Chün-fang Yü
Columbia University
Master Sheng Yen is an internationally famous Chan master. In Taiwan, he is known as an educator and the founder of the Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies and Chung-Hwa Journal of Buddhist Studies and the founding patriarch of Dharma Drum Mountain. In The Vision of Dharma Drum Mountain, he highlighted the urgency to simultaneously promote the Three-fold Education: 1. Academic Education —after the founding of the Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, he subsequently established the Sangha University has Dharma Drum Buddhist College. The Dharma Drum University has also begun to recruit students. These institutions represent Master Sheng Yen’s ideal to promote Buddhism through academic education. 2. The Great Universal Education—Religious teachers are being trained to spread the Dharma through the practice of sitting meditation, reciting the Buddhas’ name and other teaching activities. There are also plans to train lay people to become full-time instructors to lead the meditation classes and teach the Buddhadharma. 3. The Great Social Care Education—This is probably the area with which people in Taiwan are most familiar. He proposed the Fivefold Spiritual Renaissance, Protecting the Spiritual Environment and the “Pure Mind, Pure Land” as the core values. By spreading the message through different media, he hoped to make Buddhadharma become part of people’s daily lives. From advising people to quit alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and chewing betel nuts to helping the dying to chant the Buddha’s name, teaching people the proper installation of the soul tablet of the dead, setting aside specific days to clean public places, aid for the poor and sick, as well as assisting hospitals and nursing homes ---all these are covered under the Social Care Education.
Being a Chan master and an educator represent the two sides of Master Sheng Yen’s career. Taiwanese and Western scholars have done thorough research and analysis concerning these two areas. In this essay, I would like to discuss his scholarship and contribution to Chinese Buddhism. I met Master Sheng Yen for the first time in 1976 when I was teaching at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. I took some students to visit the Great Enlightenment Temple in New York City where he was staying. Subsequently I participated in the first meditation class he conducted in the United States. He delivered lectures on the sutras and gave dharma talks, instructed the method of Chan meditation and granted personal interviews every Saturday. This lasted three months and at the end of the period, I took refuge and became one of his earliest disciples in the States. Actually, even before I met him, I already knew that he was a scholar specialized in late Ming Buddhism. He studied Master Ouyi Zhixu (1599-1655), one of the four great masters in the late Ming. His dissertation, The Study of Chinese Buddhism in Late Ming, was published in Japanese as a book in 1975. During 1970s, it was rare to find any studies on Chinese Buddhism after the Song Dynasty. I remember when I discovered the existence of this book, I was both surprised and delighted, but at the same time felt a sense of regret. I was delighted to see that a great master such as Zhixu finally received the scholarly attention he deserved. I felt a sense of regret because I was not able to receive benefit from this work when I wrote my own dissertation in the 60s on another great late Ming Master—Yunqi Zhuhong (1535-1615) .
The scholarship of Chinese Buddhism started comparative late in the United States because Buddhalogists in Europe (France, Russia, England and Germany) mainly studied Indian Buddhism in Sanskrit and Theravada Buddhism in Pali. During the nineteenth and the first half of twentieth century, the same held true for American scholars. After the World War II, Japanese Zen became very popular in the 1960s, which prompted an interest for Americans to study Japanese Buddhism in general. Along with the increasing reputation of Dalai Lama and the establishment of Tibetan Buddhist centers in major cities in the United States, Tibetan Buddhism gradually attracted many young students and scholars. Compared to these two Buddhist traditions, Chinese Buddhism was not in popular demand in the 60s.
I believe the main reason why this was so is that Buddhadology was not regarded as the mainstream of Chinese culture by sinologists. Their research and teaching were focused on Confucianism. When I studied at Columbia University, for instance, Professor De Bary dedicated himself to promoting the study of Neo-Confucianism. Most of the Ph.D. students consequently wrote dissertations on Neo-Confucianism. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and UC Berkeley were the same. At that time, there were two professors teaching Buddhism at Columbia and both were specialists of Japanese Buddhism. To understand Chinese Buddhism from the perspective of Japanese Buddhism inevitably leads to two false perceptions. One is to view Chinese Buddhism with the sectarian perspective adopted in Japanese Buddhism which set clear distinction between different sects. We know that Zen and Pure Land are completely separate traditions in Japan. Moreover, the Pure Land Sect and the True Pure Land Sect also have their own identities. This is very different from Chinese Buddhism which emphasizes the “unity of Chan and Pure Land practice” and the “synthesis of Chan practice and Doctrinal Teaching.” For this reason I was challenged by the professor of Japanese Buddhism at my dissertation defense. Yunqi Zhuhong was famous for advocating the dual practice of Chan and Pure Land. He often used “who is reciting the Buddha’s name” as a gongan. At the same time he also taught people “to recite earnestly the Buddha’s name in order to be born in the Pure Land.” Before Yunqi Zhuhong, from the Five Dynasty to the Song, Yuan and the early Ming, there were already a number of eminent monks who held the same view. But the Japanese Rinzai Master Hakuin Ekaku (1686-1769) criticized Zhuhong, saying that to combine Chan with Pure Land was no different from mixing sand with gold or pouring water into ghee. He castigated Zhuhong for destroying the Chan tradition. He also saw this as a sign of the decline of Buddhism in the late Ming. The professor at my defense was translating Hakuin’s work at that time. He took Hakuin’s view and suspected that Zhuhong’s teaching of the dual practice of Chan and Pure Land was unique to him and thus not representative of Ming Buddhism. He did not realize that this was a new development traceable to the Five Dynasty and Zhuhong was no more than a master who culminated this trend.
