Annotated Translation of "Chapter on Bringing Together
the Teachings of Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith in the
Mahayana”
四明知禮《
四明知禮《天台教與起信論融會章》
天台教與起信論融會章》之英譯及註釋
Shih, Miao Guang
Abstract
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana presents itself as one of the most profound,
concise and authoritative summaries of Mahayana thought. Written from the
perspective of essence (體) and function (用), The Awakening of Faith sought to
harmonize the tathāgatagarbha (or Buddha nature) and ālayavijñāna (or yogacara)
into the concept, “the One Mind in Two Aspects” which later exerted tremendous
influences on different schools of Chinese Buddhism. This paper aims to examine the
text’s influence on Tiantai thinker Siming Zhili (960-1028) based on his work,
“Chapter on Bringing Together the Teachings of Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith
in the Mahayana” from A Record of Siming Zhili’s Teachings. Through providing an
English translation of this text, the basic Tiantai concepts such as nature inclusion,
following conditions, the unchanging, and doctrinal classification will be assessed,
and their possible links to The Awakening of Faith examined.
Key words:
Fazang, Huayan, Zhili, Tiantai, following conditions (sui-yuan), unchanging (bu-bian),
Separate Teaching, Complete Teaching, tathāgatagarbha, ālayavijñāna, tathata,
nature inclusion, buddha-nature
1
1. Introduction
Amongst all Tiantai master thinkers from the Song dynasty, Siming Zhili stood
out as a unique one for his interpretation of Zhiyi and Zhanran’s thought. He was
also a leader of the Shanjia defending “the orthodox Tiantai doctrine” against the
Shanwai thinkers. A majority of his work consists of criticisms of the Shanwai
interpretation of the Tiantai doctrine, for example, Exposition of the Essentials of the
Ten Gates of Nonduality (Shibu-ermen-zhi-yao-chao 十不二門指要鈔), “Chapter
on Bringing Together the Teachings of Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith in the
Mahayana” (天台教與起信論融會章), Jin-guang-ming-jing-wen-ju-ji (金光明經文
句記), Jin-guang-ming-jing xuan-yi shi-yi-ji (金光明經玄義拾遺記).
The Shanjia and Shanwai clash started off as a disagreement in the
interpretation of whether the tathata (true thusness) follows conditions or not. The
Shanjia thinkers criticized Shanwai’s classification of Huayan’s Advanced
Mahayana Teaching and Sudden Teaching’s interpretation of “tathata which follows
conditions” (真如隨緣), highlighting the inappropriateness of regarding them as
equivalents of Tiantai’s Complete Teaching. Zhili’s main approach to this dispute
was through the use of doctrinal classification (判教). In his “Chapter on Bringing
Together the Teachings of Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana,”
not only did Zhili seek to harmonize teachings from The Awakening of Faith with
that of Tiantai thought; he also attributed, in his mind, an appropriate position to this
text. That is, the Separate Teaching. It is also quite clear in the chapter, that Zhili did
not completely reject the Huayan point of view, nor that there is an un-harmonizable
contradiction between him and the Huayan School. Instead, he incorporated such
teachings and absorbed it into the Tiantai system of thought.
The Awakening of Faith has been elucidated and commented on by Fazang of
the Huayan School, and is thus regarded as a very important text in the school. On
the other hand, Tiantai thinkers had not made any commentaries on The Awakening
of Faith, and claimed that it is “a work of the other school.” Even though Zhanran
had borrowed the term “following conditions while remaining unchanged” (隨緣不
變), he nevertheless attributed such a term to The Awakening of Faith only, and had
not agreed to the way Huayan thinkers understood it. Zhanran adopted the concept
of tathata which follows conditions based on the holistic entailment by the mind,
which Zhili interpreted as a theory that was based on nature inclusion (性具), and
2
thus qualifies as a part of the Complete Teaching.
Although Huayan thinkers also discuss the tathata which follows conditions,
they have based this theory on natural origination (性起), therefore it is still only a
part of the Separate Teaching. Knowing that placing his own school in a superior
position would stir up disputes, Zhili pictured this scenario in his Chapter on
Bringing Together as “rejection by the guest” who does not accept Huayan as the
Separate Teaching, which is inferior to the Tiantai Complete Teaching when both
teachings are based on the same theory of following conditions while remaining
unchanged.
Zhili also pointed out “what difficulty is there for The Awakening of Faith to be
incorporated or included into the Tiantai scheme” to express his approval for
teachings of the text, which also incorporates the Huayan thoughts as expounded by
Fazang, to be included as a part of Tiantai thoughts. However, while accepting what
the text says about “the tathata transforms to all dharmas by following conditions,
while the essence and nature of the tathata is permanent and unchanged,” he also
stressed that “following conditions” is not necessarily always a part of the Complete
Teaching.
He raised two points in the chapter about how the Huayan School is insufficient
to be the Complete Teaching:
1) “This [theory] may bear the name of the Complete Teaching, but in fact shapes its
meaning in the Separate Teaching.” In Zhili’s mind, the essence of the tathata as
discussed by Fazang only included nature origination, not nature inclusion, which
causes an absence of identity amongst all dharmas. Nature origination holds that all
dharmas in this world are caused by dharma-nature or the tathata which follow
conditions, but this exclusiveness of nature contradicts with the Tiantai idea that all
dharmas are inherently included by nature. This lack of identity thus makes the
Huayan teaching on following conditions not complete, and thus can only be
regarded as an exclusive teaching.
2) In saying, “[Fazang] made an erroneous quotation of the Prajna-paramita Sastra,
which says, ‘the insentient possesses only the dharma-nature, not buddha-nature,’”
Zhili contends that Huayan’s concepts of nature inclusion and buddha-nature are not
sufficient, which also gave him ground to place it in a more inferior position to
Tiantai. This is also his attempt to incorporate and include teachings of other schools
3
into the Tiantai system of thought. Although a very obvious use of doctrinal
classification can be sensed in the Tiantai thinker’s claim that Huayan is only a
branch, and the Lotus Sutra is the root, where the original root (or Complete
Teaching) can only be attained through the routes of these branches, it nevertheless
has brought these two schools closer, and thus exhibited a harmony of teachings
amongst them.
2. Annotated Translation of "Chapter on Bringing Together the Teachings of
Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana”
A guest once asked me a question: “Which of Tiantai’s
Four Teachings can The Awakening of Faith 1 be included
into?”
I answered: “The Awakening of Faith was commented on
and expounded on the whole by Venerable Fazang of the Tang
dynasty. No word for word explanations as such were seen
within the Tiantai School. That is to say that the commentary
to The Awakening of Faith is his work, which is hard to
combine with ours.”
In this work, Zhili insisted that the Huayan and Tiantai teachings were two different
systems that cannot be harmonized or brought together (難可和會), as he believed
that the Tiantai Complete teaching, which was defined by natural inclusion (性具) is
totally different from the Huayan concept of nature origination (性起).
With changed countenance, the guest asked: “Everybody
says that the Tiantai School is the one most able for
harmonizing and putting teachings together. That is to say,
that, the doctrinal classification by the Five Periods and Eight
Doctrines incorporates and leaves nothing out of teachings that
were taught by the Buddha during his lifetime and transferred
to the East. What does this mean?”
