首 页  |  中国禅学  |  禅学三书  |  慈辉论坛  |  佛学论文  |  最新上传  |  文学频道  |  佛缘论坛  |  留言簿   |

 管理登陆        吴言生 创办              图片中心    关于本网     佛教研究所 主办


  • 刚开始念佛,一定要把心寂静下[119]

  • 世间琐事真的值得付诸一生吗?[104]

  • 圣严法师:自由自在的人际关系[123]

  • 梦参长老:你执着什么,就对治[102]

  • 看到这世间太苦了,想早一点求[103]

  • 忍耐是一种修行的力量[134]

  • 佛教中国化进程中的菩萨戒[121]

  • 佛的十力[144]

  • 发菩提心义诀[120]

  • 从僧衣看佛教三千威仪[119]

  • 不影响工作,他认真修三年,自[151]

  • 佛法是心灵妙药?心理专家的总[135]



  • 本站推荐

    《长安与中国佛教》

    庐山:一座因"奇秀山

    大别山:一座得“山


       您现在的位置: 佛学研究网 >> E3英文佛教 >> [专题]e3英文佛教 >> 正文


    The concept of practice in San-lun thought
     
    [ 作者: Koseki, Aaron K   来自:期刊原文   已阅:5137   时间:2007-1-9   录入:douyuebo


    ·期刊原文
    The concept of practice in San-lun thought: Chi-Tsang and the "concurrent insight" of the two truths

    Koseki, Aaron K.
    Philosophy East and West
    Volume 31 no.4
    pp.449-466
    The University of Hawaii Press
    (C)by the University Press of Hawaii


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .
     


                                    p.449

            This  inquiry  takes  as its  point  of departure  a
            commonly  held  view of San-lun thought,namely, this
            lack or neglect  of the practical.  Richard Robinson
            spells  this characterization  out more fully: Three
            Treatises doctrine is quite simply a restatement  of
            Naagaarjuna's teaching in a new vocabulary, with few
            additional  theses on matters such as the Two Truths
            where Naagaarjuna was too brief and vague. The Three
            Treatises lineage died out after  Chi-tsang.  He was
            not a meditation  master, and the Chinese  were  not
            prepared  by  their  type  of  education  to  pursue
            enlightenment  through the therapeutic  exercise  of
            dialectic.(1)

            While we share  the observation  of "new vocabulary"
            and  the  view  that  the  two  truths  theory   was
            subjected to exhaustive analysis in Chi-tsang's(549-
            623) writings, we need  to suspend  judgment  on the
            meaning of "restatement"  and the matter of pursuing
            illumination  through  reasoning  alone.  The  basic
            underlying assumption of this study is that, despite
            the fact that a San-lun  Buddhist  such as Chi-tsang
            was committed to the scholarly exposition of the two
            truths theory, which necessarily  implies  a concern
            with  the  use of dialectic, the aim of his writings
            was not simply the theoretical analysis of doctrine,
            but  also  the  clarification   of  various   points
            concerning  the  meaning  of the religious  goal  of
            enlightenment.  While Chi-tsang's  writings  seem to
            favor  the  theoretical   at  the  expense   of  the
            practical, it was to the conclusion of practice with
            which  he was  concerned.  Proper  understanding  of
            san-lun thought, therefore, requires  an orientation
            toward this aspect as well.
            In describing  the dimension  of practice in San-lun
            thought, it is neither  the  aim  of this  study  to
            demonstrate  the  Maadhyamika  system, nor  is it my
            pupose  to analyze  again  the transmission  of this
            dctrine to China.  Rather, our task is to isolate an
            historical and theoretical framework for practice in
            Chi-tsang's  thought  and  to examine  how  the  two
            truths  theory  provided  both  the  foundation  for
            systematic   doctrine  and  the  substance   of  the
            practical  life.  Specifically, we  will  explore  a
            theory of practice called "concurrent insight" (erh-
            ti ping-kuan(a) ) described  in  one  of Chi-tsang's
            earliest  works, the  Erh-ti-i  (Essay  on  the  two
            truths) .(2)  This  practice   is  significant   and
            deserves  explication  for  two  reasons.  First, it
            raises the question of whether Chi-tsang's religious
            insight was a variation of an old Maadhyamika theme,
            or was in fact an innovative  theme determined  by a
            very practical  concern  for wisdom.  This question,
            however, will only be considered  on points where it
            is specifically  related to the pivotal issue of the
            relationship  between the theory and practice of the
            two truths. Second, it is also important to consider
            the relationship  between the San-lun interpretation
            of the two truths  and  several  practical  elements
            present in the Buddhist world between the end of the
            North-Sound


                                    p.450


            period  (circa  420-589) and  the  beginning  of the
            Sui-T'ang  period: the  need  to clarify  Mahaayaana
            contemplaltive  methods  of practice, the definition
            of  the  contemplative  object  (vi.saya),  and  the
            description  of the content of practice itself.  The
            emergence  of  a  San-lun  tradition  of  meditation
            masters   can  also   be  understood   within   this
            historical  context.  Because Chi-tsang's  theory of
            practice  and the emergence  of San-lun  practioners
            are  historically   and  doctrinally  related,  this
            period   of  early  San-lun   development   deserves
            examination.  The presentation, therefore, will move
            from  a discussion  of  the  history  of  the  early
            San-lun sa^ngha to a discussion  of the relationship
            between theory and practice in San-lun thought, and,
            from  that  point, to an examination  of "concurrent
            insight."

            MEDITATION MASTERS OF THE SHE-LING(b) TRADITION

            In the period following  Kumaarajiiva  (350-409) and
            Seng-chao (373-414), two ellements characterize  the
            San-lun Buddhist  group centered  on Mt.she near the
            ancient city of Chin-ling (Nanking)(3):the exculsive
            study   of  the  primary   San-lun   texts  and  the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa  literature, and  the  increasing
            emphasis on contemplative practice which was missing
            (or  at  least  dormant) in  the  "old  theories  of
            Kuan-chung."  (4) There was some irony in the manner
            in  which  these  developments   occurred.   It  was
            occasioned   by  the  fact   that  the  San-lun   or
            "She-ling"  sa^ngha was split by internal dissension
            during  the tenure of the second San-lun  patriarch,
            Chih-kuan  Seng-ch'uan.(5) Debates  and  discussions
            within  this group  were concerned  explicitly  with
            clarifying distinctions between San-lun doctrine and
            the  theories  of  the  Liang  (502-557) Ch'eng-shih
            tradition.(6) Moreover, there was also a split among
            San-lun advocates concerning  the actual practice of
            praj~naapaaramitaa   and  the  limits   of  praj~naa
            scholarship.  During this period increasing  efforts
            were made to maintain  a "pure" study of the San-lun
            texts and the praj~naapaaramitaa canon. Evidence for
            this may be seen in Chi-tsang's  Ta-p'in  ching i-su
            ( Commentary on the Mahaapraj~naapaaramitaa-suutra )
            which records the following:

            The master of Chih-kuan  [Seng-ch'uan]  resided  six
            years on the mountain[that  is, Mt.She.]  He did not
            lecture  on other  sutras, but only lectured  on the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras.  In his later years stu-
            dents asked him to lecture on the Nirvaa.na-suutras,
            but  the  master  said: "Since  you  understand  the
            praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras, why do you again want me
            to lecture on the Nirvaa.na  [-suutra?] It is merely
            sufficient  to read  the  Three  Treatises  and  the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa-suutras;  it is not necessary  to
            lecture on other texts.(7)

            During Seng-ch'uan's tenure as head monk, it appears
            that  students'  interests  in Ekayaana  texts  were
            severely curtailed, and this passage may reflect his
            desire  to  establish  an independent  tradition  of
            San-lun   study   in  the  south.   Beginning   with
            Seng-ch'uan,  we  also  see  the  development  of  a
            tradition  of  contemplative   practice  within  the
            She-ling group. The biography of Chi-tsang's master,
            Fa-lang  (507-581), records  that Seng-ch'uan  would
            frequently and abruptly stop

     

                                    P.451


            lecturing  and  leave  for the  forests  to continue
            meditation. At one tiem, upon his return,Seng-ch'uan
            is reported to have told his students:

            If this doctrine  is profoundly  understood, one can
            practice it. There is no reason for leaving the room
            and disclosing  it.  Therefore, a suutra  says: "One
            who holds  to the view  of self  should  not explain
            this  suutra, and one who enjoys  the Dharma  should
            not speak about it too much." (8)