This example illustrates the common mistakes American Buddhist scholars made at that time in using the Japanese Buddhist lens to examine Chinese Buddhism. Fortunately, in the last several decades, there has emerged a common consensus among Western scholars that one should not use the historical development of Japanese Buddhism to understand Chinese Buddhism. Although East Asian Buddhism had its origin in China, when Buddhism was transmitted to Japan and Korea, it interacted with the indigenous religious cultures and developed into Japanese and Korean Buddhism with their own distinctive features. This is a very natural process. In a similar way, Chinese Buddhism was formed as a result of the mutual interaction between Buddhism and indigenous Chinese religious culture after the introduction into China of Indian and Central Asian Buddhisms. Therefore, it is improper to use Japanese Buddhism which strongly emphasizes the differences among the sects to study Chinese Buddhism which is a tradition which strongly emphasizes synthesis. There is another effect if one overly relies on the experience of Japanese Buddhism to study Chinese Buddhism. All Japanese sects trace their origin to Chinese Buddhism with the exception of Nichiren and the True Pure Land. Due to the reasons mentioned above, most Japanese Buddhist scholars concentrate their study on a specific sect. When they turn their attention to Chinese Buddhism, they would naturally focus their interests on the specific Chinese school which is the origin of the Japanese sect. So we have seen works from many Japanese scholars on Chinese Tiantai School, Hwa Yen School, Chan School and Pure Land School, etc. However, the fact is that these major schools were founded in the Sui and Tang, important commentaries and eminent masters were also concentrated in the Sui and Tang. Since the Japanese scholarship on Chinese Buddhism concentrated on Tang Buddhism, American scholars who were often trained in Japan regarded, at least until the 1960s or 1970s, that Chinese Buddhism reached its “Golden Age” in the Tang Dynasty, and started to decline afterwards. As a result, it is not worthwhile to study post Tang Buddhism. In 1964 Professor Kenneth Ch’en published Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. It can be taken as a classic representing this view. This book has been widely used as a textbook in colleges and still retains its authority. During the past forty years this traditional view has naturally met some strong challenges. My dissertation which was published as a book in 1981, The Renewal of Buddhism in China: Chu-hung and the Later Ming Synthesis, has played a pioneering role. First Song, then Yuan and Ming Buddhism, and in recent decades, the Qing, Republic and Contemporary Taiwanese Buddhism have also received attention from scholars.
The above is a brief historical overview of American scholarship on Chinese Buddhism, based on my experience of studying and teaching in the United States for over forty years. Although the future development and direction of Chinese Buddhism in the United States are still unclear, there is reason for optimism. At this critical juncture, I think Master Sheng Yen’s methodology in studying Chinese Buddhism and the topics he chose to focus on can serve as our guide.
When we examine Master Sheng Yen’s writings, we find that he studied all the major sutras and schools of Chinese Buddhism. During his solitary retreat in Meinong in his early days, he studied sutras in the Tripitaka. In 1965 he published Essentiasls of The Vinaya (Jielūxue gangyao), which was his earliest academic work. In the preface, he explained his motive of writing this book:
The Vinaya is a dry and complicated field of study. Therefore, it has not been popular in recent decades. Although some people have studied it, most of them could not free themselves from the ancients but played the music according to old tunes. As a result, people in general have no door to enter. There are even people who wantonly criticize the Vinaya. Therefore, I have tried to use words which are easy to understand and borrowed contemporary concepts to present it to the public in a popular form. I am interested in reviving the study of the Vinaya. I do not wish to preach it in an outmoded and undigested way.[1]
Precepts (jie), Concentration (ding) and Wisdom (hui) are the so-called three learnings of Buddhism. It is very understandable that he emphasized the importance and the need to study precepts. In this book he provided detailed yet easy to understand explanations about taking the three refugees, the five precepts, ten good deeds, eight precepts, sramanera’s precepts, six precepts for śikramānās, bhiksu’s and bhiksuni’s precepts , and bodhisattva precepts. In explaining the precept of non-killing, the first of the five precepts, he wrote the following passage. This shows exactly the way how he used clear language and easy to understand words while adopting modern concepts in teaching the general public how to uphold the precept of non-killing.
In our daily life, it is seldom that we witness or hear about killing. It is highly unusual for someone to kill a person. Unless in the case of a butcher, people will not kill pigs or goats every day either. The easiest transgression is the killing of insects, ants and small creatures.