I tried to reason: “I am afraid that [the teachings of The
Awakening of Faith] cannot be harmonized and incorporated
1
Dacheng-qixin-lun
大乘起信論, T.32, No.1666.
4
into the Tiantai School. If you believe that there is a reason for
the incorporation into (she 攝 ) and belonging to (shu 屬 )
[other teachings] by the Tiantai School, then it should not be
difficult for The Awakening of Faith to do the same. By this,
you will be able to see the beauty and ugliness of each school.
Today I will present a concise version of the sastra from the
point of view of the Tiantai doctrine, and then see what Fazang
says in his commentary. Since this sastra summarizes the
meanings of ten million sutras, it bears the word Mahayana in
its title, its principle should be in accordance and penetrate
into the Three Teachings of the Mahayana gate. Therefore, it is
said in the Secret Meaning of the Vimalakirti Sutra that sastras
such as Buddhatva-śāstra and Vijñanavada-śāstra all penetrate
through the Three Teachings of Mahayana. If even the
Vijnanavada School has its own Three Teachings, then why
does The Awakening of Faith not incorporate the Three
Teachings. Generally speaking, it and the Buddhatva-śāstra are
largely identical with only minor differences? For a start of
today’s discussion I shall present the teachings of The
Awakening of Faith in concise form, which I will then use to
put into correspondence with the Three Mahayana Doctrines.
The sastra itself has the One Mind as its main topic, and says
that [this one mind] “incorporates all mundane dharmas and
dharmas that lead one out of the world.” This belongs to the
category of the Complete Teaching (圓教
圓教)
圓教 and integrates the
remaining two. Since the aspect of tathatha (true reality) bears
the aspects of that which cannot be described by words, that
which can be described by words, empty and non-empty, the
meanings of Three Teachings are thus quite clear. The gate of
birth and extinction of the One Mind indicates that, in the
initial stage of original intention, one will be able to slightly see
the dharmakaya. Since [The Awakening of Faith] talks about
the Eight Signs of the Attainment of Buddhahood, how can
5
they not have a position in the Complete Teaching? Next, it
turns over to the nine characteristics: the three subtleties and
six coarse aspects, thus how can it not be a part of the Separate
Teaching (biejiao 別教)?
別教 At the Eighth Stage of the Way, a
bodhisattva acquires the effortless way, is this not the
transition from the Common Teaching? Here I made a concise
reference to this text, so that everything can be exposed
properly.”
In his arguments against Shanwai thinkers, Zhili resorted to Zhiyi’s Four
Categories of Buddhist Teachings (shijiao 四 教 ) 2 : 1) the Tripitaka Teaching
(zangjiao 藏), 2) the Common Teaching (tongjiao 通), 3) the Separate Teaching
(biejiao 別), 4) and the Perfect/Complete Teaching (yuanjiao 圓). The last two
categories were particularly important in contrasting the exclusive nature of Huayan
Teachings with the all-inclusive scope of Tiantai teachings. The Perfect Teaching
represents the all-inclusive character of the Tiantai teachings, which holds that all
phenomena are entailed within enlightenment or buddhahood, thus there is a ground
for practice which helps one attain buddhahood. On the other hand, the Separate
Teaching emphasized that the Shanwai (or, Huayan) teachings privileged certain
modes of existence over others as the proper focus for practice. Zhili contended that
although Fazang attributed the Huayan Teaching of “the tathat which follows
conditions” to the Complete Teaching, it should in fact be classified under the
Separate Teaching3.
By means of “incorporation into and belonging to,” Zhili assessed in depth and
absorbed the teachings of The Awakening of Faith and incorporated them into his
own system of thought. In other words, Zhili thought that The Awakening of Faith,
with the elucidation by Fazang through his use of the Huayan Teachings can be
incorporated and included into the Tiantai scheme. Zhili accepted the theory that
“the tathata follows conditions to establish all dharma while remaining unchanged in
nature and essence” from The Awakening of Faith, but he pointed out the flaws of
the Huayan promotion of “following conditions” to prove that such a theory does
2
As an implicit hermeneutic strategy, Zhiyi used a variety of different classification schemes for
different purposes throughout his works. These Four Categories were only expounded by Zhiyi in his
Ssu-jiaoyi (T.46, 721a-769a) and his commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra (T.38, 519a-562b)
3
T.46, No.1937 871c
6
not always make it for the Complete Teaching:
1) By saying that Fazang’s theory of sui-yuan “may bear the name of the Complete
Teaching, but in fact shapes its meaning in the Separate Teaching,” Zhili means
that Fazang only reached the Separate Teaching, because he only discussed
nature origination and not the natural inclusion, thus making all dharmas
non-identical (當體不即)4. Any theory that says dharmas are not identical (in
essence) with each other cannot qualify as the Complete Teaching. Nature
origination holds all dharmas are caused by dharma-nature or the tathata which
follow conditions. In Zhili’s mind, to say that dharma-nature or the tathata is the
origin of all dharmas contradicts with the concept of natural inclusion, which
holds that nature is inherently possessed by all dharmas, “yet it needs to be
known that nature includes everything, thus it is able to incorporate into and
establish all dharmas. It cannot be said that this original enlightenment is
independent or that it only exists by following the conditions of delusion.5”
2) In saying that Fazang “made an erroneous quotation of the Prajna-paramita
Sastra, which says, ‘the insentient possesses only the dharma-nature, not
buddha-nature,’” Zhili means that the Huayan School’s way of discussing the
issues of nature origination and natural inclusion is not brilliant enough, which
allowed him to degrade the position of Huayan and raise that of Tiantai at the
same time. This is one of the effects of the Tiantai means of she-shu (攝屬) over
other schools, which, although still displaying a heavy color of doctrinal
classification, in fact displays a close connection between these different schools
of thoughts. Thus this reflects on some level, a sense of harmony in bringing
together the different teachings.
Question: What are the classifications of the commentary
composed by Master Fazang?
Answer: “When Fazang established his meanings, he was
imitating the Tiantai doctrines, but he did not see the Separate
Teaching as penetrative and square. Why is this? The Separate
Teaching consists of a way of teaching and a way of attainment,
yet he only discussed the former. Of the Separate Teaching’s
4
See Questions and Answers to the Four Types of Four Noble Truths
884c
5
T.46, No.1937 870b
7
四種四諦問答, T.46, No.1937
Four Gates6 which cover all types of capacities, he only spoke
about two. Furthermore, the Separate Teaching also has its
own horizontal and vertical aspects [which unfold in time and
space]. Fazang was only discussing the vertical aspects of
practice. Although he had not spoken of the multiple meanings
which the Separate Teaching possesses, it does not mean that
the Separate Teaching unfolds in a penetrative and square way,
as it is only a biased view here.”
Just like every other teaching, the Separate Teaching’s system is also based on
a set of sutras (in this case, the Mahayana Sutras) and sastras (for example, the
Yogacara texts and The Awakening of Faith). A general discussion on this system
will be omitted in this paper, and instead, the focus will be on the two major
characteristics of the Separate Teaching: the alaya-vijanana and the tathagatagarbha.