            To certain  members  of the  group  it  seemed  that
            debate and argumentation  on the meaning of doctrine
            was rather sterile, and sensitivity ot this problem,
            if we may rely  on the biographical  material, seems
            to have led Seng-ch'uan to place a stronger emphasis
            on  the  cultivation  of meditation  practice.  This
            became a divisive  element among Seng-ch'uan's  four
            eminent students:Fa-lang, Ch'i-hsia Hui-pu,Chang-kan
            Chih-pien,   and   Ch'an-chung   Hui-yung.(9)  While
            Seng-ch'uan  was alive  there  may not have  been  a
            balance  between  study  and  practice  because,  as
            Fa-lang's  biography  again  notes,  "Lang  and  the
            others obeyed Seng-ch'uan's wishes and dared not say
            anything."(10) Given  a choice  between  scholarship
            practice, Seng-ch'uan,  who   was  styled "`samatha-
            vipa`syanaa" (that is, Chik-kuan), clearly preferred
            the latter and apparently insisted that his students
            emulate  him.  Among the four men who studied  under
            him, the  most  remarkable  fact  is that, with  the
            exception  of Fa-lang, the  lifestyles  of the other
            three  individuals   more  strongly   reflects   the
            practical side of early San-lun Buddhists:

            Hui-pu: He was always  happy  sitting  in meditation
            far from the clatter and confusion; he vowed that he
            would  not  lecture  and  maintained   this  as  his
            duty....He  solely cultivated  mental wisdom and was
            happy staying  alone in the pine forests [away from]
            annoying worldly matters.(11)
            Chih-pien:  Therefore,  Master   Pien   was  equally
            proficient  in meditation  and  wisdom.  He lectured
            equally among the group of practioners, and this may
            have been due to the encouragement of Master Ch'uan.
            Hence, at that  time, the  essence  of his  theories
            differed  from Master [ FA-] Lang's, and this caused
            Hsing-huang  [  that  is, Fa-lang], sitting  in  the
            middle, to  criticize  him  as  a "follower  of  the
            middle and provisional."(12)
            Hui-yung:  He  practiced  emptiness  and  cultivated
            wisdom.  He sought  the winds of the broad  forests.
            Hence, he stayed  at the Chih-kuan  temple, and from
            morning to night was in peace and harmony.(13)

            The  importance  of this  period  in the history  of
            Praj~naapaaramitaa in China is that the introduction
            of contemplative  practice determined  the course of
            the  development  of the  San-lun  tradition.  It is
            signaled  the  emergence  of  a  new  generation  of
            San-lun practioners  who appeared  from the She-ling
            sa^ngha following Seng-ch'uan. Based on biographical
            data, it is also clear  that from this period  there
            was  a close  interchange  of ideas  and  historical
            figures  between  San-lun  scholars  and  the  early
            practioners of Ch'an Buddhism.(14)
              In contrast ot his fellow  students,  after  Seng-
            ch'uan's death, Fa-lang continued  the tradition  of
            scholarship  and  passed  this  on  to his  disciple
            Chi-tsang.  While both mnonks lived in a sa^ngha  of
            practioners and scholars, the


                                    P.452


            continuing presence of Ch'eng-shih  advocates, whose
            theories  were  judged  to be misrepresentations  of
            Praj~naapaaramitaa  thought, forced  them to take up
            the task  of clarifying  and  systematizing  San-lun
            doctrine.   In  light  of  the  enormous  amount  of
            material  written  by Chi-tsang, it is clear that he
            carried  on the  tradition  of San-lun  scholarship.
            There  were  other  San-lun  disciples, however, who
            specifically  emphasized  the meditative  life.  For
            example, among  the  thirteen  disciples  of Fa-lang
            listd in the Hsu Kao-seng-chuan, (15) one individual
            who  sharply   contrasts   the  scholarly   life  of
            Chi-tsang  is a meditation  master  known as Ta-ming
            ("Great Ming").  Biographical  references to Ta-ming
            indicate that he entered Fa-lang's sa^ngha at a late
            age, spent a few years  studying  at the Hsing-huang
            temple, and then left  with  a group  of practioners
            for a Taoist hermitage on Mao-shan. The biographical
            material   also  shows   that  there   were  several
            individuals   closely  associated   with  the  early
            development  of Ch'an Buddhism who appeared from his
            tradition  of San-lun  practioners  centered  on Mt.
            Mao.(16) One of Ta-ming's  immediate  disciples, for
            examples, was Fa-jung (594-657), the founder  of the
            Niu-tou (Ox-Head) tradition of Ch,an.Another  "grand
            disciple"  was a somewhat  obscure practioner  named
            Fa-ch'ung(587-665?) who  was  closely  tied  to  the
            La^nkaavataara  tradition  of Ch'an.  His  biography
            records  that  he was a student  of the "One vehicle
            tradition   of  India"   and  that   his   doctrinal
            standpoint   was   "beyond   conceptualization   and
            verbalization,  true  insight  into  non-acquisition
            (anup-alambha)." (17) This is a remarkable statement
            in view  of the  fact  that  the  San-lun  doctrinal
            standpoint was also based on similar insights.(18)
               As far as Ta-ming's status in  the  She-ling tra-
            dition   is  concerned,  the  biography   of  Fa-min
            (597-645), Ta-ming's disciple, records that Ming was
            the "real" successor of the "Hsing-huang temple" and
            the "She-shan"  (that is, She-ling) traditions. (19)
            That is to say, a San-lun  practioner  and his group
            on  Mt.Mao  were, in  the  eyes  of  Tao-hsuan  (the
            compiler   of  the   biographies) ,  the  legitimate
            transmitters   of  San-lun  thought  in  the  period
            following  the death of Seng-ch'an  and Fa-lang.  In
            light of the absence of any work written  by Ta-ming
            or  other  San-lun  practioners, it is difficult  to
            determine  the reasons for Tao-hsuan's  reference to
            Ta-ming  as  the  legitimate  heir  of  the  San-lun
            tradition.   There  simply  may  have  been  several
            "branch"  lines  of  San-lun  thought.  However, the
            biographical  reference  to  Ta-ming  has  important
            implications   with  regard  to  the  breakup  of  a
            "scholarly" San-lun sa^ngha and the continuation  of
            a tradition  of San-lun  practioners  which survived
            well  into the T'ang  period.  That is to say, apart
            from the question of an "orthodox"  San-lun line, to
            conclude  that  the  San-lun  tradition   ends  with
            Chi-tsang  is to consider  him as the only  line  of
            San-lun  thought  following  Fa-lang.  Again, as the
            biographical data indicates,scholars and practioners
            equally appeared  from Fa-lang's  center of activity
            at the Hsing-huang  temple in Chin-ling.  Because it
            is  evident  that  the  study  of praj~naa  and  the
            practice of praj~naapaaramitaa continued in one form
            or another in succeeding generations of San-lun


                                    P.453


            disciples,  it   is  necessary   that   we   examine
            Chi-tsang's   thought  in  this  context.   Although
            Chi-tsang  was not a meditation  master, one  should
            not overlook the historical  circumstances  that led
            to the development of a tradition of practice in the
            She-ling tradition or ignore the contemplative  life
            of such San-lun meditation  masters as Ta-ming.  The
            matter  under consideration  here, therefore, is not
            to  determine  whether  Chi-tsang  was  a meditator.
            Rather, it is important  to determine  if there were
            practical  considerations   in  his  development  of
            doctrine.  Since the San-lun meditation masters left
            no written  works, our best and only alternative  is
            to examine  the doctrine  of practice  contained  in
            Chi-tsang's  writings.  What is sometimes clouded by
            his formal explanation  of the two truths  theory is
            the fact that this  theory  was also referred  to as
            "insight  into the two truths"  (erh-ti  kuan(c)), a
            phrase which expresses the theoretical and practical
            integrity of this doctrine.

