more numerous than the sand
of the Ganges embodied in the tathataa.

iii. greatness of "function," that, the defiled and
pure functions of the dharmad-haatu all arising
from the pure mind.(40)

As this scheme of"substance," "characteristic," and
"function" is first proposed in the Ta-ch'eng
ch'i-hsin lun as analysis of the mind,(41) and is
often used by Hui-yuan in his writings as such,(42)
We can safely conclude that by "Buddha-nature" in
the above quotation, Hui-yuan has none other than
the original true-mind of sentient beings under
consideration. While the true-mind is in "substance"
the essence of the Tathataa and has as its
"characteristic" innumerable merits, it is
nevertheless not immune from the influence of
ignorance, and it is due to the permeation of
ignorance that it gives rise to defiled "functions"
and becomes the source of the formation of impure
phenomena. So Hui-yuan writes of the two forms of
false functions of the true mind:

i. The function of ground and support: The
tathaagathagarbha is the ground of the defiled
and can support the defiled. If there is not the
true [mind], defiled [phenomena] will not
subsist....

ii. The function of origination: Formerly, [the
true-mind] does not produce the defiled even
while existing in the midst of defilements. Now,
it unites with falsehood (that is. ignorance)
and gives rise to defiled [phenomena], just as
water fives rise to waves in response to
wind.(43)

"The function of ground and support" denotes the
true-mind as the underlying substance which accounts
for the subsistence of the defiled phenomenal order.
"The function of origination" denotes the true-mind
as the fountainhead from which the defiled
phenomenal order proceeds. Together, they teach that
the impure has its root in the pure, and the nature
of enlightenment, that is, the Buddha-nature, is
what makes the existence of the world of sa.msaara
possible.

II. CHI-TSANG'S TEACHING OF BUDDHA-NATURE(44)

Background

Hui-yuan's interpretation of the Buddha-nature
doctrine represents the culmination of a long
process of transformation of the "Buddha-nature"
from a basically practical to an ontological
concept.(45) Since one of the distinctive features
of Maadhyamika Buddhism is its strong aversion to
ontological specu-

P.177

lation, it is to be expected that Chi-tsang, the
leading figure in the revival of Maadhyamika thought
in China in the late sixth century, would view this
development with much suspicion.(46) Chi-tsang's
basic approach with respect to the Problem of
Buddha-nature is to stick fast to the original
signification of the term "Buddha-nature" In the MNS
as the nature or realm of the Buddha,(47) and to
expurgate all the ontic connotations which the term
has come to take on as subsequent generations begin
to speculate on the metaphysical basis of the
belief, likewise present in the MNS, that all
sentient beings will eventually assume the station
of Buddhahood. Considered as such, Chi-tsang's
teaching of Buddha-nature is essentially a return to
the more rudimentary and soteriologically oriented
version of the Buddha-nature doctrine as found in
the MNS.(48)

What Is Buddha-Nature?

That Chi-tsang takes "Buddha-nature" to mean
primarily what constitutes a Buddha is attested by
the series of terms which he cites as synonymous
with "Buddha-nature," among which are "tathataa,"
"dharmadhaatu," "ekayaana," "wisdom, '' "ultimate
reality," and so on.(49) It is also demonstrated in
his frequent associating of the Buddha-nature with
the "Middle-way," the concept which gives the name
to Maadhyamika Buddhism.(50)

Chi-tsang's famous thesis of"the Middle-way as
the Buddha-nature" is based on a well-known passage
in the MNS, in which the author, after identifying
the Buddha-nature with "the supreme form of
emptiness" and "wisdom, " continues to equate it
with the Middle-way:

Speaking of "emptiness." [the `sraavakas and
pratyeka-buddhas can] not comprehend both emptiness
and nonemptiness (pu chien k'ung yu pu-k'ung(o)),
whereas the wise can see both emptiness and
nonemptiness, the eternal and the noneternal, the
painful, and the blissful, the personal and the
nonpersonal. "Emptiness" [includes] all [beings of
the realm of] sa.msaara whereas "nonemptiness"
refers to the supreme nirvaa.na, and so forth, "the
nonpersonal" is [the nature of the realm of]
sa.msaara and "the personal" refers to the supreme
nirvaa.na. The realization of the emptiness of all
[beings of the realm of sa.msaara] unaccompanied by
the realization of the nonemptiness [of nirvana] is
not called the Middle-way, and so forth, the
realization of the nonpersonal nature of all [beings
of the realm of sa.msaara] unaccompanied by the
realization of the personal nature [of nirvana] is
not called the Middle-way. The Middle-way is called
the Buddha-nature.(51)

In this passage, the "Middle-way is made out as the
simultaneous comprehension of the empty, transient,
painful. and nonpersonal nature of sa.msaara on the
one hand, and the nonempty, permanent, blissful, and
personal nature of nirvaa.na on the other hand.(52)
This reading of the "Middle-way" constitutes a
significant deviation from the orthodox Buddhist
understanding of the term, which from Early Buddhism
onward usually signifies the abandoning rather than
the embracing of dichotomic ideas and concepts.(53)
Furthermore, as one of the chief concerns of
Maadhvamika Buddhism is the criticism of one-sided
views and positions, Chi-tsang is naturally very
interested in maintaining the traditional

P.178

interpretation of the term "Middle-way" as the
forgoing and transcending of all determinate
opinions, to the extent of departing from the
original import of the MNS in his exegesis of the
above quotation:

Again. [the MNS] states, "Speaking of 'emptiness'
[the Buddha] sees neither emptiness nor nonemptiness
(pu chien k'ung yu pu-k'ung). Similarly, we should
[also] say, "Speaking of wisdom, [the Buddha] sees
neither wisdom nor nonwisdom?" That is to say, [the
Buddha, ] in not seeing emptiness, eschews [the
extreme view of] emptiness; and in not seeing
nonemptiness, eschews [the extreme view of]
nonemptiness. He eschews [attachment to] nonwisdom.
This complete detachment from tow extremes is known
as the sacred Middle-way. Again, [the MNS] states,
"Such dualistic opinions can not be called the
Middle-way. [Only] the abandoning of [the extreme
positions of] permanent existence and total
extinction is called the Middle-way" [T, vol. 12, p.
523c, 11.25-26]. Is this not the idea that the
Middle-way is the Buddha-nature? Thus. in eschewing
[the view of] nonemptiness, [the Buddha] is free
from the extreme of permanence, and again, in
eschewing [the view of] emptiness, [the Buddha] is
free from the extreme of extinction. The same can be
said of [the Buddha's] not seeing wisdom and
nonwisdom. So, it is maintained that the Middle-way
is the Buddhha-nature.(54)

While in the MNS, the clause "pu chien k'ung yu
pu-k'ung" means "can not comprehend both emptiness
and nonemptiness" and is a rebuke of the
Hiinayaanist's failure to apprehend the nonempty
nature of nirvaa.na as well as the empty nature of
sa.msaara, Chi-tsang interprets it as "seeing
neither emptiness nor nonemptiness," and takes it to
be a description of the transcendental wisdom of the
Tathaagata, who eschews both the one-sided positions
of emptiness and non-emptiness. When so construed,
the whole paragraph is turned into a reaffirmation
of the notion of Middle-way as the avoidance of all
fixed standpoints, such as emptiness or
nonemptiness, wisdom or nonwisdom, permanence, or
impermanence. and so forth. This spirit of
nonattachment to views, as the foregoing quotation
suggests, is what constitutes the essence of the
Buddha, that is, the Buddha-nature.(55)