Someone wrote a letter to me and asked when there are insects and ants in the house, how should we deal with them? When we clean the house, they would be killed or injured. Is this kind of killing counted as breaking the precept of non- killing? Or if we ask our servants to clean the house, they inevitably kill or hurt insects and ants while cleaning the house. Do we commit the sin of telling them to kill? Or can we attribute it to the karma of insects and ants? This is a very big problem. In order to protect human beings and their properties, it is necessary to get rid of insects and ants to prevent any damage caused by them. But in order to protect the pure essence of the precepts, one cannot kill or hurt insects intentionally. However, the insects and ants which cause harm to people should be driven out. When people drive insects and ants out, they cannot harbor the ill intention to kill or harm them. They should be careful in doing this. If they have done their best to protect the living beings but still inevitably kill or harm insects and ants, they should blame themselves, give rise to remorse and make a compassionate vow, wishing those killed would achieve rebirth as a kind being and attain Buddhahood eventually. Only in this way is the sin of killing forgiven. We can find the basis for this in the Vinaya. In Chapter 11 of the Vinaya in Ten Recitations (Shisong lū), it says that the Buddha personally got rid of the insects on the beds of monks (T 23, 77c). In Chapter 37, it says that in the bath room the heat and humidity caused many insects to be born. The Buddha said, “They should be gotten rid of in order to keep the place clean” (T23, 270c). However, what is most important is to prevent the birth of insects and ants in the house by keeping it dry and clean. If the house is damaged in any way, it ought to be repaired right away. When you find a hole at the bottom of a wall, you should fill it up with dirt. Before the appearance of insects, you should sterilize the places where they can easily be born to prevent them from appearing. If insects are already born, in order to uphold precepts we should be very careful in getting rid of them. We should not use pesticide to kill them. Otherwise, killing one insect requires one performance of repentance and killing ten thousand insects requires ten thousand performances of repentance. Unless one has attained the stage above the first fruit of the Hinayana sage, it is impossible to keep the precept of non-killing with absolute purity. It is said that “when one who has attained the first fruit plows the field, insects will stay four inches away from him.” The ordinary people are simply not able to do this.
The upholding or violating of the precepts depends completely on one’s mind. Therefore, in regard to the offense of killing insects, there are six different sentences: When there is an insect and there is the awareness of the insect, this results in committing a basic minor offense which can be repented. When there is an insect but there is a doubt about whether there is an insect, this also results in committing a basic minor offense which can be repented. When there is no insect yet there is the awareness of an insect, it results in committing an expedient violation of a minor offense that can be repented. When there is no insect but there is the doubt that there might be an insect, this also results in committing an expedient violation of a minor offense that can be repented. When there is an insect but there is no awareness of an insect, this does not result in a violation. When there is no insect and there is also no awareness of an insect, this does not result in a violation. In addition, one should not strike a person, an animal, or even an insect, for one who does so with a mind of hatred commits an offense.
Here, readers may raise another question. In order to uphold the precept of non-killing, must one become a vegetarian? According to the five precepts and the bhikshu’s precepts, there is no requirement that one must be a vegetarian.
Not eating fish and meat is a requirement of a Mahayana bodhisattva precept. In keeping the non-killing precept of the five precepts, one should not kill any animal oneself, nor urge others or teach them to kill. Therefore one should not personally kill chickens, ducks, fish and shrimps. If one buys meat of animals already killed, this is not breaking precepts. Of course, it is even better if one can give rise to the aspiration to become a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is a virtue of Chinese Buddhist tradition in Mahayana Buddhism. It further concretely actualizes the spirit of no-killing. Therefore, it is hoped that those who have taken the five precepts would become vegetarians. But if they do not, that is all right also.[2]
The passages above fully demonstrate the skillful means with which he taught people in modern society how to apply the five precepts flexibly in their daily lives based on the spirit of the Vinaya.
In the Essentiasls of Vinaya, Master Sheng Yen expressed a judicious view on a rather sensitive issue. Over the past several decades, international and Chinese scholars as well as those who are concerned about Buddhism both within and without the sangha have had different opinions on whether the Eight Grave Rules (ba jing fa) should be kept. In the Vinaya in Four Parts (Sifen lū) which is regarded as the authoritative Vinaya in Chinese Buddhism, the Eight Grave Precepts are called the eight precepts which must not and should not be transgressed. In other words, they are the precepts a bhikshuni should and must uphold. The Eight Grave Rules are criticized by people in modern times because they show the inequality between men and women in Buddhism. They symbolize the control of the bhikshuni sangha by the paternalistic bhikshu sangh. However, have the Eight Grave Rules ever been completely followed in India or China? Nobody can answer this historical question. It is just as Master Sheng Yen said,