Based on these two characteristics, the Separate Teaching has been further divided
into the Initial Separate Teaching (始別教) and Final Separate Teaching (終別教)7.
The former is attributed to the alaya-vijnana, which only provided an explanation on
how deluded dharmas are established; while the latter is represented by the
tathagatagarhba, which not only explains how the true thusness is related to the
establishment of pure and eluded dharmas, but also mentions the need to eliminate
the deluded dharma before liberation can be attained.
Zhili’s argument with the Shanwai thinkers was caused for the very reason that
the latter were not aware of such a division within the Separate Teaching. Their
claim in that the Separate Teaching does not speak of following conditions, and only
those that do follow are within the Complete Teaching is an example of the Initial
Separate Teaching, which is regarded by the Tiantai School as a “biased path” (界外
一途法門). The alaya-consciousness is said to be unchanging, immutable, neither
arising or ceasing and eternal. In other words, it is absolutely pure compared to the
6
酪
乳
The Separate Teaching’s Four Gates: 1) The Gate of Existence: this refers to the buddha-nature as
mentioned in the Lankavatara Sutra, which is like cream
within the milk
, or gold hidden
inside a stone; 2) the Gate of Emptiness: this is as if the nature of gold is absence inside the rock, or
that cream is missing within the milk; 3) The Gate of Both Existence and Emptiness: this means the
general possession of the buddha-nature within all sentient beings, that they are both with and
without it. This is similar to how milk can either be said to be with the nature of cream or without it;
4) The Gate of Neither Existence or Emptiness: This means that buddha-nature is also the Mean,
where it dispatches both meanings of existence and emptiness. Thus within the milk, it is neither with
the nature of cream, nor without the nature of cream.
7
Mou Zongsan,
,
, 56, pp.51-55
「天台宗之判教與發展」 《現代佛教學術叢刊》
8
world that is polluted. This creates a substantial gap between the two, and is
regarded by the Tiantai school as too exclusive and out of reach to those who are
practicing to attain buddhahood. For this reason, the alaya-vijnana is in sufficient to
cover all characteristics of the Separate Teaching; thus it is only a biased view.
The Huayan school adopts the theory of “the unchanging which follows
conditions, and to follow conditions while remaining unchanging” from The
Awakening of Faith, which is based on the tathagatagarbha. This differs from the
unchanging or unconditioned state of the alaya-vijnana. Instead it is able to follow
deluded conditions to give rise to deluded dharmas while remaining unchanged in
nature. Nevertheless, there is still a gap between the true nature and delusion. Thus
it is also only a biased view within the Separate Teaching.
On the other hand, Zhili’s claim that following conditions is a part of the
Separate Teaching, and that sui-yuan does not necessarily mean that it is the
Complete Teaching is the Final Separate Teaching. While absorbing the Huayan
School’s theory of following conditions while remaining unchanged, Zhili also
criticizes the insufficiency of Huayan’s theory in saying that it is yet to attain the
identity between the tathata and the real world. While Huayan’s Separate Teaching
claims that it is the true mind which follows conditions, Tiantai’s Separate Teaching
holds that what follows conditions can be the dharma-nature and also ignorance at
the same time. Thus this lack of all inclusiveness makes Huayan’s Separate
Teaching to be only a part of the whole Separate Teaching scheme, thus biased.
The guest objected: “In [Fazang’s] commentary, it says
that the essence of the teaching is the reality which follows
conditions (sui-yuan 隨 緣 ) while remaining unchanged
(bu-bian 不 變 ). Tiantai also attains its theory of the
all-penetrative nature of the Three Causes of Enlightenment
through the same teaching. How can it said to be a Separate
Teaching while it is in fact that of the Complete Teaching?”
The Three Causes of Enlightenment are the basis upon which the fruit of
buddhahood is attained. Nevertheless, this whole process, from the cause to the
result, has a consistent display of the theories of following conditions and remaining
unchanged. Since this is so, the guest wonders why the same theory as discussed by
Huayan should be classified as something inferior to that of Tiantai.
9
Answer: “Although Fazang adopts the name of the
Complete Teaching, he was in fact expounding the meanings of
the Separate Teaching. Why is this? According to him, the
tathata transforms to all dharmas by following conditions,
while the essence and nature of the tathata is permanent and
unchanged. Yet he made an erroneous quotation of the
Prajna-paramita Sastra, which says, “the insentient possesses
only the dharma-nature, not buddha-nature.” This [theory]
may bear the name of the Complete Teaching, but in fact
shapes its meaning in the Separate Teaching.”
This concept of suiyuan (following conditions) traces back to Fazang’s
Da-cheng-qi-xin-lun-yiji8, but has also been used by Zhanran in his various works
such as An Outline of Smatha-vipasyana, “To follow conditions but remain
unchanged, it is nature; to remain unchanged while following conditions, it is the
mind.9” Or The Diamond Scalpel, “The myriad dharmas are the tathatha, for they are
unchanged; the tathatha is the myriad dharmas, for it follows conditions.10” Later
when Zhili revitalized the Tiantai School, he wrote Shibu-ermen-zhi-yao-chao
11
and held that the concept of following conditions is adopted by both the Separate
Teaching and Complete Teaching. Not only does the Separate Teaching discuss it,
so does the Complete Teaching. Nevertheless, the Separate Teaching discusses both
the following and non-following of conditions, thus the concept of the Separate
Teaching’s Following Conditions (bie-li-sui-yuan) has been established. Zhili
pointed out that although Zhanran never mentioned bie-li-sui-yuan directly, his
teachings in fact already contained such meanings. Furthermore, he has compared
the Tiantai doctrine with that of Huayan, and contended that the latter’s concept of
sui-yuan only measures up to that of Tiantai’s Separate Teaching,
I had once heard someone quote the Prajana-paramita Sastra,
“the tathata is named dharma-nature amongst the insentient; and
it is only amongst the sentient, that it is named buddha-nature”
8
9
10
11
大乘起信論義記, T44, No. 1846
止觀大意, T46, No. 1914
金剛錍
十不二門指要鈔 T46, 705a-720a. In Zhili’s attempt to clarify the difference between Tiantai and
Huayan teachings, he identified the perfect teaching with the Tiantai doctrine of xing-ju and the
separate teaching with the Huayan doctrine of xing-chi in a debate over the meaning of Chan-jan’s
Ten Gates of Non-duality (shih-pu-erh-men), and thus wrote this particular commentary.
10
When this person asked what is the reason for establishing the
name of buddha-nature? I said that I had once read the text myself
and assessed it carefully, yet I had never found such words.
