The objection is this: Good deeds invite happy reward, and evil influence brings fruits of suffering. For [this world] is the home of interactions [of cause and effect] and the realm of retribution. These schools do not understand this principle and therefore produce such falsehood. Furthermore, the species of man produces man, and the species of things produces things. Since the species of man produces man, man, after all, resembles man, and since the species of things produces things, things, after all, resemble things. This is the way of one member of the species producing another. But to say that a single cause, Heaven, can produce ten thousand species as retribution—is that not a falsehood?
Question: What does it mean to say that there are no causes but effects?
Answer: There are other heterodoxical schools that have exhaustively traced the origin of the myriad things and have found that they are derived from nothing. Therefore they say that there are no causes, but that if we presently look at the various dharmas we should know that there are effects. Take, for example, Chuang Tzu’s story about the Shade asking the Shadow.13 The shadow exists because of the body, and the body exists because of the Creator. But the Creator originated from nowhere. If the root exists of itself, it means that the branches are not caused by anything else. Therefore there are no causes but there are effects.
Question: What is the difference between the absence of cause and spontaneity (tzu-jan)?
Answer: Absence of cause is based on the fact that no cause exists, whereas spontaneity shows that the effect exists. While in the strictest sense they are different, they still represent the same erroneous conception.
Our objection to it is this: Cause and effect produce each other very much like long and short contrast each other.14 If there is already an effect, how can there be no cause? If there is no cause, how can there be the effect alone? If there had to be no cause but had to be effect, then good deeds would invite hell and evil deeds would result in going to Paradise.
Question: Someone says that spontaneity may have a cause or it may not. The myriad things differ, but they all spontaneously exist. Therefore there is no such error as you have just stated.
Answer: The falsehood arises because the matter has not been examined carefully. If one examines carefully, one will find that according to reason the conclusion will be otherwise. For spontaneity means not [having been caused] by another thing. If a thing has been caused by another, it cannot be said to be spontaneous. Therefore given spontaneity, there will be no cause, and given a cause, there will be no spontaneity. To have asserted a cause and then spontaneity also is to be self-contradictory.
Question: What does it mean to say that there are causes but no effects?
Answer: According to those who hold the view that things will come to an end,15 there is only the present but no future. Plants, for example, last for one season only.
Our objection to the theory is this: The spiritual principle (Buddhism) is abstruse and profound, but deluded people are very much deceived. Moral principles have been gone through by Confucius but are still not clear.16 Principle has been gone through by Duke Chou17 but it is still in the dark. Buddhism alone can show its utmost. The scripture says:
Suppose a bird is inside a vase,
Whose opening is covered with silk.
When the silk is torn and the bird flies away,
The body is destroyed but the spirit has gone away.18
Hui-yüan (334-416) of K’uang-shan19 said, “The transmission of fire in the firewood is similar to the transmission of the spirit in the body. Fire is transmitted to another piece of firewood in the same way as the spirit is transmitted to another body. The earlier firewood is not the same as the later one. From this we know that the art is wonderful for fingers to supply no more [firewood while the fire is transmitted elsewhere].20 The former body is not the later body. From this we realize that the feeling about man’s destiny21 is deep. When we see that the body of one life perishes, we must not say that consciousness and spirit die with it, and when we see the fire ending with one piece of wood, we must not say that the time is up and all is finished.”22 A latter-day scholar23 quoted the words of the Yellow Emperor,24 saying, “Although the body has decomposed, the spirit does not disintegrate. It goes along with the transformations [of the universe] and changes infinitely.”25 Although the saying does not explicitly talk about the three periods (past, present and future periods of existence), the idea is clear that [the past, the present, and] the future are continuous.
Question: What does it mean to say that there are neither causes nor effects?
Answer: It means that the idea of receiving the fruits of action in a later life is rejected and that there are also no present causes. This is why the six teachers26 said that there are no evil deeds or their recompense, and there are no good deeds or their recompense. Of the four perverse doctrines, this is the most harmful. It cuts of! good for the present and produces an evil state of life for the future. . . . (San-lun hsüan-i, pt. 1, tsd, 45:1)
Comment. We see here the Four Points of Argumentation at work. The various theories on cause and effect are reduced to four: theories of ens, of non-ens, of both ens and non-ens, and neither ens nor non-ens. This pattern of thought is prominent not only in the Three-Treatise School but in other Buddhist schools as well. Some Buddhist scholars maintain that, generally speaking, Western thought has not gone beyond the third stage, that of “both-and,” whereas the fourth stage of “neither-nor” has been reached in Emptiness which defies all descriptions. But does not the Absolute in Western thought include all, the negative as well as the positive?
3. The Four Subsidiary Causes
Question: Why does the study of Abhidharma27 result in a perverse view?