In fact, among Chinese bhikshunis today, even those who are most devoted to the Way can at most uphold only two or three of the Eight Grave Rules. The rest all deal with the methods of performing formal acts and keeping precepts. They cannot be carried out in accordance with the regulations. We cannot find even now any concrete evidence that the Eight Grave Rules were ever followed in the history of Chinese Buddhism. It seems that the rule of sikshamana [3] has never been followed in China. Regarding the rule that bhikshunis should request teaching from bhikshus once every half month, the Vinaya master Nanshan Daoxuan of the Tang Dynasty said, “Currently bhikunis mostly practiced the abbreviated method because it is difficult to follow the expanded method” (T40, 153a). There are two ways regarding bhikshunis requesting teaching from bhikshus—the expanded and the abbreviated method. The expanded method is as follows. After being requested by the bhikunis, the bhikshu sangha should send a virtuous senior monk to the bhikunis’ convent to teach them. The abbreviated method is as follows. The bhikunis sangha sends someone to request teaching from the bhikshu sangha who will say, “In the bhikshu sangha, there is no bhikshu qualified to teach the bhikunis. Just be diligent and cautious, do not be lax and idle.” After this is said, the bhikuni answers, “We will do as instructed”. This is considered that the abbreviated method has been followed. In the Tang dynasty the expanded method was already no longer in use. When it came to the Song Dynasty, the Vinaya Master Lingzhi Yuanzhao said, “Nowadays both the expanded and the abbreviated methods have been abandoned. We can only learn from what we have heard.” As for the rule that a bhikshuni must confess in front of both the bhikshu and bhikshuni sangha for her transgression against the precepts, because in China bhikshuni receives the full precepts directly from the bhikshu sangha alone, this rule is of course not followed. [4]
In The Progress of Master Sheng Yen’s Study and Thinking (Sheng Yen Fashi xuesi lizheng), he said that the Essentials of Vinaya was written based on what he had learned while studying the Vinaya during his solitary retreat in Meinong, Kaohsiung. From 1961 to 1964 he studied all the books on the Vinaya that he could find. He usually read them two or three times. In the preface, he said, “Overall, Master Ouyi and Hongyi had great influence on this book. However, I did not completely follow their lines of thought and this book was not written entirely from the perspective of the Nanshan School either.”[5]
Hongyi was a famous Vinaya master in the twentieth century. In regard to Hongyi’s thought, Master Sheng Yen had this comment. “Since ancient time, when men of lofty virtue wrote, they usually describe and explain what had been written before instead of expressing their own views. This shows their cautious and serious attitude in putting thoughts into words. Therefore, in his writings Hongyi mainly organizes what others wrote and at times adds some explanation. As a result, his writings do not aim to introduce and promote the Vinaya… He would add briefly his own opinions to explain something only when it is absolutely necessary.”[6]
The title of the seventh chapter of the Essentials of Vinaya is “The Essence of Bodhisattva Precepts -- The Cradle of Buddhas in Three Ages”. This chapter has ninety- seven pages which take up one third of the book. Thirty years later, he published The Essence of Bodhisattva Precepts. It includes the papers he gave at the two conferences held in 1990 and 1992, their themes being “Buddhist Ethics”and “Traditional Precepts” respectively. It also includes articles which he wrote for the bodhisattva precepts ceremonies held at Chan Meditation Center in New York and the Nongchan Monastery in Beitou to encourage people to take the Bodhisattva precepts. Over the last three decades, the emphasis he had placed on the bodhisattva precepts had not changed. In 1962, he wrote in his book, Buddhist Culture and Literature (Fojiao wenhua yu wenxue), “the Sutra of Jeweled Ornament (Yingle jing) says that people who have precepts to transgress are Bodhisattvas, while people who have no precepts to transgress are non-Buddhists. Therefore, those who have received the precepts but transgress against them are superior to those who have not received the precepts and thus have nothing against which to transgress. People who have received the precepts and generated the bodhicitta, even when they violate the precepts and will surely receive their karmic retributions, but because they have taken the bodhisattva precepts, they will definitely become a bodhisattva and eventually attain Buddhahood. ….Therefore, I hope my lay disciples can all come to receive the bodhisattva precepts and give rise to the upmost Bodhi mind”.[7]
Thirty- two years later, in the preface of The Essence of Bodhisattva Precepts published in 1995, he again emphasized that bodhisattva precepts could provide a norm that is most suitable for modern Buddhist disciples to follow. He first explained his motive to study the Vinaya and what he had learned.
The ancients who advocated the Vinaya mainly explained or wrote commentaries. I, on the other hand, raise questions, and clarify them after I have digested a great number of documents concerning the Vinaya.
For thirty years I have dedicated myself to the study of and the writing on the Mahayna and Hinayana Vinaya. My goal is to popularize, simplify and make the Vinaya practical to follow. I hope that I will not fall into the old tracks of the ancients, but also not to depart from their excellent model. I want to make it easy to read and understand, but I also want to keep the basis which supplies the original sources. In other words, I want to review the old in order to learn the new and to propose the new from the old, so that it can be used by people in their daily life. The ancient wisdom can be used to serve today. I am guided by the principle to make my writing on the Vinaya available for the general public, but I also hope that it still retains the content which can provide a foundation for scholarly research.
