ae ‘oung Pao, Vol. LXVIL, 1-2 (1981) So ee THE P'AN-CHIAO SYSTEM OF THE HUA-YEN SCHOOL IN CHINESE BUDDHISM* BY LIU MING-WOOD iii University of Hong Kong We owe such eminent scholars as Garma C. C, Chang and Francis H. Cook) a great debt for introducing to the West the teaching of the Hua-yen School #3, one of the main streams of Chinese Buddhism, While their contribution in this area is beyond Gispute, it is regrettable that they have not treated in detail in their writings on Hua-yen Buddhism the subject of p'an-chiao #18 (classification of doctrines), even though most Chinese Buddhist schools, the Hua-yen School included, have considered their p'an- chiao systems to be the core of their teachings. This is unfortunate, because the Hua-yen School arrives at its “teaching of totality” largely by way of its critique of the Buddhist traditions of the past, and any attempt to elucidate its ideas without taking this fact, into due consideration would easily result in a loss of perspective. The objective of the present study is to demonstrate how important the problem.of p’an-chiao is to a correct comprehension of the teach- ing of the Hua-yen School, largely based on the works of Fa-tsang #8, its third patriarch ®), As for my own interpretation of the Hua-yen teaching of totality, I prefer to leave it to another article, + This article is based on Part IT of my Ph.D. dissertation titled “The \ Teaching of Fa-tsang—An Examination of Buddhist Metaphysics” (Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles, 1979), T would like to take this occasion to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Kenneth K. 8. Chien, my. advisor, for his diligent guidance and constant encouragement. 4) See|Garma C. C, Chang, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality (University Park & London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1974) and Francis H. Cook, Hua-yen Buddiism (University Park & London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977) 4) The word “schoo!” in Chinese Buddhism often indicates no more than 44 general trend or tradition, whose members are related to each other only. by their common interest in-some particular Buddhist texts, ideas or prac- tices, In the case of the Hua-yen School, nono of its first three patriarchs were conscious that they were founding a new "school". The term "Hua-yen. School" first appeared in the Ta-fang-kuang fo-hua-yen ching shu Ty VTHE plan-chiao Svs OF THK: HUA-YEN SCHOOL Fad (1) Tie Onicey oF THE Practice oF P’an-Chiao Unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism does not have a defi nite set of texts which are acknowledged by all followers of the religion to be canonical. Strictly speaking, only the words of the Buddha are regarded as sacred; but given the hazy history of Buddhism and its oral method of transmission, it is not surprising that by the end of the first century A.D., there already existed a huge volume of literature embodying the most diverse forms of teaching, all of them claiming to be from the mouth of the Buddha himself. Subsequent centuries witnessed not only the rapid augmen- tation of this body of literature but also the emergence of a number of famous Buddhist figures (such as ASvaghosa and Nagarjuna), ‘who attained position of such eminence that their words were also considered as authoritative. Soon, their names became attached to a long list of texts of the most varied forms and content, and these texts in time also gained general acceptance. Thus, when this, body of literature was imported into China, the Chinese were jaturally puzzled by the numerous discrepancies and contradictions they found in it, This fact, together with the Chinese penchant for syncretism, accounts for the inception of the practice of “classifica. tion of doctrines” in China 8) EULA and the Ta-fang-tuany forlua-yen-ching sui-shu yew-i ek'ao KI AE Hk BE by Ch'eng-kuan WAL, the so-called fourth patri- arch. But even then, Ch'eng-kuan did not speak of the presence of a lineage. ‘The line of succession: Fa-shun # If —Chih-yon 4788 —Fa-tsang, was first put forth by Tsung-mi 52% in his Chu fa-chich huan-men 228 BFS However, Tsung-mi never mentioned Ch'eng-kuan as the fourth patriarch, nor claimed himself to be the fifth one. ‘As for the meaning of the word “patriarch” in this article, it ‘Suffices to borrow the remarks of F, H, Cook: Thave, from time to time, used the word “patriarch” with reference to leading figures in the development of Hua-yen, but these early figures in the history of the school did not consider themselves to be anything like Patriarchs of a new school. They were just Buddhists who were especially attracted to one particular scripture. The patriarchal tradition of Hua-yen, like that of Ch’an and other Chinese forms of Buddhism, was established ‘uch later than the time of the “patriarchs”, when some need arose to base the teachings of the school squarely on an unbroken line of masters stretching far back into Chinese history and often beyond to a line of Indian masters who in turn were descended in authority from the Buddha himself (op. cit, Pp. 23-24) *) Though the practice of p'an-chiao is a distinctive feature of Chinese ‘Budhisun, it has its theoretical basis in the idea of "skilfal means 75 "in Mahdyana Buddhism, Thus, broadly speaking, we may also say that pan-12 LIV MING-wooD It is not known just when the practice of p'an-chiao began in China; but by the second half of the fifth century, the analysis of the Buddha's teaching into categories had become quite popu- Jar #), Most of the authors of the early p'an-chiao systems had left no work of their own, and in order to reconstruct their ideas, we have to depend on accounts of later Buddhist masters, notably those of Chi-tsang #3% §), Chibi #1), and Fa-tsang ). From those accounts, we can see that these early masters approached the problem of p'an-chiao mainly from three points of view: i, Some divided the Buddha’s teaching chronologically into periods, each period with its distinctive tenet. fi, Some divided the Buddha’s teaching according to the different methods the Buddha employed in delivering it. iii, Some divided the Buddha's teaching according to its doctrines. ‘As we shall see, in classifying the Buddha's teaching, the Hua-yen School in general follows the third approach. In this respect, it is less circumspect than the p'an-chiao system of the T'ien-t'ai School KAR, whose scheme of “the five periods and the eight teachings” have taken into consideration all the aforementioned three per- spectives ts beginning in Tndia; and in a number of Mahayana texts, such as the Mahaparinirvdya-stira, the Laukvattrasitra and the Saydlinir. ‘mocanacsir, there can even be found passages which come close to an explicit statement of the concept 4) Some information on the early history of p'an-chiao in English can be found in Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism in China (Princeton, New Jersey Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 180-182, 4) In his San-lun Asitan-i =H, Chictsang relates a fivefold. p'an- hiao scheme of the master Hui-kuan $849, a follower of Kumarajiva, See Taishd shinsha daizdhys KER WAR (henceforth abbreviated to 1), vol. 45, p. sb 4) The most important piece of early material fr the study of the history of p'an-chiao is found in Chib-'s Miao-fa Hen-hua ching hsitan-i ® EEA 1%, 7, vol. 33, p. Bora-b. An English study of it can be found in L. Hurvitz, Chili (Broxelles: Institut Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinolses, 1962), pp. 217-220. 1) Factsang’s account of the early p'an-chiao systems has been discussed in my PhiD, dissertation, op. cit, pp. 140-148. A niore exhaustive study can bo found in Sakamoto Yukio SAF 5, Kegon Aydgaku no kenkyi BGI OBESE (Kyoto: 1964) pp. 149-265, *) L. Fhurvitz has made a very thorough study of this p'an-chiao scheme of the Then-t'ai School in Chih, op. eit, pp. 220-278. For a summary Account, gonsult Kenneth K.S, Chien, op. cit, pp. 30530‘THE p'an-chiao SYSTEM OF THE HUA-YEN SCHOOL 3 (2) Tae Formation oF THe P'an-Chiao System oF THE Hua-YEN ScHOoL aND 118 Historica BACKGROUND ‘The Hua-yen School, as its name suggests, bases its teaching on the Hua-yen ching #48 (henceforth abbreviated to HYC), which was first translated into Chinese at the beginning of the fifth century). Between the years of the first translation of the siitra and the formation of the Hua-yen School, the study of the HYC was mainly carried on by the Ti-lun masters sia 5 and the She-lun masters #465, whose teachings represent the initial Chinese response to Yogacara Buddhism when the latter was intro- duced into the country