            THEORY AND PRACTICE: ESSENCE AND FUNCTION

            One major feature of Chi-tsang's  thought is that it
            follows a basic and repeated pattern of "essence and
            function"  (t'i-yung(d) ) .  This  Chinese  mode  of
            thought  was also used  to explain  the relationship
            between  the theory and practice  of the two truths.
            For  example, in one of his most  famous  works, the
            San-lun-hsuan-i, Chi-tsang  explained the two truths
            theory in the following way:

            The true mark (shih-hsiang(e)) of dharmas  is beyond
            conceptualization and verbalization.  Because it has
            never been ultimate  [truth] or phenomenal  [truth],
            it is called the essence.  Because it severs errors,
            it  is called  true, and  hence, we  speak  of  true
            essence.  What is meant by true function is that, if
            this essence transcends verbalization there would be
            no reason  for the comprehension  of things.  Though
            neither existent nor inexistent, we are compelled to
            speak of ultimate and phenomenal, and this is called
            function.(21)

            Although   this  passage  explains  the  theoretical
            relationship between "teaching" (two truths) and the
            ineffable essence, it does not specifically  explain
            how one is to comprehend  this "true  mark."  In the
            following passage from the Commentary  on the Middle
            Treatise, we are given a clear understanding  of the
            meaning of "function":

            First, we  explain  the  essence  of  the  teaching,
            namely, the  two  truths, and  next  we explain  the
            function of the two truths,viz; the "two knowledges"
            (erh-chif(f) ) .   We  seek  to  explain  truth  and
            knowledge  as the interdependency  between  teaching
            and practice.  Again, we first explain the to truths
            and  then  explain  the  two knowledges  becaue  the
            former  primarily   explains   the  meaning   of  he
            teaching, and the latter explains the experience  of
            the teaching.  For this reason, we speak  of the two
            truths to cause sentient  beings to give rise to the
            two knowledges.(22)
            Both  passages  are  instructive  in  showing  where
            Chi-tsang's  interest lay in describing and defining
            the relationship  between theory and practice.  (23)
            While the general pattern of essence and function is
            the same in both passages, the


                                    P.454


            emphasis in the second passage has, in a subtle way,
            shifted  to  more  practical  concerns:  "practice."
            namely, the two knowledges, is seen as a function of
            the doctrine  itself.  The relationship  between the
            two  truths  and  the  two  knowledges.  then, is  a
            definition  of the interdependency  between teaching
            and  the  cultivation   of  a  method  designed   to
            comprehend  the  ineffable  essence.   What  is  not
            explicit in the above passages. however, is the idea
            of a specific  contemplative  object.  How  the  two
            knowledges  are  to be applied  may  be seen  in the
            following   passages   from  Chi-tsang's   ta-ch'eng
            hsuan-lun (A compendium on Mahaayaana doctrine): The
            Tathaagata  depends on the two truths to explain the
            Dharma.Therefore,the two truths are called teachings.
            They give rise to the two knowledges, and hence, the
            two truths are called the object-of-congition.
            The middle  path of the two truths gives rise to the
            two knowledges of insight into the middle.  In turn,
            the two knowledges intuit the middle path of the two
            truths.
            Dependent  on these  two  truths, there  arises  two
            knowledges, and because of the comprehension  of the
            true  mark  of dharmas, there  arises  praj~naa  and
            upaaya.(24)
            What is significant  in these  passages, aside  from
            the fact that  the two truths, the middle  path, and
            the  true  mark  are  seen  as  being  substantially
            identical, is that  the  "middle  path  of  the  two
            truths"  or the "true mark of the middle  path" have
            been  sigled  out  as  the  appropriate   object  of
            functional  practice.  Because terms associated with
            the theoretical  explanation  of the two truths  are
            also  found  in the  explanation  of practice, it is
            somewhat difficult  to state precisely  where theory
            stops and practice begins.  A shift from theoretical
            to practical  concerns  is implied  by  a change  in
            vocabulary, but apart  from this change  there seems
            to  be  very   little   difference   in  Chi-tsang's
            understanding  of the theory and practice of the two
            truths.  While this suggests that Chi-tsang  did not
            ultimately see a major distinction  between them, in
            the  preceding  passages  there  is one  significant
            difference, and that is, in its association with the
            two  knowledges, the importance  of the  two  truths
            lies more in its particular  meaning  as object than
            in its archetypal  form  as ultimate  (para-maartha)
            and worldly (samv^rtti) truths.
            Although the development of contemplative  practices
            in China  is not  our  particular  concern  here, it
            should  be  noted  that  this  interpretation  of  a
            theoretical  concept  as an object  of contemplative
            practice is not entirely  new.  By the beginning  of
            the   Sui,  Kumaarajiiva's   translations   of   the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa  canont and other canonical works
            dealing with meditation  practice had already served
            to clarify certain  differences  between  Hiinayaana
            and   Mahaayaana   methods   of   practice.(25)   By
            Chi-tsang's   day   the   Mahaayaana   idea   of  an
            object-of-cognition did not refer to the stabilizing
            of  the  mind  on  a  concrete  object, but  to  the
            comprehension  of such  concepts  and  ideas  as the
            "first principle truth," the "true mark of dharmas,"
            "true  dharma," "Buddha-nature," and  so  forth.  In
            general, meditation  practice was expressed  in tems
            of the comprehension of a


                                    P.455


            more  abstract   reality  that  was  expressionless,
            inconceivable, and transcendent.(26) Taken  from the
            context of various canonical writings, the preceding
            terms and phrases all represent the fundamental idea
            of an inexpressible  and  nonverbalized  truth.  The
            San-lun  model  of practice  can also  be understood
            within this context.  By identifying  the two truths
            as a synonym  for true  mark  and the  middle  path,
            Chi-tsang  is also suggesting  that the practice  of
            perceiving  the two truths can also be considered in
            terms of praj~naapaaramitaa  which is, of course, of
            major  importance   to  any  Mahaayaana   theory  of
            practice   that  draws  its  inspiration   from  the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa  teachings.   Because  the  third
            passage cited earlier defines the two knowledges  as
            praj~naa  and upaaya, at this point it may be useful
            to see how Chi-tsang  uses these  terms as the basis
            for religious and practical considerations.

            PRAJ~NAA, UPAAYA, AND THE TRUE MARK OF DHARMAS

            Traditionally, the Mahaayaana  concept of j~naana is
            generally   described   as   a   function   of   the
            Tathaagata's  enlightenment, and, for the most part,
            refers  to  an  "ultimate  knowledge  of  emptiness"
            (shih-chih(g) )  and  a  "provisional  knowledge  of
            dharmas"  (chuan-chih(h)). J~naana, then, refers  to
            the  functional  aspect  of  enlightenment  that  is
            applied  to  all  worldly, transworldly, phenomenal,
            ultimate,  etcetera, matters.  Chi-tsang  also  uses
            these  terms  to describe  his  concept  of the  two
            knowledges,  but  by  and   large   he  limits   his
            vocabulary  to the transliterated  Sanskrit terms of
            pan-jo(i)    (praj~naa)   and    ou-ho-chu-she-lo(j)
            (upaaya-kau'salya).  Praj~naa, of course, refers  to
            the  perfection  of wisdom, and  in contrast  to the
            Tathaagata's "provisional  knowledge," the knowledge
            of   praj~naa   is   frequently   described   as   a
            "fundamental   non-discriminating   knowledge,  "  a
            "knowledge of tathaata, or a  "knowledge   of   non-
            arising"  (anutpattika-dharmak.saanti) .(27)  Again,
            while  the  meaning  of the two knowledges  is quite
            similar to these traditional  terms, Chi-tsang  does
            not  use  them,  but  confines  his  discussion   to
            sarvaj~na,"praj~naa-knowledge," and sarvathaaj~naana,
            "upaaya-knowledge."   Further,   while   these   two
            categories of knowledge are traditionally associated
            with the Tathaagata, Chi-tsang  felt that  they were
            also part of the bodhisattva's  practice  leading to
            enlightenment (that is, "wisdom" as j~naana).(28) In
            this respect, Chi-tsang  accepted the Ta-chih-tu-lun
            definition of a dual bodhisattva path and distinguish
            -ed  between  a "path  of praj~naa-knowledge"  and a
            "path  of upaaya-knowledge."  (29) By using the term
            "path," however, Chi-tsang  did  not  mean  a maarga
            system.  Rather, what  Chi-tsang  was suggesting  by
            using  the terms  "path  of praj~na"  and  "path  of
            upaaya"  was that  the  two  knowledges  were  to be
            understood  within  the practical  framework  of the
            da'sabhuumi and the ten paaramitaa.
            According  to Chi-tsang, the  path  of praj~naa  was
            associated  with  the  sixth  stage  of  bodhisattva
            practice and contained  four functional  attributes:
            (1) praj~naa  intuits  the true  mark, (2) it is the
            perfection  of non-attachment  (anupalambha), (3) it
            dispells  delusion, and (4) it serves as a guide for
            the path


