The Philosophical Problem and Theoretical Development of Chinese Mahayana 

 Duh Bau Ruei( Taiwan University)

 1. Introduction

 

  I am fortunate to participate in the East Asia 4 Universities International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, hosted by Dongguk University, South Korea.  Consulting with the university, I decided to discuss the development of Chinese Buddhist thought.  Based on my previous research on the subject, I partake in the conference with an article titled “The Philosophical Problem and Theoretical Development of Chinese Mahayana” In fact, this is a topic that I tackled with everyday when I taught the history of Chinese philosophy at the department of philosophy, National Taiwan University.  The history of philosophy, unlike specific topics of philosophy, always needs to face the issues such as the development and the transmission of theories.  Speaking of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, then, what issues did it face during the process of the translation of scriptures and the foundation of Buddhist schools in the past 2,000 years?  To explain this question briefly, in the development of Buddhism, including its transmission in India, from early Buddhism through Nikāya Buddhism to Mahāyāna Buddhism, it constantly presented new theories and resolved the issues of the time that the religion faced.  With this process, those new schools of Buddhism appeared.  In accordance with this understanding, I will discuss the issues that the Buddhist theories faced in the transmission of Buddhism from India to China.  This paper includes the following topics: (a) the philosophical problem and the theoretical development of Buddhism in India, including early Buddhism, Mahāyāna Prajñā philosophy, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha thought; (b) the Buddhism in China, including the Dasheng qixinlun and the development of Tiantai, Chan, and Huayan schools.  The discussion on this article does not intend to introduce some basic theories of Buddhism.  It rather attempts to define the questions of these theories.  By doing so, I try to explore what the issues it faced and resolved, and thus what the theories they created.   

　　        Based on the four basic aspects of Chinese Philosophy, this article discusses Chinese Mahāyāna philosophy in terms of cosmology 宇宙論, ontology 本體論, the theory of self-cultivation 工夫論, and the theory of perfection 境界論.  These four aspects constitute the interpretive structure of the practical philosophy of the East.  Therefore, they are different from the basic questions of the speculative philosophy of the West.  In particular, this structure of the four aspects is appropriate for interpreting the theoretical system of Buddhist philosophy.

            First, cosmology explains the issues of birth-and-death and destiny depending on the type of material existences in a concrete space and time.  Second, ontology discusses value awareness, sometimes dealing with the definition of concepts.  Third,  the theory of self-cultivation pursues to achieve an ideal personality by presenting practical means.  Fourth, theory of perfection explains the perfect ideal personality. This is the ultimate theory which completed under the structure of the aforementioned cosmology, ontology, and the theory of self-cultivation.  To classify and explain the Buddhist philosophy through this interpretive structure, the meaning of the construction and creation of the theories of Buddhist studies can be recognized most efficiently.

 

2. The philosophical problem and the theoretical development of Buddhism in India

  

Such theories of early Buddhism as three marks of existence 三法印, four noble truths 四聖諦, and the twelve chains of dependent origination 十二因緣 are the Buddhist theories that answer basic questions of the four aspects of philosophy. 

Furthermore, the notion of the samsaric cycle of birth and death already existed in other Indian religions.  Buddhism accepted this idea, but aimed for a different goal.  The notion of samsara is indeed a question of cosmology.  Based on the samsaric view, Buddhism developed the aforementioned theories of three marks of existence, four noble truths, and the twelve chains of dependent origination.

            The theory of three marks of existence includes “the impermanence of all phenomena 諸行無常,” “no-self in all dharmas 諸法無我,” “the perfect tranquility of nirvāṇa 涅槃寂靜.”  All phenomena refer to the things that happen in the externally existing worlds, including the human world, explaining the structure, transformation, and development of all phenomena.  All dharmas refer to the condition, implication, and phenomena of all events in the living world of one self, accounting most importantly for the responsive feelings of our-selves as a perceiving subject.  All phenomena and all dharmas constitute the entire living world, which belongs to the question of cosmology.  Impermanence and no-self imply value awareness, connected to the question of ontology.  The perfect tranquility of nirvāṇa states that the true nature of all life forms, regardless of the question of birth and death, is perfectly tranquil and subject to extinction.  This nirvāṇa is the last and perfect place of an ideal refuge for all lives. This belongs to the theory of perfection.