in the early sixth century ). Despite the *) The Sanskrit original of the HYG, if there had ever been one, is'no longer extant, but two of its chapters are handed down to posterity as two vastly popular independent works, ie, the Daiabhdmika-sitra and the Gandavyaha-sitva, There still exist three complete translations of the sia, fone in Tibetan and two in Chinese, which differ considerably {rom each other. A succinct account in English of the sitva and its various translations can be found in G. P. Malalasekera, ed., Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 2 (Colombo: Government Press, Ceylon, 1966), pp. 435-442. There are two theories regarding the original Sanskrit title of the siira, one based on Chinese and the other on Tibetan sources. According to the former, the stra is originally named the Mahdvaipulyabuddhagandavyaha-sitra; whereas according to the latter, the stra should be called the Buddhdvataynsakandma- mahdoaipulya-satra, No agreement has yet been reached on this contro- versial problem. Partly for the sake of convenience, I shal refer to the work by its Chinese title throughout the following discussion, ™) The Ti-lun School based its teaching on Vasubandhu's comments the Daéabhimika-sttra. Several different accounts have been given of the translation of the commentary, which we need not go into here. Ou the whole, it is safe to say that Bodhiruct and Ratnamati had in one way or another contributed to the translation, which was completed around 511. The translation marked the beginning of the Ti-lun School. However, its two translators disagreed on their reading of the text, and came to an eatly Parting of the way. Tao-ch'ung 249 inherited Bodhiruci’s interpretation and founded the Northern Branch of the Ti-lun School, while Hui-kuang Et accepted Ratnamati’s teaching, and he and those who followed him were usually referred to as the Southern Branch of the Ti-lun School, ‘The founder of the She-lun School was Paramartha, the most important translator and propounider of Yogacdra texts in China before Hsiian-tsang, His translations of the Mahdyduasamgraha-Sastra by Asafga and Mahdi nasamgraha-bhasya by Vasubandhu were completed in Canton in 563. Com parison of the second work with later translations by Dharmagupta (590) land Hsiian:tsang (649) shows that it is considerably longer than the rest, and many have suspected that these extra portions are in fact Paramartha’s lectures on the text, which somehow found their way into his translation. Nevertheless, these two translations provided the nucleus for the formation of a new Buddhist tradition in China, the so-called She-lun Schooluy LIU MING-WooD heated conflicts which are said to have existed among these early Chinese Yogiicarins ), they seemed to agree with each other on one very important issue, ie., they all maintained that thereexists in all sentient beings a perfectly pure consciousness, (sometimes referred to as the fathdgatagarbha,) which gives rise to the world of myriad phenomena under the permeation of ignorance. In this respect, they differed from the Fa-hsiang School 2 fi founded by Houan-tsang %# on his return from India in 645, which does not recognize the existence of an originally pure consciousness, and sards the diaya-consciousness as the storehouse of both pure and impure seeds, while it in itself is neither pure nor impure, With this distinction in mind, historians frequently classify Yogacarism in China into two traditions, i., the “old Yogacara tradition” including the Ti-lun School and the She-lun School, and the “new “ Yogicara tradition” represented by the Fa-hsiang School. Under imperial patronage, the new Yogacara tradition quickly replaced the old Yogicdra tradition in the seventh century, and in its being closer to the form of Yogicara Buddhism taught by Asafiga and Vasubandhu, is still regarded as orthodox in China to-day, But the old Yogacara tradition and its doctrine of pure consciousness continued to influence the later development of Chinese Bud- dhisma, and provided the general ontological framework for the Hua-yen teaching of totality. I hope that subsequent discussion would bear out this very important point, ‘The p'an-chiao system of the Hua-yen School as fully developed n Factsang's writings consists of many different schemes #), but 4 Since most of the works