Since I began to deepen my understanding of the Vinaya and the related commentaries written by the ancients, I have come to the realization that it is absolutely impossible for people living in the modern world to follow the precepts which were laid down in India two thousands and five hundred years ago. But without the Buddhist precepts as the guideline to lead a wholesome life, it would be very difficult for people to purify the karma created by the body, speech and mind. Because this is the case, I stress the Buddha’s spirit in establishing the Vinaya, but not the fixed adherence to the exact letters of its entirety.[8]
The reason why Master Sheng Yen praised the Bodhisattva precepts so highly is because they have the unique characteristics of being “easy to learn and easy to uphold. They can be deep but can also be shallow. They can be applied in all times and at all places.” He explained that its essence is “founded on the three cumulative precepts, the ten good deeds and the inexhaustible precepts that can be upheld by both the monastics and the laity. The three cumulative pure precepts completely absorb all pure precepts, all virtues and the entirety of dharmas that benefit all beings in the world. The ten good deeds lay a foundation for all pure precepts, which form the central outline of the bodhisattva precepts. The ten inexhaustible precepts found in the Sutra of Brama’s Net serve as the bodhisattva precepts’ standard which can stand through all changes in time and last forever. The purpose of writing this book is to transmit the basic spirit of bodhisattva precepts which, without exception, all aim to purify one’s speech, action and thought, to generate the bodhicitta, and to cultivate the way of bodhisattvas. These precepts are great and can endure forever. When encountering the need of deep teaching, it can be elaborated in depth. When elementary teaching is required, it can be taught at the beginner’s level. When encountering common people, it can be explained with ordinary language. When meeting with the saints, it can be expounded in the light of ultimate truth. The basic spirit of all the Bodhisattva precepts is to purify the karma of body, speech and mind, to give rise to the Bodhicitta, and to cultivate the path of the bodhisattvas.”[9]
Based on the Sutra of Jeweled Ornament and the Sutra of Brama’s Net, Master Sheng Yen explained the three cumulative precepts thus: The first refers to the “precept of self nature”, the precepts of comportment or the ten pārājikā which are also the ten grave precepts of the Sutra of Brama’s Net. The reason it is called the “ten inexhaustible precepts” is because the merit of upholding the precepts derives from one’s mind. Since the mind is inexhaustible, the precepts are also inexhaustible. The second refers to cultivate all wholesome deeds or to uphold all wholesome dharmas. The third is to benefit all sentient beings, to care for sentient beings, namely “to deliver all beings with loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity, so that all will attain peace and happiness in life.”[10]
The Sutra of Jeweled Ornament and the Sutra of Brama’s Net have always been regarded as authoritative sutras in Chinese Buddhism. During the twentieth century, Japanese scholars claimed that the two sutras were Chinese indigenous writings. However, in the late Ming dynasty, the masters who advocated the Vinaya, such as Zhuhong and Ouyi, relied particularly on the Sutra of Brama’s Net. According to the analysis of Master Sheng Yen, the lineage of the Vinaya school transmitted by Daoxuan (569-667) who had many disciples lasted in China the longest. Daoxuan expounded the essence of the precepts in accordance with the philosophy of the Weishi school. Although the Vinaya in Four Parts, just as all the Vinaya texts translated into Chinese, was a product of the Hinayana tradition, it has nonetheless been well received by the Chinese who have affinity with the Mahayana thought. However, by the sixteenth century, the transmission of the Vinaya tradition was nearly non-existent.[11] In the one hundred and fifty years between the late Ming and the early Qing, there were thirteen authors who wrote a total of twenty-six works in forty-four volumes on the Vinaya. This does not include the twenty-one not included in the Shinsan Zokuzokyo (Xuzangjing). In contrast, in the more than thousand years from Huisi (515-577) in the Six Dynasties to the end of the Ming, there were twenty-nine authors who wrote nineteen works in forty-eight volumes.[12] No wonder the late Ming and early Qing is regarded as the period of revival for the study of the Vinaya. Master Sheng Yen noticed that the Vinaya scholars of the late Ming shared two things in common: first, they promoted the Sutra of Brama’s Net and second, they stressed the precepts for sramanas (novices) and those for lay Buddhists. Why did they promote the Sutra of Brahma’s Net so much? Master Sheng Yen made the following analysis.
At that time, in terms of cultivation, people either practiced Pure Land or Chan. In terms of doctrinal study, they focused either on the Huayan or the Tiantai. Master Zhiyi (538-597) of the Tiantai school wrote a commentary in six volumes on the Sutra of Brahma’s Net. Moreover, the thought of the Sutra of Brahma’s Net belongs to the Huayan tradition. Therefore, scholars of both the Huayan school and the Tiantai school were fond of advocating the Sutra of Brahma’s Net.[13]
Zhiyi obviously did not regard the Sutra of Brahma’s Net as a Chinese indigenous sutra. Scholars of the Vinaya at the end of Ming shared the same view. They were all moved by the spirit of Mahayana Bodhisattvas in the sutra. They therefore advocated adopting the Bodhisattva precepts as the model to govern the behaviors of both the monastics and lay Buddhists. This has continued until today. The monastics have to take three sets of precepts: first the sramana precepts, then the full bhikshu or bhikshuni precepts, and finally the Bodhisattva precepts. Only then is the ordination ceremony completed. Ideally lay people should also take the Bodhisattva precepts after taking the three refuges and the five precepts. If the Sutra of Bahma’s Net is indeed a Chinese indigenous sutra, it does not only embody the spirit of Chinese Buddhism, but it is also the ritual which concretely actualizes Chinese Buddhism.
The study of the Vinaya occupied the entire life of Master Sheng Yen. Because he himself benefited a great deal from the study, he wished to make it serve as the standard in people’s lives. Using accessible language, he introduced the principles of the Vinaya to society at large through books such as Orthodox Buddhism (Zhengxin de fojiao), Instruction in Studying Buddhism (Xuefo zhijin) and Resolving Doubts in Studying Buddhism (Xuefo qunyiin). These books are easy to understand and have become very popular.