            Each of four noble truths 四勝諦說 corresponds to cosmology, ontology, theory of self-cultivation, and theory of perfection.  The truth of suffering 苦諦 explains “the tainted are all suffering” 有漏皆苦, which means that all life activities end up with causing the feeling of suffering.  This truth of suffering, therefore, becomes a premise for the Buddhist ontology.  Because early Buddhism sought for the liberation by obtaining the ultimate bliss and escaping from suffering, this liberation should be the ultimate value.  This Buddhist ontology developed as the wisdom of emptiness 空性智慧 in the Prajñā period in Mahāyāna Buddhism.  Examining this development of thought in early Buddhism, we can see that sentient beings cannot attain liberation because they cling to their desires.  There, they are subject to suffering, a feeling that results from a mistaken awareness of reality.  On the other hand, Prajñā philosophy points out that a right awareness is beyond all forms and empty without attachment.  This explanation of a right awareness becomes a premise for Mahāyāna ontology.

            The truth of attachment 集諦 explains that human activities, constantly trying to accumulate wealth, result in suffering.  When the second truth explains this phenomenon, it raises a question of cosmology, but confines the discussion within human activities, without further investigation.  However, it discusses the process of birth and death of human life, integrating the theory of twelve-chains of dependent origination, which is exactly a question of cosmology.

            The truth of cessation 滅諦 explains the realm of nirvāṇa.  Therefore it is indeed a theory of perfection.

            The truth of the path 道諦 refers to the eight-fold path 八正道, which presents the eight right ways of living.  Since this truth corrects the mistaken ways, it corresponds to the theory of self-cultivation or soteriology.

            In this way, the four noble truths of early Buddhism fully explained the four basic philosophical questions and established the theoretical system of practical philosophy in the field of Buddhist philosophy. 

            Although four noble truths established the theory of Buddhist philosophy in an elementary level, they also left a number of questions to resolve. Nikāya Buddhism launched a large scale of discussion on those questions.  This discussion led to the creation of Prajñā and Yogācāra philosophy in Mahāyāna Buddhism, and further to the tathāgatagarbha thought.  Since Nikāya Buddhism is too complicating to deal with in this short paper, I will skip it and instead discuss Mahāyāna philosophy.

Mahāyāna Prajñā philosophy is a philosophy of ontology in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Prajñā means “the emptiness of all dharmas” 諸法皆空, which in fact refers to a right awareness of reality. In early Buddhism, attachment 集 is a process of various mistaken and ignorant lives while suffering 苦 is the result of this mistaken process.  Therefore, all things originate from meaningless self-attachment.  In response, Prajñā philosophy tries to remove attachment to all dharmas, extinguish all types of feeling and awareness without establishing any forms.  In particular, by removing all attachments, including attachment to self and dharmas, it establishes Mahāyāna ontology.  Afterwards, when Yogācāra- and tathāgatagarbha-related theories care about ontological problem, they always mention Prajñā without exception. Furthermore, the later development of tathāgatagarbha and Budha nature thought advocates the mind of enlightenment 菩提心, “enlightening oneself and enlightening others 自覺覺他,” and benefiting sentient beings, which becomes important in the practice of bodhisattva path 菩薩道行.  The practice of bodhisattva path is the practice of saving sentient beings.  This saving practice in turn becomes Mahāyāna ontological thought, just like a value of Confucian virtue of humaneness.  However, the practice of saving probably could never achieve completed without the thorough of Prajñā.  Saving is indeed nothing other than leading the deluded to transforming their delusion into wisdom which sees things of the phenomenal world as they are.  Enlightenment is to realize that there is no fixed form since everything appears and disappears in accord with causes and conditions, and that there is nothing that can be established since there is no attachment even to any form.  The practice of the bodhisattva path refers to the process of helping people arouse wisdom in this way.  The ultimate stage of enlightenment is still the original wisdom of Prajñā.  Prajñā philosophy establishes the theory that the true essence 本體 is empty, empty of the nature in dependent origination 緣起性空.  Then, the question is how the world of dependent origination takes its form and operates.  In response to this question, the Yogācāra theory is created.  Now, with this, we get to the issue of cosmology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Yogācāra philosophy of Mahāyāna Buddhism was established to explain the phenomena, dealing with cosmology.  Early Buddhism sought for liberation by realizing the suffering of birth, old age, sickness, and death, and, thereby, tried to obtain the ultimate bliss, escaping from suffering 離苦得樂.  However, the question arises of how the world and life-forms exist in the first place.  The theory of the twelve-chains of dependent origination answers this question, arguing that the suffering of life originates from one thought of ignorance 無明, which is placed as the first chain.  Inheriting this point of view, Yogācāra philosophy supposes alaya consciousness 阿賴耶識 as the source of all phenomena and the origin of the samsaric cycle of birth and death.  According to this explanation, since all the tainted 有漏 are subject to suffering, alaya consciousness as well comes to have a group 蘊 that has been accumulated through the process of continuous life because of original defilements 根本染污.  Yogācāra philosophy explains the phenomenal world based on the sensory activities of a sensing subject and their results, presenting such theories as five groups 五蘊, eight consciousness 八識, and twenty five dharmas 二十五法.  The phenomenal world exists as an imaginary 遍計執 and dependent 依它起 nature within a series of consciousness-mind 識心.  Sentient beings, therefore, are in the endless samsaric cycle, falling deeply into the suffering of birth, old age, sickness, and death.  In seeking for liberation, they have to transform their consciousness into wisdom 轉識成智, in particular, change the imaginary and depedent nature into perfect nature.  This perfect nature 圓成實性 also becomes the wisdom of true suchness 眞如智, of which the meaning is equated with Prajñā wisdom 般若智.  Yogācāra mostly explains phenomena while Prajñā philosophy largely accounts for values.  When Yogācāra discusses ontology, it stands on Prajñā without deviating from it.  However, Yogācāra philosophy still has unique features in its subject matters.  It explains the phenomena and the universe.  Arguing the self and the world are established by the two dharmas of form and mind 色心二法 in sentient beings as a sensing subject.  Afterwards, it also touches the theory of liberation.  Yogācāra philosophy discusses life phenomena, depending on the result of the transformation of consciousness, and argues that the possibility of liberation is decided by the state of the transformation of consciousness.  Yogācāra has the theoretical design of “scriptures” 聖言量 and “untainted seed” 無漏種.  Those who listen to scriputres or have the untainted seed can transform their consciousness into wisdom.  However, those who do not do so have no possibility of achieving Buddhahood.  As seen so far, Yogācāra philosophy does not have the firm basis of the theory of self-cultivation.  The ideal of its theory of perfection is not success ultimately, either.  Since its argument is not intact, it needs to be complemented by a new theory, which provides a background of the creation of the tathāgatagarbha scriptures and commentaries.