Perhaps it had been a false reference or interpretation that had
been passed around.12
In his The Diamond Scalpel, Zhanran clearly does not support the distinction
between buddha-nature and dharma-nature, especially through the concepts of the
sentient and the insentient. In other others, he believes that buddha-nature should be
present in both sentient and insentient beings, that is, the myriad dharmas all possess
the buddha-nature,
The existence of enlightenment without non-enlightenment does not
establish the name buddha-nature; while the existence of
non-enlightenment
without
enlightenment
cannot
allow
dharma-nature to establish. For dharma-nature to establish in the
presence of enlightenment, and not non-enlightenment, then you
are in the position of the smaller vehicle. Only the correspondence
of dharma-nature and buddha-nature is sufficient to be called the
Mahayana Teaching.13
He sees it as inappropriate to separate buddha-nature and dharma-nature into the
subject and object of enlightenment, because only the position of non-duality is fit
for the name of the Teaching of the Greater Vehicle. To Zhanran, such a distinction
is caused by a differentiating mind that is attached to the difference between sentient
and insentient beings,
The Avatamsaka also says, “Whether sentient or insentient, neither
is real. The same goes to the nature of all dharmas, none possess a
substantial meaning.” In other words, the ‘sentient’ and
‘insentient’ beings as referred to here are none but those with and
without lives. Both follow conditions and possess a nature that are
unchanging, thus both are regarded as unreal. Therefore, other
[phenomena] such as the dharma-realm or reality should all be
Jin-gang-bei 《金剛錍》, T46, No.1932 僕嘗聞人引《大智度論》云：『真如在無情中，但名
法性；在有情內，方名佛性。』仁何故立佛性之名？余曰，親曾委讀，細撿論文，都無此說，
或恐謬引章疏之言，世共傳之。」
Jin-gan-bei,『覺』無『不覺』不名佛性，『不覺』無『覺』法性不成，『覺』無『不覺』法性
寧立。是則無佛性之法性，容在小宗；即法性之佛性方曰大（乘之）教。
12
13
11
understood in the same manner. For this reason, it should be
understood that the name ‘dharma-nature’ is not exclusive to the
reality of insentient beings.14
Based on the above theory, Zhili went on to discuss the difference of the theory on
sui-yuan and bu-bian between Tiantai’s Complete Teaching and Fazang’s Complete
Teaching in question nine of his “Twenty Questions about The Separate Teaching’s
Theory of Following Conditions15”, where he argued that if, according to The
Diamond Scalpel, that the tathata represents the myriad dharmas because it follows
conditions; while the myriad dharmas also represent the tathatha because they are
unchanging in nature. Based on these two theories, even the insentient possess the
buddha-nature. On the other hand, although the Advanced Mahayana Teaching in the
Huayan School speaks of following conditions and the unchanging, it nevertheless
distinguishes buddha-nature from dharma-nature based on the differences between
the sentient and the insentient. Since there is such a distinction, the unchanging is in
fact changing. Since it does not correspond with that said in The Diamond Scalpel,
how can it be regarded as part of the Complete Teaching?16 Therefore Fazang’s
sui-yuan and bu-bian, in meaning, cannot be regarded as part of the Complete
Teaching.
Question: “The Separate Teaching holds immutability as
its principle, yet it now talks about tathata which follows
conditions as the principle of the Separate Teaching, what is
the textual basis for this?”
I asked him in return: “We can find out a little bit about
this principle (li) which follows conditions (yuan) according to
the Separate Teaching which follows conditions, but where
does this idea about the immutable being the principle come
from?”
Jin-gan-bei,《華嚴》又云：『眾生、非眾生，二俱無真實，如是諸法性，實義俱非有。』
。言
『眾生、非眾生』，豈非情與無情，二俱隨緣，並皆不變，故『俱非有』。所以法界、實際一切
皆然，故知法性之名，不專無情中之真如也。」
Bie-li-sui-yuan-er-shi-wen 別理隨緣二十問 T46, No.1937
See T46, No. 1937, 彼終教不變隨緣。與金錍所明不變隨緣。同耶異耶。若異。則非今圓。
若同。金錍明真如是萬法。由隨緣故。萬法是真如。由不變故。約此二義。立無情有佛性也。
終教雖立隨緣不變。而云。在有情得名佛性。在無情但名法性。不名佛性。既分二派。徒云不
變。正是變也。既違金錍。那名圓理。須知權教有名無義。以有佛性之言約解約理說故。約解
約理尚未云遍。非權是何。
14
15
16
12
In Zhili’s Shih-pu-erh-men chih-yao-chao, he adopted the phrase “the Separate
Teaching of following conditions” (bie-li-sui-yuan 別理隨緣) to characterize the
Huayan understanding of reality in contrast to that of Tiantai. Bie-li-sui-yuan is a
phrase which traces back to Fazang’s commentary on The Awakening of Faith, in
which he mentioned the ideas of “following conditions” (sui-yuan 隨緣) and
“unchanging” (bu-bian 不變) to elucidated the One Mind and its Two Aspects as
mentioned in the sastra. “Following conditions” represents the aspect of arising and
ceasing of the One Mind, where this originally pure tathata follows the conditions
and consequently gives rise to the states of defilement and differentiation.
“Unchanging” represents the essential nature of the tathata, which is always pure
and undisturbed. This process of the defiled phenomenal world which is transformed
from the pure state of the tathata happens to be the Huayan teaching of nature
origination. On the other hand, in the Vijnanavada School, only the alaya-vijnana is
said to follow conditions, while the tathata is regarded as the real, unchanging
reality17 (圓成實相) underlying all established phenomena which does not follow
conditions. This type of tathata is regarded by the Huayan School as the “immutable
tathata 18 ” (凝然真如). For this reason, the Vijnanavada was classified by the
Huayan School as only the primary stage of the Mahayana Teaching (大乘始教),
which holds the meaning of not following conditions; while The Awakening of Faith
was classified as the Advanced Mahayana Teaching (大乘終教), which states the
concept of the tathata which follows conditions.
The guest replied: “All exponents of this doctrine of
Huayan had said this, but I have never seen it written
anywhere.
Then I said: “Separating the two principles of following
conditions and the immutable, can also be seen generally as a
division between the School of Characteristic, and School of
Nature. This comes from Fazang, as no texts on such a division
were ever found in Tiantai. The “principle following the
conditions” is not yet the ultimate Complete Teaching, but the
17
圓成實相
Samdhinirmocana-sūtra, see chapter two on Xuanzang’s explanation of the
parinispanna-svabhāva
.
18
See chapter 2 of Fazang’s Huayan-yisheng-jiao-fenqi zhang
No.1866)
華嚴一乘教義分齊章 (T.45,
13
Huayan School establishes it as its own type of teaching known
as the Final Teaching. This does not reach the Complete
Teaching, thus how can one regard Tiantai’s Complete
Teaching as an equivalent to their Final Teaching? It needs to
be known that, be it the immutable or the following of
conditions, both are expedient means, and are both classified
as the Separate Teaching.”
This division between the School of Characteristic and School of Nature by the
Huayan School has already been explained above and in note 23 of the running
translation. Now, the Shanwai thinkers may have classified the tathata which
incorporates both meanings of sui-yuan and the bu-bian into the Tiantai Complete
Teaching just because Zhanran also mentioned these two concepts in his
Zhiguan-dayi, “To follow conditions but remain unchanged, it is nature; to remain
unchanged while following conditions, it is the mind;” and also in The Diamond
Scalpel, “The myriad dharmas are the tathatha, for they are unchanged; the tathatha
is the myriad dharmas, for it follows conditions.” What they have failed to realize
was that Zhanran interpreted sui-yuan and the bu-bian rather differently from
Fazang. While Fazang classified The Awakening of Faith as the Final Teaching,
Zhanran attributed sui-yuan to the Tiantai Complete Teaching. Thus this sui-yuan
holds different meanings within the Separate and the Complete Teachings. Zhili
explained why the Huayan teaching of the tathata which follows conditions 真如隨
緣 does not measure up to the Tiantai Complete Teaching,
The other school [i.e. Huayan] makes clear that the unitary
principle, when it adapts to conditions, engenders differentiated
dharmas (差別法). Differentiation (差別) is the characteristic of
ignorance (無明). Pure unity is the characteristic of suchness.
