A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Before the exodus to the south, there had already been the practice of “matching concepts” of Buddhism and Taoism,4 in which a Buddhist concept is equated with one in Chinese thought. Thus tathatā (thusness, ultimate reality) was translated by the Taoist term “original non-being” (pen-wu, pure being). Now close contacts between the Buddhists and Neo-Taoists in the south reached a very high philosophical level. As the fundamental problem of Neo-Taoism was that of being and non-being, and since Neo-Taoists conceived fundamental reality to be original non-being, the Buddhists similarly centered their own thoughts along these lines. Seven schools developed, all in the south except the School of Original Non-being, which arose in the north. Like the Neo-Taoists, the Buddhists regarded ultimate reality as transcending all being, names, and forms, and as empty and quiet in its nature. As in the case of Neo-Taoism this is not nihilism, for non-being thus understood is really pure being or reality undifferentiated.

  Records about the seven schools are scanty and the tenets of several of them are not quite clear. They did not exert much influence on later Buddhists. Nevertheless the records are sufficient to show several things. One is that Neo-Taoism was instrumental in the growth of the earliest Chinese Buddhist philosophical schools and not vice versa. Second, these schools were essentially Chinese both in thought and in language. As Liebenthal has aptly put it, “The so-called schools were originated by the Chinese and had no relation to Indian controversies. The Chinese asked all the questions and Indian Buddhist revelation supplied the answers.”5 Third, they showed that in the Eastern Chin (317-420) the arena of Chinese philosophy was dominated by Buddhists rather than by Confucian or Taoist thinkers. From now on for several hundred years, the story of Chinese philosophy was that of Buddhism. Fourth, the schools laid down the direction of philosophical discussion in the Six Dynasties (222-589), for the problems of being and non-being remained basic.

  Furthermore, the schools generally fell into two groups. The School of Original Non-being and its Variant School may be labeled as schools of non-being, whereas the other five may be labeled as schools of being, for while they maintain that matter is empty, they do not deny its conditional existence. It happens that later Buddhist schools are usually classified into the two categories of being and non-being. It would be far-fetched to say that the seven schools set the pattern, but one cannot help pointing out that the basic issue remained the same, namely, that between being and non-being. As has already been pointed out, the Neo-Taoism of Wang Pi (226-249) affirms the one while that of Kuo Hsiang (d. 312) affirms the many.6 Since these Buddhist philosophers lived much nearer to the time of Kuo Hsiang than to that of Wang Pi, is it unreasonable to suggest that the Neo-Taoist spirit of “saving the appearance” in Kuo Hsiang had some bearing on their thought?

  The following selection is from the Chung-kuan lun shu (Commentary on the Treatise on the Middle Doctrine, Mādhyamika śāstra) by Chi-tsang, 549-623.

  THE CHUNG-KUAN LUN SHU

  Before Master Kumārajīva7 arrived in Ch’ang-an8 [in 4019], there were originally three schools of thought.

  1. The first was the monk Tao-an (312-385)10 who propagated the doctrine of original non-being. He said that non-being existed before the myriad things evolved and transformed, and that Emptiness11 was the beginning of all beings with forms. What obstructs man’s [mind] are derived entities.12 If the mind finds its abode13 in original non-being, erroneous thoughts will cease. Teacher of the Law Seng-jui (352-436)14 said, “The method of matching Buddhist concepts with those of Taoism is off the mark and misinterprets the original meaning. The [following] six schools are all one-sided and have not touched the truth. Our Master said, ‘I, Monk Tao-an, cut a desert path to open up a track, and signal to the world the doctrine of the emptiness of the nature of things as a profound concept.’ Tested by the actual results the schools have produced, the School of the Emptiness of the Nature of Things alone attains the truth in the highest degree.”15 If we understand this idea fully, we realize that according to Master Tao-an’s explanation of original non-being, all dharmas (elements of existence)16 are in their original nature empty and void (tranquil and devoid of differentiated character). Hence the name original non-being (pure being).17 This doctrine is no different from those taught in the Mahāyāna scriptures and treatises as well as by schools of Kumārajīva and Seng-chao (384-414).18

  Comment. T’ang Yung-t’ung has pointed out the similarity of Tao-an’s theory of original non-being to that of Wang Pi.19 We should also note that Tao-an’s way to realize the original non-being is through the calmness of mind. Thus in effect he synthesized the dhyāna and prajnā movements.

