Download DAOIST CHONGXUAN (TWOFOLD MYSTERY) THOUGHT AND

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.