We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Because of the growing interest in Buddhist hermeneutics in recent years, the subject of p'an-chiao
(classification of teachings) has lately attracted increasing attention in the West. P'an-chiao is essentially an attempt to distinguish and to integrate various trends of Buddhist thought, various systems of Buddhist praxis and various kinds of Buddhist texts, with a view to highlighting their individual characteristics and to reconciling their apparent disparities. Different Chinese Buddhist schools, each with its own particular idea of the essence of the Buddha Dharma, naturally consider the significance of the heterogeneous elements of their spiritual heritage differently. Hence, examining and comparing their p'an-chiao theories is a convenient and reliable way to assess their doctrinal positions and to determine the respective places of their teachings in the bewildering labyrinth of Buddhist dogmatics. This article is an attempt to bring out the basic orientation and special concerns of Chi-tsang's 
(549–623) thought as reflected in his opinions about a number of central Buddhist sūtras and their interrelation. Chi-tsang, as is well-known, was the pivotal figure in the revival of Chinese Madhyamaka in the late sixth century, and it was the common consensus that his teaching represented the apex of the development of Madhyamaka thought in China.
1 This paper is a part of ongoing research work on the development of Madhyamaka thought in China. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Kenneth K S. Ch‘en for kindly agreeing to read over my research manuscript and offering many penetrating comments. I am indebted to the Hsu Long-sing Research Fund managed by the University of Hong Kong for a grant which defrayed part of the cost of producing this manuscript.
2 On p'an-chiao as a form of Buddhist hermeneutics, see Thurman, Robert A. F., ‘Buddhist hermeneutics’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 46/1, 1978, 29–30Google Scholar, Gregory, Peter N., ‘Chinese Buddhist hermeneutics: the case of Hua-yen’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 51/2, 1983, 232–3Google Scholar, and Lopez, Donald S. Jr (ed.), Buddhist hermeneutics (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1988), 3–4Google Scholar.
3 On Chi-tsang's life and contribution to the Chinese Madhyamaka movement, consult Tao-hsüan 
(597–667), Hsü Kao-seng chuan 
, Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 
[hereafter T], 50.513c–515a and Shunei, Hirai
, Chūgoku Hannya Shisshi Kenkyū 
(Tokyo, 1976), 60–79 and 345–52Google Scholar.
4 See T, 9. 12b–13c.
5 See T, 9. 616b.
6 See T, 12. 449a.
7 The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's comparison of itself to ghee, the best of the five flavours, is a good example. See ibid. On the Indian origin and the basic problematic of the practice of p'an-chiao, see Thurman, Robert A. F., op. cit., 19–39Google Scholar, Gregory, Peter N., op. cit., 231–3Google Scholar, and Katz, Nathan, ‘Prasarṅga and deconstruction: Tibetan hermeneutics and the yāna controversy’, Philosophy East and West, 34/2, 1984, 185–99Google Scholar.
8 Biography of Kumārajīva in Seng-yu 
(445–518), Ch'u-san-tsang Chi-chi 
, T, 55.100a–102a and Hui-chiao 
(497–554), Kao-seng Chuan 
, T, 50.330a–333a. Kumārajīva introduced Madhyamaka teaching into China through translating the so-called ‘three treatises’ (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Dvādasamukha-śāstra and Sata-śāstra) and the encyclopaedic Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra.
9 On the early Chinese understanding of the distinction between the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna, consult Ōchō Enichi 
, ‘Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru daijō shisō no kōki’ 
, in Enichi, Ōchō, Chūgoku Bukkyō no Kenkyū 
vol. 1 (Kyoto, 1958), 290–4Google Scholar.
10 On the knowledge of the distinction between the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna in Kumārajīva's circle, see ibid., 294–7.
11 Biography of Hui-kuan in Hui-chiao, Kao-seng chuan, T, 50.368b. On the inception of the practice of p'an-chiao in China, see Enichi, Ōchō, ‘Kyōsō hanjaku no genshi keitai’ 
, in Ochō Enichi, Chūgoku Bukkyō no Kenkyū, vol. 2 (Kyoto, 1971), 145–61Google Scholar, and Noritoshi, Aramaki
, ‘Nanchō zempanki ni okeru kyōsō hanjaku no seiritsu ni tsuite’ 
, in Fukunaga, Mitsuji
(ed.), Chūgoku Chūsei no Shūkyō to Bunka 
(Kyoto, 1982), 239–413Google Scholar.
