* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download DAOIST CHONGXUAN (TWOFOLD MYSTERY) THOUGHT AND
Yiqiejing yinyi (Xuanying) wikipedia , lookup
Four Noble Truths wikipedia , lookup
Tara (Buddhism) wikipedia , lookup
Sanghyang Adi Buddha wikipedia , lookup
Nirvana (Buddhism) wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and violence wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist texts wikipedia , lookup
Buddha-nature wikipedia , lookup
Dhyāna in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist influences on print technology wikipedia , lookup
Early Buddhist schools wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist art wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist ethics wikipedia , lookup
Persecution of Buddhists wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Thailand wikipedia , lookup
Pratītyasamutpāda wikipedia , lookup
Greco-Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and psychology wikipedia , lookup
Korean Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Triratna Buddhist Community wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism in Cambodia wikipedia , lookup
Buddhist philosophy wikipedia , lookup
Enlightenment in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Dalit Buddhist movement wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism and sexual orientation wikipedia , lookup
History of Buddhism in India wikipedia , lookup
Chinese Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Japan wikipedia , lookup
Women in Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
Buddhism in Vietnam wikipedia , lookup
Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent wikipedia , lookup
Pre-sectarian Buddhism wikipedia , lookup
DAOIST CHONGXUAN (TWOFOLD MYSTERY) THOUGHT AND BUDDHIST MADHYAMIKA IN THE EARLY TANG (618-720) The different interactions between Buddhism and Daoism have occurred since Buddhism entered China in the 1st century. Buddhism, as an Indian religion, first developed under the guise of Daoism because Buddhism, as a foreign teaching, easily reached Chinese people by drawing upon the pre-existing religious and philosophical terminology. However, this did not continue for a long time because not only did Buddhist monks later think that it would distort the original teaching1 but the large corpus of Mahayana texts also became available in Chinese, revealing the differences between Buddhism and Daoism. Today, I will, examine the implications of the interactions between Buddhism and Daoism in the case of Twofold Mystery. These religious traditions, evidently, have influenced each other in many respects such as rituals, doctrines, textual materials, and philosophy and so on. Since Twofold Mystery highly employed Mādhyamika Buddhist concepts, this study will, on the one hand, examine the influence of Mādhyamika Buddhism on the development of Twofold Mystery. On the other hand, it will critically survey how Twofold Mystery remained faithful to the Daoist worldview as Assandri and Kohn argued.2 In the early years of the development of Buddhism in China, there was a close relationship between Buddhism and Daoism because Buddhism was regarded as a branch of Daoism. Furthermore, the story of Laozi’s3 老子 journey to the West and conversion of Buddha 1 For example, Dao’an 道安 (312/314-385) opposed to the employment of non-Buddhist terminology in explaining Buddhist teachings because it might have “deviated from the principles of Buddhism. See “Erik Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China. 3rd ed. (Leiden: BRILL, 2007) 184-187. 2 3 See Assandri, Twofold Mystery. For the detailed historical survey of the profile of Laozi, see A.C. Graham, “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan,” in Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching, ed.Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998) 23-40. to Daoism enabled Buddhism to become a Chinese religion. Accordingly, Daoists thought that “Buddhism was a new method of obtaining immortality. They felt that the Buddhist nirvana was not different from the Taoist salvation, the arhat like the Taoist [zhenren], or pure man.”4 This early perception of Buddhism in China did not only help Buddhism easily access the Chinese people but it also prevented Buddhist teachings from being labeled as barbarian. Twofold Mystery was a Daoist philosophical movement that developed in early MidImperial China (589-720). It was known for employing Buddhist Mādhyamika concepts in commenting on the Daode jing (道德经), Zhuangzi (莊子) as well as at the officially sponsored court debates in the Early Tang. Emptiness (kong 空), tetra lemma (siju 四句) and two truths (erdi 二谛) are important Mādhyamika concepts that were commonly used by the representatives of Twofold Mystery as efficient devices to attain oneness with the Dao. Twofold Mystery masters claimed that the term twofold mystery originated from the first chapter of the Daode jing, “render it mysterious and again mysterious” (xuan zhi you xuan, 玄之又玄). Twofold Mystery, arising as a Daoist philosophical movement which tends to interpret the Daoist Classics by using the Buddhist Mādhyamika philosophical concepts