                                    P.456


            of upaaya. (30) Nowhere does Chi-tsang's explanation
            spell out in detail the specific procedures  for the
            sixth stage, expect to note that, within this stage,
            emptiness  is comprehended  and the bonds  of kle'sa
            are  severed. (31) Apart from these general descrip-
            tions of praj`naa, Chi-tsang made no fruther attempt
            to define  its  functions.  since  the  sixth  stage
            represented the "praj~naa-insigh"  or perspective of
            emptiness,  Chi-tsang   felt  that  praj~naa  itself
            defied  all  expression.  (32) In this  respect, the
            path  of praj~naa was  not perceived  as a stage  of
            practice, but was understood as something akin to an
            "inherent"   or  "fundamental"   state   of   things
            unblemished  by  dualistic  thinking  and  erroneous
            views. (33)
            In contrast ot praj~naa, the following attributes of
            upaaya were defined  as the "skill of praj~naa": (1)
            the skill of intuiting  the object-of-cognition, (2)
            non-substantiation of emptiness,and (3) the function
            of  practice.  (34) According  to  Chi-tsang,  these
            attributes   of  upaaya  define  the  direction   of
            Mahaayaana practice and give substantive  meaning to
            praj!naa.  Specifically, this meant  that, supported
            by the attributes  of praj~naa  in the sixth  stage,
            the  seventh   stage   was  the  occasion   for  the
            demonstration  of that religious insight.  As far as
            Mahaayaana  practice is concerned, the attributes of
            upaaya also suggest that the bodhisattva's  practice
            avoids both the error of conceiving enlightenment as
            a self-essence  and  the  error  of  conceptualizing
            emptiness as the final goal. According to Chi-tsang,
            however,  the  primary   function   of  upaaya   was
            practice,  namely,  the   "practice   of  emptiness"
            (k'ung-hsing(k) ).  By  this  expression,  Chi-tsang
            meant  that, guided  and  informed  by praj~naa, the
            path of upaaya shifts the emphasis in practice  away
            from intuiting an effable and undifferentiated whole
            and directs  it toward the refutation  of discursive
            thinking:

            Praj~naa, then, intuits the true mark of dharmas and
            upaaya intuits  the dharmas'  true mark.  Hence, one
            does  not sink  into  the perspective  of emptiness.
            This   is   called    nonsubstantiation.    As   the
            Ta-chih-tu-lun  says:  "Praj~naa  enters  the  final
            emptiness  in which there is no prapa~nca and upaaya
            appears  from  the final  emptiness  to teach  men."
            "Entering  the final emptiness  in which there is no
            prapa~nca"  is identical  with  intuiting  the  true
            mark; it refers to non-grasping as well as the skill
            of severing delusion.  Upaaya appears from the final
            emptiness and is guided by praj~naa. (35)
            Since  the refutation  fo errors  and discriminating
            views is rather  meaningless  in the context  of the
            path  of  praj~naa,  upaaya  as  the  "practice   of
            emptiness"  can only be understood  in terms  of the
            phenomenal  level.  Inasmuch  as the two  paths  are
            understood to be complementary in the seventh stage,
            the  goal  of  practice   is  not  associated   with
            praj~naapaaramitaa  alone.  Moreover, since praj~naa
            is understood  to guide  upaaya, the  seventh  stage
            also represents  the occasion  for the comprehension
            of  the  middle  path.  Implicit  in  the  preceding
            passage is the idea that, through the perfection  of
            the  two paths, one  may, by a process  unexplained,
            comprehend  the mutual  identity  between  emptiness
            (true mark of dharmas) and existence (dharmas'  true
            mark). This concept of mutual identity


                                    P.457


            is especially significant in terms of the perception
            of a single true mark, and it may be approporiate at
            this  point, before  turning  to an  examination  of
            "concurrent insight," to see how this basic model of
            practice influenced  Chi-tsang's  interpretation  of
            the true mark, a traditional synonym for emptiness.
              Although  the term true mark can be traced to  the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa canon, Chi-tsang's description of
            it as "beyond  conceptualization  and verbalization"
            indicates  that  his textual  source  is the seventh
            stanza from the Middle Treatise's chapter on aatman:
            "The true mark of dharmas is beyond conceptualization
            and verbalization; it is neither arising nor ceasing,
            and  like  nirvaa.na,  it  is  quiescent."   (36)  A
            traditional  way of explaining  this concept was the
            method of negation-the  "eight neganations"  are the
            favorite  example-that  is, a series  of refutations
            designed to "reveal" the true mark. This traditional
            view  can  be  seen,  for  example,  in  Chi-tsang's
            Commentary  on the Twelve Topic Treatise.  There, he
            presents   Seng-jui's   (352-463)  concept   of  the
            "refutative middle of the true mark":

            Master  Jui  explained  true  mark  in terms  of ten
            negations: not within  and not  without, not men and
            not dharmas, not object  and  not  subject, not true
            and not false, and not gained  and not lost.  Hence,
            it is called the true mark. (37)

            Here, and in the Middle  Treatise's  explanation  of
            the term, the use of negation essentially  describes
            the  true  mark  by defining  what  it  is not.  The
            primary  purpose  of  this  negative  method  is  to
            circumscribe,  and  hence  avoid,  the  tendency  to
            conceptualize  and hypostatize  the true mark.  As a
            student  of  praj~naa, it  is  not  surprising  that
            Chi-tsang  also relies  on this traditional  method,
            for in an absolute  sense, he agrees with the Middle
            Treatise that the true mark is"beyond conceptualiza-
            tion and verbalization."  However, as in the case of
            the two knowledges  where  praj~naa  and upaaya  are
            seen  as complementary, to characterize  the San-lun
            view of true mark as just a series of negations, the
            rejection  of things, is somewhat misleading.  Since
            the two paths are directed  toward the comprehension
            of the middle  path doctrine  characteristic  of the
            seventh  stage, one finds that Chi-tsang  reexamined
            the Middle Treatise verse from the standpoint of the
            original  paradigm of essence and function  with the
            motif  of interdependency.  This  can be seen in the
            following  passage where he  discusses the relation-
            ship between the true mark and provisional reality:

            Before  the  Three  Treatises  appeared, there  were
            Abhidharma followers, Ch'eng-shih followers, as well
            as meditation  masters, vinaya  masters, practioners
            of the Tao, and devotionalists.  Individuals such as
            these  all  adhere  to arising  and  ceasing  or  to
            impermanence  or permanence.  They obstruct the true
            insight  of the middle  path  and thus obstruct  the
            great   funcction   (ta-yung)   of   the   unlimited
            interdependency  of  provisional  reality.   If  one
            realizes  the true  mark, one then  comprehends  the
            great function of the unlimited inter-dependency  of
            provisional reality. (38)

            In this passage  we see an attempt  to describe  the
            true mark on a phenomenal level. This interpretation
            also reflects his basic model of practice.  In terms
            of


                                    P.458


            upaaya,  for  example,  the  perception   of  "great
            function"  refers  to the  functional  attribute  of
            "intuiting  the object"  which, in this  case, means
            the  dharmas  of  pratiityasamutpaada.  Accordingly,
            while the traditional  view expressed  in the Middle
            Treatise  verse  asserts  the  single  dimension  of
            ineffability, Chi-tsang  is attempting  to  validate
            his assertion  that, in the context  of essence  and
            function, functional and provisional reality equally
            reveals the true mark. This also means that the true
            mark   is  not  limited   to  nonverbalization,  but
            contains an aspect of verbalization as well:

            Again, it is not simply that the true mark cannot be
            expressed.  That is, words  are also  the true mark.
            Hence, the  goddess  addressed  'Saariputra, saying,
            "You merely understand that the true mark is without
            words, but have  yet to understand  that  words  are
            identical with the true mark." Hence, words fill the
            ten   directions    and   always    transcend    the
            tetralemma.(39)

            By  stressing  the  integral  functions  of the  two
            knowledges, there is greater emphasis in Chi-tsang's
            thinking of the functional and provisional qualities
            of  the  true  mark.  Insofar  as  praj~naa  informs
            upaaya, the purpose  of perceiving  the true mark is
            not  to grasp  something  immutable;  it is not  the
            discovery  of ultimate  reality  yonder, but  in the
            midstof the conventional order of things.  Moreover,
            since the attributes of upaaya shift the emphasis in
            practice away from a noumenous  goal, the perception
            of the true mark is also consistent with the general
            Mahaayaana spirit of bodhisattva  practice described
            in an earlier  citation  as the  "teaching  of men."
            This basic  structure  of practice  outlined  in the
            preceding  sections  is also evident  in Chi-tsang's
            explanation  of the "concurrent  insight  of the two
            truths."