The three learnings of Precepts, Concentration and Wisdom go hand in hand. Master Sheng Yen had written many books on Chan theory, history, and methods of practice. He harmonized Linji’s Huatou and Caodong’s “silent illumination” in establishing the Dharma Drum Lineage of Zhonghua Chan Buddhism. The Chan methods he taught were based on the Vinaya and the teachings of the Buddha. This is demonstrated by the topics he chose for his master thesis and the doctoral dissertation when he studied in Japan. The topic of his master’s thesis was titled “Study on The Dharma Door of Samatha and Vipassana in Mahayana Buddhism”. The author of the work he studied has always been regarded as Nanyue Huisi, the first patriarch of the Tiantai school in China. However, during the 12th and 13th centuries, some Japanese Tiantai scholars raised doubts about Huisi’s authorship. In his thesis, Master Sheng Yen offered counter arguments. However, as he stated, the main point of his thesis was not to prove that the work was indeed written by Huisi. By thoroughly analyzing the basis and origin of its thought, he discovered that this work absorbed many ideas from the Tathāgatagarbha and Weishi traditions. This enabled him to gain an in depth understanding of the three major philosophical traditions of Indian Buddhism: Mādhyamika, Weishi, and Tathāgatagarbha.[14]
His master thesis is an important work on the study of Tiantai school. Master Sheng Yen’s doctoral dissertation centers on Zhixu’s life, works and thought. Zhixu is regarded as a scholar of the Tiantai school. Master Sheng Yen himself was very positive about the equal emphasis on teaching (scriptural study) and contemplation (meditation) advocated by the Tiantai school. He once gave lectures on Zhixu’s The Essentials and Guidelines of Scriptural Study and Meditation (Jiaoguan gangzong) in Nongchan Monastery. In 2001 he translated this book into vernacular Chinese with notes and entitled it, The Mind Key of Tiantai: A Vernacular Translation of and Commentary on Ouyi’s Jiaoguan gangzong. In the preface, he stated that this work had exerted a strong influence on him. He said, “I have been using Chan teachings to guide Buddhists both in the East and in the West since 1976, teaching them to benefitthemselves and others, purify people’s mind, and purify society. This is why I need to rely on the samatha and vipassana teachings of the Tiantai school.[15] According to Master Sheng Yen, there was a reason why Zhixu used the title The Essentials and Guidelines of Scriptural Study and Meditation to name his book. “The book introduces the teachings of the Tiantai school on the surface, but Chan thought is actually hidden in its bones. Because ‘teaching’ refers to the Buddha’s words, whereas ‘contemplation’ refers to the mind of the Buddha as well as all sentient beings. Zong is no other than this one thought at this present moment of both the Buddha and the sentient beings. If one can contemplate the mind in accordance with the teaching, this is ‘gangzong’. Jiaoguan (teaching and contemplation) is no different from gangzong (Essentials and Guidelines) and gangzong is no different from jiaoguan. The title of the book indicates that the essence and function are one.”[16] Zhixu’s definition of teaching and contemplation can be seen in the beginning of the book where it stated “The core of Buddhas and the patriarchs lies in teaching and contemplation. If contemplation does not conform to teaching, contemplation is not orthodox. If teaching is not accompanied by contemplation, teaching is not transmitted.” Teaching and contemplation therefore mean doctrinal instruction and realization through meditation. It also means that ‘Teaching emerges from Chan’ and ‘Chan enlightenment relies on teaching’. They are the two sides of one entity, mutually reinforcing each other”[17] Zhixu advocated teaching and contemplation and became known as a Tiantai master. Master Sheng provided the following analysis:
The number of Buddhist scriptures is huge and their teachings also have many levels. Therefore, it is necessary to have a rational method to categorize them. Within the scriptures containing different levels of teaching, we find methods of practice which help people to harmonize the mind, collect the mind, illumine the mind and give rise to wisdom. These are the so-called contemplation practice. Jiaoguan of the Tiantai school emphasizes the equal importance of doctrine and meditation as well as theory and practice. They complement each other as the two wings of a bird, and the two wheels of a cart. Tiantai teaching is most subtle and refined. That is why it wins the heart of Master Ouyi.[18]
I think Master Sheng Yen himself also believed in the “equal importance of doctrine and cultivation, or theory and practice.” He already held this view before going to Japan. The choice of Zhixu as the topic of his doctoral dissertation was therefore very understandable. After he studied Zhixu’s works thoroughly, it is also quite possible that Zhixu’s thought influenced his teaching and writing in the next thirty some years.
Zhixu’s thought is not limited to Tiantai school. In the last section (the fifth section) of Master Sheng Yen’s The Study of the Late Ming Chinese Buddhism, he provided a summation of Zhixu’s thought which includes the following five areas: harmony between Nature (xing), Dharma Characteristics (xiang), Chan and Doctrinal Teaching; that between Tiantai and Weishi; that between Tiantai and Chan; that between Buddhism and Confucianism; and finally, the subsuming of Chan, Doctrinal Teaching, Vinaya and esoteric Buddhism under Pure Land. In other words, these are no other than “unity of Chan and teaching”, “unity of Chan and Pure Land”, and “unity of the Three Teachings”, the distinctive features which distinguish Chinese Buddhism from Japanese Buddhism.