12 San-lun Hsiian-i 
, T, 45.5b4–14. Also see Chi-tsang, Ta-p'in-ching Yu-i 
, T, 33.67a12–29.
13 For synopses of the Sūtra, Garland, see Malalasekera, George P. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 2 (Colombo: Government Press of Ceylon, 1966), 438–41Google Scholar, Cleary, Thomas, Entry into the Inconceivable (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), 171–205Google Scholar and Kumatarō, Kawada
‘Budda Kegon—Kegongyō no kōsatsu’ 
in Kawada, Kumatarō and Nakamura, Hajime
(ed.), Kegon Shisō 
(Kyoto, 1960), 21–62Google Scholar.
14 See T, 9. 679b–680c.
15 See Hui-yüan, Ta-ch'eng I-chang 
, T, 44.465a–b, Chih-i, Fa-hua Hsüan-i 
, T, 33.801a–b. Chi-tsang, Ta-p'in-ching Yu-i, T, 33.66b–c, Yüan-ts‘e, Chieh-shen-miching Su 
, Hsü Tsang-ching 
, 150 vols. (Hong Kong, 1967), 34.298b–c, K‘uei-chi, Ta-ch'eng Fa-yüan I-lin Chang 
T 45.247a–c and Fa-tsang, Hua-yen Wu-chiao Chang 
, T, 45.480b–481a.
16 The Ch'eng-shih and Ti-lun masters were experts in the Satyasiddhi-sāstra and the Dasabhūmikasūtra-sāstra respectively. See the opening paragraph of the next section.
17 See Sheng-man-ching Pao-k'u 
,. T, 37.5c23–28.
18 See Fa-hua Hsüan-i, T, 33.801b11–15.
19 The treatises of the Sarvāstivāda School, together with the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, form the main body of the Hīnayāna literature known to Chinese Buddhists. For a summary account of the Sarāvstivāda teaching of four conditions and six causes, refer to Conze, Edward, Buddhist thought in India (2nd ed. rev., London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983) 153–6Google Scholar.
20 According to the teaching of three states of provisional existence, all things are ‘provisional’ (not real) in nature because of their states of ‘being produced by causes’, ‘arising in succession’ and ‘being dependent on each other’.
21 On Chi-tsang's opinion about the relation between the ‘four creeds’ and the ‘five periods’, see Fa-hua Hsüan-lun 
, T, 34.382b26–27 and 384c3–6. The Ta-ch'eng Hüsan-lun 
does give a long criticism of the practice of identifying the teaching of the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras with the third creed. See T, 45.63c–64b.
22 See T, 25.756b18–24.
23 Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.382b27–c22.
24 See T, 8.31 Ib15–16.
25 See Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, T, 25.517a-b.
26 See T, 9.12a18–21.
27 See T, 12.447c16–18. The ‘twin trees’ were the śāla trees under which the Buddha attained nirvāṇa.
28 San-lun Hsüan-i, T, 45.5b29–c5.
29 See, for instance, the remarḱs of Pao-liang 
(444–509) recorded in Pao-liang, ed. (?), Ta-pan-nieh-p'an-ching Chi-chieh 
, T, 37.493bl 1–24.
30 See Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.63b13–29.
31 See Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.384b3–5.
32 See ibid., T, 34.384b23–24.
33 See San-lun Hsüan-i 
, T, 45.5c26–29. For the assertion in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sāstra, see T, 25.371a5–7. Refer also to Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 38.382c-383c and Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.65b for Chi-tsang's comments to the similar effect.
34 See San-lun Hsüan-i, T, 45.6a5–8. For this denunciation of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas in the Pañcaviṃsatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, see T, 8.319a24–27. For similar comments in Chi-tsang's writings, see Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 38.383c-384a and Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.65b26–cl.
35 See San-lun Hsüan-i, T, 45.6a9–13.
36 See ibid., T, 45.6a13–15.
37 Sheng-man-ching Pao-k'u, T, 37.5c8–12.
38 Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.57a26–27.
39 Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.388b16–21 and Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.65c19–24.
40 Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.388b21–24 and Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.65c24–28.
41 Fa-hua I-su 
, T, 34.518c16–17. On Chi-tsang's criticism ofthe p'an-chiao theories of his time and Chi-tsang's idea of the unity of purpose of all Mahāyāna sūtras, see Hirai Shunei, op. cit., 482–t, 494–500, Yūshō, Muranaka
‘Kajō Daishi “nizō” gi no seiritsu kō’ 
, Nanto Bukkyō 
: 22, 1969, 35–40Google Scholar, Yasumasa, Suemitsu
, ‘Kichizō kyōten-kan no haikei’ 
, Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 
29/1, 1980, 136–7Google Scholar and Hiroshi, kanno
, ‘Kichizō ni okeru Hokekyō to sho daijō kyōten no hikaku’
, Okurayama Ronshū 
19, 1986, 205–8Google Scholar.