Buddha-Nature qua Cause and Effect

As indicated in the preceding, Hui-yuan also often
uses the term ''Buddha-nature" to denote the nature
or realm of the Buddha. However, since in Hui-yuan's
system of thought, the nature of the Buddha is an
ontological principle which is present in all
sentient beings as their intrinsically pure mind.
and it is with this pure mind as "cause" that
sentient beings will eventually attain the "fruit"
of the dharmakaaya, Hui-yuan likewise refers to the
"cause" which is the pure mind and the "fruit" which
is the dharmakaaya as "Buddha-nature," for they are
the same nature of the Buddha when looked at
differently. Chi-tsang criticizes strongly those who
make the Buddha-nature out as exclusively "cause,"
"effect," or "both cause and effect" and writes:

In explaining the meaning of "Buddha-nature.'' all
masters either maintain that Buddha-nature is cause
and not effect, or maintain that it is effect and
not cause. Such dualistic conception of cause and
effect is not "Buddha-nature." As the Suutra says,
"Whatever entails dualism is a perverted view."
(MNS, T, vol. 12, p.

P.179

523c). So we know that all these masters do not
understand what the Buddha-nature is. Holding on to
one extreme, they argue with each other and lose
sight of [the true meaning of] Buddha-nature. Only
when one sees that cause and effect are equal and
nondual can one speak of Buddha-nature. Thus, the
Sutra says, "As for to be neither cause nor effect,
it is what is known as the Buddha-nature." (See n.33
above.)(56)

This refusal of Chi-tsang to identify Buddha-nature
with either the pole of "cause" or the pole of
"effect" is a natural outcome of his idea of the
Buddha-nature as the Middle-way, that is, as "equal
and nondual." It also reflects Chi-tsang's general
policy of distancing the "Buddha-nature" concept
from any reference to an ontological ground or
metaphysical reality, with which Buddhist masters
like Hui-yuan explains its fulfillment in sentient
beings.

In this connection, a comparison of Chi-tsang's
account of the "direct cause of Buddha-nature" with
that of Hui-yuan is particularly illuminating. We
have witnessed already that Hui-yuan equates the
"direct cause of Buddha-nature" with the true-mind
in the teaching of Yogaacaara Buddhism, and in this
way easily explains why the MNS calls sentient
beings the "direct causes of Buddha-nature," for
only beings endowed with the true-mind can assume
the character of a Buddha. Chi-tsang examines eleven
theories of the "direct cause of Buddha-nature"
current at his time, including that of the Ti-lun
School of which Hui-yuan is the representative
figure, and dismisses all of them because they see
the "direct cause" as "the principle [which ensures]
the attainment of Buddha-hood" (te-fo chih li(p) )
.(57) We find no clear explanation in Chi-tsang's
writings for the remark in the MNS that sentient
beings are the direct cause of Buddha-nature.(58)
Chi-tsang's exposition of the concept "direct
cause," however, indicates that he makes little
difference between "direct cause of Buddha-nature''
and "Buddha-nature." We have noted before that
Chi-tsang describes the Buddha-nature as the
"Middle-way" and "neither cause nor effect," and
these same concepts are used by him to refer to the
"direct cause":

So it is said that the Middle-way, which is neither
the absolute [truth] nor the mundane [truth], is the
direct cause of Buddha-nature.(59) As for the direct
cause, how can it be [described as] cause [or]
effect? So [the truth of] neither cause nor effect,
which is the Middle-way, is called the "direct
cause." So it is maintained that the Middle-way is
the "direct cause of Buddha-nature."(60)

To Chi-tsang, to understand the "Buddha-nature" and
to comprehend the "direct cause of Buddha-nature"
amounts virtually to the same thing:

As for Buddha-nature, it is neither being nor
nonbeing, neither "within [the true] principle''
(li-nei(q) ) nor "outside [the true] principle"
(li-wai(r)).(61) So, only when one comprehends that
being and nonbeing, "within [principle]" and
"outside [principle],'' are equal and nondual can
one talk about the "direct cause of
Buddha-nature."(62)

In Chi-tsang's account of the "direct cause." the
sense of "cause'' is so much subdued that instead of
being called by its full name "cheng(s) (direct),
yin(t) (cause),

P.180

fo(u) (buddha), hsing(v) (nature," it is on several
occasions alluded to simply as "cheng-hsing(w)", and
as such carries the connotation of"real [Buddha-]
nature" or "true [Buddha-] nature."(63)

It is also helpful to contrast Chi-tsang's and
Hui-yuan's comments on the analysis of Buddha-nature
into the five aspects of "cause," "cause vis-a-vis
cause," "effect," "effect vis-a-vis effect," and
"neither cause nor effect" in the MNS. We have
observed already how Hui-yuan explains the
designation of the twelvefold chain of dependent
origination in the MNS as the "Buddha-nature qua
cause" by falling back on the Yogaacaara thesis of
the production of the realm of dependent origination
from the true-mind. Chi-tsang, however, gives a
totally different interpretation of the matter by
connecting the doctrine of dependent origination
with the Middle-way. In doing so, he is basically
following the suggestion of the MNS, which opens its
discussion of the five aspects of Buddha-nature with
the following remark:

Again, good sons, the [erroneous] views of sentient
beings fall under two categories: first, the view of
permanent existence, and secondly, the view to total
extinction, Such dualistic opinions can not be
called the Middle-way. [Only] the abandoning of [the
extreme positions of] permanent existence and total
extinction is called the Middle-way. The abandoning
of [the extreme positions of] permanent existence
and total extinction is the wisdom [obtained from]
contemplating on the twelvefold chain of dependent
origination; and the wisdom [obtained from such]
contemplation is known as "Buddha-nature".... Good
sons! The wisdom arising from contemplating the
twelvefold chain of dependent origination is the
seed of the most perfect enlightenment. Thus, we
call the twelvefold chain of dependent origination
"Buddha-nature." Good sons! Just as cucumbers are
referred to as "fever." Why? For it is conducive to
fever. The same is the case [when we refer to] the
twelvefold chain of dependent origination [as
Buddha-nature].(64)

The doctrine of dependent origination, as is
well known, teaches the conditioned genesis of the
twelve factors (namely, ignorance, karman-formation,
consciousness, and so forth) which make up the
continuity of life, and it accounts for the
phenomena of retribution and transmigration without
recoursing to the notion of an abiding self. In this
way, it has always been looked upon in Buddhism as a
powerful corrective of the fallacies of annihilism
(which denies the efficacy of karman and the
existence of life after death) and eternalism (which
affirms the existence of eternal souls which are one
in essence with the Universal Soul), and a perfect
exemplification of the truth of the Middle-way in
eschewing both the extreme views of "total
extinction" and "permanent existence.''(65) When
this is understood, it is not difficult to perceive
why the MNS come to connect the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination and the wisdom arising from
the contemplation of it with the Buddha-nature in
the above quotation, for have we not been told all
along in the Sutra that the Middle-way is the
Buddha-nature?(66) This is apparently the rationale
behind the following remarks of Chi-tsang on the
first four aspects of Buddha-nature:

P.181

What is referred to as "cause" is the objective
cause, which is the twelvefold chain of dependent
origination. What is referred to as "cause vis-a-vis
cause" is the auxiliary cause,(67) which is the
wisdom [obtained from the] contemplation of the
twelvefold chain of dependent origination. As the
objective [cause which is the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination] is already [known as] "cause,
" the wisdom [obtained from the] contemplation [of
it is a "cause"] derived from [another] cause, and
is thereby called "cause vis-a-vis cause"....

