non-duality of the two truths in sinitic mādhyamika

7/28/2019 Non-duality of the Two Truths in Sinitic Mdhyamika

1/24

THE JOURNAL

OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFBUDDHIST STUDIES

E D I T O R - I N - C H I E F

A . K. NarainUniversity of Wiscon sin, Mad ison, USA

E D I T O R SHeinz Bechert Leon Hurvitz

Universitat Gottingen, FRG UBC , Vancouver, CanadaLewis Lancaster A lexander W. MacDonald

University of California, Berkeley, USA Universite de Paris X, Nanterre, FranceB.J. Stavisky A lex Wayman

WN UR, Moscow, USSR Columbia University, New York, USA

A S S O C I A T E E D I T O RStephen Beyer

University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Volume 2 1979 Number 2


2/24

C O N T E N T S

I. ARTICLESD harm asri on the Sixteen Degrees of Co mprehension

by Leon Hurvitz 7Indrabhuti's 'Confession of Errors in the FundamentalTe achin gs of the Vajrayana', A Critical Edition, EnglishTranslation and Discussion, by Nathan Katz 31Non-duality of the T wo Tru th s in Sinitic Madhyamika: Originof the 'Third Truth' , by Whalen Lai 45Transpersonal Psychological Observations on TheravadaBuddhist Meditative Practices, by James Santucci 66Bodhicaryavatara 9:2 as a Focus for Tibetan Interpretationsof the Two Truths in the Prasangika Madhyamikaby Michael Sweet 79

II . SHORT PAPER1. Some Bud dhist Poems in Tamil, by G. Vijayavenugopal 93

I I I . BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICESReviews:1. The Prajnaparamita Literature, by Edward Conze 992. Two Ways to Perfection: Buddhist and Christian

by Shanta Ratnayaka 1033. An Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systemsby F. D. Lessing and A . Wayman 1044. Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia;Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka;Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laosand Burma, by Bardwell Smith 1075. Studies in Pali and Buddhism, Edited by A . K. Narain 109


3/24

Notices:1. B ud dh is t W isdom . T h e mystery of the self, by George Grimm 1112 . B uddhi sm . A se l ec t b iography , by Satyaprakasli 1123 . Liv ing B uddh i s t M as te r s , by Jack KornjieUl 1124 . Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis , by Steven T. Katz 112

I V . N O T E S A N D N E W S1. On B uddh i s t R esea rch In fo rm a t ion (B . R . I . )

of the Ins t i tu te for Advanced Studiesof W orld Rel ig ions ( IASW R), New York 113O B I T U A R Y H 6

L I S T O F I A B S M E M B E R S 117

The Edi tor - in-Chief wishes to express thanks to Roger Jacksonand Rena Crispin for their assis tance in the product ion of this issue.


4/24

Nondual i ty of the Two Truthsin Sinitic Madhyamika:Or ig in o f the Thi rd Tru th '

by Whalen W. Lai

The teaching of the Buddha concerning Reali ty has recourse to TwoTr u th s : t h e M u n d an e an d th e H ig h es t T r u th .Without the knowledge of the d is t inct ion between the two, onedoes not know the profound poin t in the Teaching .The Highes t Tru th canno t be taugh t apar t f rom the Mundane , bu twi thou t under s tand ing the fo rmer , one does no t apprehendniwana. Madhyamika-karika XXIV, 8-10.

T h e d is t inct ion of the Tw o T ru th s is centra l to Nag ar juna 'sMadhyamika. I t grew out of necessity in his attack on his opponents,th e Sarva stivad ins. Simply pu t, the Sarvastivadins we re rationalists whoassumed a na tu ra l co r respondence be tween idea , eidos, and reali ty ,logos. For them, reali ty could be analyzed into a f inite number ofen t i t i es , dharmas, each with its own discrete ratson d'etre {svabhxwa, "self-nature") . Nagar juna opposed th is assumption and succeeded inshowing the an t inomies innate to such reasoning . Real i ty , dharmata,being in f lux, cannot be frozen into such neat categories. In sodisput ing the symmetry between reason and real i ty , Nagar juna set upthe d is t inct ion of the Two Truths : the nondiscurs ive Highest Tru thand the everyday , exped ien t Mundane Tru th . S ince the Buddhacannot stay forever in si lence concerning the former, he must haverecourse to the la t ter to evoke i t . However , the two perspect ivesthein tu i t ive and the analy t icalbeing d if ferent , there should not be anyconfus ion .

Ch inese ma s te r s o f the Two Tru th s theo ry , however, thou gh t tha tthe Two T ru th s should be uni ted in a T hi rd T ru th . Th is postu la t ion of45


5/24

a T h i r d T r u th was the resu lt of the need to go beyond the perce ivedd i c h o t o m y o f Two T ru th s . Th e d icho tomy was so perce ived because theC hine se m is took the T w o T ru th s to be two real it ies para l le l ing n i rv an kEmpt iness and samsar ic be ing . S ince the sutras clearly stated thatnirvana is samsara a n d samsara is nirvana, the C hine se felt just if ied ins ay in g t h a t t h e H ig h e r T ru th is t h e M u n d an e T ru th an d th e M u n d an eT r u t h is the H igh er Tr u th . How tha t ha pp en ed h i s to rica lly is theobject of the present inves t igat ion .

T h e in te res t in a th i rd t r u th th a t wou ld synthes ize the Tw o T ru th scame probably from with in the Ch 'eng-shih c i rc le . This c i rc le ofsouthern scholars in the f i f th and s ix th century specia l ized in theCh'eng-shih-luri* (Satyasiddhi?) of Harivarman. The Ch'eng-shih-lun wasdeclared Hinayanis t in the Sui Dynasty , and the school as sucheventual ly d is in tegrated . However , i t lef t behind the her i tage of aT h re e T ru th s s ys tem to a ll t h e m a jor s cho o ls . T h e T h r ee T ru th sa p p e a r e d i n T ' i e n - t' a ib a s " T h e T h r e e T r u t h s o f t h e O n e M i n d" {san-tii-hsin)f i n San - lu n d a s " T h e T h r e e f o l d T w o T r u t h s " (san-chung erh-ti)ean d i n Hu a -y en * a s " T h e In s ep a rab l e Th re e Tru th s " (san-hsingpu-li).ZHowever , s ince none of the schools would have l iked to acknowledgeits debt to a Hinayanist school, they helped to obscure the historicalcont inui ty . T ' ien- t 'a i jus t i f ied i t s theory wi th reference to obscuresutras; Sa n-iun ac cused C h 'eng -shih of s teal ing its theo ry; H ua-y enbased i tself on the Awakening oj Faith. T he re is no reason to bel ieve thatCh 'eng-sh ih s to le the Three Tru ths f rom San- lun , even though Hi ra iS h u n ' e i h d e f en d ed t hi s ch a rg e . 1 Th e Th ree Tru th s we re n a t i v e t oCh 'eng-sh ih . I t had a l so no th ing to do wi th the trisvabhava ( T h r e eTru ths o r Natu res ) in Ind ie Yogacara . Even Fa- t sangV trisvabhavathe or y was s t ru c tu red acco rd ing to the na tive se t. T o und ers tan d t ru lywhat happened in h i s to ry , we mus t accep t the Ch 'eng-sh ih con t r ibut ion to Ch inese specu la t ion on the Two Tru ths . 2