The scriptures and commentaries related to tathāgatagarbha thought mainly deals with the philosophy of perfection.  Even though the notion of alaya consciousness is transformed into or replaced by that of tathāgatagarbha consciousness 如來藏識, the cosmological function of alaya consciousness that brings about the phenomenal world and causes the samsaric cycle of sentient beings is maintained still in tathāgatagarbha thought.  Ultimately, this newly arising thought advocates the ontological function that the dependent are originally the pure tathāgatagarbha consciousness.  Therefore, it supposes that the fundamental basis for attaining Buddhahood is placed in human mind itself.  By doing so, it resolves the questions of the theories of self-cultivation and perfection.  The problem in Yogācāra philosophy was that one cannot complete his/ her efforts to attain Buddhahood on his/ her own because of the original defilement, the main subject of Yogācāra.  Because the original purity, which serves as a subject in tathāgatagarbha consciousness, presupposes the innate motivational power of practice in sentient beings’ mind, Buddhahood is logically guaranteed.  

            Indian Buddhism created other theories still.  But those concerning the important points of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism are mentioned above.  Let us discuss Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism next.

 

3. The philosophical problem and the theoretical development of Buddhism in China

 

The origin of Chinese Buddhism is traced back to late eastern Han 東漢.  Afterwards, Chinese Buddhism went through the stage of translating scriptures and matching concepts 格義, and eventually reached the glorious stage of Sui and Tang.  I will introduce the philosophical problem and the theoretical development of some important Buddhist schools of Chinese Buddhism in terms of the four aspects.

            Let us first discuss the Dasheng qixinlun.  The concepts and theories of Prajñā, Yogācāra, and tathāgatagarbha constitute the essential thought of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism.  The Dasheng qixinlun, which is believed to have been written in China, organically combines Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha thought, as well as the cosmology and ontology of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism.  By doing so, the text secures the possibility that all sentient beings attain Buddhahood, and guarantees that this universal achievement of Buddhahood is inevitable.  What is decisive is that it explains the eternal function of the “mind of the tathāgatagarbha−true suchness” 如來藏真如心 and the “mind of the birth-and-death cycle of the dependent origination of alaya consciousness” 生滅緣起 by supposing two gates in one mind 一心開二門.  Among these two, the gate of the mind-as-birth-and-death maintains all Yogācāra theories of alaya dependent origination 阿賴耶緣起, fully explaining the question of cosmology.  The gate of mind-as-true-suchness 眞如門 can be explained in terms of the two types of sentient beings: bodhisattvas 菩薩存有者 and ordinary people 一般存有者.  Ordinary sentient beings have mind as suchness and therefore can arouse the pure and clean Prajñā wisdom 清淨般若智, removing defilements and achieving purity.  This explains the inner motivational power 內因動力.  The sentient being of bodhisattvas has just one state of mind as suchness.  It also serves to arouse the practice of the enlightenment mind 菩提心行 and guide all sentient beings to the Way.  This becomes an external cause by which ordinary sentient beings can achieve Buddhahood.  Therefore, the Dasheng qixin lun has both internal and external causes and conditions as a motivational power for sentient beings to achieve Buddhahood.  By doing so, it secures the theoretical confirmation for the universal possibility of Buddhahood.  The text constructs the stronghold in the theories of self-cultivation and perfection.  Therefore, the Chinese apocryphal text Dasheng qixinlun provides a full theoretical system, including cosmology, ontology, the theory of self-cultivation, and the theory of perfection.