such as emptiness, tetra lemma, and two truths, certainly represented one particular type of interaction between Buddhism and Daoism in the early Tang Dynasty (618-720). In this paper, Twofold Mystery will be first contextualized to demonstrate the significant impact of the social and political conditions of that period on the development of Twofold Mystery. After that, Mādhyamika philosophical concepts of emptiness, two truths and tetra lemma will be explained both in Buddhist and Daoist frameworks. Finally, this paper will argue that Daoism differed from Buddhism in employing 4 Kenneth Kuan Sheng Ch’en, Buddhism in China (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964) 50. Buddhist concepts because on the one hand it had to place itself in an authentic position to maintain its imperial support, but on the other hand it also had to employ Buddhist philosophical concepts to be able to compete with Buddhism. Therefore, these polar opposites culminated in the development of Twofold Mystery which was equipped with Buddhist concepts but maintained a Daoist worldview. Twofold Mystery is a Daoist philosophical teaching 5 which is notably known as its employment of Mādhyamika concepts in the Daoist framework such as, tetra lemma (四句, siju) and two truths (二諦, erdi). The Daoist adoption of Buddhist concepts were beyond the simple interactions between the two religions. This directly had to do with the socio-political conditions of that period. Even though it is hard to determine the main reasons why Twofold Mystery Daoists employed Buddhist concepts, two important factors in leading Daoists to employ Buddhist concept cannot be overlooked. First, it had to do with the deep philosophical structure of Buddhism that was unprecedented to China; therefore, it had a significant impact on Chinese intellectual life. Accordingly, along with the availability of Mādhyamika texts in China 6 , Buddhist philosophical concepts became popular among the Chinese literati. Regardless of a specific religion, the Chinese literati embraced Buddhist philosophical concepts and contextualized them in the Chinese framework. Second, at the time when Daoists started to use Buddhists philosophical concepts, Buddhism enjoyed being the most powerful and common religion in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. Furthermore, Buddhism showed a more integrated structure that also appealed to the imperial support. For the Daoists who wanted to share the 5 6 See the introduction about the discussion of how to describe Twofold Mystery as a school or teaching. With the particular efforts of Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什, Jiumoluoshe) (344-413), a great number of Mādhyamika texts were translated into Chinese. He translated as many as 72 texts including the Diamond Sūtra, Amitâbhasūtra, Lotus Sūtra, Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, Madhyamaka-kārikā and the Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra. popularity of Buddhism, it was a great method to use Buddhist philosophical methods in the Doaist framework. Accordingly, it is highly probable that the common and effective use of these two tools by Buddhists led the Daoists to employ them as well. Imperially sponsored court debates certainly represented the different type of intellectual exchange between Buddhism and Daoism. The representatives of the three teachings (Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism) found an opportunity to explain their teachings as well as defend accusations against them, demonstrated the significant influence of the state on religion. They certainly played a significant role in the development of Twofold Mystery because not only the representatives of Twofold Mystery highly engaged with the court debates but these debates also paved the for the mutual barrowing of each other’s religious and philosophical concepts. However, Daoists’ employment of Buddhist terms appeared to be significantly outweighed, because Daoism had not developed a sophisticated and unitary belief system that it could have competed with Buddhism yet. In other words, these debates were the places in which Daoists highly employed the Buddhist terms and argumentative methods to not only present their teaching as sophisticated and integrated as Buddhism but also to gain the imperial support by winning the debate. For example, Daoists employed twofold truths (erdi, 二諦), which was brought by Mādhyamika Buddhism into China, in the discussions about the inadequacy of language for the explanation of the absolute.7 After contextualizing the time period in which the highly Daoist barrowing of Buddhist terms and the development of Twofold Mystery took place, I will explain the basic characteristics of the Madhyamaka School of Buddhism, namely, emptiness, two truths, and tetra lemma that were highly employed by Twofold Mystery Daoists in the commentaries of the 7 Assandri, Inter-religious Debate, 28. Daode jing and Zhuangzi as well as inter-religious court debates. Madhyamaka Buddhism, as a philosophical branch of Mahayana Buddhism developed in the 2nd CE in India, certainly exposed to some degree of transformation until it