Answer: If one says [as does the Abhidharma School] that the Four Causes produce all the dharmas, then who produces the Four Causes? If the Four Causes are produced by something else, then that something else must be produced by something else again, and so on to infinity. If the Four Causes exist of themselves and are not produced by something else, then the myriad things, too, must not be produced by the Four Causes, and should fall into the condition of having no cause at all. Therefore if things are produced by something else, the process would be unlimited, and if there is a limit, there is no cause. From these two points, one may not believe in the existence of causes or effects. Therefore if one studies the Abhidharma for long, a perverse view will result . . . . (ibid., tsd, 45:3)
Comment. The problem of causality is one of the most important in Buddhist schools. It is central in the Three-Treatise School, because its basic concept of Emptiness is untenable unless causality is rejected. The four causes here remind one of Aristotle and Scholasticism. They also underlie the fact that all Buddhist schools think of plurality of causes and effects instead of the one-to-one relationship between cause and effect. They, of course, all reject the First Cause. It is also interesting to note that the argument against the First Cause here is practically the same as that advanced by Taoists. As the Shadow in the Chuang Tzu asks, “Do I depend on something else to be this way? Does this something on which I depend also depend on something else?”28
4. Existence, Nonexistence, and Emptiness
Question: If both other Buddhist schools and heterodoxical schools are denounced and both the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle) and Hīnayāna (Small Vehicle) are refuted, what is the basis of your discussion?
Answer: If one’s mind still dwells on Buddhist or heterodoxical schools or if one’s feelings still linger around the Mahāyāna or Hinayāna, one will fall into one-sided perversion and lose sight of correct principle (li). If correct principle is lost sight of, correct view will not arise. If correct view does not arise, then the views that things come to an end and that they are eternal will not be eliminated. If they are not eliminated, the wheel of suffering will forever turn, for only when both Buddhist and heterodoxical schools are taken out of sight29 and both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are silenced can there be any
thing called correct principle. As this correct principle is understood, correct view will arise. And when correct view arises, then nonsensical discussion will cease. When nonsensical discussion ceases, the wheel of suffering will be destroyed. This is the general principle of the Three Treatises. It summarizes all conclusions of the various schools and combines the spiritual storehouses (merits) of the many sages. Do people who love the Way not rest on this principle?
Question: If both other Buddhist schools and heterodoxical schools are rejected and both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are refuted, this is a [perverse] view that things come to an end. How can it be called a correct doctrine?
Answer: Once they are taken out of sight, then both theories that things come to an end and that things are eternal are silenced. When the two extremes are abandoned, is that not correct doctrine?
Objection: As things come to an end or are eternal, we say that they exist, and as they neither come to an end nor are eternal, we say that they are nonexistent. Since [you virtually say] they are nonexistent, how can [your view] be separated from the view that things come to an end?
Answer: Once the theories that things come to an end or are eternal are silenced, then existence, nonexistence, and so forth, are all eliminated. One may no longer say that our doctrine is defiled by the concept of nonexistence.
Objection: Although you have this way out, at the end you cannot escape objection. When there is the existence of being and when there is the existence of non-being, we say there is existence. And when there is nonexistence of either being or non-being, there is then great nonexistence. Since you have already fallen into the concept of nonexistence, how can you be separated from the view that things come to an end?
Answer: The idea of nonexistence is presented primarily to handle the disease of the concept of existence. If that disease disappears, the useless medicine is also discarded. Thus we know that the Way of the sage has never held to either existence or nonexistence. What obstacle can there be?
Objection: To affirm both existence and nonexistence is a double affirmation. To negate both existence and nonexistence is a double negation. Since you have fallen into affirmation and negation, you are, after all, the same as the Confucianists and Moists.30
Answer: Our double negation is primarily intended to negate the double affirmation. Once the double affirmation is forgotten, the double negation also ceases. Thus we know that to negate an affirmation is also to negate a negation.
Objection: To negate both an affirmation and a negation is after all to fall into a double negation. How can you escape negation?
Answer: A double affirmation produces a dream tiger, and a double negation reveals a flower in the air. Thus we know that originally there is nothing to affirm and there is not now anything to negate.
Objection: If there is neither affirmation nor negation, then there is neither perverseness nor correctness. Why in the beginning section do you call it “demolishing the perverse” and “showing the correct”?
Answer: It is considered perverse to affirm or negate. It is said to be correct only when there is neither affirmation nor negation. We therefore called the section “explaining the demolition of perverseness and the showing of correctness.”
Objection: Since you say there are perverseness to demolish and correctness to show, then you have the intention of clinging or discarding. How can you say you are not attached to anything?
Answer: We are forced to use the word “correct” in order to stop the perverseness. Once perverseness has been stopped, correctness will no longer remain. Therefore the mind is attached to nothing.
Objection: If one wants both perverseness and correctness to disappear, is this not a view of Emptiness [itself an affirmation]?
Answer: The Cheng-kuan lun (Treatise on the Correct View) says:
The Great Sage preached the Law of Emptiness
In order to free men from all [personal] views.