            After the Dasheng qixinlun, Chinese Buddhists developed their own creative theories.  Such Chinese Buddhist schools as Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan established theories from different perspectives.    

         First, Tiantai school explains the original intent of the Buddha, relying on the Lotus Sutra and argues that all sentient beings should pursue to attain Buddhahood of one-vehicle 一乘成佛, and that there is only one ultimate goal in learning Buddhism without any middle stages or transitional periods.  This is the reality of a premise that all sentient beings can become a Buddha.  This is a theory that belongs to the theory of perfection.  Tiantai school presents the theory of “five periods and eight teachings” 五時八教: it categorizes the Buddhist scriptures and commentaries in terms of the contents of their theories into “huafa sijiao” 化法四教, and in terms of the way of practice into “huayi sijiao” 化儀四教.  According to the depth and shallowness of the theories, it divides them in terms of the temporal order into the teachings of the five periods 五時教.  This theory of “five periods and eight teachings” provides the ideological types of categorization and arrangement for various and complex scriptures and commentaries of Buddhism.  It purports to present the clear order that reflects the extent of the interrelationship and profundity of the theories in the scriptures and commentaries.  This belongs to the taxonomy of Buddhist philosophical theories.  In this Tiantai taxonomy, “huafa sijiao” corresponds to cosmology and ontology while “huayi sijiao” correlates to the theories of self-cultivation and perfection.  The teachings of five periods are related to the entire structure of the four aspects, but form a different structure in which list the sequence of Sages’ levels owning to the theory of perfection.

            Second, the Huayan school establishes the theory of “dependent origination of dharma-realms 法界緣起,” relying on the Huayan jing.  Its purpose is to explain the historical philosophy of Buddhism.  Whether to rely on the the Dasheng qixinlun, the Lotus Sutra, or the Nirvāṇa Sutra, if it could be understood that all sentient beings should adopt attaining Buddhahood as one single ultimate meaning of their existence, and that sentient beings can eventually achieve the goal, what is the meaning of it that sentient beings have a life and go through the samsaric cycle?  What are the meaning and purpose of the existence of all these mountains, rivers, and great lands?  The Huayan jing states that Vairocana Buddha sheds the light to create the world while the Huayan school explains that all things in the world originate, depending on each other, and interpenetrate without obstruction through the Buddha eyes and Buddha wisdom.  So, the creation of the world and the appearance of the lives are caused by the Buddha’s radiation of the light 放光, which generates many more Buddhas and the process of achieving Budhahood.  Here, the entire world is a place where all sentient beings achieve Buddhahood.  All phenomena, therefore, become the causes and conditions for each other, and also constitute the causes and conditions for the sentient beings’ attainment of Buddhahood.  This is a much higher level and explains again the cosmology and ontology of Buddhism.  Through the awareness, based on the dependent origination of dharma-realms, the theories of self-cultivation and perfection come to obtain a new realm of edifying.