What is referred to as "effect" is the most
perfect enlightenment. Since [enlightenment] is
achieved through [the fulfillment of the
aforementioned two types of] causes, it is known as
"effect." What is referred to as "effect vis-a-vis
effect" is the mahaaparinirvaa.na. Since nirvaa.na
is attained [as a consequence of] enlightenment
[which is the "effect"], it is thereby described as
the "effect vis-a-vis effect."(68)

The twelvefold chain of dependent origination is
the "Buddha-nature qua cause," for as the expression
of the truth of the Middle, the contemplation of it
will bring about the "wisdom" (cause vis-a-vis
cause) which will lead to the achieving of "the most
perfect enlightenment" (effect) and the
"mahaaparinirvaa.na" (effect vis-a-vis effect) .
Again on the authority on the MNS,(69) Chi-tsang
goes on to associate the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination with the fifth aspect of
Buddha-nature, that is, "Buddha-nature qua neither
cause nor effect" or "direct cause of
Buddha-nature," and writers:

The MNS expounds five types of Buddha-nature.... The
twelvefold chain of dependent origination which
neither comes into nor goes out of existence is the
"Buddha-nature qua object" (that is, Buddha-nature
qua "cause") . The true insight arising from
[contemplating] the neither coming into nor going
out of existence of the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination is the "Buddha-nature qua
contemplative wisdom" (that is, Buddha-nature qua
"cause vis-a-vis cause). The consummation of this
insight is known as enlightenment, [which is the]
"Buddha-nature qua 'effect'." The complete
eradication of the bonds of sa.msaara as a
consequence of the fulfillment of the true insight
is the mahaaparinirvaa.na, [which is the]
"Buddha-nature qua 'effect vis-a-vis effect'.'' But
the twelvefold chain of dependent origination is
calm in essence. It is [in itself] neither the
object [of wisdom] nor wisdom, and is also neither
cause nor effect. Not knowing how to name it, we
call it provisionally "direct [cause of Buddha-]
nature" (cheng-hsing(w)). The "direct [cause of
Buddha-] nature" is the basis of the five [aspects
of Buddha-] nature.(70)

When Chi-tsang asserts that the twelvefold chain
of dependent origination "neither comes into nor
goes out of existence," he undoubtedly has in mind
the doctrine of dependent origination as a
refutation of the one-sided opinions of existence
and nonexistence and as an instance of the teaching
of eightfold negations, (71) in short, as the
Middle-way.(72) As knowledge of the Middle-way is a
prerequisite of the attainment of the Buddha-nature,
the twelvefold chain of dependent origination is
made out to be the "Buddha-nature qua object" or
"Buddha-nature qua cause." However, to consider the
Middle-way as "object" or "cause" is to think of it
in connection with its realization in sentient
beings, whereas the Middle-way as the Buddha-nature
per se transcends all differences and distinctions,
and as a consequence such dichotomies as "cause and
effect,"

P.182

"object and subject," and so forth are strictly
speaking not applicable to it. That is why Chi-tsang
proceeds to remark that the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination as the Middle-way is "neither
the object of wisdom nor wisdom, and is also neither
cause nor effect,'' and is in itself none other than
the "direct cause of Buddha-nature."(73)

Buddha-Nature and Sentient Beings

The upshot of our discussion is that Chi-tsang's
concept of Buddha-nature is entirely free of
ontological implications. This reflects the general
antimetaphysical position of Maadhyamika Buddhism of
which Chi-tsang is the leading proponent. It also
points to where the real significance of Chi-tsang's
teaching of Buddha-nature lies: Chi-tsang's
contribution to the history of the development of
the Buddha-nature doctrine rests not upon
philosophical originality in the ordinary sense of
the term, but upon his being one of the earliest
Maadhyamikas to expound the doctrine in such a way
that it becomes fully consistent with the
Maadhyamika way of thinking.

To conclude, we would examine briefly how Chi-tsang
conceives of the relation between Buddha-nature on
the one hand, and sentient beings and the phenomenal
world on the other hand, and contrast his opinion
with that of Hui-yuan. Let us take up sentient
beings first. We have noted several times in the
preceding that in the case of Hui-yuan, the
Buddha-nature is conceived of as a metaphysical
essence at once present in all beings of life as the
true-mind. and this possession of the true-mind by
all sentient beings is what ensures their eventual
enlightenment. Chi-tsang labels this belief of the
immanence of the Buddha-nature in man as the thesis
of "inherent existence" (pen-yu(x)),(74) criticizes
it for missing the skillful intent of the Buddha's
Buddha-nature message, (75) and even associates it
with the idea of the pudgala, considered heretical
by most Buddhists.(76) While Chi-tsang does not deny
that the MNS and other sutras contain passages
suggesting that sentient beings are originally
endowed with the Buddha-nature, he understands the
matter as follows:

Speaking of the Buddha-nature [itself], it is in
truth not [an entity] inherent of or to be newly
acquired [by man]. However, the Tathaagata is
skillful, and in order to dispel the erroneous view
of impermanence (prevalent among) sentient beings,
he teaches that all sentient beings originally
possess the Buddha-nature and as a consequence will
(sooner or later) realize the Way of the Buddha.(77)

In Chi-tsang's opinion, the Buddha-nature as the
Middle-way is not an entity intrinsic to or to be
newly acquired by man. When the Tathaagata speaks of
sentient beings originally possessing the
Buddha-nature, he is not referring to a metaphysical
reality which all of them share. but is emphasizing
in a figurative way the practical truth that all
beings of life will be able to "realize the Way of
the Buddha" if they tread the Buddhist path, with
the intention of dispelling the "erroneous view of
impermanence" which leads to scepticism of the
efficacy of
P.183

religious practice. That Chi-tsang sees the
significance of the Buddha-nature teaching often in
pragmatic rather than in philosophical terms is
clearly evidenced by the following remarks on the
purpose of the teaching of the tathaagatagarbha,
generally considered to be a synonym of
"Buddha-nature":(78)

Again, [the idea of tathaagatagarbha is put forward
by the Buddha] for the sake of the Nihilists, who
maintain that sentient beings are in nature similar
to grass and trees: they last for one life only, and
there is no existence after death. To counter such
[false opinion, the Buddha] then teaches [the
concept of] tathaagatagarbha, [and asserts that all
sentient beings] will definitely become the Buddha,
unlike grass and trees which last for one life only.
Thus the MNS says, "The Buddha-nature is not like
walls, tiles, and stones." (T, vol. 12, p. 581a,
11.22-23)

Again, in order to make sentient beings aware
that they have in themselves the Buddha-nature [and
so] resolve to attain enlightenment and strive for
Buddhahood, [the Buddha] teaches [the concept of]
Buddha-nature. Again, [the concept of Buddha-nature
is taught] in order to make sentient beings aware
that [living beings] other than themselves all have
in them the Buddha-nature, and [so] not to commit
the ten evil deeds such as killing.(79) Again, [the
concept of Buddha-nature is taught] in order to
prevent sentient beings from entertaining the views
of the two vehicles (that is, the Hiinayaana views
of the `sraavakas and pratyekabuddhas). [Knowing
that they] have solely the nature of the Buddha and
not [the nature of] the two vehicles, sentient
beings would not entertain the views of the two
vehicles.(80)

In proclaiming that all sentient beings have the
Buddha-nature, the Tathaagata means to instill in
his listeners confidence in themselves and respect
for others. For on knowing that they they possess
the Buddha-nature, they would think of themselves as
different from grass and trees and not doubt the
possibility of future salvation. Also, on knowing
that their fellow creatures likewise possess the
Buddha-nature, they would treat them with
consideration and compassion, and would not try to
hurt them in words or in deeds. Furthermore, on
realizing that Buddhahood is open to everyone, they
would not be satisfied with the inferior
achievements of `sraavakahood or pratyekabuddhahood,
and would strive for the supreme end of becoming the
Tathaagata. All in all, in Chi-tsang's eyes, the
mainstay of the Buddha-nature teaching rests with
its usefulness as a means of religious deliverance,
and not with its truthfulness as a reflection of the
nature of reality.