            "CONCURRENT INSIGHT" AND THE TWO KNOWLEDGES

            When Chi-tsang  began writing  his essays on the two
            truths, he was especially  anxious to refute what he
            regarded  as the erroneous  views of the Ch'eng-shih
            school, a tradition  of scholarship  which began  in
            the  Liang  period  based  on  a text  known  as the
            Ch'eng-shih lun (Tattvasiddhi?). To a certain extent
            the Liang  theories  were used as a foil  to present
            his  own  doctrinal  views  and  to  answer  to  the
            recriminations  that  the San-lun  tradition  was  a
            variation of the earlier Ch'eng-shih lun studies. At
            the root of his polemic  spirit was his belief that,
            in the intervening  years of the Southern dynasties,
            the Liang masters had misinterpreted  the two truths
            doctrine  and, therefore, had  produced  unwarranted
            assumptions  concerning  the middle  path  doctrine.
            Chi-tsang,   however,   did   not   criticize    the
            Ch'eng-shih  masters  only  on the  basis  of  their
            eroneous interpretations of doctrine.He also accused
            them of holding wrong views of meditation  practice.
            Although  in what follows we are more interested  in
            an analysis of "concurrent insight"⌒in relationship
            with  the two knowledges  ⌒ than in details  of the
            Ch'eng-shih  theories, it is of importance  to  note
            here  that  the  basic   issue   dividing   the  two
            traditions  was  the  view  of  the  two  truths  as
            "teachings"  (erh-ti  chiao(i) or as two independent
            "principles" (li


                                    P.459


            erh-ti(M)).  As  an  advocate  of  the  middle  path
            doctrine, Chi-tsang  could not explain the nature of
            nonduality (pu-erh chung-tao(n)) by defining the two
            truths  as two  objective  norms, one a conventional
            reality, and  the other  a qualitatively  different,
            unconditioned reality. This debate on the meaning of
            the  two  truths  is significant  because  it  again
            provides  us  with  an  historical  and  theoretical
            context  in which  we might  understand  the San-lun
            practice of "concurrent insight."
            It is difficult  to identify  the exact source  from
            which this practice derives.In the Erh-ti-t Chi-tsang
            simply notes that "concurrent  insight" was a common
            theory   of   practice    which   developed    after
            Kumaarajiiva  and Seng-chao.(41) Although  this term
            does not appear  in any of their writings, Chi-tsang
            claims that this practice  developed  as part of the
            Kuan-chung and She-ling theory of the "two truths as
            teachings."  We are also  told  tha the  Ch'eng-shih
            masters   developed   two  theories   of  meditation
            practice  based  on the two truths.  In addition  to
            "concurrent   insight, "  the  Liang  mastwes   also
            advocated   a  practice  known  as  "departing   and
            entering insight" (ch'u-ju kuan(o)). Again,Chi-tsang
            made no attempt to identify  the specific  origin of
            this  practice.  In examining  the  content  of this
            practice, however, it appears  that  "departing  and
            entering  insight" originally  developed  within the
            ch'eng-shih tradition. Although specific details are
            not  provided, Chi-tsang  describes  "departing  and
            entering"   as  "departing   from  one  extreme  and
            entering another."  (42) This type of practice could
            only  have developed  within  a theoretical  context
            postulating two "principles" or objective norms. The
            San-lun and Ch'eng-shih  versions  of this practice,
            then, may have  developed  in conjunction  with  the
            debate between the "principle" and "teaching" of the
            two  truths.  This  can  be  seen  in the  following
            passage where Chi-tsang  criticizes  the Ch'eng-shih
            position:
            Since they [that is, Ch'eng-shih masters] also speak
            of the principle  of non-duality, the  middle  path,
            how  can there  be departing  and entering  insight?
            There  can only be departing  and entering  if there
            are two objects.  But how can there be departing and
            entering if the two objects do not exist? Again, how
            can  one  explain  concurrent  insight  if  the  two
            principles   do  not  exist?  One   can   speak   of
            "concurrent" only if there are two principles. (43)

            Chi-tsang's  rejection of the Ch'eng-shih  theory is
            used  mainly  to  point  out  that  the  fundamental
            disagreement   between  "principle"  and  "teaching"
            equally  applies to the practice  of perceiving  the
            middle path.  In the preceding passage it is evident
            that the major flaw in the Ch'eng-shih  argument  is
            that two contradictory  views  are presented: first,
            the existence  of a single, nondual middle path, and
            second,  the  existence   of  two  separate  truths.
            Although both traditions  advocate  the doctrine  of
            nonduality, the Ch'eng-shih  position  is unable  to
            resolve  the  paradoxical   situation  of  a  single
            nondual   reality   described   in  terms   of   two
            provisional  truths.  Chi-tsang's  criticism  of the
            Ch-eng-shih    version   of   "concurrent   insight"
            essentially  rejects the untenable theoretical basis
            for such a practice.


                                    P.460


            In  contrast   to  the  dual  "object"  theory,  the
            doctrinal  basis for the San-lun  world view is that
            both ultimate  and phenomental  truths  are empty of
            self-essence and provisional designations.  (44) The
            inherent   problem  in  the  Ch'eng-shih   position,
            therefore, is the interpretaion of the two truths as
            two independent orders which do not participate in a
            process of mutual identity.  This problem is avoided
            by  Chi-tsang   who  simply  asserts  the  essential
            identity  of each truth.  However, by retaining  the
            idea  of a single  "principle," Chi-tsang  was  also
            open  to criticism  for  the  same  reason  that  he
            rejected the Ch'eng-shih  theories.  That is to say,
            how  can  one  practice   "concurrent   insight"  or
            "departing  and  entering  insight," if  one  simply
            postulates  a single  essence  of nonduality? As the
            terms themselves  imply, both practices  require two
            objects.   This   paradoxical   situation   can   be
            understood if it is remembered that the relationship
            between the two truths is pratiityasamutpaada:

            The  Ch'eng-shih   tradition   also  explained   the
            existence  of the two truths principle.  But when is
            this  principle   dual?  In  all  the  suutras   and
            'saastras, where is it explained  that there are two
            principles? The Mahaayaana  suutras explain that two
            principles do not exist. They all say that emptiness
            is identical  with  form and form is identical  with
            emptiness; worldly truth is identical with the first
            principle truth. (45)

            From  the  San-lun  standpoint  the doctrine  of the
            middle path automatically  eliminates "departing and
            entering  insight," because it implies  a sequential
            and dualistic  view of the two truths;  that is, one
            "enters"  the  contemplation  of worldly  truth, and
            following  this, one then "departs"  and moves  to a
            perception of ultimate truth.  The movement from one
            truth  to the other  is possible  only  if one first
            asserts the existence  of two objective  categories.
            Similarly, if the two truths  are a single  essence,
            then,  "concurrent   insight"   is  also  impossible
            because two objects  are again necessary.  According
            to Chi-tsang the Ch'eng-shih theories require a dual
            perception  of the middle  path in the sense  of one
            straddling   a  fence.   Thus,  while  the  idea  of
            "concurrent"   is  possible,  the  doctrine  of  the
            identity  of the two truths  cannot  be established.
            The  Ch'eng-shih   theories   essentially   perceive
            nonduality  with one eye on ultimate  truth  and the
            other  eye  on  phenomenal  truth.   For  Chi-tsang,
            however, "concurrent"  did not mean the simultaneous
            perception  of two things;  it was not  a theory  of
            combination or union, but the perception of identity
            and  interdependency:  "The  suutras   explain   the
            intuiting  of  existence  which  is  identical  with
            emptiness  and the intuiting  of existence  which is
            identical   with  existence.   When  are  there  two
            objects-of-congition?" (46)
              While this type of thinking is coincident with Chi-
            tsang's explanation of the relationship  between the
            two knowledges  and the true mark, what remained  to
            be discussed was the relationship between"concurrent
            insight"  and  the  notion  of  a  path  leading  to
            enlightenment.In the Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun we are told
            that disagreement and debate concerning the stage in
            which  "concurrent   insight"  occurred  began  when
            Buddhists of the North-South period, based on their