Poetic License in the Smitic Two TruthsThe Chinese innova t ion was no t wi thou t cause . Ch ina l ea rned

Madhyamika f rom Kumara j iva ' s t rans la t ion o f Nagar juna . 3 T h eChinese were to ld tha t "samsara is ninmia; form is em pt ine ss ." N owth ey were b e in g s h o wn th e H ig h e r T ru th an d t h e Mu n d an e Tru th . I twas na tu r a l tha t they d rew a co r re la t ion . T he re a re en oug h vaguepassages in the sutras an d t h e nostras o suggest that Em ptiness p er ta ine d46


6/24

to th e H ig he r Tr u th while forms per ta ined to samsar ic reali ties .F ur th er m or e, i t was said that the B ud dh a (in nirvana) knows the Higher1 ru th and c om m on peop le ( in samsara) know on ly the Mundane1 r u th . 4 T h e Tw o T ru th s appea red so much l ike the per sona l p roper tyof two types of beings, a theme that resonated with the native Taoisttradit ion and i ts interest in "subjectiveness" (shutaisei) in Japanese 5 ) .The Sage Truth looks f rom the perspect ive of the Tao (i-taoyen-chih)\the Common Truth looks a t the same th ing f rom the perspect ive ofd if fe ren t ia te d reali t ies themselves (i-wu yen-chih)z.b Such unconsciousblending with Taois t ou t looks was not necessar i ly f lawed. The dangerlay ra th e r in the easy co ntu sion of the Tw o T ru th s with the two reali tiesof samsara a n d nnvana, or forms and em ptiness . If so, th en since the tworeal i t ies are ident ical , the Chinese would assume that the Higher andthe Mundane Truth too had to be ident ical . In shor t , that was themis take made by the Ch 'eng-sh ih mas te r s .

We must empath ize with their s i tuat ion and what was thrownbefore them at the t ime. Buddhis t ph i losophy had come a long waysince th e unsys tem atic d iscourses of the Bu dd ha in the sutras. First, theabhidharma phi losophers codif ied the dharmas ( teachings of theBuddha) in to the i r " super io r t each ing , " abhidharma and h igher t ru th ,paramartha. Then the Empt iness sutras came to empty all theab hi dh ar m ic d is t inct ions so m ad e. T he n Nagar juna cam e to codify th eEm ptin ess phi los oph y and ra t ional ly show the limits of conce ptual ized{abhidharma) th inking pract ised by the Sarvas t ivadins . Here are fourlevels of ref lection, each ref lecting upon the predecessor . I t takes somesor t ing out even for the modern in te l lectual h is tor ian . The ChineseBuddhists did not have a solid native tradition of ontology, epistemologyand cr i t ical philosophy. The last persons really to delve into thes t ru c tu re o f hu m an knowledge had been the Mohist s. T he Ch inesewere g iven these Buddhis t t rad i t ions in a batch , a t random, with l i t t lelogical seq ue nc e, an d they ha d to strugg le with the m any levels ofdi sc ou rse w itho ut k now ing thei r difference s at all well. T h e result was arepeated re lapse in to more pr imit ive modes of d iscourse whilesupposed ly pu r su ing Nagar juna ' s Madhyamika ph i losophy .W ithou t a sol id A bh idh arm a back ground , the gen t ry Buddh is t sj u m p e d i nt o t h e Prajfia-paramita sutras, because the Emptiness doctr iner em in d ed th em s o mu ch of W an g P i 's m " n o n b e in g , " wu. The line "formis em pt in es s" was rea d easily in term s of W an g Pi's "Being com es fromno nb ei ng ." T h e form er was d irected or ig inally a t vo id ing theconceptual ism of the abhidharmis t ; the la t ter was s imple onto logical47


7/24

nihil ism, a celebration of the mystery of the void. The fact that ChihChien "o f ten used the t e rm pen-wu"("original, basic no thin gn es s") tor e n d e r siinyata d id no t he lp mat te rs much . 7 Fortunate ly , Kumarj ivahad , more recen t ly , se t t l ed on chi-kungP ("as such empty") instead. Heeven in ten t iona l ly in te rpo la ted sIM ("concrete," as in shih-hstangY to rdharmata) to saf eg ua rd the non-nih i l i s tic impl icat ion of th is phi losophy .Slowly , the Chinese came to recognize that both being and non-beingare l ikewise empty (yu-um chieh-k'ung*),* tha t k'ung has no th ing to dowi th the Tao is t hsii ("vacuity" as in T'ai-hsu,1 " the great empty space" 9)an d tha t emp t ines s is no ne o the r than the real form of the variousreal i t ies , cku-ja shih-hsiang.uInd ian causa t ive ana lys i s posed an even g rea te r hand icap . WhenS e n g C h a o v r ead t h a t "Dharmas do no t come f rom anywhere nor goanywhere ," he could eas i ly mis take that to mean that " th ings do notmove ." Tha t wou ld be an on to log ica l read ing . The o r ig ina l mean ing ,however , i s that "coming" and "going" as concepts ( for real i t ies) areu n re a l . Causa li ty as a system is itself full of an tino m ies. T h e Em ptin essphi losophy s t r ives to l iberate us f rom the confines of such languageco nv en t ion s . (As we shall see , even Sen g Ch ao was not too c lear on th is .)T h in g s d o co m e an d g o . Th e i r im p e rm an en ce was wh a t t h e B u d d h asaw. To prove th is impermanence to a ra t ional is t ' s sa t is fact ion , theabhidharmis t t r ied to d issect real i ty in to d iscrete but changingc o m p o n e n t s , t h e dharmas. In so do ing , he crea ted h is own dow nfal l, forNagar juna would d ia lec t i ca l ly demons t ra te the inner con t rad ic t ionsinvolved in any onto logical a t tempt to f reeze the f lux of t rans ientp h en o m en a . Ne i t h e r t h e B u d d h a , n o r t h e Sa rv as t i v ad in , n o r t h eSu n y a v ad in t h o u g h t t h a t th in g s d o n o t m o v e . T h e B u d d h a s aw th a tthey d id ; the Sarvas t ivadin proved how f leet ingly they d id ; theSunyavadin showed the fu t i l i ty of such presumptuous proofs . I t i sconcep ts tha t a re empt ied as mere cons t ruc t s , vikalpa. It was theabh idharmis t as sumpt ion o f a symmet ry be tween ideas and rea l i tywh ich was faul ted . The vikalpa const ru cts are precisely what prev en t usf rom see ing dharmata, the nature of th ings . I f we do not see thefacade of words , we can never a t ta in the wisdom necessary for" c o m p r e h e n d i n g nirvana" Fail ing to see th e full im po rt of N aga rjun a'sph i los op hy , even Se ng Ch ao fell short in h is a t te m pt to refu te the thes ist h a t t h in g s m o v ed .