  2. The next is [the Variant School of Original Non-being of] Teacher of the Law Fa-shen (286-374).20 He said that by original non-being is meant that before there was any dharma of form (or matter),21 there was first of all non-being. Therefore being came out of non-being. That is, non-being existed before being and being came into existence after non-being. This is why it is called original non-being.

  This theory has been demolished by Master Seng-chao in his treatise “The Emptiness of the Unreal,”22 and has not been taught in the scriptures or treatises. If non-being existed before being, then the original nature of what is not existent is non-being. This means that there was first non-being and then being, and that things will return from being back to non-being. The scripture says, “If dharmas first exist and then cease to exist, then all Buddhas and bodhisattvas23 have erred and sinned [because coming into existence and going out of existence constitute suffering]. If they are non-being at first and then become being, all Buddhas and bodhisattvas will also have erred and sinned.”24 Therefore the scripture is not in agreement with this doctrine.

  3. The second school is that of the theory of matter as it is (chi-se, “matter as we find it” or actual things).25 There are two representatives. One is the theory of matter as it is of the Kuan-nei area,26 which explains that matter as it is is empty. The explanation for this is that matter has no self-nature. [That is, it does not exist by its own nature but through external causes and conditions. But as such it does have a conditional existence which is not empty]. The theory says that matter as it is is empty but does not say that matter as it is is in its very nature empty. This doctrine has been criticized by Master Seng-chao. He said that this theory understands that “matter has no self-nature but does not understand that matter [including its conditional existence] is really not matter at all.”27

  The other representative is Chih Tao-lin (314-366).28 He wrote “Roaming in the Supremely Profound State (Hsüan) Inherent in Matter As It Is”29 to explain that matter as it is is empty [because it depends on certain conditions for its existence]. This is why he called the treatise “Roaming in the Supremely Profound State Inherent in Matter As It Is.” This means that he speaks of the true state without rejecting temporary names (derived or transitory entities which depend on causes for their production). This is no different from Master Tao-an’s theory of the emptiness of original nature.

  Comment. According to T’ang Yung-t’ung, while Tao-an’s theory of original non-being corresponds to that of Wang Pi, Chih Tao-lin’s theory of matter as it is corresponds to the doctrine of Kuo Hsiang.30 In saying that Chih Tao-lin’s theory is no different from that of Tao-an, Chi-tsang is correct only insofar as the emptiness of original nature is concerned. According to Tao-an, as original non-being is realized, the conditional existence of matter becomes equally empty; according to Chih Tao-lin, on the other hand, it remains real, though conditionally so. T’ang Yung-t’ung is therefore correct in likening Chih Tao-lin to Kuo Hsiang.

  4. The third school is that of Teacher of the Law Fa-wen (fl. 374)31 who advocated the theory of the non-being of mind.32 By the non-being of mind is meant that one should not have any deliberate mind toward the myriad things. The myriad things in themselves, however, are not nonexistent. The explanation of this idea is this: The scriptures say that all dharmas are empty because it is intended to en
able the substance of our minds not to cling to anything unreal or imaginary. This is why the non-being of the mind is spoken of. The theory does not assert that external things are empty. In other words, it does not hold that the objective sphere33 of the myriad things is empty. As Master Seng-chao has well said, “The theory is right about the tranquillity of the spirit but it is wrong in not realizing the vacuity of things.”34 The idea of his refutation is that the theory recognizes the emptiness of mind but still holds that things exist. Thus it is right in one respect but wrong in another.

  Comment. One is reminded of the teaching of “having no deliberate mind of one’s own (wu-hsin)” in Kuo Hsiang and Chuang Tzu.35 In all cases, the emphasis is on the state of mind which should be such that it no longer clings to or is affected by external things.