42 On the p'an-chiao teaching of two piṭakas of Chi-tsang, see Hirai Shunei, op. cit., 500–6, Yūshō, Muranaka, op. cit., 35–54, ‘Kajō Daishi ni okeru kyōhan shisō no tenkai’ 
, in Kushida Hakushi Shōju, Kinekai
(ed.), Kōsō Den no Kenkyū 
(Tokyo, 1973), 736–40Google Scholar and Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Kichizō kyōhan no genryū’ 
, Sōtō-shū Kenkyūin Kenkyūsei Kenkyū Kiyō 
, 12, 1980, 218–29Google Scholar.
43 See nn. 23 and 28 above.
44 Ching-ming Hsüan-lun 
, T, 38.900c23–26.
45 See Fa-hua Yu-i 
, T, 34.644b4–9.
46 Refer to nn. 23 and 28 above.
47 See Jen-wang Pan-jo-ching Su 
T, 33.315b28-cl and Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.384c 6–8. The fact that Bodhiruci had divided Buddhist teachings into the two categories of ‘partial’ and ‘full’ is also mentioned in Chih-i. Fa-hua Hsüan-i, T, 33.801b10–11.
48 Sheng-man-ching Pao-k'u, T, 37.6a15–17.
49 It is noteworthy that Ching-ying Hui-yüan, a leading Ti-lun master and a contemporary of Chi-tsang, had also adopted the division of ‘two pitakas’ as the mainstay of his p'an-chiao teaching. The possibility of mutual influence between the two masters has been discussed, but no definite conclusion has yet been reached. See discussions in Hirai Shunei, op. cit., 504–6, Muranaka Yūshō, ‘Kajō Daishi “nizō” gi no seiritsu kō ’, 51, and Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Daijō Gishō ‘shūkyō kyōshaku gi’ ni okeru Jōyōji Eon san no mondai-Kichizō chosho to no taihi’ 
, Sōtō-shū Kenkyūin Kenkyūsei Kenkyū Kiyō, 13, 1981, 217–33Google Scholar.
50 Refer to n. 9 above.
51 San-lun Hsüan-i, T, 45.10c14–18.
52 ibid., T, 45.3a3–8.
53 See, for example, Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.854c16–19.
54 See San-lun Hsüan-i, T, 45.5b23–24.
55 Chung-kuan-lun Su 
, T, 42.160b6–8. For other remarks of Chi-tsang to the similar effect, refer to ibid., 14a6–7 and Fa-hua I-su, T, 34.501b 14–16.
56 Sheng-man-ching Pao-k'u, T, 37.6a18–20.
57 On Kumārajīva's followers’ opinion about the Lotus Sūtra, see Ōchō, Enichi (ed.), Hokke Shisō 
(Kyoto, 1969), 224–33Google Scholar and Nitsusen, Inari
Hokekyō Ichijō Shisō no Kenkyū 
(Tokyo, 1975), 29–35Google Scholar.
58 We speak here as if the Lotus Sūtra teaches the existence of four vehicles, viz. the śrāvaka vehicle, the pratyekabuddha vehicle, the bodhisattva vehicle and the Buddha vehicle. However, there is also the opinion that the bodhisattva vehicle and the Buddha vehicle mentioned in the Lotus Sūtra actually refer to the same vehicle, so that there are in fact only three vehicles. It was formerly the general consensus that Chi-tsang was an advocate of the theory of three vehicles, but this opinion has recently been challenged. See Takao, Maruyama
, Hokke Kyōgaku Kenkyū Josetsu 
(Kyoto, 1978), pt. 1Google Scholar, chs. iv and v, Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Kichizō no Hokke Genron kan daishi “ichijō-gi” ni tsuite’ 
Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyu, 33/1 1984, 78–83Google Scholar and ‘Kichizō sanshake-setsu no ayamari ni tsuite’ 
, Sōtō-shū Kenkyūin Kenkyūsei Kenkyū Kiyḍ, 16, 1984, 42–67Google Scholar.