settled in China in the 4th CE. This transformation was the natural consequences of the transmission of a religion from one area to another area, from a time period to another time period, and from a language to another language. Since Twofold Mystery developed around 6th to 7th CE in China, the understanding of Madhyamaka Buddhism in China would have a significant importance in making a relevant comparison with Twofold Mystery. Therefore, I will particularly look at the texts of Chinese Madhyamikans along with the writings of Nāgârjuna (Longshu, 龍樹) (2nd-3rd CE) who is regarded as the founder of Madhyamaka Buddhism. . Emptiness (Ch., kong, 空; Snk.., śūnyatā) is a distinctive Mahayana doctrine which rejects any substantial, permanent, and unchanging being and instead advocates dependent origination of all ontological and phenomenological beings. In other words, emptiness is abandonment of self-nature (Ch., zixing, 自行; Snk., svabhāva). This doctrine is the fundamental of Mahayana Buddhism because one will cut off his or her attachments when he or she realizes that no being exists by its own. Rather, various causes and conditions determine the nature of an object because the certain characteristics and adjectives that made the object a particular being will disappear when certain causes and conditions change. Emptiness, which was a new concept to China, was brought into China with the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras and Nāgârjuna’s writings. Even though Mystery Learning (xuanxue, 玄学) talked about the original non-being (benwu, 本无) which is “an underlined state or force of the universe, not only latent in its non-apparent phases but also permanently there as the base of all things,”8 Buddhist concept of emptiness distinctively differs from Mystery Learning’s original non-being because original non-being is the source of all beings. However, Buddhism does not accept any original being from which other beings originated. Rather, it asserts the emptiness of emptiness because emptiness itself might be a kind of an attachment. The doctrine of Two Truths has an important function in terms of preventing people from misunderstanding of the function of Buddhist tenets such as Four Noble Truths, and the Three Jewels. Nāgârjuna states that people might be harmed by the misunderstanding of emptiness which is the denial of worldly truths. In his Mulamadhyamaka-Karika, Nāgârjuna highlights the importance of the worldly truth as a way leading one to attain ultimate truth. He also asserts that those who do not understand the distinction between the worldly truth and ultimate truth do not understand the essence of the Buddha’s teaching.9 Nāgârjuna talked about the importance of the worldly truth as a key to the understanding of the essence of the Buddha’s teaching, which is emptiness, in 24th chapter of MMK: 7 We say that this understanding of yours Of Emptiness and the purpose of emptiness And of the significance of emptiness is incorrect As a consequence you are harmed by it. 8 The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma Is based on two truths: A truth of worldly convention And an ultimate truth. 9 Those who do not understand The distinction between these truths Do not understand The Buddha’s profound truth. 8 Livia Kohn, “Xuanxue,” in Encyclopedia of Taoism, ed. Fabrizio Pregadio (New York: Routledge, 2008), 11411142. 9 Nāgârjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagrjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika, trans. Jay L. Garfield (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1995) 68. 10 Without foundation in the conventional truth, The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, Liberation is not achieved.10 Tetralemma (Skt., catuskoti, Ch., 四句 siju) is an important way of thinking in the Mādhyamika philosophy which plays an important role in the realization of enlightenment. It basically consists of four statements, namely, an affirmation, a negation, a synthesis of both affirmation and negation, and a transcendence of both affirmation and negation.11 The following excerpt from Nagarjuna illustrates the use of tetralemma: 8 Everything is real and is not real, Both real and not real, Neither real nor not real. This is Lord Buddha’s teaching.12 “Empty” should not be asserted. “Nonempty” should not be asserted. Neither both nor neither should be asserted. They are only used nominally.13 Westerhoff explains the two different uses of tetra lemma as pragmatic and systematic.14 The first use has a pragmatic function to prevent people from wasting their time in dealing with the things that do not help attaining liberation. For example, the Buddha did not find worth and relevant in dealing with the questions such as “whether the Tathagata exists after death” or 10 Nāgârjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagrjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika, trans. Jay L. Garfield (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1995) 68. 11 Wu and Wu, Ti’an-Tai, 90. 12 Nāgârjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, 49. 13 Nāgârjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, 61. 