Master Sheng Yen found proof in the Zonglun about Zhixu’s views concerning the harmony between the four Buddhist schools: Nature (xing), Dharma Characteristics (xiang), Chan and Doctrine Teaching (jiao). He quotes from the Zonglun:
There is no dharma which the mind does not contain, nor which it does not create. However, all the dharmas which are contained and created by the mind have no self-nature. To understand that all dharmas have no self, not really existing is the Yogocara School. To know that although all the dharmas have no self-nature yet each is capable of containing and creating everything, this is the school of Dharma Nature. To point out directly that the illusory dharma and illusory mind right in front of one have no self-nature and thus to make a person become Buddha by seeing into one’s nature, this is the Chan school. That is why although the Lincji school is direct, it is not without refinement. The Caodong school, though strict and meticulous, is not without simplicity and immediacy. The Weishi school retains the dependent and perfect, yet it destroys imagining. The Prajna-paramita school demolishes emotional attachment, yet it establishes Ultimate Truth. Dharmapala makes clear that the True Suchness is not perfumed, yet he does not say that it is definitely different from all the dharmas. Asvaghosha makes clear that ignorance and True Suchness perfume each other, yet he does not say that they are definitely the same.[19]
Zhixu did not consider Tiantai and Weishi to be in conflict. On the contrary, he thought they could complement each other.
If one wishes to be an expert of Weishi, he must be good in penetrating the essential purport of Taiheng (Tiantaishan of Zhiyi and Hengshan of Huisi). If one wishes to obtain the heart and marrow of Taiheng, one must begin with Weishi….Alas, the mind method of Taiheng has been obscured for a very long time. This is because people do not know the commentary of the Vimalakirti sutra written by Zhiyi was entirely based on the interpretation of Vasubandhu. But the commentary was taken to Korea and that is why it could not dispel the doubt of our people. The Mahayana samatha and vipassana taught by Nanyue Huisi is also based on the eight consciousnesses. In explaining the method of cultivation, it correctly states that if one abandons the kingly subject right here, there will not then be any object which can be observed. When the observed disappears, then where can the observer reside? It is only when we know what is the object that we can practice samatha and vipassana. This is the real blood line of Taiheng. It is different from other school which talks about the mysterious Dharma of suchness and how one cannot separate from the Way, yet rejects Dharma Characteristics (Faxiang) by casting it outside the mountain. Those who do not know that the great ocean is the home of the hundred rivers are mistaken.[20]
Similary, Tiantai and Chan are also “originally not two”:
The Way does not lie with words, yet it is not separated from words. When one is attached to the view that takes words as the Way, then there are the lecturers who are ridiculed for counting treasures as food. When one is attached to the view that the Way must be separated from words, then Chan practitioners may suffer the disaster of giving rise to blindness based on incorrect realization. Master Bodhidharma transmitted mind to mind, yet he must rely on the Lankavatara sutra for verification. He feared that if he departed from the sutra even by only one word, it would be no different from the words of Mara. Master Zhiyi discussed the mysterious Truth for ninety years, yet he always connected it with the meditative practice of samatha and vipassana. He feared that if he understood the meaning by relying only on words, he would do harm to the Buddha. Thus Chan and Tiantai are originally no different. But in later days, Chan and Tiantai slander each other. This is truly very sad. When I was twenty-three years old, I set my mind earnestly to practice Chan. Now I call myself an admirer of Tiantai. This is because I believe that only Tiantai can save Chan from its sickness.[21]
Zhixu harmonized Confucian thought with Buddhism. During the Yungle era of Emperor Zhengzu of the Ming, the so-called “Three Great Complete Collections” were compiled. They are the Complete Collection of the Book of Changes, the Complete Collection of the Four Books, and the Complete Collection of Nature and Principle. Zhixu wrote commentaries on the three collections entitled respectively, The Book of Changes Explained according to Chan, The Four Books Explained by Ouyi, and The Study of Nature Revealed. Like Zhixu, Master Sheng Yen carried out his scholarly research and taught disciples and people in society based on the principle of harmonizing Chan and doctrinal teaching as well as thoroughly penetrating the thought of all Buddhist schools. Another important reason why he was attracted to Zhixu was the latter’s recognition and acceptance of Confucian thought. In this connection, I would like to introduce another work by Master Sheng Yen. It is his Mind Interpretation of Huayan: the Evidential Explanation of “On the Origin of Men.” This is a vernacular translation of the essay “On the Origin of Men” written by Zongmi (780-841). This book can be regarded as having the same importance as his Mind Key of Tiantai which is a vernacular translation of Zhixu’s Essential Outlines of Teaching and Meditation. By advocating these two texts, Master Sheng Yen clearly indicated his personal affirmation of Chinese Buddhism. Zongmi was a Chan master and at the same time the fifth patriarch of the Huayan school. In the “On the Origin of Men”, he did not regard Confucianism and Daoism as heterodox, but treated them as “good teachings for men and devas.” He then analyzed sequentially the teaching of the Small Vehicle, the Dharma Characteristics and Mādyamika of the Great Vehicle, and “finally subsumed all under the One Vehicle teaching which directly reveals the Buddha nature of Tathāgatagarbha.”[22] In the preface, Master Sheng Yen wrote that for many years he carried the “On the Origin of Men” with him because its content “touches on the three main streams of philosophical thought of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. Zongmi was learned in Confucianism and Daoism. He was a peer of the great Confucian scholars at his time and may even be superior to them. That is why he could point out in his discussion the weak points in Confucianism and Daoism. Because Zongmi was particularly proficient in reading the commentaries of the various schools of the Great Vehicle of India, he was a great master who thoroughly understood the three vehicles and synthesized the teachings of the two traditions of Nature and Dharma Characteristics. He was therefore an expert of the teachings of Prajñāparamita, Mādyamika, Weishi, Yogācarā, Tathāgatagarbha of Buddha nature, as well as the Vinaya. There was nothing in Buddhism that he did not know. He could be called a Tripitaka master who had mastered all the Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings….This treatise is grounded on the standpoint of Chinese Buddhism. It contains the teachings of all schools comprehensively and harmonizes Buddhist and non-Buddhist thought. It serves as an exemplary model on account of its ability to melt and include all differences. The future direction of Buddhism in the world must start from this vision in order to realize the totality of Buddhism by returning to the Buddha’s original concern.”[23]