When [suchness] adapts to conditions, it has [the characteristic
of] differentiation. When [it] does not adapt to conditions, it lacks
[the characteristic of] differentiation. Therefore, we know that
when the nature [i.e. suchness] and ignorance combine, the
characteristic of differentiation is engendered. This is the
meaning of “combination” but not of “nonduality of essence,”
because when ignorance is removed, there is no characteristic of
14
differentiation.19
Zhili sees Fazang’s unitary principle in following conditions as a differentiation.
This unitary principle is the pure tathata, which is thus the subject of sui-yuan, while
the differentiating nine dharma realms are the object of sui-yuan. If differentiation is
a characteristic of ignorance, then pure unity should be a characteristic of the tathata.
This way, when in the state of sui-yuan, differentiation is engendered when the
unitary principle and ignorance combine. On the other hand, when in a state of
bu-sui-yuan, the tathata preserves its nature and does not become involved in the
establishment of dharmas, and thus differentiation does not exist. If sui-yuan takes
place only when reality and delusion combine, then this is similar to the combining
of two distinct objects. If ignorance is eliminated, so will the nine realms. If there is
only one nature, then it does not comply to the identificalness (相即義) of the
nonduality of essence and function. Although Fazang also once discussed the
identificalness (相即) of bu-bian and sui-yuan, but since he established the result of
buddhahood as the only possibility for tathata, it means that the nine realms must be
eliminated in order to attain the realm of the buddha. Thus he in fact only
established the identificalness of the bu-bian and sui-yuan in name, not in meaning.
In terms of the concept of sui-yuan established by the Complete Teaching in the
Tiantai School, the myriad principles follow conditions to give rise to myriad
phenomena. In this sense, the essence is the unchanging, while the function is that
which follows conditions. When not following conditions, the principle includes all
dharmas. While there is no differentiation between nature and ignorance, this is also
the nonduality of differentiation and nature. Based on the absence of this discussion
on the inclusive nature within all dharmas, thus the holism of all dharmas within the
Huayan School, Zhili attributes their concept of sui-yuan to something that is only
equivalent to Tiantai’s Separate Teaching.
Zhili thinks that, without inclusive nature (體具), the talk about following
conditions or not following conditions is merely a provisional teaching, and both
would only be a part of the Separate Teaching. In explaining the Separating
Teaching’s concept of sui-yuan and bu-sui-yuan (following and not following
conditions), Zhili referred to Zhiyi’s explanation of sui-yuan in the Fahua-xuanyi
Fazang’s commentary to The Awakening of Faith (Qixinlun-Ichi) T46, No.1928 他宗明一理隨緣
作差別法，差別是無明之相，淳一是真如之相，隨緣時則有差別，不隨緣時則無差別，故知一
性與無明合方有差別，正是合義，非體不二，以除無明無差別故。
19
15
and held that the Separate Teaching speaks of the dharma-nature which gives rise to
all dharmas means that this dharma-nature in fact follows the conditions of
ignorance in giving rise to the nine realms; this indeed represents the meaning of
following conditions. Furthermore, the Separate Teaching speaks of the
alaya-vijnana which gives rise to all dharmas, and this is once again a reference to
ignorance as the cause of dharmas. To not speak of the tathata that follows
conditions in fact represents the meaning of “non following conditions.” Zhili
pointed out that not following conditions (bu-sui-yuan) and immutability (ning-ran)
share the same meaning, while Fazang’s attempt to separate sui-yuan and ning-ran
into the School of Characteristics and School of Nature can only be classified as the
Separate Teaching. Furthermore, in discussing the relationship between sui-yuan and
bu-bian, Zhili holds that what remains unchanged may not necessarily follow
conditions, while following conditions always leads to that which is unchanged,
because the idea of sui-yuan is the tathata which follows conditions. If, whatever
follows conditions becomes changed in the process of doing so, then it cannot be
regarded as nature.20
The concept of the unchanging as mentioned in the Complete Teaching has its
essence (svabhava 體體) based on the three thousand dharmas entailed within the
principle/tathata (理具三千), while the concept of following conditions has its
essence based on the phenomenal which establishes the three thousand dharmas;
both the unchanging and the following of conditions have one moment of delusion
as their object of dependence (所依體). Furthermore, this unchanging state has the
entailment of the three thousand dharamas within nature, and characteristics as they
are, as its characteristic; while following conditions is based on the mutual influence
between the tathata and ignorance, where the states of defilement and purity are its
characteristic. On the other hand, the Separate Teaching bases this unchanging state
on the exclusive nature of the tathata or the tathagatagarbha, which has ignorance
and differentiation as the object dependence; while the state of following conditions
has its essence based on ignorance and differentiation, and the tathagatagarbha as its
object of dependence; while the unchanging has the unitary principle and
20
See Shibu-ermen-zhi-yao-chao
者教行錄
十不二門指要鈔 and A Record of Siming Zhili’s Teachings 四明尊
16
non-differentiation as its characteristic, and following conditions has ignorance and
differentiation as its characteristic21.
Question: “What is the textual basis upon which the
Tiantai School established its doctrine on the Separate
Teaching of following conditions?”
Answer: “According to Mohe-zhiguan, in establishing the
Separate Teaching’s object of intention (fa-xin-jing 發心境),
發心境
the sense organ and its object can either become the basis of
delusion or liberation (mi-jieben 迷、解本)
解本 in one moment of
thought, just as Zhanran in his Fahua-Wenju-ji had separated
the tathagatagarbha into good and bad causes. Furthermore,
Zhanran held that in the Separate Teaching, all dharmas are
established from “the basis of non-abiding” (wu-zhu-ben 無住
本), and this “non-abiding,” he went on further to say, is also
known to be ignorance as both the ability and object which
covers up the principle. Furthermore, true reality (tathata)
gives birth to all dharmas when it is in a state of delusion; and
ignorance, as the cause (yin 因) that creates the nine realms,
must depend on dharma-nature as its essential auxiliary
condition (yuan 緣). The above texts should be sufficient to be
the proof.”
Here, Zhili refers mostly to Zhanran’s words in interpreting the Separate Teaching
through the concept of “following conditions.” According to Zhili, Zhanran once
explained in his Miaofalianhuajing-wenjuji that the Separate Teaching is also based
on “dharmas established on the basis of non-abiding,” because if the Separate li
(principle) does not follow conditions, how can dharmas be established?