  The above four masters established their theories in the Chin period (265-420). When it came to the Liu Sung period (420-479), Teacher of the Law T’an-chi of the Ta Chuang-yen Temple wrote the “Treatise on the Seven Schools” and recounted the four masters of four different schools.

  5. The fifth is the theory of consciousness being contained [in the spirit]36 founded by Yü Fa-k’ai (fl. 364).37 [According to him], the Three Worlds (of desires, matter, and pure spirit)38 is an abode of a long night (of worldly existence), and the mind is the basis of a great dream. All that we see is seen in this dream. When we awaken from the great dream, and the long night gets to be dawn, then the consciousness that produces illusions will be extinguished and the Three Worlds will be seen to be all empty. At this time nothing is produced [from the mind] and yet nothing is not produced from it.

  Objection: If what is asserted is correct, then at the time of great awakening, nothing will be seen and that would not be in accord with worldly (relative, common) truth.39 Then what do the five kinds of eyes40 of the Tathāgata (Buddha)41 see?

  6. The sixth school is that of Teacher of the Law Tao-i (d. 401).42 He said all dharmas of worldly truth are illusory. This is why the scripture says that from the very beginning there have never been any [such dharmas].43

  Objection: According to the scriptures, activities of illusory products have neither merit nor demerit. If all dharmas are equally illusory, what is the difference between an illusory person and a real person? Furthermore, the scripture merely makes use of what is vacuous to refute what is actual. Now to give up what is vacuous when what is actual is gone is to misunderstand the idea of the scripture.

  7. The seventh is the theory of casual union propagated by Yü Tao-sui.44 He said that [dharmas] are casual unions (results of a combination of causes) and as such are called worldly truth. As the causes dissipate the dharmas cease to exist. That is called the highest (absolute) truth.

  Objection: The scriptures talk about the true nature of dharmas without destroying temporary names (dependent entities). Why must there be the dissipation of causes before there is the true non-being? The non-being that is possible only with the dissipation of causes is only the non-being of the realm of worldly affairs. (Chung-kuan lun shu, ch. 2, tsd, 42:29)

  ▪ ▪ ▪--21--▪ ▪ ▪

  SENG-CHAO’S DOCTRINE OF REALITY

  The seven schools discussed in the preceding chapter represent individual philosophers and isolated theories without any systematic philosophy. Moreover, they are largely Chinese. With Seng-chao (384-414), however, Chinese Buddhist philosophy entered upon a new stage: for the first time there was a systematic philosophy. Moreover, his philosophy helped to root firmly on Chinese soil a Buddhist philosophy from India, namely, the Three-Treatise or the Middle Doctrine School.

  The credit for the growth of systematic development of Buddhist philosophy in China must go to Kumārajīva (344-413), for it was he who first translated the really philosophical texts into Chinese and it was his disciples who developed the philosophies. He was half-Indian and half-Kuchen, and became a monk at seven years of age. He had such a great reputation in the western regions that in 384 a king of Former Ch’in (351-394) sent a general to bring him back to China. After the general had kept him in northwestern China for seventeen years, a king of Later Ch’in (384-417) dispatched an army to bring him to the capital of Ch’ang-an in 401.1 There he enjoyed the highest honors and had the highest title of National Teacher conferred on him. Over a thousand monks sat in his daily lectures. In the course of about ten years, he translated into excellent Chinese seventy-two works in 384 chapters. Among his pupils were the famous Ten Philosophers. Of these, Seng-chao was his first disciple, and philosophically the most outstanding.