14 Jan Westerhoff Nāgârjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 74. “whether the world is finite.”15 The Buddha answered these questions using tetra lemma. The second use is that “the predicates applied in the four alternatives under consideration are in fact not applicable to their respective subjects.”16 In the last part of the paper, I will demonstrate how Twofold Mystery differs from Madhyamika Buddhism even though both employ the same concepts. The first major distinction between Twofold Mystery and Madhyamika is that Madhyamika denies the existence of Self Nature (Ch., xing, Snk., svabhava) and the unchangeability of things while Twofold Mystery accepts the Dao as the source of myriad things. Twofold Mystery employed emptiness to explain the ineffability of Dao but did not make it identical with dependent co-origination and verbal designation as Buddhism does. When it comes to the description of emptiness, Madhyamika cannot explain it without mentioning the Two Truth and dependent co-origination because emptiness necessarily includes these doctrines. Therefore, the main difference between Daoist conceptualization of emptiness and Buddhist notion of emptiness is that Buddhism rejects the inherent existence (svabhava) of anything while Daoism accept the indefinable Dao as the origin of myriad things. Cheng Xuanying 成玄英 explains the term mystery (xuan, 玄), of the first verse of Daode jing, as “nonattachment” and “non-clinging.”17 “Mystery” is a name for what is profound and far; it also implies the meaning of nonattachment. It denotes the ultimate profoundness and the ultimate distance, no attachments and no clinging; when there is no attachment to being and no attachment nonbeing. 15 Westerhoff Nāgârjuna’s Madhyamaka,p.74. 16 Westerhoff Nāgârjuna’s Madhyamaka,p.74. 17 Assandri, Twofold Mystery, 95. [Then, one is] not only not attached to attachment but also not attached to “nonattachment.” Thus, the hundred negations and the tetra lemma [leave the adept with] no attachments whatsoever. This is called “twofold mystery.” (Yan 1983, 260; Robinet 1977, 256).18 The above excerpt from Cheng’s interpretation of xuan, he pointed out that nonattachment to anything and even non-attachment itself is Twofold Mystery. The language and the concept he used definitely demonstrated how they are similar to the Buddhist counterparts. However, what these concepts served differed from Buddhism because Daoism did not advocate the non-existence of ontological and phenomenological beings whatsoever. Rather, this similar terminology established the ineffability of Dao. As a conclusion, I tried to problematize the assumption that a Daoist concept which is similar to the Buddhist one must have originated from Buddhism. This approach is misleading to understand Daoism in particular or any religion in general which came into contact with other religions. Even though a Daoist notion might have developed as the result of the encounter with Buddhism, it is misleading to claim that a Daoist concept came from Buddhism because it might have been overlooked the fact that Daosim itself produced that concept referring to its own sources. Still, the influence of Buddhism on Daoism is significant in activating the development of religious Daoism. As explained throughout the paper, Madyamika Buddhism and Twofold Mystery drew upon the same concepts but one asserted the ontological and phenomenological non-existence of beings while another stated the ineffability of Dao. 18 Assandri, Twofold Mystery, 95-96. REFERENCES Assandri, Friederike. “Inter-religious Debate at the Court of the Early Tang: An Introduction to Daoxuan’s Ji gujin Fo Dao lunheng.” In From Early Tang Court Debates to China’s Peaceful Rise, edited by Friederike Assandri and Martins Dora Martins, 15-32. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. Assandri, Friederike. “The Yijing and Chongxuan Xue: An Onto‐hermeneutic Perspective.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38, no. 3 (August 10, 2011): 397–411. Assandri, Friederike. “Understanding Double Mystery: Daoism In Early Tang As Mirrored In The Fdlh (T 2104) And Chongxuanxue.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, no. 3 (August 11, 2005): 427–440. Asssandri, Friederike. Beyond the Daode Jing: Twofold Mystery in Tang Daoism. Edited by Friederike Asssandri. 1st ed. Three Pines Press, 2009. Ch’en, Kenneth Kuan Sheng. Buddhism in China. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964. Graham, A.C. “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan.” In Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching, edited by Livia Kohn, and Michael LaFargue, 23-40. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Nagarjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Ngrjuna’s Mlamadhyamakakrik. Translated by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford University Press, USA, 1995. Kohn, Livia. “Xuanxue” In Encyclopedia of Taoism, edited by Fabrizio Pregadio, 1141-1142. New York: Routledge, 2008. Westerhoff, Jan. Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. Wu, Rujun, and Ju-Chun Wu. T’Ien-T’Ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika. Univ of Hawaii Pr, 1993.