                                    p.461


            exegesis  of the  Vimalakiirti-suutra, attempted  to
            define Vimalakiirti's bodhisattva stage. While there
            may have been numerous methods used to determine the
            differences between bodhisattvas on different stages
            of practice, Chi-tsang  believed  that the direction
            of  bodhisattva   practice   should   be   concerned
            specifically  with the following  question: "At what
            stage  does  the bodhisattva  concurrently  perceive
            ultimate  and  phenomenal  truths? "  (47) In  other
            words, at what stage  can one speak  of the integral
            functions  of praj~naa  and  upaaya? In response  to
            this  question, Chi-tsang  presented  three  earlier
            theories:

              1. Concurrent insight occurs  in the  first  stage
            (=bhuumi).  This  is  the  theory  of  Dharma-master
            Ling-wei   Pao-liang.   Because  one  realizes   the
            non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-k.saanti)
            in the initial stage, concurrent  insight of the two
            truths occurs in the first stage. (48)

              2. Concurrent insight of the two truths occurs  in
            the seventh stage.  Kumaarajiiva  and Seng-chao, for
            example,  explained  that  the  bodhisattva  of  the
            seventh  stage  initially  realizes  the  concurrent
            insight of the two truths.

              3. The three great masters of the Liang [ that is,
            Ch'eng-shih  masters ]  said  that  the  bodhisattva
            realizes  concurrent  insight  in the eighth  stage.
            (49)

              Based on this information it appears that the div-
            ergent theories  of the earlier period were, for the
            most  part, based  on the  traditional  view  of ten
            bodhisattva  stages.  In his review of these earlier
            speculations, however, Chi-tsang  rejected  the idea
            of a "correct"  stage.  In his discussion  of a path
            leading  to the  comprehension  of  "nonarising," he
            suggested  that  the  bodhisattva  of the pre-bhuumi
            stages  was also inherently  capable  of "concurrent
            insight":

            Non-arising, the cultivation  of concurrent insight,
            occurs from the initial  arising  of the bodhicitta.
            Hence,  the  Nirvaa.na-suutra   says:  "The  initial
            arising  of the  bodhicitta  and the final  [Buddha]
            stage are not separate." (50)

            The  reason  Chi-tsang  makes  the  claim  that  the
            pre-bhuumi stage and the final stage of practice are
            identical, here meaning  the identity  of cause  and
            result,is because of the doctrine of interdependency.
            That  "nonarising"  is  characteristic  of  all  the
            stages between  the initial activity  of "faith" and
            the  Buddha-stage   means   that  the  bodhisattva's
            practices   are,  from  the  outset,  based   on  an
            understanding  of the  path  as "neither  cause  nor
            result."   Most  often  this  view  of  identity  is
            supported   by   canonical    references    to   the
            Avata^msaka-suutra,  but  as  seen  in  the  earlier
            passage,  it   is   also   characteristic   of   the
            Nirvaa.na-suutra  which asserted the a priori nature
            of  Buddhahood,  namely., Buddha-nature.  (51) Since
            practice  no longer  has  any  reference  to  actual
            production  in time  or a result  stemming  from  an
            antecedent cause, the enlightened  perspective  of "
            concurrent  insight"  already  exists  in  a certain
            sense.  Expressed  in terms of essence and function,
            this  means  that enlightenment, the essence  of the
            two  truths  or  true  mark  as "neither  cause  nor
            result," is the basis for the "functional  practice"
            of the two knowledges. The basic problem, therefore,
            was to understand  how the dynamics of enlightenment
            functioned both within and

     

                                    P.462


            apart from a causative and temporal framework. While
            this  seems  to contradict  the commonsense  view of
            cause and result, the purpose of this approach is to
            point  out that  the true  mark, for example, exerts
            its   influence   both   in  its   capacity   as  an
            inexpressible principle and in its functional aspect
            as practice.  This means  that while  the two stages
            are  not essentially  different, they  still  retain
            their distinct functional  differences.  The removal
            of "concurrent  insight" from a causative  framework
            led to the following sequence of events:

              First stage: The  pre-bhuumi  stages,the stage  of
            ignorant  worldings, is still  a progression  toward
            concurrent  insight, for  one  has  yet  to  realize
            non-arising  or the concurrent  insight  of ultimate
            and phenomenal truths. The first stage is called the
            "sagely  stage," and  here  one  initially  realizes
            non-arising and concurrent insight.(52)

              In the remaining stages,the idea of progression is
            enlarged  upon.  In contrast  to the  view  of fixed
            "segments"  of  development,  differing  degrees  of
            meditational skills,that is,differing manifestations
            of "concurrent insight." are used to distinguish the
            bodhisattva on different stages.  The bodhisattva on
            the seventh  stage, for example, is associated  with
            the "equality of meditation and wisdom"  (teng-ting-
            hui(p) ),  and  progress  in  the  eights  stage  is
            distinguished    by   the   "absence    of   effort"
            (wu-kung-yung(q)).  But of the practice in the final
            stage, Chi-tsang has little to say:

              Seventh stage: Since non-arising is shallow in the
            initial  stage, it  is  still  a progression  toward
            concurrent insight.  The seventh stage is called the
            stage of the equality of meditation  and wisdom, and
            it is here that one initially  realizes  non-arising
            and  concurrent  insight.  Meditation  is the  still
            mirroring  of  praj~naa  and  wisdom  is the  moving
            illumination  of  upaaya.  In the  sixth  stage, the
            still   insight   is  profound,  but   movement   is
            unskilled.  Hence, meditation  and  wisdom  are  not
            equal.  In the seventh stage, the two functions  are
            both equal.
            Eighth  stage: Although  non-arising  and concurrent
            insight are realized in the seventh stage, effort is
            still  ncecssary.  In the eighth  stage  the mind of
            effort   no  longer   arises,  and  this  is  called
            non-arising.
              Buddha stage: Although the eighth stage is effort-
            less,  it  is  still  not  the  end, and  the  final
            [comprehension  of] non-arising occurs in the Buddha
            stage. (53)

            While  it is regrettable  that  Chi-tsang  does  not
            specifically  describe  the practice  of "concurrent
            insight" beyond the eighth stage, since these stages
            represent a single continuous  reality, a maturation
            of  the  bodhisattva  condition, more  practice  and
            greater  skill  are  probably   called  for  in  the
            remaining stages.  Although "concurrent  insight" is
            present  throughout  this practice, it is reasonably
            certain  that the seventh  stage  is the key to this
            practice.   To  understand  the  relevance  of  this
            duuramgama  stage, it is  important  to  recall  the
            correspondence  between the da'sabhuumi  and the ten
            paaramitaa.  While the specific  terminology  of the
            ten   stages   is   not   used,  the   bodhisattva's
            progression  from  the  first  stage  to the seventh
            stage  is couched  in  terms  of the  perfection  of
            praj~naa and upaaya.  The concurrent  perception  of
            the  truths,  then,  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the
            concurrent application of the two knowledges:


                                    P.463


            In the seventh stage there is no obstruction between
            movement  and stillness, and one wanders through the
            two wisdoms  (erh-hui(r)).  This is what is meant by
            concurrent. (54)