Since in the Yogaacaara teaching of Hui-yuan,
the Buddha-nature as the true-mind is the property
of every sentient being from the very start but
remains unnoticed and unrealized due to the
permeation of defilements, the attainment of the
nature of the Buddha by man is pictured in his
philosophy largely as the revelation of a
preexistent but concealed essence.(81) The notions
"concealment" (yin(y)) and "revelation" (hsien(z))
also figure in Chi-tsang's depiction of the relation
between Buddha-nature and sentient beings, but with
totally diverse connotations:

Question: Ti-lun [masters] also speak of the
concealment and revelation [of Buddha-nature]. In
what way is it different from [what you are
teaching] now? Explanation: Though they use the same
expressions as [ours], what they mean is

P.184

completely different. They hold that there is [in
sentient beings] a [true] substance which is the
tathaagatagarbha, which is covered by falsehood and
so is described as "concealed." When [sentient
beings] regain [their original nature], this [true]
substance would become apparent and so is described
as "revealed".... In our case, [however,] it is only
due to [the existence of] delusions that [the
Buddha-nature] is described as "concealed" and as
the "[tathaagata-] garbha." How could there be any
substance which is concealed? It is only due to [the
realization of] enlightenment that [the
Buddha-nature] is described as "revealed" and as the
"dharmakaaya." There is [actually] no substance
which is revealed. [Since] it is due to [the
existence of] delusions that [the Buddha-nature] is
described as concealed, nothing is actually
concealed even though [we use the term]
"concealment." [Since] it is due to [the realization
of] enlightenment that [the Buddha-nature] is
described as revealed, nothing is actually revealed
even though [we use the term] "revelation." It is
only because there is delusion that there is the
concealment [of Buddha-nature], and it is [only]
because there is enlightenment that there is the
revelation [of Buddha-nature].(82)

In the case of the Ti-lun School, "concealment"
and "revelation" are spoken of in connection with a
"true substance" which is immanent. Since Chi-tsang
excludes all ontic allusions from his idea of
Buddha-nature, the "concealment" and "revelation" of
Buddha-nature naturally mean something quite
different in his system of thought. According to
Chi-tsang, by "concealment" of Buddha-nature is
meant that the Buddha-nature as the Middle-way is
screened from the view of the common run of mankind
due to the existence of delusion. When the
Buddha-nature is so concealed from the understanding
of the nonenlightened, it is known as the
"tathaagatagarbha" (that is, embryo of the
tathaagata) with respect to them. By "revelation of
Buddha-nature" is meant that the Buddha-nature as
the Middle-way would become known to practitioners
who have worn away the last remarks of delusion
through diligent religious practice. When the
Buddha-nature is so revealed to the wisdom of the
enlightened, it is known as the "dharmakaaya" with
respect to them. In Chi-tsang's discourse on the
"concealment" and "revelation" of Buddha-nature,
there is no reference whatever to an eternal, pure
substance which stays hidden or becomes disclosed as
circumstance varies, and Chi-tsang is obviously
trying to draw our attention to this when he affirms
that "nothing is actually concealed even though we
use the term `con-cealment', " and "nothing is
actually revealed even though we use the term
'revelation'."

Buddha-Nature and Nonsentient Objects

As we have seen, in Hui-yuan's Yogaacaara
philosophy, the Buddha-nature as the true-mind is
given out as the metaphysical basis of the
phenomenal world. Chi-tsang, true to the Maadhyamika
tradition to which he belongs, is not interested in
exploring into the ontological origin of the
phenomenal order. However, he does on occasion talk
about the relation of the Buddha-nature with
nonsentient objects, and in this connection comes
forth with the very startling thesis that not only
sentient beings but also non-sentient objects such
as grass and trees possess the Buddha-nature. This
thesis is startling not only because it seems to fly
in the

P.185

face of the tacit agreement among all Buddhists that
only beings with life are capable of cultivating the
Buddhist path and so attaining the Buddhist goal. It
also appears to undercut the very ground of
Chi-tsang's own explication of the purpose of the
Buddha-nature teaching: for has Chi-tsang not
repeatedly told us that the Tathaagata teaches the
possession of Buddha-nature by all sentient beings
in order to remind them that they are not like grass
and trees which "last for one life only" and can
never achieve the supreme fruit of Buddhahood?(83)
Chi-tsang's demonstration of the possession of
Buddha-nature by nonsentient objects is preceded by
the elucidation of a distinction: "outside the true
principle" (li-wai(r) ) and "within the true
principle" (li-nei(q)).(84) By "outside the true
principle," Chi-tsang refers to the common people,
the two vehicles, and the misguided Mahaayaanists
who fail to comprehened the empty nature of dharmas
and whose life and actions are characterized by
attachment. The opposite are the buddhas and
bodhisattvas, who perceive that dharmas neither come
into nor go out of existence and whose life and
actions exemplify the truth of the Middle-way, and
so are said to be "within the true principle."(85)
Chi-tsang does not deny that there exist these two
fundamental categories of the nonenlightened and
enlightened in the actual world, but he continues to
reason how sentient beings "outside the true
principle, " and, for that matter, nonsentient
objects as well, would figure in the
nondiscriminating vision of those who are "within"
it:

These passages(86) teach that in the true principle,
all dharmas [including both] the "individual"
(cheng(s) ) and his "environment" (i(aa) ) are
non-dual.(87) Since the individual and his
environment are nondual, if sentient beings have the
Buddha-nature, grass and trees [also] have the
Buddha-nature. For this reason, [we maintain that]
not only sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, but
grass and trees also have the Buddha-nature.

When one comprehends the equal nature of all
dharmas and does not see any distinction between
oneself and one's environment, [one will apprehend
that] there exists in the [true] principle no mark
of attainment and nonattainment. Since there is no
[mark of] nonattainment [in the true principle], we
[can] speak provisionally of the attainment of
Buddhahood [by grass and trees]. For this reason,
[we hold] that when sentient beings attain
Buddhahood, all grass and trees also attain
Buddhahood.