  Seng-chao was born in a poor family and had to earn his living by repairing and copying books. This enabled him to read extensively in literature and history, and he took a special liking to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. However, after he read the translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa sūtra (Scripture Spoken by Vimalakīrti), he was convinced of the superiority of Buddhism, and became a monk. His name spread over the Shensi area even when he was still a young boy. Around 398, when he was hardly fifteen years old, having heard of the fame of Kumārajīva, he went far west to become his pupil and later returned with him to Ch’ang-an. Besides helping his master in the translations, he wrote a number of treatises of his own. Of these, the two translated below are the most important. When he died he was barely thirty-one.2

  He felt that previous Chinese Buddhist schools were one-sided insofar as they still adhered to being or non-being. This is the gist of his criticism of the schools. To him, substance and function are identical, and activity and tranquillity are the same. He believed that the self-nature of things is vacuous, and therefore things defy any determination. All dharmas (elements of existence)3 are merely temporary names (dependent entities), as they come into existence through causes and conditions and not through any nature of their own. Being temporary names, they are unreal, and being unreal, they are empty.

  Such a conclusion is, of course, strictly Buddhistic. In his theory of the immutability of things, he follows not only Buddhism in general, but a particular school, that of the Middle Doctrine of Nāgārjuna (c.100–200), which was then very prominent in India. This school was introduced into China by Kumārajīva, where it was also known as the Three-Treatise School. The ideal of the school is the Absolute or Ultimate Emptiness. Its logical weapon was the famous Four Points of Argumentation,4 that is, refuting an idea as being, as non-being, as both being and non-being, and as neither being nor non-being. Seng-chao accepted this doctrine of Nāgārjuna’s through Kumārajīva and applied it fully to his treatise on immutability. Thus he prepared for Chi-tsang (549-623) who elaborated on the doctrine and made it a major school in China until it declined in the ninth century.

  In spite of this purely Indian character, however, Seng-chao was still a bridge between Taoism and Buddhism. His fondness for Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu had a lasting influence on him. The Taoist ideas of vacuity and the sage having no deliberate mind of his own have a prominent place in his philosophy. In this way he not only incorporated Taoism into his system but also harmonized the Middle Doctrine philosophy with that of the prajñā (wisdom) movement which aims at achieving the wisdom of realizing that things in their own self-nature are unreal.

  The following two chapters are from the Chao lun (Seng-chao’s Treatises).5

  SENG-CHAO’S TREATISES

  1. The Immutability of Things (ch. 1)

  That birth and death alternate, that winter and summer repeatedly succeed each other, and that all things move on like a current is an ordinary belief of men. But I think that it is not the case.

  The Fang-kuang ching (Scripture of the Shedding of the Light of the Buddha) says, “There is no dharma that goes or comes, or moves to change its position.”6 As we investigate the meaning of not moving, does it mean to cast aside motion (activity) in order to seek rest (tranquillity)? No, rest must be sought right in motion. As rest must be sought right in motion, therefore there is eternal rest in spite of motion, and as motion is not to be cast aside in order to seek rest, therefore alt
hough there is rest, it is never separated from motion. This being the case, motion and rest are from the beginning not different, but deluded people consider them to be dissimilar. Consequently, the true words [of Buddhism] are obstructed by their competitive arguments and the orthodox path is deflected by their fondness of heterodoxy. Thus it is not easy to speak about the ultimate [relation] between rest and motion.7 Why? Because when one speaks the truth, he goes against the common folks, but if he follows them, he will violate the truth. When one violates the truth, he will be deluded about the [original] nature [of things] and will be forever lost, and when he goes against the common folks, his words will be insipid and tasteless.8 Consequently, when the average type of men [hear the truth] they half believe in it and half doubt it, and the lowest type of men clap their hands (in glee) and ignore it completely.9 Indeed, the [original] nature of things is something near at hand but difficult to know. But I cannot help setting my mind on the relation between motion and rest. I dare not say that my ideas are necessarily true, but I shall try to discuss them.

  The Tao-hsing ching (Scripture on Learning and Practicing the Way) says, “In reality dharmas do not come from anywhere or go anywhere.”10 The Chung lun (Treatise on the Middle Doctrine) says, “From one’s own point of view one knows that a thing has gone away, but what is [thought to have] gone does not arrive anywhere.”11 Both of these show that rest must be sought right in motion. From this we know that it is clear that things are immutable.

  Comment. In both Taoist and early Buddhist thought, the unreality of things is often argued from the fact that things are in constant flux. Seng-chao, on the other hand, attempts to show that this flux itself is unreal. This is a new approach.