After Seng Chao, there was an even more obvious confus ion ofthe var ious i s sues . The Two Tru ths were regarded as two rea l i t i esdescript ive of an objectifiable principle, /* ' ,w in the object itself. T h e li48


8/24

ha d to be justly par ad ox ica l, bec ause the m ystery of the coincidence ofo p p o s i t e s (sarrisara is nirvana) was embedded in i t . By aligning beingw i th t h e M u n d an e T r u th an d n o n b e in g w i th t h e H ig h e r T r u th , t h eChinese had to postu la te some s t i l l Higher Truth where being wouldbe imm edia te ly n on be ing . Such p i ling up of being and n onb eing snowballed, unti l some of the ser ial negations in the writ ings of thesemas te r s appear l ike tongue- twis te r s . Fei-jei-fei-yu x (literally, not-not-not-being) reads "Not that not-being is not being" e tc . I t sounds l ikeMadhyamika d ia lect ics , bu t I suspect i ts more d irect ances tor isch ap te r tw o o f Chuang-tzuJ where there are endless paradoxicalspeculat ions on the or ig in of or ig ins of or ig ins . 1 0 In short , the Indiein teres t in the ep is temological was shor t -changed in the Chinesedelight in cosmogony. The Chinese l iberal use of the logic of identi tywould raise many an Indian eyebrow, for i t puts all kinds ofinco m pata ble o ppo si tes toge the r in the same space. Being is non bein g;par t is who le ; Hig he r T ru th i s M un da ne Tr u t h , e tc .

T h e C h inese w ou ld no t have ven tu red in to specu la t ions on a Th i rdTru th had they heeded the d i s t inc t ion made la te r by Ch i - t sang . " zChi- tsang knew that the Two Truths were not meant to be descr ip t iveof li , pr incip le ; the Two Truths were only two ways of d iscourse ,chiao. 12 The Chinese should a lso have s tayed with the re t icence ofS e n g C h a o :

T he re fo re the sc r ip tu re says: "Are the Hig her and M und an eT ru th d i f fe ren t? T h e answer is no . " T he sutra elucidates theH ig he r T ru t h d irect ly to show that th ings are not ex is ten t , an d theMundane Truth l ikewise to show how they are not nonexis ten t .Does i t mean to say that because there are two levels of Truths,there are two real i t ies? 1 3

The Source a/Innovation: Seng Chao on Motion and RestT h e re ar e Tw o Tr u th s (perspect ives) but only on e real ity ; so sa id

Seng Chao. However , even h is prudence could not s top a cur ios i ty : i fth e re is only on e reali ty , why ar e th er e two differen t pictu res of it? T h ep ro p e r answ er would have been that one is t ru e an d unc lou ded bytho ug ht- co nst ruc ts , and the o the r is s imply the fa lse conv ent ionnecessary for our daily l ife. Seng Chao, however, felt compelled tolocate the co nc urr en ce of the two oppos i te v iews in the paradoxica l li ,pr in cip le , ou t the re in the "object" itself. H e at tem pte d to prove th is inthe most controversial of his essays, "Things do not move." 1 449


9/24

This essay has usually been judged as a misunderstanding ormalapplication of the Madhyamika dialectics. Without denying thefallacies involved, I would nonetheless show how Seng Chao's realintention was not to show that "things do not move" but how"movement and passivity are the same." Futhermore, Seng Chaolocated this paradox in the pair of negations found in the karika:"(things) neither come nor go." He hoped that with this, he couldaccount for how the Common Truth (of commoners) saw movementwhen the Sage Tr u th (of he himself) could recognize the opposite. Thisessay of his is a classic dem on stratio n of a limited prasangika. Because thepeo ple in China comm only thou ght that things moved, Seng Chao wasjustified to show only how things could not possibly move.Ind ee d, Seng Chao has so defined the problem from the start:

T h at all things m ove on like a cu rre nt is the ordinary belief of m en.But I [representing the higher perspective] think this is not thecase. . . . T h e re is no dharma that goes or comes, or moves orchanges its position.15Movement is thus given as the Common Truth and immutability theH igh er T ru th . H owever, Seng Chao recognizes that the latter does notm ean the old Taoist passivity: escaping from change to the changeless. ,6

No, rest m ust be soug ht right in mo tion. As rest must be sought inmotion, therefore there is eternal rest in spite of motion; and asmotion is not to be cast aside in order to seek rest, thereforealth ou gh the re is rest, it is never separate from motion. Th is beingthe case, motion and rest are from the beginning not different.Only deluded people consider them to be dissimilar.17

As samsara is nirvana, or form is emptiness, soargues Seng Chaom otion is rest. H is thesis is not that things do no t move; it is rather thatmoving things are at rest. "The raging storm is tranquil; the rushingwater is still; the toppling heaven is at rest;" so he eulogizes. T here thenouns (storm, water, heaven) are accidental; the contrasting adjectivesare the key. All movem ents are as such nonm ovem ent.Seng Chao then wants to demonstrate how this coincidence ofopposites can rationally be accounted for. He finds his clue in ananalysis of the principle that "(things) neither come nor go." Thefollowing passage combines two sections in the original text:50


10/24

What people mean by motion is that because past things do notreach the pre sen t, things are said to have moved and a re not at rest.W hat I m ean by rest is that, precisely (so), things are at rest and havenot moved. [Why do we differ?](In the ir case), things have moved and are not still because thingshave not come down to the present. [Time moves but thingsthemselves do not.] (In my case,) things are still and have notmoved because they have not gone. [Going off would constitutemovement.] The phenomenon (we look at) is the same, but ourprespectives are different.18

T he phe nom eno n in question is "Things do not come and do not go."T h e com m on people have seen the "not coming"; Seng Chao has seenthe "not going." Thus, there are two perspectives (Truths) but onecommon reality.By such sophistry, Seng Chao thought he had accounted for theseeming paradox and somehow united the Two Truths. This is themistake that would inspire the Ch'eng-shih masters to come. This istaking the Two Truths as pertaining to an objective principle, It .However, in all fairness, Seng Chao was also cognizant of the TwoT ru th s simply as chiao, teaching. "Th e tathagata (Buddha) exercises histrue mind that transcends all dualities19 . . .and preaches in upayadifferent doctrines in consideration of the audience's capacities." 20Therefore, when the Sage said that things go, he did not meanthat they really go; he merely wanted to prevent ordinarythoughts. And when he said things remain in the same state, hedid not m ean th at they really rem ain; he merely wanted to discardwhat ordinary people call the passing of things.2 ' .. .(Contraryteachings so given) are intended to lead the common folk toenlightenment. The two different teachings aim at the samereality. Shall we say that jus t because they differ in language , theyare contrary in objective?22

In this manner did Seng Chao guard himself from ontologizing theTwo Tru ths .