Although the treatise “On the Origin of Men” includes Confucianism, Daoism, the Hinayana, the three major systems of Mahāyāna: Mādhyamia, Yogācarā and Tathāgatagarbha, in the end Zongmi concluded the essay by subsuming all the teachings under the Tathāgatagarbha thought. At the end of the treatise, he wrote:
In the beginning there is only this one true luminous nature which is neither born nor destroyed, neither increases nor decreases, neither transforms nor changes. Sentient beings sleep confusedly from the beginningless beginning and have no self awareness and thus it is hidden and covered over within oneself. This is called Tathāgatagarbha. On account of this Tathāgatagarbha, there arises the mind of birth and death. Thus the true mind of no birth and no death is combined with the illusion of birth and death. They are neither the same nor different. This is the alaya consciousness. This consciousness has the two meanings of enlightenment and non-enlightenment.[24]
Master Sheng Yen thought that the “On the Origin of Men” was greatly influenced by the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna. Indeed, the “two doors of the One Mind” found in the latter may be said to be the basis for what Zongmi wrote above. We find in The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna this passage. “The One Mind has two doors. What are the two? One is the Mind of Suchness, and the other is the mind of samsara. These two doors include and contain all dharmas. Why is this so? It is because the two doors are not separated from each other.” The door of Suchness is original enlightenment and the door of samsara is non-enlightenment. Although all sentient beings are endowed with Buddha nature, True Mind, original enlightenment, since they have been deluded by ignorance from the beginingless beginning, they are in samsara and suffer from deluded thought and non-enlightenment. But when sentient beings turn away from ignorance and return to truth, this is the incipient enlightenment. Therefore the path from samsara to Buddhahood is simply to return to original enlightenment from non-enlightenment via incipient enlightenment. The power which propels this great process of enlightenment is no other than original enlightenment. This positive and optimistic teaching became the mainstream of Chinese Buddhism. This is very different from Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, for in those two traditions Mādyamika and Yogācarā are more important than Tathāgatagarbha thought. But due to the influence of Chinese Buddhism, the original enlightenment thought of Tathāgatagarbha has also become the mainstream in East Asian Buddhism.
Like the Sutra of Brahma’s Net, the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna was regarded by scholars as a scripture composed in China. Such works are traditionally called “forged sutra” or “spurious sutra.” However, for the last forty years, scholars have stopped using these terms which are strongly judgmental. Instead, they are now called indigenous scriptures. The two terms “forged sutra” and “spurious sutra” were originally used by the compilers of sutra catalogs. The criteria used by the catalogers in different dynasties to determine which sutra was genuine and which was forged were not uniform. However, they usually insisted on two things: first, the scripture must be written in foreign lands and then introduced into China. Therefore, the existence of a Sanskrit or other Central Asian versions of the sutra would be a strong evidence that the sutra was genuine. But to have only this one evidence was not sufficient, for there was no way of knowing if the foreign version was not itself a forgery. A second criterion was necessary, namely foreign masters must be involved in the process of translating the sutra, for only they could testify it was indeed a genuine sutra from its native land. The participation of foreign masters symbolized the “orthodox” nature of the sutra. Even though some of the foreign monks did not know Chinese and thus could not be the real translators of the sutra, many sutras in Chinese translation were still attributed to them. But as Hayashiya Tomojiro pointed out as early as fifty years ago, of the 1,700 extant sutras translated from Indic languages, 400, or one fourth of the translations in the Taisho Tripitaka, were wrongly attributed.
We now have a better understanding about the developmental history of the entire Buddhist canon thanks to modern scholarship. For this reason, there is need to revise the traditional standards used to differentiate the genuine from the forged sutras. We know that the Buddha never wrote anything. The Pali canon, the body of authoritative texts for the Theravada Buddhists, was based on oral transmission traced back to the Buddha and formulated only during the second century B.C.E., some three hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvana. The Buddha taught the Dharma, but the Dharma was not limited to what the Buddha taught. For there were other buddhas before the appearance of Shakyamuni Buddha and he will be followed by another. Yet all buddhas preach the Dharma. In fact, not only other buddhas, even the great disciples and bodhisattvas could reveal the Dharma when inspired by the Buddha. For the Dhrma of Buddhism is found in the truths spoken by the Buddha, but not in his words and sounds. For this reason, all Mahāyāna sutras, which of course appeared long after Shakyamuni’s nirvana, can be regarded as Buddha’s teaching. This “revisionist” view was first advanced by Makita Tairyo in 1970. In his writings, he reminded us the positive value provided by these texts. Not only he did not regard them as “forged” and “spurious”, but regarded them as showing the understanding of Buddhism held by people living at that time and thus were valuable documents. He called them “sutras composed by the Chinese people” and thought they could help us understand how the Chinese accepted and absorbed Buddhism. His view has been accepted by many American scholars in these forty years.