by the early Chinese Yogitdrins had been lost, Wo are very much in the dark on the exact nature of their dispute. It is now ‘generally believed that the Southern Branch of the Ti-lun School maintained that the dlaya-consciousness (the eighth consciousness) was perfectly pure, and attributed all impurities to the seventh consciousness, while the Northern Branch held that the @laya had both pure and impure elements. The She- tun Schoo! came elose to the Northern Braneh of the Ti-un School in main- taining that the dlaya comprises both pure and impure elements, but the She-lun School went further to assert the existence of a perfectly pure consciousness, which it called the amala-consciousness or the ninth con sciousness, For a systematic account of the teachings of these sehools and branches, see Katsumata Shunky6 i Xt 8 Bukkyd no okeru shin-shihi- toa no hey EOL 8 ARROBR (Tokyo: 1961), pp. 639-745 767-818 1%) shit Kyodo, ZidF BH im his Kegon hyiigahw seiritsw shi BE Mi SE lists no lesg than eight p'an-chiao systems of Fa-tsang (Tokyo: 1964), bp. 345-368.THE p'an-chiao SYSTEM OF THE HUA-YEN SCHOOL, 15 three of them are commonly considered by Hua-yen masters as most representative of their position: he common teaching and the distinct teaching (of the on vehicle) (Cung-pich erh-chiao pian [a3 = Het). fi, The five teachings (wu-chiao p'an HH). iii, The ten tenets (shih-tsung plan +-5% 4) ‘As (i) and (ii are proposed chiefly out of propagandistic c n and are not indispensable to a general understanding of the p'an-chiao system of the school, we shall devote our attention pri- marily to the scheme of the five teachings in this article 9) If we give credence to the prevailing opinion that the Wa- chiao chik-kuan %8ak M is the work of Fa-shun #ut_ (557-640), the first patriarch, the scheme of the five teachings would date back to the very beginning of the history of the school, for the five teuchings are neatly set out and expounded in this treatise, However, since the Wu-chiao chih-kuan has been proved a forgery), the credit of first completing this scheme should begiven to Chih-yen 1 (602-668), the second patriarch"). ‘This is obvious if we take a look at the different p'an-chiao schemes found in Chih-yen’s works: i. In the Hua-yen sou-hsitan ohi eur sat (628), Chih-yen puts forth two p'an-chiao schemes, One is the scheme of gradual, +4) Discussion on these two schemes can be found in my Ph.D, dissertation, sp. cit chap. 7 & chap. 9 1) Biography of Fa-shun in Tao-hsiian i, Hsit Rao-semg-chuan BU: #85, T, vol. 50, pp. 653b-654a. Also refer to Garma C. C. Chang, op. ct, pp. 231-234 A large portion of the Wu-chiao chil-kuan is identical with the Yw-dsin Jacchich chi M2 9B by Factoang, and recent scholars have suspected ‘that the former is @ late compilation based upon the latter. For some dis- cussion on the authenticity of the Wu-chiao chih-huan, consult: i, Sakaino Tetsu £57, Shina bubhyd-shi kiwa XB OBIE, vol. 2 (Tokyo: 1925), pp. 483-498. ii, Suzuki Munotada 84 9, Genshi hegontetsugaku no Remy BOR (Tokyo: 1930), pp. 27-39. fii, Tokiwa Daijé ® MAX, “Shina Kegonsho dentd ron XH Besa”, Tons gahuho HH BH (Tokyo) 3 (1932), pp. 69-88. fv, Tokiwa Daijé, “Zoku Kegonsha dentd ron SiR 63", Toho gakuhd (Tokyo) 5.1 (1934), PP. 61-73 '8) The most complete biography of Chib-yen is found in Fa-tsang, Hua-yen-ching chuan-chi #KEM, T, vol. 51, pp. 163b-164a. Also see Garma €. C. Chang, op. cit, pp. 234-237.16 LI MING-WooD sudden and round teaching, which he obviously takes over from Hui-kuang #3 (468-537) and Chih-cheng #iE (559-639), both being eminent Ti-lun masters "). The other is the scheme of the one vehicle, three vehicles and small vehicle, which he himself claims to be derived from Paramértha’s translation of the Mahdydnasamgraha-Séstra and was most probably a p'an- chiao scheme prevalent among the members of the She-lun School of his time "). | fi, In the Wu-shih-yao wen-ta +382 (around 660), Chih-yen mentions only the latter of the two schemes described in (1) above, Of special significance is the fact that he further divides the teaching of the three vehicles into two categories: the elementary and the final *). fii, The scheme of the five teachings first appears in the K'ung- mu-chang 4.1%, written about five years before his death (around 663). In this work, Chih-yen is not very