So the [Vimalakiirti-] suutra says, "All dharmas
are the tathata, and so is Maitreya. If Maitreya
attains enlightenment, so should all sentient
beings? " (T, vol. 14, p. 532b, 11.12-19) This
[passage] teaches that since sentient beings and
Maitreya are of one tathataa, not two, if Maitreya
attains enlightenment, so should all sentient
beings. As this is the case with sentient beings,
the same is true of grass and trees. Since the
[true] principle is [all] pervasive, there is
nowhere the aspiration [of those "within it] does
not reach. This is what is known as [the way of]
nonobstruction of the Mahayana.(88)

To buddhas and bodhisattvas who are "within the true
principle" and practice the way of nonattachment,
all dharmas would appear "equal" and "nondual" and
all forms of differences would vanish, even the
differences between "within the true principle" and
"outside the true principle," between "oneself' and
one's "environment," and so forth. Indeed, given the
teaching of the Buddha-nature as

P.186

the Middle-way and the definition of the Middle-way
as the transcending of all discriminations, it is
natural to conclude that to one who truly attains
the Buddha-nature, all distinctions, including the
distinction between "attaining" and "nonattaining,"
would come to an end. As a result, all objects of
the phenomenal world, from sentient beings "outside
the true principle" down to such lifeless entities
as grass and trees, would be envisaged by him as
participating in his "all pervasive" enlightenment
experience and so assuming the nature of the Buddha
like himself. It is on this count that Chi-tsang,
following the suggestion of the Vimalakiirtisuutra,
asserts that "If Maitreya attains enlightenment, so
should all sentient beings. As this is the case with
sentient beings, the same is true of grass and
trees."

All that the above discussion demonstrates is
that nonsentient objects are experienced by those
who are "within the true principle" to be one with
themselves and so possessing the Buddha-nature like
themselves. It by no means shows that grass and
trees are capable of actively following the true
principle and thus really coming to embody in their
being the nature of the Tathaagata. Indeed,
Chi-tsang is the first person to remind us of that.
So he continues:

This is the "general way" (t'ung men(ab) ) of
describing the matter. But when looked at in the
"specific way" (pieh men(ac)), the situation is not
like that.(89) Why? [For in actual life,] sentient
beings have the mind of delusion and so can realize
enlightenment. As grass and trees are devoid of a
mind and can [never] become deluded, how can they
ever become enlightened? Just as when there is
dream, there is awakening, and when there is no
dream, there is no awakening [from dream]. For this
reason, [the Buddha] declares that sentient beings
have the Buddha-nature and so will attain
Buddhahood, [whereas] grass ane trees do not have
the Buddha-nature and will not [ever] attain
Buddhahood. That [grass and trees] "will attain" and
"will not attain" [Buddhahood] are equally the words
of the Buddha. What is there so astonishing [about
the idea of the possession of Buddha-nature by
nonsentient object]?(90)

That grass and trees "will attain" and "will not
attain" Buddhahood can simulataneously be "the words
of the Buddha," for the term "attain" carries
diverse meanings in the two cases. When the
Tathaagata teaches that nonsentient objects "will
attain Buddhahood," he is telling us that in the
all-encompassing wisdom of the enlightened, all
objects are perceived as sharing in its fulfillment
of the nature of the Buddha. But that need not
preclude the Tathaagata from also teaching that
nonsentient objects "will not attain Buddhahood,''
when "attaining Buddhahood" is taken to signify the
active pursuing and actual realization of the nature
of the Buddha in their life. When so understood,
there is indeed little in the thesis of the
attaining of Buddhahood and so the possession of
Buddha-nature by grass and trees to be surprised
about. It is the logical outcome of the theory of
the Buddha-nature as the Middle-way. It does not in
any way contradict the orthodox view that Buddhahood
is only open to beings with life, and is also
completely in line with Chi-tsang's explanation of
the purpose of the Buddha-nature teaching as set out
in the previous section.

P.187

Conclusion

In the above exposition, we have seen that both
Hui-yuan and Chi-tsang base their teachings of
Buddha-nature on the MNS, from which they borrow
most of the key terms for their analyses of the
concept. Nevertheless, their general approach to the
problem, their understanding of the Import of the
doctrine, their description of the relation of
Buddha-nature with sentient beings, their
interpretations of the meaning of "direct cause of
Buddha-nature," and so forth remain widely different
owing to their respective Yogaacaara and Maadyhamik
backgrounds. Subsequent development of the
Buddha-nature theory in China follows in main the
two basic directions initiated by Hui-yuan and
Chi-tsang, but to demonstrate that would require the
space of another article.

NOTES

1. For discussions of the teaching of
Buddha-nature in the Mahaaparinirvaa.nasuutra
(hereafter cited as MNS), consult Mou Tsung-san(ad),
Fo-hsing yu pan-jo(ae) (Taipei, 1977), vol. 1, pp.
179-182 and 189-216; and Ming-Wood Liu, "The
Doctrine of the Buddha-nature in the Mahaayaana
Mahaaparinirvaa.na-suutra, " Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 5, no.
2(1982): 63-94; hereafrer cited as Liu, "Doctrine."

2. On the early Chinese Buddha-nature theories,
refer to Fuse Kogaku(af), Nehanshuu no kenkyuu(ag),
2nd ed. (Tokyo, 1973), vol. 2; T'ang Yung-t'ung(ah),
Han Wei Liang-Chin Nan-pei-ch'ao fo-chiao shih(ai),
2d ed. (Peking, 1963), pp. 677-717; Mou Tsung-san,
Fo-hsing yu pan-jo, pp. 182-189; and Whalen Lai,
"Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-nature: The
Nirvaa.na School," Philosophy East & West 32, no.
(April 1982): 135-149.

3. Posterity often refers to Hui-yuan as
"Hui-yuan of the Ching-ying Temple," in order to
avoid confusion with the famous Hui-Yuan of
Lu-shan(aj) (344-416).

4. Hui-yuan regards the idea of Buddha-nature as
the fundamental principle of the one vehicle
teaching. See Ta-ch'eng i-chang(ak) (Essentials of
the Mahaayaana, hereafter cited as Essentials),
Takakusu Junjiro(al) and Watenabe Kaikyoku(am) ,
eds., Taisho shinshuu daizokyo(an), 85 vols. (Tokyo,
1924- 1934), vol. 44, p. 649a, 1 1.27-28, hereafter
cited as T. Chi-tsang also mentions the
Buddha-nature as the most important issue of the
Buddha Dharma. See Sheng-man-ching pao-h'u(ao), T,
vol. 37, p. 85a, I.27.

5. Both Hui-yuan and Chi-tsang have compiled
commentaries on the MNS. Refer to the lists of works
of the two masters in Ocho Enichi(ap), Chuugoku
buukyo no kenkyuu(aq), vol. 3 (Kyoto, 1979), pp.
153- 154. As we shall see, a large part of their
expositions of the Buddha-nature are presented as
exegeses of key passages on the subject in the MNS.

6. Refer to Essentials, T, vol. 44, p. 477c, and
Chi-tsang's Sheng-man-ching pao-k'u, T, vol. 37, p.
67 a-b, and Chung-kuan-lun su(ar), T,vol. 42, p.
153c.

7. Biography of Hui-yuan, in Tao-hsuan(as), Hsu
kao-seng-chuan(at) , T. vol. 50, pp. 489c-492b;
hereafter cited as Tao-hsuan, Hsu kao-seng-chuan.
For recent studies of the life and writings of
Hui-yuan, refer to Kamata Shigeo(au) , Chuugoku
bukkyo shiso-shi kenkyuu(av) (Tokyo, 1968), pp.
298-312. and Ocho Enichi, Chuugoku bukkyo no
kenkyuu, pp. 146-150.