The Origin of the Three Truths: Chou Yung*bAfter Seng Chao, the Chinese looked for more leads to understan din g the Tw o Tru ths . In their confusion, they turn ed to a confused51


11/24

au t h o r i t y , Ha r i v a r m an ' s Ch'eng-shih-lun. How seemingly elucidat ing isth i s nea t d i s t inc t ion in Har ivarman!

T h e r e a r e two g a t e s : t h e M u n d an e T r u t h an d t h e H i g h e r T r u t h .The former es tab l i shes the t ru th of being , the la t ter the t ru th ofabsence of the self. Therein l ies the Middle Path . 2 3T h e Ch'eng-shih-lun is , however, a Hinayanist work co-optingM adh yam ika . I t is s t ruc tu red acco rd ing to the Four Nob le Tr u th s , bu ti t selects out the third, nirodha, t o be the One Tru th o f nirvana t ha tt r a n s c e n d s samsara. Just by co incidence, the Mahayana sutra loved byt h e s o u t h e r n e r s t h e Mahaparininwia sutraalso endorsed a OneT ru th wh ich is t he mahhnirvana of the e t e rna l Buddha-na tu re . 2 4Blend ing these two separa t e t r ad i t ions toge ther , t he Ch ' eng-sh ih quaNirvana sutra m asters fe lt jus t i f ied in f ind ing a O ne T ru th (above theTwo Tru ths ) . In the i r r a ther compl i ca t ed re in t e rp re t a t ion o f thekarika, they arbi t rar i ly selected out the f i rst pair of the standard EightNeg a t i o n s" n e i t h e r b o r n n o r d e s t r o y ed " (pu-sheng pu-miehac)as theso -ca ll ed Midd le Pa th o f the H ighe r Tru th . T h e o ther th ree pa i r s werecon s ide red to be the M idd le Pa th o f the Lower T ru th . Th i s is becausepu-sheng pu-mieh h a p p en ed t o r ead l ik e t h e p e r m an en ce o f Bu d d h a -n a t u r e an d t h e o p p o s i t e oisheng-mieh a d ("born-dest royed , l i fe-death") ,o n e s t an d a r d t e r m t o r en d e r samsaral So, unkno wing ly, the Ch'eng-sh iht rad i t ion re- in t roduced an onto logical d is t inct ion between samsara an dnirvana, misappl ied th is to the Two Truths (samsar ic being andni rvanic nonbeing) and was mis led in to seeking out a s t i l l h igher OneT r u t h i n wh i ch samsara could be nirvana, being could be nonbeing .

There were several schools of Two Truths then , and a cr i t ica lobs erve r , Ch ou Y ung , r eco rde d the i r pos it ions in t e rms o f san-tsung,aeth ree major school - l ineages . Al l th ree t r ied to handle the ambivalenceof how real i ty could be s imul taneously being (mundane t ru th) andnonbeing (h igher t ru th) . S ince I have reconst ructed th is t reat i se ofChou Yung elsewhere , I would s imply repor t the bas ic f ind ings:

1. T h e f i rst school "did not n ega te provision al real i ty": itass um ed an inn er /o ute r d is t inction . Reality is a t hea r t em ptybut in appearance real (provisional ly real) . This posi t ion isco m pa re d to a che stnu t gnaw ed by a rod en t : seemingly a sol idchestnut bu t , in fact , there i s no th ing ins ide .2. T h e se con d school did "ne ga te provisional real i ty": i t app l ied acausat ive analysis , as i t were, to the chestnut in toto (with noin ne r /o ut er ) so phis t ry . Real ity is caused , th ere fore it is no t

52


12/24

un rea l . Causes , however , a re imp erm an en t and will d i sper se ;th er ef or e, reali ty is no t real ei the r . Thi s posit ion is cr i ticized as"bo bb ing a me lon in wate r ," i .e . pu sh in g the me lon (reality) inan d o ut of the l iquid. O n e m om en t, it is th er e; the nex t, it isgone. Although more clever , this school st i l l lef t behind twotempora l ly separa te and d i f f e ren t impress ions .3 . T h e th ir d school is neatly labelled t he "provision al reali ty is assuc h em pt y" school: simply, it identif ied th e real as th e em pty.Being i s nonbe ing . Samsara is nirvana. Th is is the pre fer r edf inal , i f somewhat dogmatic , posi t ion on the Two Truths .

I s i t no t necessary to t race these three back to India and then judgetheir relative validity .2 5 To the Chinese , the th ird one was the bes t .La ter , C hi- tsa ng sugge sted h is own ser ies, us ing s imilar c lever pu nn in gin the Ch inese language tha t canno t be r endered in to Eng l i sh o rSanskr i t wi thout doing v io lence to the language on both s ides .(H ow eve r , for in teres t , h is thr ee ar e : k'ung-pen-hsing** or "emptying thesvahbava"; pen-hsing-k'ung^S o r "svabhava-sunya"; and hsing-pen-k'ung^which is so m eth ing l ike "svabhava qua sunyata" For wh at i t is w orth , th ethird was again the best . )

C ho u Y un g probably d id not in ten d h is own cri ticism of the thre eschools to become another s tepping s tone to fur ther Ch 'eng-sh ihspeculations, but that was the fate in store for his treatise. This isbec aus e he was re m em be re d precisely for so se t t ing up a new sequen ce:

C ho u Y un g (observ ing h is con tem porar ies ) the reby au thor ed theSan-tsung-lun, sett ing up, f irst , the "Not negating provisionalreal i ty" school . Then, to negate that , he en l is ted the "Negat ingprovis ional real i ty" school . Then, to undermine both , he posi tedthe "Provisional reali ty self-negates" school.2 6In th is so-cal led th ird school or posi tion is the germ of the T hi rd T ru th .The quest ion is whether the th ird school or posi t ion or t ru thsynthes ized th e two previous opt ions or wheth er it s imply nega ted andt ranscended them. The Ch 'eng-sh ih mas te r Ch ih - t sang took thefo rmer as h i s gu ide .