Furthermore, he supported the following of conditions by mentioning that the tathata,
in a state of delusion, creates the nine realms. Therefore, since the tathata acts as the
basis of dharmas that are established, how can it be said to not follow conditions? In
addition, in chapter one of his Zhiguan-fuxing-zhuan-hongjue22, Zhanran used the
tathagatagarbha as good and bad causes to explain this source of delusion and
21
22
《十不二門指要鈔》卷下及《十不二門指要鈔詳解》卷三
《止觀輔行傳弘決》T46, No.1912
See
17
liberation (mi-jie-ben), which is created by the sense organ and its object in one
moment of thought. He argued, if delusion means the creation of the nine realms by
following the conditions of ignorance, and liberation the establishment of the
buddha-realm by following the teachings, then this explains exactly the meaning of
following conditions as in the Separate Teaching.
The Basis of Delusion or Liberation (mi-jie-ben 迷解本)
迷解本
Mi-jie-ben traces back to Mohe-zhiguan, where it says, “The sense organ and its
object give rise to dharmas in one moment of mind. The arising of this mind makes
it provisional [i.e. unreal], and this mind with such a provisional positing, is the
basis of either delusion or liberation.23” Here it can be seen that Zhiyi sees this
unreal mind as the cause of ignorance. Once the sense organ and its object come
together, a moment of thought arises, and to believe that this thought is real is in fact
a state of ignorance. Therefore, whatever [that is, the myriad dharmas] follows
ignorance is therefore delusion and unreal. Zhiyi used examples such as “The three
realms are created by this one mind, which is like an artist that paints all kinds of
matters; and the mind is what creates the six realms of rebirth24” to hold that while
suffering and ignorance is caused by this mind, enlightenment and liberation also
come from the same cause is,
Similar to how a painter who washes out all colors to apply the
white clay color…To contemplate the purity of the body and even
the impermanence of the mind….The contemplation of the body
leads to emptiness of the body, and eventually the contemplation of
the mind leads to emptiness of the mind. There is no impermanence
within emptiness, and thus there is no impurity.25
Since this delusive mind is the cause of ignorance, a clear observation of this mind
can also lead to enlightenment. Zhili went further to use Zhanran’s reference on the
tathagatagarbha from the Lankavatara Sutra to explain mi-jie-ben in his
Zhiguan-fuxing-zhuan-hongjue26, he uses the example of a pond of water as the
《摩訶止觀》T46, No.1911, p. 8, b21-22. 秖觀根塵一念心起。心起即假。假名之心為迷解本。
《摩訶止觀》T46, No.1911, p. 8, b23-25. 三界無別法唯是一心作。心如工畫師造種種色。心構
六道。分別校記無量種別。
《摩訶止觀》T46, No.1911, p. 8, b27-c2. 譬如畫師洗蕩諸色塗以墡彩。所謂觀身不淨乃至觀
心無常。如是道品紆通化城。觀身身空乃至觀心心空。空中無無常。乃至無不淨。如是道品直
通化城。
《止觀輔行傳弘決》T46, No.1912
23
24
25
26
18
basis of purity and pollution, while the pearl and the elephant are the conditions of
purity and pollution to explain that without recognizing this basis (nature), both
discussions on following and not following conditions would be merely a part of the
Separate Teaching27.
All dharmas are established from “the basis of non-abiding”
This “basis of non-abiding” (wuzhuben) traces back to the Vimalakirti Sutra,
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of good
and bad [dharmas]?”
Answer: “The body is their fundamental basis.”
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of the
body?”
Answer: “Desire is its fundamental basis.”
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of desire?”
Answer: “False discrimination is its fundamental basis.”
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of false
discrimination?”
Answer: “Confused conception is its fundamental basis.”
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of confused
conception?”
Answer: “The non-abiding is its fundamental basis.”
[Manjusri] also asked, “What is the fundamental basis of
non-abiding?”
Answer: “Non-abiding is without any fundamental [basis].
Manjusri, all dharmas are established on the fundamental [basis]
of non-abiding.”28
And wuzhuben is explained by Kumarajiva as follows,
Dharmas have no nature, and arise as a response to conditions.
When not yet arisen, it cannot be known what it is attached to.
Since there is no knowing what [this un-arisen dharma] is attached
to, it is thus non-abiding. Since it is non-abiding, it is thus neither
existence nor nothingness. Since it is neither existence nor
27
T46, No.1928, p.715, c5-18
The Vimalakīrti Sutra, trans. John R. McRae., Berkeley, Calif. : Numata Center for Buddhist
Translation and Research, 2004, pp.142-143
28
19
nothingness, it is thus the basis of existence and nothingness. Since
it is non-abiding, its origin is thus exhausted and thereby has no
place of origin. Thus it is called non-abiding, which is thus the
basis of all matters. For this reason, it is said to be [that which]
establishes all dharmas.29
In the Vimalakirt Sutra, this basis of the good and bad starts off as the body,
which then leads to desire, false discrimination, and confused conception, all four of
which are provisional positing of that which is not substantial, which then land on
the basis of non-abiding. If this non-abiding itself, just as Kumarajiva has explained,
abides in nothing, and is thus neither existent (有) nor nothingness (無), then
ultimately the previous four are also based on this non-abiding. That is why
Kumarajiva spoke about this absence of nature in all dharmas, which arise as a
response to conditions. Since all dharmas are empty in nature, they are thus
non-abiding. In other words, all dharmas are established on the basis of
non-abiding.30
Zhanran then uses this non-abiding as a support of the doctrine of “mutual
embodiment” (huju 互具), which is elaborated most extensively as “the three
thousand dharmas inherently contained in each moment of thought” (yinian sanqian
一念三千),
As it has been said, all dharmas are established from the basis of
non-abiding. Since ignorance is the basis of all dharmas,
[ignorance] is thus dharma-nature. While, ignorance is based on
dharma-nature, it should be known that all dharmas are also
based on dharma-nature, thus dharma-nature is ignorance.
Dharma-nature is also based on ignorance, thus dharma-nature is
ignorance. Since dharma-natures have no place of abiding, and
since ignorance is dharma-nature, ignorance also has no place of
abiding. As both ignorance and dharma-nature have no place of
abiding, they are both the basis of all dharmas. That is why it is
注維摩詰經 T38, No.1775, p. 386, c1-5 法無自性緣感而起。當其未起莫知所寄。莫知所寄故無
所住。無所住故則非有無。非有無而為有無之本。無住則窮其原更無所出。故曰無本。無本而
為物之本。故言立一切法也。
牟宗三 Mou Zongshan explains this as 五住煩惱, which ultimately means causation of
something which is empty in nature. 佛性與般若, p.676
29
30
20
said that all dharmas are established from the basis of non-abiding.
Since this basis of non-abiding is interpenetrative, truth therefore
refers to principle and all dharmas, and this consequently refers to
the ‘three thousand’ [dharmas] as the myriad of things.31
In explaining this basis of non-abiding as the non-abiding of both
dharma-nature and ignorance, Zhanran also gave a condition under which this is
classified as the Separate Teaching,
When it is said that ignorance depends on dharma-nature to be
established, [it needs to be known that] dharma-nature is not
defilement, thus it cannot be said to be the basis of defilement.
Thus we say that which is non-abiding is thus non-basis. If all
dharmas are established based on dharma-nature, since ignorance
does not depart from dharma-nature, then this dharma-nature is
the basis of ignorance. This is thus the basis of dharma-nature.