8. Hu-yuan undertook his apprenticeship as a
Buddhist master under Fa-shang(aw) (495-580), one of
the most prominent Ti-lun masters of his time. He
also came under the influence of the teaching of the
She-lun School through T'an-ch'ien(ax) (542-607) in
the final years of his life. See Tao-hsuan, Hsu
kao-seng-chuan,, T, vol. 50, p. 490a and p. 572c.

9. For more information on these early Chinese
Yogaacaara schools, see D. S. Ruegg, La Theorie du
Tathaagatagarbha et du Gotra (Paris: Ecole Francaise
d'Extreme-Orient, 1969), pp. 439-442; Alfonso Verdu,
Dialectical Aspects in Buddhist Thought(Kansas City,
Kansas: Center for East Asian

P.188

Studies. University of Kansas, 1974), pp. 29-39;
Paul Magnin, La Vie er l'Oeuvre de Huisi (Paris:
Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient, 1979), pp. 96-97,
notes 101 and 102, and, Diana Y. Paul, Philosophy of
Mind In Sixth Century China (Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, (1984), chapter 2.

10. In this essay, the term "Yogaacaara" is used
to refer to this teaching of the true-consciousness
of the early Chinese Yogaacaarins. It should be
noted that the concept of true-consciousness is not
a characteristic feature of Indian Yogaacaarsim in
general.

11. Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun i-su(ay), T, vol.
44, p. 183c, 11.27-28.

12. Hui-yuan adopts the Yogaacaara system of
eight consciousnesses in his analysis of the
character and function of the mind. For example, see
Essentials, T, vol. 44. p. 524b-c.

13. Ibid., p. 524c, 1.20.

14. Ibid., p. 829c, 1.13.

15. Ibid., p. 524c, 11.26-27.

16. For a detailed picture of Hui-yuan's theory
of origination of false phenomena from the
true-mind, see Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lan i-su. T, vol.
44, pp. 532c-533a.

17. For more information on the mind-only
teaching of Hui-yuan, consult Kamata Shigeo,
Chuugoku bukkyo shiso-shi kenkyuu, pp. 312-355;
Kaginushi Ryokei(az) , Kegon kyogaku josetsu(ba)
(Tyoto, 1968), pp. 107-115; Katsumata Shunkyo(bb),
Bukkyo ni okeru shinshiki-setsu no kenkyuu(bc)
(Tokyo, 1961), pp. 668-677; Takamine Ryoshuu(bd),
Kegon shiso shi(be), 2d ed. (Tokyo, 1963), pp.
101-114; and Han Ching-ch'ing(bf) , "Ching-ying
Hui-yuan pa-shih i-shu(bg)," in Wei-shi ssu-shing
lun-chi(bh), vol. 2, ed. Chang Man-t'ao(bi) (Taipei,
1978), pp. 345-381.

18. Essentials T, vol. 44, p. 636a, 1.27-b,
1.1.

19. Hui-yuan devotes an entire section to the
problem of Buddha-nature in the Essentials, and his
commentaries on the MNS and the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin
lun(k) , entitled the Ta-pan nieh-p'an ching
i-chi(bj) and Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun i-su,
respectively, also contain interesting observations
on the subject. However, most of Hui-yuan's
expositions on the Buddha-nature are posed as
exegeses of pronouncements on the concept found in
various suutras and `saastras, and, on the whole,
Hui-yuan appears to be more concerned with
clarifying and coordinating ideas on the
Buddha-nature as passed down in various canonical
traditions than in giving a systematic account of
his personal view. In the following study, we shall
try to bring into focus Hui-yuan's own opinion on
the question of Buddha-nature by relating his
remarks on the subject with his general
philosophical position and by contrasting his stand
with that of Chi-tsang. For accounts which more
truthfully reflect the actual manner of deliberation
of Hui-yuan, consult Tokiwa Daijo(bk), Bussho no
kenkyuu(bl), revised ed. (Tokyo, 1944), pp. 193-201;
Ogawa Kokan(bm), Chuugoku nyoraizo shiso kenkyuu(bn)
(Tokyo, 1976), pp. 252-289; Hukihara Shoshin(bo),
"Joyo Eon bussho-setsu(bp)," in Hokugi bukkyo no
kenkyuu(bq), 2d ed., ed. Ocho Enichi (Kyoto, 1978)
pp. 203-260.

20. For discussions on the Sanskrit original of
the term "Buddha-nature, " refer to Mizutani
Kosho(br) , "Bussho ni tsuite, "(bs) Indogaku
bukkyogaku no kenkyuu(bt), 4, no. 2(1956): 550-553
(hereafter cited as IBK); Shinoda Masashige(bu),
"Bussho to sono gengo(bv)," IBK 11, no. 1 (1963):
223-226; Ogawa Ichijo(bw) , "Bussho to
buddhatva(bx)," IBK 11, no. 2 (1963): 544-545, and
his Bussho shiso(by)(Kyoto, 1982), pp.21-30.

21. See Liu, "Doctrine," sec. II

22. See note 4 herein.

23. Essentials, T, vol. 44, p. 472b.

24. Ibid., p. 476b, 11.7-9.

25. Refer to Liu, "Doctrine," sec. III, 3 and 4.

26. The section on the Buddha-nature in the
Essentials opens with a long exposition of the
meaning of the words "Buddha" and "nature."
According to Hui-yuan, the word "nature" has four
basic significations: (i) seed, cause, or root, (ii)
essence, (iii) immutability, and (iv) distinction
(T, vol. 44, p. 472a-b).

27. Ibid., p. 472a, 11.15-23.

28. When Hui-yuan deals with the "cognitive" and
"cognized" aspects of Buddha-nature a few paragraphs
later, he refers to the former as the true-mind and
the latter as the nature of dharmas, the
dharmadhaatu, the supreme form of emptiness, the
Middle-way, and so forth. See ibid., p. 472c.

29. T, vol. 12, p. 530c, 11.15-17.

P.189

30. Ta-pan nieh-p'an ching i-chi, T, vol. 37, p.
836b, 11.16-19.

31. Indeed, the entire early history of the
Buddha-nature doctrine in China can be read as an
ongoing attempt to identify that precise element in
the constitution of sentient beings which explains
their special status of being the "direct cause of
Buddha-nature." Refer to Liu, "Early Development."

32. Allegedly compiled by A`svagho.sa the famous
Buddhist poet and author of the
Buddhacaritamahaakaavya, the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun
is most probably the work of a Chinese Yogaacaara
master of the middle sixth century. According to the
Ta-ch'eng Ch'i-hsin lun, there is in every sentient
being a mind which has both an absolute and a
phenomenal aspect. In its absolute aspect, the mind
is the realm of truth (dharmadhaatu) and as such is
pure, unborn, imperishable. and undifferentiated.
This absolute mind takes on a phenomenal aspect when
it comes under the influence of falsehood. and it is
this phenomenal aspect of the mind which directly
gives rise to the world of common experience. (See
T. vol. 32, pp. 575c-576c.) This idea of two aspects
of the mind is taken over by Hui-yuan and Forms the
backbone of his mind-only philosophy. as can be seen
from our sketch of his teaching in section II,
"Background," herein.