consistent in the naming of the doctrines #), but the scheme is there, and the characteristics of each doctrine are also discussed. It is not difficult to retrace the gradual evolution of the scheme of five teachings in Chih-yen's writing based on the brief outline given above, A scheme of four teachings can be obtained by con bining the two schemes in stage (i), namely, the teaching of the small vehicle, gradual teaching, sudden teaching and round teach- ing. This is done by adding “the teaching of the small vehicle’* in the second scheme to the first scheme and leaving out the rest, for it is obvious that “the teaching of the three vehicles” is equiva- lent to the “gradual teaching”, while “the teaching of the one vehicle” is equivalent to the “sudden teaching” and the “round teaching”. When the “gradual teaching” is further considered under two headings, ic., the elementary and the final (as in stage i), 1a scheme of five teachings is arrived at. This is most probably how 4) See T, vol. 35, pp. 136-14b. This is borne out if we compare relevant passages in the Htyon sow-hsitan chi with extant fragments of Hui-kuang's And Chib-chang’s commentaries on the HYC. Refer to Umetsujé Shion WiLHE, “Chigon no kyhan ni tsuite WADA IC 0-C, Indogaku dubhyigatn honky FONE 0 BBE, 6.2 (1958), pp. 105-106 %)T, vol. 35, P. t4b- 4) For an example, refer to T, vol. 45, p. $196. ™) For example, he sometimes calls the final teaching “mature teachin and the round teaching, “one vehicle teaching”. See the table in Ishii Kyo op. cil p. 354‘THe p'an-chiao SYSTEM OF THE HUA-YEN SCHOOL 7 Chil-yen gets his scheme of the five teachings which he outlines in the K'ung-mu-chang. To be noted also is that since the two schemes in stage (i) are adopted from former sources, the chief innovation on Chib-yen’s part seems to lie in his distinguishing two categories in the teaching of the three vehicles (or the gradual teaching). The question which naturally follows is why he considers such distinction necessary. Before this question can be answered, we have to look at Chih- yyen’s description of the five teachings. Chih-yen’s exposition of the five teachings is brief and cryptic. Roughly, by the teaching of the small vehicle (Hinayana teaching), Chih-yen refers to the doctrine that both the self and physical objects are without self- essence and so are unreal. This teaching is ‘small for it does not go on to expound that the diarmas which constitute the self and physi- cal objects are unreal as well. The latter is the doctrine of “empti- ness” which characterizes the elementary teaching of the Mahayana, ‘The final teaching of the Mahayana maintains that there is an ulti- mate reality (which Chih-yen refers to as the fathatd or tathdgata- garbha) from which all things arise, ‘The sudden teaching stresses that this ultimate reality is inexpressible and incomprehensible Finally, the round teaching teaches the infinite mutual penetration cof dharmas, the most perfect vision of reality embodied in the HYC®), As we shall see, Fa-tsang’s exposition of the five teachings follows closely this rudimentary outline, ‘The final teaching clearly is none other than the form of Buddhist caching propounded by masters of the old Yog&cara tradition. That Chih-yen often refers to the elementary teaching as “the teaching of emptiness” seems to suggest that by elementary teach- ing, Chih-yen has chiefly the teaching of the Madhyamika School in mind, However, in the K’ung-mu-chang, we find a comparison of the theories of causality of the five:teachings: (The teaching of] the small vehicle is brief in its causal analysis and ‘cannot reach the conclusion that diaymas are empty. Since it fails to pene- ate this important truth, its teaching of causality is incomplete. The clementary teaching of the three vehicles can perceive the empty nature of ‘tharmas to a certain extent. Noting the complex [nature] of dharmas, it gives them detailed analysis accordingly. Prom the mature (final) teaching of the three vehicles} onward, the truth of the empty nature of dharmas gets its fullest expression. However, since [these teachings) focuson the noumenal un- {derlying the phenomenal, they do not dwell much [on the nature of dharmas)) %) Soe Kungemucchang, T, vol. 45, PP. $426, 5546, 558-5594, 5620-5638, 507e & 5728. 4M) T, vol. 45, P. 540a, Il. 69,