Now, after the Vimalakirti Sutra has assessed the basis of
defilement and sees that dharma-nature is not defilement, it thus
says that it is non-abiding and has a non-basis. It cannot self-abide,
and thus depends on other [conditions?] to abide. To say that it is
self-abiding while regarding the dharma-nature as its condition, it
also stands to say that it abides in conditions. This concept of
self-abiding belongs to the Separate Teaching, while that which
abides in conditions belongs to the Complete Teaching32.
In his Shibu-ermen-zhi-yao-chao, Zhili offers an explanation of the distinction
between self-abiding (自住) and abiding in conditions (依他住),
Words contained within the commentary are simple yet high in
meaning. One must rely on notes and explanations in order to
clearly grasp their main points. Thus self-abiding is expounded so:
Dharma-nature and defilements look up each other, thus
《法華玄義釋籤》T33, No.1717, p. 920, a24-b3 云從無住本立一切法者。無明為一切法作本。
無明即法性。無明復以法性為本。當知諸法亦以法性為本。法性即無明。法性復以無明為本。
法性即無明。法性無住處。無明即法性。無明無住處。無明法性雖皆無住而與一切諸法為本。
故云從無住本立一切法。無住之本既通。是故真諦指理也。一切諸法事也。即指三千為其森羅。」
《維摩經略疏》T38, No.1778, p. 677, a12-19 若無明依法性是有始者。法性非煩惱不可指法
性為煩惱本。故言無住則無本。若依法性立一切法者。無明不出法性。法性即為無明之本。此
則以法性為本。今經撿覈煩惱之本法性非煩惱故言無住無本。既無有本。不得自住依他而住。
若說自住望法性為他。亦得說是依他住也。說自住即別教意。依他住即圓教意。」
31
32
21
self-abiding and abiding in conditions stand. Therefore, these two:
self-abiding and condition-abiding do not represent the complete
meaning, as its nature of defilement will certainly become the
obstacle, and only by eradicating this obstacle. In expounding the
meaning of abiding in conditions: not only are [self-abiding and
abiding in conditions] inter-depent and identical, also because
they are the same in essence and therefore identical. In conclusion,
based on the identity and difference in essence, they are classified
as two [separate] teachings33.
Thus the basis of non-abiding as a part of the Separate Teaching should be
quite clear.
On ignorance which covers up principle
Now, as Zhanran held that “since ignorance is the basis of all dharmas, [ignorance]
is thus dharma-nature.” This ignorance is also non-abiding, whether as the object or
subject that covers up the principle. This relationship between nature and its
characteristics has been explained by The Awakening of Faith with the examples of
water and waves,
This is like the relationship that exists between the water of the
ocean [i.e., enlightenment] and its waves [i.e., modes of mind]
stirred by the wind [i.e., ignorance]. Water and wind are
inseparable; but water is not mobile by nature, and if the wind
stops the movement ceases. But the wet nature remains
undestroyed. Likewise, man's Mind, pure in its own nature, is
stirred by the wind of ignorance. Both Mind and ignorance have
no particular forms of their own and they are inseparable. Yet
Mind is not mobile by nature, and if ignorance ceases, then the
continuity of deluded activities ceases. But the essential nature of
wisdom [i.e., the essence of Mind, like the wet nature of the water]
remains undestroyed.34
《十不二門指要鈔》T46, no. 1928, p. 715, c21-26 疏中語簡意高，須憑記釋方彰的旨，故釋自
住，法性煩惱更互相望，俱立自他。結云，故二自他並非圓義，以其惑性定能為障，破障方乃
定能顯理。釋依他云，更互相依更互相即，以體同故依而復即。結云，故別圓教俱云自他，由
體同異而判二教。
《大乘起信論》T32, No.1666, p. 576, c9-16. 以一切心識之相皆是無明，無明之相不離覺性，
非可壞非不可壞。如大海水因風波動，水相風相不相捨離，而水非動性，若風止滅動相則滅，
33
34
22
From what has been said so far, the following points made by Zhili regarding the
basis of non-abiding, the basis of delusion or liberation and the tathagatagarbha as
good and bad causes should be clear:
1) Zhanran has stated in his Fahua-Wenju-ji that the Separate Teaching holds that
all dharmas “are established from the basis of non-abiding.” If this separate
principle does no follow conditions, then how can all dharmas be established?
2) In the same chapter of Fahua-Wenju-ji, Zhanran also stated that in the Separate
Teaching, “the tathata, in the state of delusion, gives rise to the nine realms.”
Since this tathata is the basis of all established dharmas, then how can it be said
to not follow conditions?
3) In his Zhiguan-fuxing-zhuan-hongjue, Zhanran used “the tathagatagarbha as
good or bad cause” to explain the Separate Teaching’s concept of “the sense
organ and its object can either become the source of delusion or liberation in one
moment of thought.” He said, since basis of delusion exists when the
tathagatagarbha follows the condition of ignorance to create the nine dharma
realms, and the basis of liberation exists when the teachings are followed to
create the buddha-realm, this distinction explains exactly the meaning of
following conditions within the Separate Teaching.
Question: “Having now understood that the meaning of
the commentary lies within the Separate Teaching, I now make
a further request for an analysis on the elucidation of the
Three Teachings by the sastra.”
Answer: Do raise any questions you may still have.
Question: “The gate of the tathata expounds the realm of
principle altogether, therefore it can incorporate the Three
Teachings. The gate of birth and extinction (sheng-mie-men) is
explained according to grounds (bhumis), abiding, practice and
attainment of a bodhisattva, both of which should follow the
same track. The Separate has been the Separate from
beginning to end, while the Complete has always been the
Complete. Thus how should these Three Teachings be
arranged in order?”
濕性不壞[16]故。如是眾生自性清淨心，因無明風動，心與無明俱無形相、不相捨離，而心非
動性。若無明滅相續則滅，智性不壞故。
23
Answer: “This sastra represents the meanings of all the
sutras, and thus clarifies several theories. Since there is not just
one theory (li), how can there be only one path for the different
positions, practices and attainment? Just as Huayan began
explaining the Perfect Teaching by holding that, “the
samyak-sambodhi is attained immediately upon the moment of
initial intention,” yet it mentions that the state of an-abhoga is
attained at the eighth stage of a bodhisattva when it later spoke
about
the
stages.
Furthermore,
a
verse
from
the
Renwang-huguo-jing says that the Three Virtuous Positions of
a bodhisattva and the Ten Excellent Characteristics of a sage
attain their rewards in the Complete Teaching, the Fourteen
Prajnas in the Separate Teaching, and the Five Ksanti in the
Common Teaching. This couple of sutras have already clearly
clarified the position of such, not to mention this sastra
represents the meanings of ten million sutras. Thus how can it
turn out to be limited to any one single position? In the text
which says that it holds no position within the Tripitaka, since
it takes the title of Mahayana, it can only be classified as the
Mahayana Teaching.”
Question:
“For
someone
as
well-learned
in
both
characteristic and nature as Fazang, who abides by the
position of the Four Reliances, what makes his commentary
inferior to the Tiantai teachings?”