33. T, vol. 12, p. 524a, 11.5-15.

34. Essentials, T, vol. 44, p. 473c, 11.24-28.

35. See "Background," in section II herein.

36. See notes 27 and 34, herein.

37. See "Background," in section II herein.

38. Essentials, T, vol. 44, p. 472c, 11.6-10,
and p. 473a, 11.25-27.

39. Ibid., p. 526a, 11.22-23, and p. 651b,
11.9-10.

40. Ibid., p. 473a, 1.29-b, 1.3.

41. See T, vol. 32, p. 575c, 1.20-p. 576a, 1.1.

42. For example, see Essentials, T, vol. 44, p.
530a, 1.18-b, 1.5, and p. 652a, 1.1-10.

43. Ibid., p. 530a, 11.24-28.

44. Biography of Chi-tsang in Tao-hsuan,
Hsu-kao-seng-chuan, T, vol. 50, pp. 513c-515a. Hirai
Shunei's(bz) Chuugoku hannya shiso-shi kenkyuu(ca)
(Tokyo 1976) is by far the most detailed and
penetrating study on the life, works, and thought of
Chi-tsang available at present; hereafter cited as
Hisai Shunei, Chuugoku hannya shisho-shi kenkyuu.
For discussions on the teaching of Chi-tsang,
consult Hsueh-li Cheng, "Zen and San-lun Maadhyamika
Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundations of
Zen Teachings and Practices," Religious Studies 15,
no. 3 (1979): 343-352; "Naagaarjuna, Kant, and
Wittgenstein: The San-lun Maadhyamika Exposition of
Exptiness," Religious Studies 17, no. 1 (1981):
67-73: and "Chi-tsang's Treatment of Metaphysical
Issues." Journal of Chinese Philosophy 8. no. 3
(1981): 371 389. Also consult Aaron K. Koseki,
"Chi-tsang's Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun: The Two Truths and
the Buddha-nature" (Ph.d. diss, University of
Wisconsin, 1977) (hereafter cited as Koseki,
"Chi-tsang's Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun"), and "The Concept
of Practice in San-lun Thought: Chi-tsang and the
'Concurrent Insight' of the Two Truths." Philosophy
East & West 31, no. 4 (October 1981): 449-466.

45. See note 31 herein.

46. See Chi-tsang's criticism of the
Buddha-nature theories of his predecessors and
contemporaries, including those of Ti-lun and
She-lun masters, in the Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun(cb) (The
profound teachings of the Mahayana; hereafter cited
as Profound Teachings), T, vol. 45. pp. 35b-37a.

47. Sec note 21 herein.

48. The most important original source for the
study of the Buddha-nature doctrine of Chi-tsang is
the Profound Teachings, in which a whole section is
given to the exposition of the problem. Many of
Chi-tsang's other compilations also contain
discussions on the subject, such as the
Chung-kuan-lun su, Ching-ming hsuan-lun(cc), Fa-hua
hsuan-lun(cd), and Sheng-man-ching pao-k'u. This
study aims primarily at bringing out the Maadhyamika
orientation of Chi-tsang's Buddha-nature teaching by
contrasting it with that of Hui-yuan, and does not
pretend to be an exhaustive examination of all
aspects of Chi-tsang's ideas on the question.
Interested readers may consult Tokiwa Daijo, Bussho
no kenkyuu, pp. 206-220; Ogawa Kokan, Chuugoku
nyoraizo shiso kenkyuu, 324-330; Kamata Shigeo,
Chuugoku bukkyo shiso-shi kenkyuu, pp. 30-50: Hirai
Shunei, Chuugoku hannya shiso-shi kenkyuu, pp.
617-640; Aaron K. Koseki, "Chi-tsang's Ta-ch'eng
hsuuan-lun," chap. 4, and "Praj~naaparamitaa and the
Buddhahood of the Non-sentient World: The San-lun
Assimilation of Buddha-Nature and Middle Path
Doctrine," Journal of the International Association
of Buddhist Studies 3, no. 1 (1980):

P.190

16-33: and Mint-Wood Liu, "Chi-tsang ti fo-hsing
kuan(cc)," Journal of Oriental Studies 19, no. 1
(1981): 44-72.

49. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 41c.
Chi-tsang also includes in the list of synonyms of
"Buddha-nature" the "tathaagatagarbha, "
"intrinsically pure mind" and "eighth
consciousness," which, as we have seen, are the
basic furniture of Yogaacaara thought. He does so
largely because these concepts appear in such
authoritative canonical texts as the
`Sriimaalaadeviisi.mhanaadasuutra and
L^ankaavataarasuutra, and so cannot be dismissed
offhand. Chi-tsang's general policy is incorporate
them into his writings, but meanwhile interpret them
in such a way that they lose all their original
ontological implications. See Hirai Shunei, Chugoku
hannya shiso-shi kenkyuu, pp. 636-637, and note 80
herein.

50. Chi-tsang writes in the Jen-wang pan-jo
ching su(cf) : "Neither-birth-nor-extinction is
synonymous with the Middle-way, and is the other
name for the profound nirvaa.na. It is also called
the Buddha-nature"(T. vol. 33, p. 315a, 11.28-29).
Chi-tsang often couples the "Middle-way" with
"Buddha-nature, '' for instance, in the
Chung-kuan-lun su, T. vol. 42, p. 9c, 1.15 and p.
21b, 1.9.

51. T, vol. 12, p. 523b, 11.13-18.

52. A central teaching of the MNS is that
nirvaa.na is eternal, blissful, personal, and pure.
See Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism in China
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1964), pp. 114-115.

53. The concept "Middle-way" is propounded in
Early Buddhism in connection with religious practice
and metaphysical speculation. In the former case. it
denotes avoidance of the extreme of devotion to
sense pleasure on the one hand, and to
self-mortification on the other hand:

Monks, these two extremes should not be followed by
one who has gone forth as a wanderer. What two?

Devotion to the pleasure of sense, a low
practice of villagers, a practice unworthy,
unprofitable, the way of the world [on the one
hand]; and [on the other] devotion to
self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy and
unprofitabe.

By avoiding these two extremes, the Tathaagata
has gained knowledge of that middle path which
giveth vision, which giveth knowledge, which causeth
calm, special knowledge, enlightenment, Nibbaana.
(Sa.myuttanikaaya 56, 2, i, in F. L. Woodward,
trans., The Book of Kindred Sayings, 5 vols.
(London: Pali Text Society, 1917-1930), vol. 5, pp.
356-357; hereafter cited as Woodward, Book of
Kindred Sayings)

In the latter case, it indicates abstinence from
taking sides on the so called "indeterminate
questions," such as the existence or nonexistence of
the world, the existence or nonexistence of the
self, and so forth. For example:

Everything exists:- this is one extreme. Nothing
exists:- this is the other extreme. Not approaching
either extreme the Tathaagata teaches you a doctrine
by the middle[way]: - Conditioned by ignorance
activities come to pass, conditioned by activities
consciousness; thus conditioned [arises]
name-and-shape; and sense arises, contact, feeling,
craving, grasping, becoming, birth, decay-and-death,
grief, suffering,... even such is the uprising of
this entire mass of ill. But from the utter fading
away and ceasing of ignorance [arises] ceasing of
activities, and thus comes ceasing of this entire
mass of ill. (Sa.myutta-nikaaya XIII 15, in F. L.
Woodward, Book of Kindred Sayings, vol. 2, p. 13)

54. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 44, p. 37b,
11.16-23.