The Synthetical Third Middle Path? Chih-tsang*1

Who s ta r ted us ing the "Three Tru ths" ca tegory r emains am ystery . C ho u Yu ng d id not use the term , but , by the Liang dynasty , it53


13/24

was com mo nly assum ed. P rince Chao-mingaJ recorded that the re were"some peo ple" who then tho ught that the M undane T ru th was "two"(dualistic) and the H igh er T ru th was "on e" (monistic). To ge ther , "two"and "one" made "three." However, even this layman prince disputedthe use of a T hr ee T ru ths system.27 T he first person we know for su rewho used a "Threefo ld Middle Path" was Chih-tsang, a contemporaryof the prin ce. Later San-lun (\adhyamika) spokesmen charged Chih-tsang with the theft of this idea from their camp. T he San-lun mastersSeng-lang ak and Seng-ch'iian al might have reintroduced the properun de rsta nd ing o f the M iddle Path (as a nonaffirmative Ne ither/No r)and thereby challenged the improper often compartmentalized useof being and non being am ong the Ch'eng-shih gro up (more interestedin the Bo th/A nd ). Ho wever, I still see no proof tha t Chih-tsang stole aSan-lun doctrine, for the scheme of the Three Truths was alreadysuggested by Chou Yung's classification of the Three Schools.Chih-tsang followed Chou Yung's suggestion and found asynthetical third Middle Path between the Mundane and HigherT r u t h :

As the various dharmas are pro duc ed, that m eans they are not intun e with dharmata [the Unprodu ced J. Y et, precisely so, they exist[individually]. However, their being is deluded being, for trulythey are empty. This constitutes the Mundan e Tr uth .(Now,) since they are said to be in substance vacuous (em pty), thatmeans that they are without form. (Since) formlessness is anattribute of the (absolute) Truth, therefore (this aspect) is theHigher Tru th .The Real (Higher) Truth is characterized by the nonbeing of"neither being nor nonbeing," because it is not deluded being(like the m un da ne ). T h e M und ane T ru th is the being of "neitherbeing nor nonbeing," because it is only provisionally real. (Inother words,) reality is in toto Real because it is not being, and intoto M und ane because it is not nonexistent either. This constitutesthe Middle Path of the M und ane an d the Real T ru th (synthesizedas one).T h e Real T ru th is formless and therefo re is also "neithe r beingno r n onb eing"; this is the Middle Path of the Real T ru th .Mundane Tru th is caused by the false, and as cause is not result, ithas no being. Yet as cause is not without the power to create aresult, therefore it is not n onbeing . This ("being and nonbeing")constitutes the Middle Path of the Mundane Truth. 2 8

Chih-tsang was "bobbing the melon" here: reality is both real andunreal in toto. By jugg ling w ith the ambiguous term s "real" and "unreal,"54


14/24

Ch ih- tsa ng co uld com e up with a H igh er T ru th which is "Real yetEmpty , " and a Mundane Tru th wh ich i s "empty ye t r ea l . " (He wasusing the same terms in 'capitalized ' and 'uncapitalized ' form all toofreely.) Each of these two paradoxes consti tutes one Middle Path.W he re they mee t is the M idd le Pa th un i t ing the Tw o T ru th s . Th is th i rdu n i t e s t h e R ea l an d th e M u n d an e .

Chih- tsang was only fo l lowing Chou Yung. Chou Yung namedthree schoolsthe realist , the nihil is t and the "real is nil" school. Theth ird school postu la ted the uni ty of emptiness and provis ional real i ty .Likewise , then , Chih- tsang postu la ted the uni ty of the Higher and theM u nd an e T ru th s in h is "T h i rd T ru th . " I f we wan t to go fu r ther back,then the seminal form was present a l ready in Seng Chao. Seng Chaoidentif ied the common view as movement, the sage view as rest . SengChao even assumed one paradox cal led "seeing res t in motion" ( theTaois t ) and another paradox of "seeing motion in res t" (h is own) . Al lthe se perspect iv es f inally me t in the su pre m e pa rad ox : rest is motion, foru l t imately th ings nei ther come nor go . I f we s imply subst i tu te for theres t / m otio n categor ies those of non being /being , we will f ind th at S engC h ao too end or se d a unio n of the Tw o T ru th s (of res t and mo tion) in aT h i r d M idd le Pa th ( res t is mo t ion ) . Seng Ch ao , however , was p r ud en tto pos i t Two Tru ths and One Rea l i ty . The Ch 'eng-sh ih mas te r s wereless carefu l , for when they openly confused the Two Truths with tworeal i t ies , they w ere forced to call the On e Reali ty the Th ird T ru th .

The confusion of the Two Truths with two real i t ies createdproblems. In the f irst place, i t led to a violation of Nagarjuna'sins is tence that the d is t inct ion between the Two Truths was crucia l toth e B ud dh a 's teach ings . I t is leg i timate to say that samsara is nirvana, b u tit is no t l eg i timate to say tha t the Hig her T ru th is the M un da ne T ru th .T h e la t ter , howe ver , d id ap pe ar som etimes as l icense in the sutras, a n d ,la ter , the Shih-lun hsuan-i*m would have to add this r ider: "To say thatth e T w o Tr u th s ar e identical is being extravag ant ; to say that form ise m p t i n e s s a n d vice versa is precise ." 2 9 The Ch 'eng-sh ih masters lackedth is precis ion . There was a lso the addi t ional log ical problem: i find ee d the T w o T ru th s were two real it ies , how shou ld the i r ' subs tance '(t'i)*n be conce ived? Seng- fang , a o a stu de nt, faulted Ch ih-tsa ng for soiden t i fy ing one subs tance fo r the Two Tru ths :

I f ( they are the same) , then to burn (harm) the Mundane is toh a r m th e H ig h e r T r u th , an d ch an g es i n t h e M u n d an e (samsara)would affect nirvana. . . . Surely, this pollu ted w orld is no t t heP u r e L a n d . 3 955


15/24

Sen g-fang o f fe red h is own so lu tion : the in te rde pen de nce o f the Tw oT ru th s with dif fe ren t substa nces . I t was sti ll a m istake, becau se the T w o

T r u th s w ere ne ve r th ings wi th substances in the first p lace . If any th ingis to be regarded as the substance of real i ty , i t would have to be theMidd le Pa th o r empt iness itself. (T ha t is Chi-tsan g's posit ion.)

T h e M u n d a n e T r u t h is n o yin*P and the Higher Tru th i s noyang**! an d they should not have com e tog ethe r as on e (Taois t)ha rm on y . H ow ever , s ince the mis take was m ade and was a fait accompli,the task of a t rue prasahgika dialectician was not to introduce an al ienIndian or pr is t ine sys tem, but to supply the necessary cr i t ique on thebases provided by the misguided th inkers themselves . This , 1 hold, wasthe gen ius o f Ch i - t sang .

The Non-thetical Three Truths: Chi-tsangThe aim of the Emptiness phi losophy, says Chi- tsang, i s not to

affirm but to reveal the true by a systematic destruction of the false.The t rue can u l t imately never be spoken of , but i t may be poin ted toindirect ly as a f inger poin ts to the moon. Chih- tsang had fo l lowedC ho u Y un g in pos i t ing a th i r d synthet ical T r u th reu ni t in g the Real andthe Mundane . Ch i - t sang however fo l lowed Chou Yung in ano ther ,more or thodox, d i rect ion , namely to "posi t a th i rd pos i t ion only ino r d e r to ne ga te the f irst two." Since Ch ih- tsang ha d set u p theThreefo ld Midd le Pa th , Ch i - t sang would now use the very samevocabulary but turn i t agains t the user (Chih- tsang) himself.