If one still holds the view that Emptiness exists,
Such a person the Buddhas will not transform.31
If, while ordinarily fire can extinguish fire, now it produces fire instead, what shall we use to destroy it? The view that things come to an end or are eternal is fire, and Emptiness can destroy it. But if one is still attached to Emptiness, then there is no medicine that can eliminate the disease.
Objection: Since one is attached to the disease of Emptiness, why talk about giving up his transformation instead of giving him the medicine of existence?
Answer: If one tries to transform by means of the concept of existence, one becomes impeded by it instead. If, on the other hand, one goes so far as to forget all words, one will then become attached to the view that things come to an end. How can persons like these be transformed?
Question: What is wrong for the mind to have attachment?
Answer: If the mind is attached to something, it is bound to it and cannot be emancipated from birth and old age, sickness and death, sorrow and grief, and suffering and distress. Therefore the Lotus Scripture says, “I (the Buddha) have used an infinite number of convenient means to lead sentient beings and to enable them to be free from various attachments.”32 The Ching-ming (Fame for Purity) says:
[The Buddha] is unattached to the mundane world and is like the lotus flower.
He is always skillful in entering into the paths of emptiness and silence.
He penetrates the characters of the various dharmas and has no more impediment or obstruction.
Bow your head [to Him who is] like space and leans to nothing. . . .33
(ibid., tsd, 45:6-7)
5. Substance and Function
Question: How many kinds of correctness are there?
Answer:. . . The first is correctness in substance and the second is correctness in function. Correctness in substance means that it is neither absolute nor worldly, and correctness in function means being both absolute and worldly. The reason for this is that the true nature34 of all dharmas is entirely inexplicable in speech and unrealizable in thought. As it has never been either absolute or worldly, it is therefore called substance. It is regarded as correct because it is completely cut off from all kinds of one-sidedness and perverseness. This is why we speak of correctness in substance. The reason why we speak of correctness in function is that if substance is completely cut off from names and words, things cannot be understood. Although it is neither existent nor nonexistent, we are forced to speak of it as absolute and worldly. Therefore we called it function. It is regarded as correct because this being both absolute and worldly is not one-sided or perverse. Therefore we called it correctness in function.
Question: Since you have already spoken of being absolute and being worldly, it means two extremes. How can you call that correctness?
Answer: Things are produced by causes and therefore have dependent existence. That is regarded as worldly. But dependent existence should not be said to be definitely existent, nor should it be said to be definitely nonexistent. This type of dependent existence is far from the two extremes and is therefore called correctness. Worldly existence being what it is and absolute nonexistence also being what it is, dependent nonexistence should not be said to be either definitely nonexistent or definitely existent. It is far from the two extremes, and is therefore regarded as correct. . . . (ibid., tsd, 45:7)
▪ ▪ ▪--23--▪ ▪ ▪
BUDDHIST IDEALISM: HSÜAN-TSANG OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS-ONLY SCHOOL
In subtlety of concepts and refinement of analysis, the Consciousness-Only School1 is the most philosophical of Buddhist schools. Originally called Yogācāra (way of yoga), it was founded by Asaṅga (c.410–c.500) for the purpose of mystical enlightenment through metaphysical reflections. When his younger brother Vasubandhu (c.420–c.500) systematized and developed its philosophical views, he designated its tenet as Consciousness-Only. It and the Three-Treatise School dominated the Chinese intellectual scene and rivaled each other from the fifth to the seventh century.
The sch
ool first existed as the She-lun School2 but was eventually replaced by the Consciousness-Only School of Hsüan-tsang3 (596-664). Not being satisfied with the conflicting doctrines of his time, he went to India in 629 and for sixteen years studied and debated with the greatest Indian scholars. When he returned in 645, he brought, among other things, 657 Buddhist works, and under imperial patronage he and a large group of assistants, in the largest translation project in Chinese history, devoted some twenty years to translating seventy-five of them, mostly Yogācāra works.4
The essentials of the Yogācāra School are summed up in Vasubandhu’s Vijñatimātratātriṁśika (Treatise in Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only).5 Ten Indian philosophers, including Dharmapāla (439-507), elaborated on the meaning of these verses. Hsüan-tsang selected, summarized, and systematized their interpretations, following chiefly Dharmapāla, and the result is his famous Ch’eng-wei-shih lun (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, or Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only).6 His prose is excellent, and he created such a neat and consistent vocabulary that his works are directly comprehensible without resorting to the original Sanskrit. Nevertheless, the Chinese language was ill equipped to translate the intricate and difficult philosophy. During the translation, his pupil K’uei-chi (632-682)7 took many notes, which come to sixty long chapters. Without his Ch’eng-wei-shih lun shu-chi (Notes on the Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only), it is impossible to get at the real meaning of Hsüan-tsang’s treatise. Even with it, we are not sure whether the Consciousness-Only philosophy presented by Hsüan-tsang is originally Vasubandhu’s, for it has now gone through two interpretations, first by Dharmapāla and then by Hsüan-tsang. This fact is of tremendous importance. Does his very selection not indicate the direction in which Buddhist philosophy was developing in China?
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 45