            The explanations presented thus far clearly and fully account for the meaning, purpose, and the process of the creation and development of Buddhist worldview.  Therefore, it can be said that they provide full Buddhist theories.  Then, what questions and theories did Chan, which emerged in a peculiar way, had in the face of this huge system of theories?  The key point in Chan is that one cultivates him or herself with the supreme level of mind-dharma 心法.  The notions of “the penetration of words” 說通• “the penetration of the tenet”宗通 and “the dharma of words” 言說法• “the dharma of such reality” 如實法, which inherited from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, has been advocated as the Chan’s mind-dharma, asserting that while penetrating to the tenet and using dharma of such reality, one should be practiced directly.  Regarding the way of practice, Chan inherits “no-thouhgt” 無念, “no-form”無相, and “non-abiding mind-dharma” 無住心法, which is based on a phrase from the Diamond Sutra, “Let your mind function freely without abiding anywhere” 應無所住而生其心.  This means that practitioners adopt Prajñā in the realm of attaining Buddhahood as their own state of thought and cultivate no thought at this very place, and no need to remove desires and evils.  This is a sudden teaching of dharma.  Such Chan teaching became popular and developed as a different manual for each school of Chan.  In turn, it spread to East Asian countries such as Korea and Japan, and further, in modern days, to Taiwan and the world.  The philosophical problem and the theoretical development of Chan focuses on the question of how there can be a most direct and sudden practice.  The answer is that it is possible by adopting the pure state of Buddhahood as the state of a practicing subject.  This is one feature of the teachings of sudden-awaking 頓悟法門.  However, sudden awakening does not part from gradual cultivation 漸修.  Sudden awakening refers to the state in which what is impure is in fact pure at the very moment.  However, since there is a possibility that a different defiled consciousness 妄識 can appear at the next moment, this sudden awakening presupposes the process of gradual cultivation to constantly remove defiled consciousness, which forms the process of attaining Buddhahood.  Chan, in this way, presents a sudden and direct practice.  This is a significant contribution of Chan to Buddhism.

    Such a pure practice of Chan was cultivated mostly within the ancient temples in mountains where far away the masses.  This spatial limitation made it difficult to

the practice of bodhisattva way, spreading the dharma and helping sentient beings.  In response, the humanistic Buddhism appeared in modern times.   

    Humanistic Buddhism was founded by the great master Taixu 太虛大師.  Theoretically, it was established by the dharma master Yinshun 印順法師.  In its practice, some great Buddhist centers at Taiwan such as Mt. Foguang 佛光山, Ciji 慈濟, Mt. Fagu 法鼓山, Zen temple Zhogtai 中台禪寺 practiced the spirit of the Bodhisattva way by conducting Humanistic Buddhism.  As a concrete way for this new Buddhist movement, they organized the Buddhist edification campaign, and thereby contacted the public to spread Buddhist ideology and improved people’s life.  Humanistic Buddhism is a new notion as well as a new way that Buddhism adjusts itself to modern society, spreading Buddhist teachings, helping sentient beings, and cultivating Buddhist practices.  It is also a new perspective on the cultivation of the practice of the Bodhisattva way which can be understood as a Buddhist theory of self-cultivation.

 

 

4. New problems of Buddhism and possible solutions

 

Even though Buddhist philosophical system is sufficiently well-organized, because the system is so immense, the problems it causes are much more.  Consequently, it is difficult to resolve them all at once.  The key point is in the question of how to teach Buddhism and let people to believe.  It is not so difficult to let people know about Buddhism.  However, it is really difficult to make people believe.  For example, such cosmological notions as the samsaric cycle of birth and death are difficult to make people believe.  Theories in Buddhist practice, such as meditative concentration 禪定 or illness of karmic hindrance 業障病 are not the type of things that ordinary people can understand or feel through their daily experiences.  How, then, can these problems be resolved?  We cannot resolve these problems with the theory of the four aspects mentioned earlier.  This interpretational framework can only deal with the issue of the consistency within the theoretical system.  In verifying whether the system is true, there should be a new theory.  Then, what kind of theory should we have? We need to create an epistemology 知識論 or methodology 方法論.  Indian hetuvidyā cannot be used here because it is a type of the hermeneutics of the way of thinking, close to logics.  What the epistemology we need is a theory that discusses the possibility of practical philosophy and attempts to verify their authenticity.  However, practical philosophy investigates practice, means human behavior but not theory.  An epistemology of the practical theory aims to verify the authenticity of the results of the practices.

    These practical theories included such questions as how to make sure the existence of the Buddha, how to determine whether meditative concentration is successful, how to know there real existing the “ten-dharma realms” 十法界, how to confirm the existence and acts of the karmic power 因果業力, and how to found the view of the samsaric birth and death.  All these questions can be realized as true through the personal experiences during the process of practice.  However, since they are just empirical knowledge that practitioners themselves obtain, they cannot become universally shared knowledge immediately.  Therefore, the question of demonstrating such practical philosophy can be successfully answered only when it is combined with faithful attitude.  The choice that adopts the rational judgment as faith even before having experience, i.e., the faithful choice, regards belief as truth without direct experience.  This perfectly correlates to the discussion of epistemology in religious philosophy that European Scholasticism debated whether philosophy preceded faith or the latter preceded the former.  Since I still don’t have any firm and complete views on this question, I promise there will have another chance to discuss this matter.  With this promise, I would like to finish my article.