The th ree k inds o f Two Tru ths rep resen t the p r inc ip le o f se r ia lnegat ion , l ike bui ld ing a scaffo ld from the ground up . As theor di na ry pe op le th ink th at reali ty is seemingly real , not know ingthat i t i s not , the Buddha propounded the doctr ine that real i ty i sessent ia l ly em pty . Th at reali ty is real is the com m on o pin io n; th isis t h e M u n d a n e T ru th , th e C o m m o n T ru th . T h e s ag e k n ows th a tit is em pty ; th is is the H ig he r T ru th , the Sage T ru th . This ( first)set is t au gh t in o r de r tha t m en would advance f rom the m un da neto t h e t r an s m u n d a n e , an d r en o u n c e t h e co m m o n in o rd e r t oem br ac e th e sage wisdom. T his is the first level of the T w o T ru th s.

A common person might hear th is and, touched, would s t r ive forl iberat ion. However, in so doing, he might easi ly be misled intoth in k in g tha t th er e is a nirvana distinct from samsara. He might th ink56


16/24

that being and nonbeing are real and f inal categor ies per ta in ing tosam sar ic reali ty and n irvanic em ptiness . I f so, Chi- tsang would remindh im th u s :

Nex t : be ing and nonbe ing now cons t i tu te the Mundane Tru th .Nei ther be ing nor nonbe ing i s the new Higher Tru th . Th is i sbecause peop le , when g iven "be ing" and "nonbe ing , " imperma-n e n c e a n d p e r m a n e n c e , samsara and nimana, regard them asopposi tes on two ends . Because they so regard the Mundane andthe Higher Tru th ( as ) samsara a n d nirvana, it is nec essa ry t o set u pthe nonduality , the Middle Path (avoiding both extremes) of"ne i ther the Mundane nor the Higher , ne i ther samsara n o rnirvana" as the new Highe r T ru th .

A person may, however , be t rapped in the poet ics of ideas ; therefore ,as a f inal s tep, Shi- tsang further insists:

Next: in the third level, both duali ty and nonduality would be setup as the M un da ne T ru th , wh ile "ne i ther dua li ty no r nondua l i ty"wil l be seen as the Higher Truth . 3 1In this way Chi- tsang sought to l iberate the Ch'eng-shih masters fromtheir obsession with words and paradoxes, by trying to get them toleave the "la ng ua ge g am e" they played. The re is no synthesis of Tw oT ru th s in Ch i- tsang , jus t a nagg ing rem ind er that words are jus t wordsan d th e T ru th forever l ies beyon d. In h is threefo ld Two T ru th s , thefirst level liberates man from fixation with being, the second frees himfrom a lef tover dua lism {"rmvanxi is not samsara") and the third asks himto drop even such "dual i t ies and nondual i t ies ."

Chi- tsang was, in the end, too foreign for most Chinese, and hiswarnings went of ten unheeded. A far more inf luent ia l f igure was h isco n temp o r a r y , t h e T ien - t ' a i mas t e r C h ih - i , a r whose Three Truthstheory combined the bes t of the two wor ldsIndia and China.

The Three Truths in Perfect Harm ony: Chih-iCh ih-i de riv ed his the ory of the Three Truths from his rea din g of

th e khrika:57


17/24

T h e realities pro du ced by causes and conditions (= Reality)Is what I mean by Emptiness {- Empty)Also known as Provisional Reality (= Real)T h e same as the m eaning of the Middle Path (= M iddle)

Ch ih-i's uniq ue read ing for the four lines means: "Reality / is Empty /yet Real; (Em pty yet Real) is the M iddle." Sectarian legends tell of thisas a new insigh t; T'ien -t'ai scho larship justifies it on the basis of anobscure line in the Ying-lo-ching7,2 and a One Truth doctrine in theTa-chih-tu-lun. at From where we stand, it is not difficult to see hissynthetical Middleuniting the Empty and the Realas continuouswith Chih-tsang and Chou Yung.33Ch ih-i, however, was a superb dialectician w ho well gu ard ed hisposition. For him, it is not that the "Empty" and the "Real" meetin the "Middle" unilaterally. The three are yung-yuanau , in totalharmony. Everything is immediately empty, immediately real,and immediately middle {chi k'ung, chi chia, chi chung*), in a perfectcircle that knows no beginning and no end. T he "pyramidal" is superseded by this "r ou nd " teaching. Although Chih-i did assume the T hr eeTruths to be aspects of reality, i.e., pertaining to li , he built a systemcalled the correlation between the Th ree Aspects and the On e Mind (i-hsinsan-ti) that effectively guarded itself against being labelled as subjectiveidealist or as objective realist. "T he chiliocosm (3,000 words) is reple te inthe mind (i-hsin*'*)" says Chih-i. But:

Are the 3,000 born of the passing away (mieh)** of a thought(nien)ay? A perish ing tho ug ht c annot even give rise to one dharma.How can it give rise to 3,000? Are the 3,000 then born out theperishing and nonperishing mind? Perishing and nonperishingare opposites like fire and water, that contradict one another.How can such conflicting substance give rise to 3,000? Is it the"neithe r perishing nor nonp erishing" m ind that gives birth to the3,000? But such an entity cannot be the actor-subject nor theobject-acted-upon. How can it give rise to the 3,000?34

The mind and reality, citta and rupa, cross and re-cross one ano the r in aw arp an d woof fashion in T'ien-t'ai ideology. How ever, in the end , thatharmonious matrix defies all words.58


18/24

The doctr ine of the 3 ,000 ( in one moment of thought) cannot beattained by the cross nor the re-cross, or by neither the cross northe re-cross . Words end abrupt ly . The mind suddenly comes to astand sti l l . That is the realm of the incomprehensible (mystery) .

3 5

P us he d to ex pla in w hat this my stery is , Chih-i would res ort to a favoriteTao i s t p h r a s e : miao-yu chen-k'ung.'dZ I t is myster iously somethingth o u g h t r u ly emp ty an d vice versa.*6 And it is best left as such,u n d e f i n e d .

7 he Merging oj Yogacara Trisvabhava and Three Truths: Fa-tsangThe in teres t in a Third Truth in China was promoted by in ternal

necess i ty and or ig inal ly had noth ing to do with the for thcomingtrisvabhava of Yogacara . T he trisvabhava (san-hsing o r san-ti) per ta ins tothe three perspect ives toward real i ty : parinispanna or the apprecep t ionof reali ty-as- i t- is (suchness, tathata); paratantra or the normal subject-object consciousness that d iscr iminates ; and parikalpita or misguidedperc ep t io n du e to de l ud ed though t -cover ings . See ing a rope as emptyis the f irst or enlightened consciousness; seeing a rope as a rope is theeveryday consciousness ; mis tak ing a rope for a snake is the th ird ,d e lu d ed , co n s c io u s n es s .