            The language used here to describe the seventh stage
            is taken  from the Ta-chih-tu-lun.  In this  text we
            are  told  that, in the first  three  stages  of the
            da'sabhuumi,  wisdom  is  stronger  than  meditation
            (samaadhi); in the next three stages the opposite is
            true.  (55) While  it is difficult  to see  an exact
            correspondence  between  Chi-tsang's  definition  of
            praj~naa   and   upaaya   and  the  Ta-chih-tu-lun's
            description of bodhisattva practice in the first six
            stages,  Chi-tsang   adapted  the  language  of  his
            canonical source in the following way: meditation is
            stillness   (praj~naa)  and   wisdom   is   movement
            (upaaya).  This  was  understood  to mean  that  the
            skilled  function  of praj~naa, namely, the path  of
            upaaya,  was  identical   with  the  stage   of  the
            "equality of meditation and wisdom." Moreover, since
            the Ta-chih-tu-lun  refers to this stage of equality
            as the "bodhisattva's  stage," Chi-tsang saw in this
            work a view similar to his own. Thus, when Chi-tsang
            speaks  of "wandering  Through  the two wisdoms," or
            when   he  says  that  the  bodhisattva's   samaadhi
            "mirrors"  praj~naa  and  that  his  wisdom  is  the
            "movement"  of upaaya, he is  again  asserting  that
            praj~naa  and upaaya  complement  each other  in the
            seventh stage.
            In   retrospect,  such   practices   as  "concurrent
            insight" and the attributes of bodhisattva  practice
            described  earlier are still highly theoretical, and
            yet, by including  them  in his  system, it is clear
            that  his  understanding  of the two truths  was not
            merely along intellectual  lines.  There is evidence
            to  conclude   that   religious   practice   was  an
            indispensable  part of his thinking despite the fact
            that his writings give the impression  that he was a
            higly competent  theoretician.  As a San-lun scholar
            Chi-tsang was, of course, committed to the task of a
            reasoned  exposition  of the two  truths.  Reasoning
            alone,  however,  was   not   sufficient,   and   by
            discussing  the two truths  in terms  of bodhisattva
            practice, it is evident that the middle path was not
            static  principle,  that  is,  something  merely  to
            reason out.  (56) Further, while Chi-tsang owes some
            of his basic insights  to the primary San-lun texts,
            his  interpretation  of the true  mark, for example,
            indicates  a more  balanced  view  between  what  is
            inconceivable and inexpressible and those aspects of
            the  true   mark   limited   to  verbalization   and
            provisional  existence.  While this is not a radical
            departure  from the middle path doctrine established
            by the Middle Treatise, it is a conceptual  shift in
            perspective  influenced  by the practical  manner in
            which such concepts are interpreted.  As part of the
            bodhisattva's  perspective  developed in the seventh
            stage, the two knowledges  are not concerned  with a
            noumenal  goal but with an active and thorough-going
            experience in the phenomenal order.  In this respect
            the practice of "concurrent  insight"  is used as an
            integral  part  of a larger  system  to explain  the
            relationship  between the theory and practice of the
            two  truths.   Thus,  while  Chi-tsang   was  not  a
            meditation master, the inclusion of this practice in
            the two truths theory should be seen as a San-lun


                                    P.464


            development  of  Praj~naapaaramitaa   thought  which
            cannot be regarded simply as an orthodox  version of
            Maadhyamika's therapeutic dialectic.

                                    NOTES

              1.Richard Robinson.The Buddhist Religion (Belmont,
            California: Dickenson, 1970), p.84.
              2.Taishoo shinshu Daizookyoo (hereafter cited as T
            ), 45, 109b-111a.
              3.Chi-tsang does not refer to his school as San-lun,
            but calls it the "She-ling"  tradition  because  the
            first  patriarch   of  this  tradition.   Seng-lang,
            settled  on this  mountain  and began  teaching  the
            Praj~naapaaramitaa  doctrine.  Chi-tsang  frequently
            refers  to  this  monk  as  the  "Great   Master  of
            She-ling"  or  as  the  "Master  of  Mt.  She."  For
            biographical    data    on   this   man,   see   the
            Kao-seng-chuan  (hereafter cited as KSC), T50, 380c.
            Although  the dates  of this monk  are not known, he
            was apparently  active in the Nanking area from 476.
            For  further  discussion  of  Seng-lang,  see  Hirai
            Shun'ei, Chuugoku Hannya Shishoo-shi Kenkyuu (Tokyo:
            Shunjuu-sha, 1976),PP.244-275.
              4." Kuan-chung " refers to the first  tradition of
            Chinese Praj~naapaaramitaa  scholarship  centered in
            Ch'ang-an, that  is, Kumaarajiiva  and his immediate
            disciples.The term serves to contrast his own She-ling
            tradition of Praj~naapaaramitaa study in the south.
              5.Seng-ch'uan's dates are not known.  A T'ang work
            by the  T'ien-t'ai  master  Chan-jan  (711-782), the
            Fa-hua hsuan-i  shih-ch'ien, records that during the
            rule of Liang  Wu-ti(502-549), Seng-ch'uan-and  nine
            other  monks  were ordered  by the emperor  to study
            under Seng-lang on Mt.She. In contrast to Seng-lang,
            Chi-tsang  refers  to  Seng-ch, uan  as  "Master  of
            Shan-chung," "Master of Chih-kuan"  (because of this
            residence at the Chih-kuan temple on Mt. She), or as
            " Shan-chung"  His biography  is found  in KSC, T50,
            369c.
              6.During this period the foremost exponents of the
            two  truths   doctrine   were  three   monk-scholars
            associated     with     the     Ch'eng-shih      lun
            (Tattvasiddhi-saastra?  ) :   K'ai-shan   Chin-tsang
            (458-522;  KSC,  T50,  465c) ,  Chuang-yen  Seng-min
            (467-527;   KSC,   T50,  461c) ,   and   Kunang-chai
            Fa-yun(467-529; KSC, T50, 463).  For a discussion of
            the Liang  Ch'eng-shih  lineage, see Hirai, Chuugoku
            Hannya,  p.172.   For  an  overview  of  Ch'eng-shih
            doctrine, see Whalen Lai, "Further  Developments  of
            the   Two   Truths   Theory   in  China:  Toward   a
            Reconstruction  of  Chou  Yung's  San-tsung-lun," in
            Philosophy  East  and West 30, no.2(April, 1980) and
            "Sinitic  Understanding  of the Two Truths Theory in
            the Liang Dynasty," in Philosophy  EAst and West 28,
            no.3(July,1978).
              7.Ta-p'in ching i-su, Dainihon Zokuzookyoo ( here-
            after  cited as ZZK), 1, 1, 38, recto a9.  A similar
            historical  note  may  be  seen  in  the  Chung-kuan
            lun-su, T42, 17c.
              8.KSC, T50, 477c.
              9.For an extensive discussion of the She-ling trad-
            ition  following   Seng-lang,  see  Hirai,  Chuugoku
            Hannya,  pp.   269-281.  Also  see  his  article  on
            Seng-ch'uan's   disciples,   "Shikan-ji   Sosen   to
            monryuu," Indogaku  Bukkyoogaku  Kenkyuu  (hereafter
            cited as IBK) 16 (Tokyo, 1968), pp.770-779.
              10.KSC, T50, 477c.
              11.Ibid.,50, 480c.Hui-pu's biography notes that he
            was  friendly  with  Hui-k'o  (487-593), the  second
            patriarch  of  the  Ch'an  tradition, from  whom  he
            received  the Ch'an  Dharma.  After  his study  with
            Ch'an Buddhists in the north, he returned to Mt. She
            during  the  early  years  of  the  Ch'en  (CHih-te,
            583-86), and together  with  his  disciple, Pao-kung
            (542-621), established  a  medoation  hall  on  that
            mountain.  After his death, Hui-pu's disciples  were
            turned over to an obscure  meditation  master simply
            known  as Kung  (T50, 512c).  Based  on biographical
            date, it appears that an independent Ch'an tradition
            (the Bodhidharma line) was active on Mt.  She at the
            Hsi-hsia temple. This tradition continued until 645,
            the  time   when   Tao-hsuan    compiled   his   Hsu
            kao-seng-chuan.Sekiguchi  Shindai  also sees a close
            interchange  of ideas and historical figures between
            She-ling  practioners  and  T'ien-t'ai  practioners.
            Hui-pu  is also reported  to have  met with Nan-yueh
            Hui-ssu   (515-577) ,  the   second   patriarch   of
            T'ien-t'ai  and  Chih-i's  teacher.  See  his  work.
            Tendai  Shikan  no  Kenkyuu  (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1969),
            pp.131-132,215-216.
              12.Ibid., 50, 477c. " Follower  of the  middle and
            provisional"   is  an  expression  which  refers  to
            San-lun meditation masters.  These individuals  were
            apparently criticized for their rigid adherence