Answer: “Bodhisattvas adopt appropriate means for
beings with different aptitudes when they propagate the
teachings, since one type of path is appropriate for one
particular level of aptitude. That is why he made this
interpenetrative teaching. It does not necessarily mean that he
was incomplete in following the Four Reliances.”
Question: “If each of them is good at their own [means of
teaching], and presents their own means for different levels of
aptitude, why is there the need to incorporate or classify one
another?”
24
Answer: “Since you know that the two traditions each has
their own appropriate means to accommodate different levels
of aptitudes, why is there the need to ask this question? Since
they are classified and incorporated just as expounded above,
if the sastra covers the [different] aptitudes, then there is no
need for harmonization or convergence.” Upon hearing this,
the guest retreated in agreement.
In general, Zhili affirmed the distinction between the Separate Teaching and
Complete Teaching’s concepts of sui-yuan by examining whether the essence and
function were identical or not (相即). To speak of the tathata which follows
conditions (真如隨緣) without mentioning the inclusive principle (理具), this still
does not qualify as identical. In other words, within the Complete Teaching, the nine
realms are identical to the buddha realm; while distinguishing the nine realms from
the buddha realm is a concept from the Separate Teaching. Based on the above, the
following distinctions between these two teachings can seen:
The Separate Teaching holds a more exclusive means of following conditions.
The nine realms are not inclusive to nature, but are only established by following
conditions. Thus the buddha realm is exclusive and is regarded as distinct from the
nine realms.
The Complete Teaching sees ignorance and dharma-nature as identical in
nature, thus everything follows conditions while remaining unchanged in nature.
Obstacles or defilements are equivalents to merits, which do not have to be
eliminated. On the other hand, the Separate Teaching distinguishes ignorance from
dharma-nature, and sees ignorance as the main cause for its exclusive mean (但中)
to follow conditions in a defiled state to establish the nine realms. Here, ignorance is
regarded as an obstacle, where the nine realms must be eliminated in order for the
buddha realm to be attained, thus making this buddha exclusive, not inclusive.
Within the Complete Teaching, ignorance and dharma-nature are identical in
essence, and both follow conditions. The Separate Teaching on the other hand,
separates ignorance and dharma-nature in terms of essence, and in a deluded state,
this exclusive mean can create the nine realms, thus it is the working of ignorance
here. In order to eliminate this ignorance and attain the realm of the buddha, the nine
realms must be destroyed.
25
While the Complete Teaching holds that the principle includes all dharmas, and
is thus not produced by conditions (無作), while the Separate Teaching only
discusses a single principle which, by following conditions, transforms and
establishes dharmas, thus it is not that which is not produced by conditions.
3. Conclusion
The translation and annotation of Zhili’s “Chapter on Bringing Together the
Teachings of Tiantai and The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana” from A Record
of Suu-ming Zhili’s Teachings has enabled a clear picture of how Tiantai was
influenced by the concept of “following conditions” from The Awakening of Faith,
and how Tiantai confirmed its superiority over other schools based on its holistic
and intersubjective interpretation of “following conditions.”
Although it was Zhanran who borrowed the concept of “following conditions
while remaining unchanged” (隨緣不變) from Fazang’s commentary on The
Awakening of Faith, it was Zhili who furthered the Separate Teaching’s concept of
following conditions (別理隨緣) in the Tiantai School. Through this, Zhili provided
a very clear picture of Tiantai’s position among other schools such as Huayan and
Vijananvada while presenting the fundamental view of the Tiantai School at the
same time.
In sum, Zhili was able to achieve the following three purposes with his concept
of bie-li-sui-yuan:
1) The incorporation and inclusion ( 攝 屬 ) of Huayan School’s concept of
“remaining unchanged while following conditions” (不變隨緣) which was
inspired by The Awakening of Faith.
2) To reveal the unique characteristic of Tiantai’s concept of “nature inclusion” (性
具).
3) Settle the Shanwai and Shanjia dispute by classifying the Huayan School and
other Shanwai conepts of “following conditions” as the Separate Teaching, while
elevating the status of Tiantai by classifying it as the Complete Teaching within
its doctrinal scheme.
It is also important to note that, although Zhili deemed Fazang’s interpretation of
“following conditions” as something of a lower position, this does not mean that he
did the same for The Awakening of Faith. Instead, he sought to harmonize the text’s
26
concepts by giving it a position within the Tiantai doctrinal scheme, thus allowing a
close connection between the different schools’ interpretation of the same theory
underneath the same big picture, thereby achieving the purpose of she-shu (攝屬),
which is also a characteristic of Tiantai’s concept of holism and intersubjectivity.
27
Bibliography
1) PRIMARY SOURCES – Canonical Texts
1. Asvagosha 馬鳴. Da-cheng-qi-xin-lun《大乘起信論》. T32, No.1667
2.
Fazang (Tang) 法藏. Da-cheng-qi-xin-lun-yiji《大乘起信論義記》. T44 No.
3.
4.
1846
Zhanran (Tang) 湛然. Jin-gang-bei《金剛錍》T46 No. 1932
Zhanran (Tang) 湛然. Zhiguan-fuxing-zhuan-hongjue《止觀輔行傳弘決》T46
5.
6.
No. 1912
Zhili (Sung) 知禮. Siming zunzhe jiaoxing lu《四明尊者教行錄》T46 No. 1937
Zhili (Sung) 知禮. Shibu-ermen-zhi-yao-chao《十不二門指要鈔》T46 No.
1928
2) SECONDARY SOURCES – English and Chinese
1. Chen Ying-shan 陳英善. The Tiantai Teaching of Natural Inclusion 天台性具思
想. Taiwan: Dong Da Books, 1997.
2. Gong Jun 龔雋. The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana and the Sinification of
Buddhism 大乘起信論與佛學中國化. Taiwan: Wenchin Publishing, 1995.
3. Hakeda Yoshito S., The Awakening of Faith (New York, 1893)
4. Kimura Kiyotaka 木村清孝., Lee Hui Ying, trans., History of Chinese Huayan
Thought 中國華嚴思想史. Taiwan: Dong Da Books, 1996.
5. Wang Zhi Yuan 王志遠. A Look into Sung Dynasty Tiantai Thought 宋初天台佛
學窺豹. Taiwan: Fo Guang Cultural Enterprise, 1992.
6. Wang Zhi Yuan 王志遠, ed., Jin-gang-bei 金剛錍, Selected Chinese Buddhist
Texts in Modern Language 中國佛教經典寶藏精選白話版, vol. 54., Taiwan: Fo
Guang Cultural Enterprise, 1998.
7. Yu Huey Jen 尤惠貞. A Study on the Tiantai Perfect Teaching of Natural
Inclusion 天台性具圓教之研究. Taiwan: Wenchin, 1993.
8. Yusuki Ryoei 湯次了榮., Feng Zhi Kai, trans. A New Interpretation of The
Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana 大乘起信論新釋. Taiwan: Heavenly Lotus
Publishing, 1981.
9. Ziporyn, B., Evil and/or/as The Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity, and
Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought. (Cambridge, 2000)
3) INTERNET SOURCES
1. Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (CBeta):
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/cbeta/index.htm
2. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism: http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/
3. Fo Guang Buddhist Dictionary: http://etext.fgs.org.tw/etext6/search-1.htm
28