H u i - y i i a n ,b a an early student of the Yogacara system in China,was inf luenced by the Ti-lunbb (Dasabhumika) and the She-lun^(Samgraha) t rad i t ions; he b lended th is trisvabhava idea with thena t ive ly -deve loped T hr ee T ru th s sys tem. Fo llowing the yin-yang logicimplicit in the latter , Hui-yiian defines the parinispanna as the pureconsciousness , the pure essence in itself; it is by itself passive andu n c o n t a m i n a b l e . T h e paratantra is a mixed consciousness, pure andimpure, ab le to generate the " revolv ing" consciousness with in itself.T h e parikalpita is the im pu re or d iscr iminatory consciousness , t ra pp edin a fool ish monologue; i t has forsaken the t rue a l together . In o therwords , the re i s a yin an d a yang consciousness, and a third which is au n io n o f yin a n d yang. This th i rd , the paratantra, is the most dynamic,for every th ing comes out of i t (chen-wang yuan-ch'i^ causality due toin te rac t ion betw een the t ru e and th e fa lse) . T h e p ic ture one gets is thato f the Tao is t yin-yang in tercourse g iv ing b ir th to the myr iad th ings .However , Hu i -y i ian in te rp re ted the paratantra consciousnesscal led' d e p e n d e n t u p o n o t h e r s , " i-ta-hsing**as a consciousness dependent

59


19/24

(0 , no t on i l lus ions in o ur subject-object m ind ( the s ta nd ard inte rpre tat ion ) , b u t o n t h e T r u e itself, th e tathata or the parinispanna. T h e T r u eevolves or revolves within the mixed consciousness , react ing with thedeluded to crea te a l l th ings . 3 7

T h e tnsvabhava do ctr in e says tha t all thr ee na ture s are em pty .3 8 Italso s tates that the three consciousnesses are in t imately related:pannispanna is jus t parantantra m i n u s pankaipita. Enlighte ned consciousness is on ly ou r everyday consc iousness wh en the supe r imp osedmisconcept ions are r emoved . This o r ig ina l ly Ind ian idea was in ter preted in a Chinese f ramework by Hui-yuan and later by Fa- tsang. Fa-t s ang ca ll ed it t he " in separ ab le T h r e e T r u t hs " {san-hsingpu-li). A classicdefense of th is involves a prototype of the yin-yang circles.39Miraculously , the logic then becomes self -explanatory:

[ partnispanna [) %) ~ % ~ \)parikalpita ^T h e paratantra, being a com binat ion of the pu re an d the im pu re , will beparinispanna i t se l f once the impure parikalpita is rem ov ed (seeabove)The explanat ion seems ingenious ly s imple and fa i th fu l to theo r ig ina l I nd ian in t en t ions .

H ow ever , t he s t r uc tu r e o f t he tnsvabhava above was al readyan t i c ipa t e d by Ch ih - t s ang . Th e s t r uc tu r e is t he old T hr ee T r u t hs , w itht h e t h i r d m e d i a t i n g t h e H i g h e r T r u t h a n d t h e M u n d a n e T r u t h . T h elabe l s had been changed ; t he a t t r i bu tes w er e "pu r e" , "de luded" andthe mixed "pure ye t de luded ," ins tead of the ear l ie r "nonbeing ,""being" and "paradoxica l ly be ing ye t nonbeing ."

r H i g h e r T r u t h {parinispanna) , T r u eM i d d l e {paratantra)**

x . M u n d a n e T r u t h {parikalpita), FalseHu a-ye n ph i loso phe r Fa- t sang jus ti f ied h is schem e up on the

A wakening of Faith in Mahayana ( i tself a China-fabricated text) . Whenw e b r eak dow n h i s under s t and ing o f t he Thr ee N a tu r es {trisvabhava),we wil l f ind, however , only another elaborat ion of yin-yang-esquelogic.4 2 T h e fo llowing d ia gram is a s tan dar d on e used wi thin theH u a - y e n t r a d i t i o n .60


20/24

Fa-tsang's Demonstration ot the Mind/Natures UnityTH E THREE NATURES

' 1 7 ,parmispannu paratantm pankalpita(a) (b) (c)perfect, com plete aroused dep end ing lost inreal on othe rs discriminations, i I , 1 ,be w

C c3 - GbeCVVJ i

(ftc0sv0Wu

Wa.EV"a,'uG'Ca ,

(+ )^ ( A )substance of mindthe subsisting origin thatwould not disrupt theend-results (phenomena)

[-THE ONE MIND 4 '

(B)function of mindthe dynamic end-resultsthat do not distract(anything) from the origin

What the above summary shows is that the Three Natures arecorrelates of the Mind, just as Chih-i stated for his own case ('TheT h re e T ru th s are of the M ind"). T he three are (a) the perfect, (b) therelative a nd (c) the biased, each having two sub-aspects (listed above).The substance of the mind (A) monopolizes the positive (+) aspects:the unchanging suchness, the emptiness of the relative and the onticillusion of the biased. The function of the mind (B) takes hold ot therem ain ing nega tive (- ) thr ee : the suchness misled into created reality,the seeming appearance of things, and the emotional attachments tonon-realities. T h e schema is not without some Indie precedences,44 butthe Sinitic elements are decidedly stronger. The Hua-yen doctrine ofthe trisvabhhva, upon scrutiny, is Chih-tsang's paradoxical ThreeI ruths resurrected.4S61


21/24

Conclusion: Sinitic Three TruthsThe Sinic iza t ion of Madhyamika in China was cruc ia l to the

doc t r ina l independence of the va r ious school s . In the above ana lys i s ,we saw how Nagar juna or ig ina l ly in t ended the Two Tru ths to be twodist inc t ways of knowledge . In China , however , because of shor t -h a n d e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , th e T w o T r u t h s w e re c o n fu s ed w ith T w oReal i t ies . Seng Chao was, as a whole , caut ious, but h is a t tempt toprov ide a ra t iona le a s to why the Commoner and the Sage cou ld seedi f ferent ly in i t ia ted the search for an objec t ive pr inc iple , li, in realityitself. T h e C h 'eng -sh ih m as te r s , a s I a rg ue d , were an ind i spensab le linkin the chain of Sini t ic Two Truths specula t ions. Mistaking the TwoTru ths to be Two Rea l i t i e s and work ing on the a ssumpt ions tha t ( a )there i s a pr inc iple out there to account for i t , and (b) there must be au n i o n o f t h e T w o T r u t h s alias samsara a n d nirvana [sic], t he y p r oduc e da Th i r d T ru th . Ch ou Y ung , the c r it ic , t yped Th re e Schools a s the Rea l,the Empty and the Middle . Th i s t r i ad then in f luenced a l l subsequentt h i nk i ng . Ch i h - t sa ng p r od uc e d a T h i r d M i dd l e Pa t h t ha t wou l d un i t ethe Mundane and the Rea l , bu t he was fau l t ed by Chi - t sang form i s t a k i ng t he T wo T r u t h s t o be r e f e r r i ng t o li . Chi- tsang himsel fr e v i ve d t he e m pha s i s on t he T w o T r u t h s as chiao, didact ics an d ways ofkno wl e d ge . He se t up a T h r e e f o l d T w o T r u t h s t o un de r m i ne t heb iases o f the on to log i s t s . Chi - t sang was , how ever , no t popu la r am on gthe Chinese . Ins t ead , the sys tem of Chih- i t ha t emphas ized theha rm o ny of the T h re e Tr u th s and the d ial ec ti cs o f min d (knowing) andobjec t (know n) won pop ula r app rova l . A co n tem po ra ry o f Chih- i,Hui-yi ian, u t i l ized a yin-yang scheme to in t e rpre t the trisvabhavado c t r in e in Y ogaca ra . T h i s schem e , a long wi th Chih- i' s, was inhe r i t edby Fa- tsang. Fa- tsang then fashioned the f ina l synthesis , br ingingMadhyamika and Yogaca ra in the i r S in i t i c fo rm toge the r andpr ov id i ng th e most s tab le so lu t ion to the long Tw o T ru th s con t rove rsyi n Ch i na .