59 The functionalistic approach of Chi-tsang's hermeneutics can be seen from the following account he gives of the teaching of his teacher Fa-lang:
[Our] teacher further said: ‘Whatever we say [should] all be for the sake of stopping errors. When errors are stopped, speech ceases. It is just like hailstones which crush grass. When the grass is dead, the hailstones disappear. We should not adhere to words and form opinions. If we adhere to words and form opinions, we shall fall into errors once again and cannot attain deliverance.’ (Chung-kuan-lun Su, T, 42.27b 13–16).
That is, Buddhist ideas and theories are formulated not as eternal truths depicting the constituents and the essence of the ultimate reality, but are invented as instruments to check errors. Consequently, they should be abandoned immediately once they have fulfilled their intended function. Chi-tsang is highly hostile to any tendency to divorce scriptural teachings from their original function of refuting falsehoods and to treat Buddhist doctrines as fixed dogmas. Again quoting Falang, he laments how often truth, wisdom and meditation become additional obstacles on the path of enlightenment because of the deliberate frame of mind of the practitioners:
Further, whenever my teacher, the Reverend Master of the Hsing-huang [Monastery] 
, ascended the high seat, he often said as follows: ‘Practitioners of the Way want to foresake the false ways and seek the True Way, and thus are bound by [their longing for] the Way. Practitioners of meditation [try to] stop disturbances and seek calmness, and thus are bound by [their fondness for] meditation. Pursuers of scholarship claim that there is wisdom [to be cultivated], and thus are bound by [their love of] wisdom.’ They further say, ‘We should practise contemplating [the truth of] non-origination so as to eliminate the mind of acquisition.’ As a consequence, they are bound by [the idea of] non-origination. Living in the midst of bondages, they want to abandon bondages, not really knowing that [their attempts to abandon bondages] are all [additional causes of] bondages. (Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.874b15–20).
60 See Chi-tsang's own account of this change in the Fa-hua-ching T'ung-liieh 
, Hsü Tsang-ching 43.1c4–5. Suemitsu Yasumasa points out that among Chi-tsang's twenty-six extant works, five are connected with the Lotus Sūtra, making up around 30% of the total volume of the Master's extant writings. See his paper ‘Kichizō no Hokekyō kaishaku ni tsuite’ 
Indogaku Bukkyō-gaku Kenkyū, 32/1, 1983, 239Google Scholar. For information about Chi-tsang's writings on the Lotus Sūtra, refer to Maruyama Takao, op. cit., 67–75.
61 Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.364b8–9
62 Fa-hua Yu-i, T, 34.647c18–19.
63 See, for instance, Fa-hua I-su, T, 34.485b20–26 and Chung-kuan-lun Su, T, 42.30c24–27.
64 On Chi-tsang's attempt to harmonize the teaching of the Lotus Sūtra with that of the Madhyamaka treatises, see Seijun, Satō
, ‘Kichizō no okeru Chūron kaishaku no’ 
’, in Ryūju Kyōgaku no Kenkyū 
, Mibu, Taishun
(ed), (Tokyo, 1983), 341–57Google Scholar and Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Kichizō no Hokekyō kaishaku ni tsuite ’, op. cit., 239–42Google Scholar.
65 On Chi-tsang's theory of three dharma-wheels, see Hirai Shunei, op. cit., 506–10, Yūsho, Muranaka, ‘Kajō Daishi no kyōhan shisō’ 
Taishō Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō (Bungaku-bu Bukkyōgaku-bu) 
, 57, 1972, 20–23Google Scholar and Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Kichizō no nizō sanrin setsu’ 
Bukkyōgaku 
, 15, 1983, 77–82Google Scholar.
66 See Yüan-tse, , Chieh-shen-mi-ching Su, Hsü tsang-ching, 34.412d8–113a7Google Scholar, Hui-yüan 
, K'an-ting Chi 
, Hsü Tsang-ching, 5.8d15–9a4 and Ch'eng-kuan 
(738–839), Huayen-ching Su 
, T, 35.508c16–21. For a comparative study of these accounts of Paramārtha's p'an-chiao scheme of three dharma-wheels, see Yukio, Sakamoto
, Keogn Kyōgaku no Kenkyū 
(Kyoto, 1956), 209–12Google Scholar.
67 See, for example, Fa-hua I-su, T, 34.453cl-8, 484a5–16 and Fa-hua Yu-i, T, 34.634c23–635a4.
68 See n.14 above.
69 See T, 9.11b and 21c.
70 Fa-hua Yu-i, T, 34.634c16–23. For other passages in Chi-tsang's writings to the similar effect, refer to Fa-hua I-su, T, 34.494b22-cl and Chung-kuan-lun Su, T, 42.8b23–29.