                                    P.465

            to, and  conceptualization  of, doctrines  like  the
            middle path and the two truths. Although individuals
            like Chih-pien abandoned scholarship, as practioners
            they  still  held  to a few doctrinal  ideas.  Their
            dogmatic assertion of the reality of these concepts,
            however, prompted  Fa-lang  to part  from them.  The
            doctrinal  basis for attacking these practioners  is
            found  in the  Ta-chih-tu-lun  where  "adherence  to
            neither arising nor ceasing" is defined as prapa~nca
            (T25, 170c).
              13.KSC, T50,478a.
              14.Several Japanese scholars have documented the
            relationship   between  San-lun  doctrine   and  the
            development  of  Ch'an  thought.  See, for  example,
            Yanagida  Seizan, Shoki Zenshuu  Shishoo  no Kenkyuu
            (kyoto: Hoozookan, 1967), PP.25-26,119, 444;  Kamata
            Shigeo,  "Sanronshuu⌒⌒Gozuzen⌒⌒-Dookyoo o musubu
            shisooteki  keifu," Komazawa  daigaku  Bukkyoogakubu
            Kenkyuukiyoo 26(Tokyo, 1968).  pp.79-89, and "Shotoo
            ni  okeru  Sanronshuu  to  Dookyoo, "  Tooyoo  Bunka
            Kenkyujo Kiyoo 46(Tokyo, 1968), pp.49-108.
              15.T50,701c.
              16.For a discussion of this development, see Hirai,
            Chuugoku  Hannya,  pp.324, 344, Kamata,  "Shotoo  ni
            okeru   Sanronshuu   to   Dookyoo, "  pp.60-79,  and
            Yanagida, Shoki Zenshuu, pp.126-135.
              17.T50,666b.
              18.The phrase, " beyond conceptualization and ver-
            balization."  is from the Middle Treatise (T30,24a).
            The  perspective  of  nonacquisition  is defined  in
            texts  such as the San-lun  hsuan-i  as  the central
            doctrine  of the San-lun  school which, at one time,
            was also called the "School of Nonacquisition"  (cf.
            T45,10c).
              19.T50,538b-c.
              20.See Hirai,Chuugoku Hannya,pp.130-139,who traces
            this aspect of Chi-tsang's thought back to Seng-chao.
              21.T45,7b.
              22.Ibid,. 42,9b.
              23.For the sake of clarity, the two passages may
            be diagramed as follows:

                            True Mark of Dharmas
                  
             true   function                    true  essence
                                          
           ultimate phenomental neither   ultimate nor phenomenal
                                          
               teaching                         principle
                  
            
            (function)  (essence)
                          
            knowledge     trutn
            (practice)    (object)

              24.T45.55b,55c.
              25.For a discussion of the development of  contem-
            plative    practices    in    China,    see    Hirai
            Shun'ei,"Kichizoo  ni okeru ni-chi  no koozoo."  IBK
            15,  pp.   541-547.   See,  also,  Chuugoku  Hannya,
            pp.653-666.
              26.This general view of practice  is reflected  in
            the following passage from the Ta-chih-tu-lun:

            When  one has yet to draw  near  to nirvaa.na, there
            are still  several  paths, but when one is close  to
            nirvaa.na, there  is only  one  path: emptiness, the
            markless, and the unconditioned.  The other samaadhi
            al enter these three gates of liberation. [T25,373c]
              27.How these terms are adapted are used by Chi-tsang
            is discussed by Hirai, Chuugoku Hannya, p.596.
              28.This is explained in the  Ching-ming  hsuan-lun
            (Commentary   on  the  Vimalakiirti-suutra)  in  the
            following   way:   "Although   the   object-to-known
            (j~neya) is  the  mother  of  knowledge, it  is  the
            common  perspective  of the  Two Vehicles;  the  two
            knowledges, however, are  the  sole  Dharma  of  the
            bodhisattva (T38, 876a).
              29.T25, 867a.
              30.Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,54a.


                                    P.466


              31.Ibid., 45,54b.
              32.Ibid., 45,50b.
              33.In this case Chi-tsang again follows the Ta-chih-
            tu-lun  teaching:"Although  the term  wisdom  can be
            expressed, praj~naa  cannot be expressed  because it
            corresponds to the true mark" (T25,552a).
              34.ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,54b.
              35.Ibid., 45, 54b.
              36.T30,24a.
              37.Ibid., 42, 171a-b.
              38.Chung-kuan lun-su, T42,31b.
              39.Ibid., 42,126b.
              40.For further discussion of this distinction, see
            Aaron K.  Koseki, Chi-tsang's  ta-ch'eng hsuuan-lun:
            The Two Truths and the Buddha-nature (Ph.D.disserta-
            tion,  University   of   Wisconsin-Madison,  1977) ,
            pp.15-26.See also, Whalen Lai, "Further Developments
            of the Two Truths Theory."
              41.T45,110b.
              42.Ibid., 45, 110b.
              43.Ibid., 109b.
              44. This perspective is described in the following
            passage from the Chung-kwan lun-su:

              The provisional designations of emptiness and exis-
            tence  express  the  middle  path.  We explain  that
            provisional  existence  does not abide in existence,
            and  hence, existence  is  not-existent: provisional
            emptiness  does  not abide  in emptiness, and hence,
            emptiness is not-empty (a'suunya). Neither empty nor
            existent  is identical  with the middle path.  [T42,
            142b]
              45.T45, 110a-b.
              46.Ibid., 45, 110b.
              47.Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun, T45,66c.
              48.Pao-liang(444-509) is a Nirvaa.na-suutra scholar
            of the North-South  period  who also commented  on a
            whole range of texts (for example, the Lotus Suutra,
            the  Vimalakiirti-sutra, the Sriimaalaadevii-suutra,
            and  so  forth) .   The  compilation  of  the  Liang
            collection of Nirvaa.na-suutra  commentaries (Ta-pan
            nieh-p'an  ching  chi-chueh) is also  attributed  to
            him. See his biography in KSC, T50, 318b-382a.
              49.T45, 66c. The discussion of the stages of "con-
            current  insight"  that  follows  is taken  from the
            Ta-ch'eng hsuan-lun.  A  similar discussion of these
            stages is found in the Erh-ti-i, T45, 109b-c, 110a.
              50.T45, 66c.
              51.Avata^msaka-suutra, T9,452c, passim. Nirvaa.na-
            suutra, T12, 838a.
              52.T45, 66c.
              53.Ibid., 45,66c.
              54.Ibid., 45,54c.
              55.T24, 417c.
              56.While  this  perspective was influenced  by his
            understanding  of the integral functions  of the two
            knowledges, Chi-tsang's  middle  path  doctrine  was
            also strongly influenced by the Nirvaa.na-suutra and
            its   theme   of   universal    salvation,   namely,
            Buddha-nature.  While this aspect of his thought  is
            beyond  the scope  of the present  study, it can  be
            noted  here that the Buddha-nature  theory  gave his
            middle  path  doctrine  a  religious   significance,
            namely,   comprehending    the    universality    of
            Buddha-nature  in  both  sentient  and  non-sentient
            existence.  The  integrity  of the two doctrines  is
            also  discussed  in the Erh-ti-i  as follows:'If one
            understands  the  two truths, he is apart  from  the
            views of impermanence and permanence;  one practices
            the middle  path and sees  the Buddha-nature.  Thus,
            the nature of the Buddha exists' (T45, 86a).

     

     【关闭窗口
    相关文章:
  • 佛教徒如何避免陷入狂热极端[222]

  • 改命,放生,都有一个神奇的临界点!坚持下去,定能浴火重生![309]

  • 你为了神通才修行吗?法师给了一个建议[251]

  • 学佛是生命的实践[380]

  • 佛教中的十大真理,一条比一条经典[609]

  • 佛教中的十大真理 一条比一条经典![439]

  • 普贤菩萨:佛门中的行者[433]

  • 大乘佛教的目标与实践[356]

  • 普贤菩萨的大愿[614]

  • 让我们心碎的人际关系,可以用这四个字解决[1519]

  • 佛教中的十大真理,一条比一条经典[660]

  • 佛教中的十大真理,值得反复品味[880]

  • 圣严法师与龙应台对谈:生命与信仰[782]

  • 世间最可怕的,不是小人也不是坏人而是...[1026]

  • 故事| 贫女点的灯为什么阿罗汉都吹不灭呢?[631]

  • 《金刚经》的八大真理,顿悟世间真相![981]

  • 担心是一种轻度的诅咒,信心是一种无形的保佑[553]

  • 忍辱不辩,寡言不争[2477]

  • 新时代藏传佛教中国化的路径和实践[1700]

  • 佛教与哲学的区别 你真能分得清?[1581]

  •  
    设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 版权申明 | 管理登录 | 
    版权所有 Copyright© 2005 佛学研究        站长:wuys
    Powered by:Great Tang Hua Wei & XaWebs.com 2.0(2006)