62


22/24

CHINESE GLOSSARY

a *


23/24

N O T E SUniversi ty of Cal i fornia at Davis.

1. Chugoku hanya slmoshi krnkyu (Tok yo: Shunjusha , 1976) , par t 11-1.2. Fol lowing "Sini t ic Development of the Two Truth Theory: Ontologica lGnost ic i sm in the T h o u g h t s of Pr ince Chao-ming ," and " F u r t h e r D e v e l o p m e n t . . .T o w a r d a R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f C h o u Y u n g ' s San-tsung-lun," in Philosophy East and West, 28,n o . 3 (1978) and f o r t h c o m i n g , ibid.

3. An early classic , Richard Robinson, Early Atadhyamika in India and China(Madi son : Unive r s i t y of Wisconsin Press, 1977).

4. See my first essay cited in 2, from the Prince 's Erh-ti-lun.5. Kaj iyama Yuichi , "Joron ni okeru Chudb sh iso," in T su k a m o t o Z e n r y u ed. Joron

kenkyu (Kyoto : J im bu n kagaku ken kyush o , 1955).6 . From the pe rspec t ive of t h ings , t h ings are dif ferent ; f rom the perspec t ive of

t h e Tao, all dif ferences vanish .7 . T h u s we r e a d , " B u d d h a s are pen-urn (original ly nothing)." Chi Chien used

k'ung so m e t i m e s and p r e f e r e d tiu-jan for tathata.8. Said to be m a d e by Yao H si n g to the approva l of Kumara j iva .9 . Tai-hxii is one of the O r i g i n s in Chinese cosmology.

10. Chuang-tzu, ch. 2, on the or igin of being ad infinitum.11 . Erh-ti-rhang (T. 45, p. 15a).12 . Like the f inger point ing to the m o o n ; t h i s m e t a p h o r was first used by Tao-

l i ang alias Liang fa-shih of C a n t o n (Zokuw, 12.2.3.260 upper left) . It was passed on toC h i - t s a n g and l a t e r Ch 'an .13 . Cluw-lun, T. 45, pp. 152-53. "Empt iness of the Unrea l . "

14 . See Wal te r L ieben tha l , Chao-tun: The Treatise of Seng Chao ( r ev . ; Hong Kong:Hong Kong Unive r s i t y , 1968) .

15 . T. 45, p. 151; based on Wing-ts i t Ch 'an, A Source Hook oj Chinese Philosophy(Pr ince ton : Pr ince ton , 1963) , pp. 344f. With some changes .

16. Ibid.\ the Taoi s t is impl i ed .17. Ibid.18 . C h a n t r a n s . , pp. 346, 350. Synthesis mine .19. My t r ans . , wi th i n t e rpo la t ion ; see C h a n , pp. 346 and 349.20. T h i s is the " H i g h e s t" m a n a g e m e n t of the Two T r u t h s .2 1 . Ch 'an t r ans . , p. 347; sl ight modificat ions.2 2 . Ibid., pp. 347-8 ; b racke t t ed por t ion add ed .2 3 . T. 23, p. 248a . For an i n t e re s t ing in t roduc t ion , see C. D. C. Priestley,

" E m p t i n e s s in the Satyasiddhi," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 1 (1970), pp. 30-39.24. See n o t e 1 above .25 . Leon Hu rvi tz ' s ana lysis shows the poetic license of the t h i rd , see his "The First

Sys t ema t i za t ion of B u d d h i s t T h o u g h t in C h i n a , " Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 2, no. 4(Sept . , 1975) , pp. 3 6 1 - 8 8 ; see 1 above .26 . Nan Chi shu account , a f te r correc t ions made by T a n g Y u n g - t ' u n g ; see 1.27 . See note 1 above ; I over looked th is point in my original analysis.

2 8 . F r o m the Ta-ch'enghsuan-lun as cited by Sakaino Koyo in his "Jojitsu Daijogi,"in Tokiwa Dai o kanreki kmenshu (Tokyo, 1933) , p. 129.2 9 . See H i r a i , op. cit.\ t ransla t ion mine f rom Chinese in footnote 22 on p. 58864


24/24

, zo, J l 74.1.27, upper left). Chi-tsang, according to Hirai {ibid.) made a similararge against the extravagant Mahaparimrvana sutra, but for saying the M undane is theH ,ghest and not vice versa.30 . Sakaino, op. cit, ibid.31. trh-H-chang, T. 45, pp. 90-91; see Ch'an's tran s., p. 360.32 . Ying-to-ching, T. 24, p. 1014b; also Jen-wang-ching, T. 8, pp. 829b, 833b.33. The sectarian lore of how the san-kuan was transmitted is analyzed in O chonchi , Hokke shiso no kenkyu (Kyoto; Heirakuji, 1972).34. Mo-ho-shih-kuan, T. 46, p. 54b.35 . Ibid.36. Te rm also used by Chi-tsang though .37. Ta-ch'eng i-chang, T. 44, p. 528a; On Three Truths, section 2:i.a,i.38. Illusions are empty; phenomena are also empty; tathata too is empty.39. Diagram of a later date than Fa-tsang, who did not resort to either pictures orStaphs; the practice began with Tsung-mi.40. T he diagram should be self-explanatory. The C circle is akin to > the

ym-yang (alias li-kan) circle used to depict the "revolving" psyche.41. Paratantra is in the middle of the Real (parinispanna in the sense of theultimate chen-ti, Real Truth) and the Empty (parikalpita in the sense of the illusoryCommon Truth) .42 . See Whalen Lai, "Th e / Ching and the Formation of the Hua-yen Philosophy,"

forthcoming, Journal oj Chinese Philosophy.43. See qualification in 39; diagram taken from Ishii Kyodo, Kegon kybgaku seiritsuktnkyii (Kyo to: 1956), p . 387 .1 do think this Fa-tsang scheme was indirectly a defense ofth ih- i ' s i-hsm san-ti which has nothing to do with the Yogacarin understanding of thealayavijnana.

44. Closer to V eda nta s T hre e T ruths , I think. There , the Vedanun also uses aMiddle Truth as a compromise between Reality and maya.45. For an example of the mentality involved in the solution of seemingcontradictions, see Yoshito S. Hakeda trans. The Awakening ofFaith (New York: Columbia,

1967), p. 76, interpolated comments citing Fa-tsang's commentary.

65

non-duality of the two truths in sinitic mādhyamika

Documents