71 This remark refers to the famous parable of the burning house found in the Lotus Sūtra, T, 9.12b–13c.
72 Fa-hua Yu-i, T, 34.635a5–8.
73 T, 9.25c20–22.
74 See Fa-hua l-su, T, 34.473c8–10, 476b5–6 and Fa-hua-ching T'ung-lüeh, Hsü Tsang-ching, 43.14c7-ll.
75 See Fa-hua Hsüan-tun, T, 34.367a12–b17, 369c17–24 and Ta-cheng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.43a12–22.
76 For the parable as found in the Lotus Sūtra, see T, 9.43a7-blO.
77 For Chi-tsang's explanation of the relation between the Lotus Sūtra and the Nirvāna Sūtra, see Fa-hua Hsüan-lun, T, 34.373c12–20, 441b20–27, Fa-hua I-su, T, 34.61 lc24–27, Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.886a2-ll and Ta-ch'eng Hsüan-lun, T, 45.42c25M3a4, 57c26–58a6, 65c1–9. Chi-tsang's high esteem for the Lotus Sūtra, as evinced in the theory of three dharma-wheels, brings to mind Chih-i, Chi-tsang's elder contemporary and the founder of the T'ien-t'ai School 
, who goes further to take the Lotus Sūtra as the primary scriptural source of his teaching. In point of fact, Chih-i's opinion on the relation between the Lotus Sūtra and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra closely resembles that of Chi-tsang: Chih-i refers to the latter as ‘the teaching which gathers up’ (chün-shih chiao 
), by which he means that the main function of the Nirvāṅa Sūtra is to gather together and convert those practitioners who fail to react to the supreme teaching of the Lotus Sūtra. For more information about Chih-i's opinion on the relation between these two sūtras refer to Leon Hurvitz, Chih-i (Bruxelles: L'Institut Beige des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1962), 237–44 and my paper, ‘The Lotus Sūtra and Garland Sūtra according to the T‘ien-t'ai and Hua-yen schools in Chinese Buddhism’, T'oung Pao, 74, 1988, 59–61Google Scholar. Those interested in the highly complex problem of the historical and doctrinal links between the teachings of Chi-tsang and Chih-i may consult Shunei, Hirai, Hokke Mongu no Seiritsu ni Kansuru Kenkyū 
(Tokyo, 1985)Google Scholar.
78 Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.899b13-c1.
79 The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas were not among the thirty-four forms and eighteen groups of sentient beings who gathered around the Buddha in the opening scene of the Garland Sūtra.
80 See T, 9.10a20–21.
81 Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.900b1–11. For other remarks of Chi-tsang to the similar effect, see Fa-hua Yu-i, T, 34.645a8–21.
82 To readers familiar with T‘ien-t‘ai teaching, the close resemblance between Chi-tsang's scheme of ‘four periods’ and Chih-i's p'an-chiao scheme of ‘five periods’ must appear striking. In fact, the only major difference between the two is the attribution of the Vimala Sūtra and the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras to two different periods in the latter scheme. On the p'an-chiao scheme of five periods of the T‘ien-t‘ai School, see Chegwan, 
(d.971), T'ien-t'ai Buddhism: an outline of the fourfold teachings, transl. by the Buddhist Translation Seminar of Hawaii, (Tokyo, Daiichi Shobō, 1983), 55–69Google Scholar and Leon Hurvitz, op. cit., 230–44.
83 See T, 45.5c9–20. For studies which stress the importance of the ideas of ‘covertness’ and ‘overtness’ in Chi-tsang's p'an-chiao teaching, refer to the essays of Muranaka Yūshō mentioned in n. 42 above. Further discussions on these ideas and on Chi-tsang's view of the different roles played by various Mahāyāna sūtras can be found in Hirai Shunei, op. cit., 484–93, 501–4, Yasumasa, Suemitsu, ‘Kichizō no nizō sanrin setsu’, Kimura Kiyotaka 
, Shoki Chūgoku Kegon Shisō no Kenkyū 
(Tokyo, 1977), 230–6Google Scholar, Hiroshi, Kanno, ‘Kichizō ni okeru Hokekyō to sho daijō kyōten no hikaku’, 205–70, and ‘Kichizō no kyōten kan’ 
, Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, 30/1, 1981, 347–50Google Scholar.
84 Fa-hua Hüsan-lun, T, 34.386c8–12.
85 See ibid., T, 34.384c19–28 and 385c8–14.
86 Ching-ming Hsüan-lun, T, 38.900c11–13.