55. Chi-tsang considers the spirit of
"nonattachment, " which underlies the notion of
Middle-way, as the central principle of Buddhism. So
he observes, "Even though the Buddha expounds
myriads of concepts and teachings, he has in mind
the one mark and one taste of nonattachment''
(Chuang-kuan-lun su, T, vol.42, p.32a, 11.10-11). He
further asserts, "Thus, it is said that partiality
and attachment are the roots of sa.msaara, and
impartiality and nonattachment are the main theses
of [all] suutras and `saastras" (Son-inn
hsuan-i(cg), T, vol. 45, p. 7a, 11.25-26).

It should be noted that in his long lost
commentary on the MNS titled Ta-pan nieh-p'an ching
su(ch), Chi-tsang closely follows the wording of the
suutra and regards the union of the extremes of
"emptiness" and "nonemptiness" as the Middle-way.
See the fragment of the commentary collected by
Hirai Shunei in "Kichizo cho 'Daihatsu-nehan-gyo
she' itsubun no kenkyuu(ci)" Nanto bukkyo(cj)(29)
(1972) : 60; hereafter cited as Hirai Shunei,
"Kichizo cho Daihatsu-nehan-gyo sho' itsubun no
kenkyuu."

56. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 38c,
11.2--8.

57. Ibid., p. 36c, 11.17-18.

P.191

58. Instead. Chi-tsang criticizes vehemently
those who, following the suggestion of the MNS,
advocate that sentient beings are the direct cause
of Buddha-nature. See ibid., p. 36a.

59. Ibid., p. 37a, 11.9-10.

60. Ibid., p. 38a, 11.17-19.

61. For explanation of the meaning of "within
the true principle" and "outside the true
principle," see the section later in this paper
entitled "Buddha-Nature and Nonsentient Objects."

62. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 41b,
11.1-3.

63. For example, when Chi-tsang comments on the
analysis of the Buddha-nature, in the MNS, into the
five aspects of"cause," "cause vis-i-vis cause,"
"effect," "effect vis-i-vis effect." and "neither
cause nor effect." he sometimes refers to the aspect
of "neither cause nor effect" as "cheng-yin
fo-hsing" (see note 60 herein) and sometimes as
"cheng-hsing" (see note 70 herein).

64. T, vol. 12, p. 523c, 1.24-p. 524a, 1.5. See
note 33 herein.

65. The idea that the doctrine of dependent
origination signifies the Middle-way can be found in
the oldest Buddhist texts. For example, we find the
following conversation in the Sa.myuttanikaaya:

When the Exalted One was staying at Saavatthii a
certain brahmin came into the presence of the
Exalted One, and exchanged gretings with him. and in
courteous and friendly converse sat down at one
side. So seated he said to the Exalted One:-

'What [say you] here. Master Gotama:- He who does
the deed, is he the one to experience?'

'He who does the deed and he who experiences are the
same:- this brahmin, is one extreme.

'Well. then, Master Gotama, [what of this:]- he who
does the deed is not the same as he who
experiences?'

'He who does the deed is not the same as he who
experiences:- this, brahmin, is the other extreme.
The Tathaagata. not approaching either of these
extremes, teaches you a Doctrine by a middle [way]:-
conditioned by ignorance activities. consciousness,
and so on. Such is the arising of this entire mass
of ill. But by the utter fading away and ceasing of
ignorance activities cease, by the ceasing of
activities consciousness ceases, and so on. Such is
the ceasing of this entire mass of ill'
(Sa.myuttanikaaya XII 46, in F. L. Woodward, trans.,
Book of Kindred Sayings, vol. 2, pp. 51-52).

Also see second quotation in note 53 herein.

66. See note 51 herein.

67. Refer to section II, "Buddha-Nature qua
Cause and Effect," herein, for explanation of the
meaning of "auxiliary cause."

68. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 37c,
11.16-23.

69. A few lines after the quotation in note 64
herein the MNS asserts, "The twelvefold chain of
dependent origination neither comes into nor goes
out of existence, neither exists permanently nor
becomes extinct. is neither identical nor different,
neither comes hither nor goes thither. and is
neither cause nor effect" (T, vol. 12, p. 524a,
11.11-12). The first four pairs of "neither... nor''
are commonly known as the eightfold negations, which
are generally considered as a peculiar teaching of
Madhyamika Buddhism. for the become will-known as a
group largely through Naagaarjuna's
Muulamadhyaamakakaarikaa.

70. Chung-kuan-lun su. T, vol. 42, p. 6b,
11.18-25.

71. See note 69 preceding.

72. Chi-tsang often links the eightfold
negations with the Middle-way. For example, see
Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45. pp. 25c-30b.

73. We have just observed that Chi-tsang makes
little difference between "Buddha-nature" and
"direct cause of Buddha-nature." From the preceding
exposition. it should be clear that. strictly
speaking, it is the Middle-way which is the
"Buddha-nature qua 'neither cause nor effect'":

P.192

Chi-tsang's Theory of the Five Aspects
of Buddha-Nature Based on the MNS
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪
1. Buddha-nature qua "cause" twelvefold chain of dependent
origination
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪
2. Buddha-nature qua "cause widsom
vis-a-vis cause"
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪
3. Buddha-nature qua "effect" the most perfect enlightenment
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪
4. Buddha-nature qua "effect maahaparinirvaa.na
vis-a-vis effect"
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪
5. Buddha-nature qua "neither Middle-way (as exemplified by
cause nor effect" the twelvefold chain of
dependent origination, and so
forth)
哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪哪

See Chi-tsang's exposition of the five aspects in
the Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, pp. 37c-38b. In
his Ta-pan nieh-pan ching su, Chi-tsang further
distinguishes between "neither cause nor effect" as
applied to the "twelvefold chain of dependent
origination" and the "Middle-way." Refer to Hirai
Shunei, "Kichizo cho 'Daihatsu-nehan-gyo she'
itsubun no kenkyuu," p. 63.

74. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 39a,
1.27-b,1.1.

75. Ibid., p. 39b, 11.15-25.

76. Ching-ming hsuan-lun, T, vol. 38, pp.
856c-857a.

77. Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45, p. 39c,
11.3-6.

78. See note 20 herein and next paragraph.

79. The ten evil deeds are killing, stealing,
adultery, lying, double-tongue, coarse language,
filthy language, covertousness, anger, and perverted
views.

80. Sheng-men-ching pao-k'u, T, vol. 37, p. 67a,
1.22-b,1.2.

81. See section II, What Is "Buddha-nature"?

82. Nieh-p'an ching yu-k(ck), T, vol. 38, p.
231c, 11.12-20.

83. Refer to note 80 herein.

84. See Profound Teachings, T, vol. 45. p.
40a-b.

85. For detailed description of these two
categories of beings, refer to ibid., p. 40b, ]
1.5-8, and Ching-ming hsuan-lun, T, vol. 38, p.
868a, 11.19-24.

86. The following remarks come after a series of
citations from the Avata.msakasuutra, the
Mahaasa.mnipaatasuutra, the MNS, and so forth, all
of which, in Chi-tsang's opinion, likewise teach the
presence of Buddha-nature in nonsentient objects.

87. "Cheng" and "i" are two forms of
retribution, the former being the resultant person
and the latter being the world in which the
resultant person dwells, comprising both other
sentient beings and nonsentient objects.

88. Profound Teachings, T. vol. 45, p. 40c,
11.12-23.

89. "General" and "specific" are two ways of
looking at the relationship between Buddha-nature
and the phenomenal world, the former emphasizing
their oneness and the latter stressing their
difference.

90. Ibid., p. 40c, 11.23-28.