〈析論吉藏之時間觀–以《中觀論疏》與《大乘玄論》對「三世實有」之論辯為考察中心〉 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. 國立政治大學宗教研究所碩士論文. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‟s Mādhyamika Thought 治. 立. 政. 大. 學. n. i Un. 研究生：白立冰. Ch. engchi. 中華民國 100 年 6 月. sit. io. al. 先生. er. Nat. 指導教授：林鎮國. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 1. v.

(2) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 2. 國立政治大學博碩士論文全文上網授權書 National ChengChi University Letter of Authorization for Theses and Dissertations Full Text Upload 本授權書所授權之論文為授權人在國立政治大學宗教研究所系所 99 學. 政治大 This form attests that the Division of the Department of Graduate Institute of 立 Religious Studies at National ChengChi University has received a Master 年度第二學期取得碩士學位之論文。. ‧ 國. 學. degree thesis/dissertation by the undersigned in the semester of 99 academic year.. ‧. y. Nat. 論文題目（Title）：〈析論吉藏之時間觀–以《中觀論疏》與《大乘玄論》對「三世實有」之論辯為考察中心〉 ( Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise. n. al. Ch. er. io. 指導教授（Supervisor）：林鎮國老師. sit. Master Jizang's Mādhyamika Thought ). i Un. v. 立書人同意非專屬、無償授權國立政治大學，將上列論文全文資料以數位化等各種方式重製後收錄於資料庫，透過單機、網際網路、無線網路或其他公開傳輸方式提供用戶進行線上檢索、瀏覽、下載、傳輸及列印。國立政治大學並得以再授權第三人進行上述之行為。. engchi. The undersigned grants non-exclusive and gratis authorization to National ChengChi University, to re-produce the above thesis/dissertation full text material via digitalization or any other way, and to store it in the database for users to access online search, browse, download, transmit and print via single-machine, the Internet, wireless Internet or other public methods. National ChengChi University is entitled to reauthorize a third party to perform the above actions. 論文全文上載網路公開之時間（Time of Thesis/Dissertation Full Text. Uploading for Internet Access）：網際網路（The Internet） ■ 立即公開.

(3) 3. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. ● 立書人擔保本著作為立書人所創作之著作，有權依本授權書內容進行各項授權，且未侵害任何第三人之智慧財產權。 The undersigned guarantees that this work is the original work of the undersigned, and is therefore eligible to grant various authorizations according to this letter of authorization, and does not infringe any intellectual property right of any third party. ● 依據 96 年 9 月 22 日 96 學年度第 1 學期第 1 次教務會議決議，畢業論文既經考試委員評定完成，並已繳交至圖書館，應視為本校之檔案，不得再行抽換。關於授權事項亦採一經授權不得變更之原則辦理。 According to the resolution of the first Academic Affairs Meeting of the first semester on September 22nd, 2007,Once the thesis/dissertation is passed. 政治大. after the officiating examiner's evaluation and sent to the library, it will be considered as the library's record, thereby changing and replacing of the record is disallowed. For the matter of authorization, once the authorization is granted to the library, any further alteration is disallowed，立書人：白立冰. 立. ‧ 國. 學. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. (dd/mm/yyyy). ‧. 簽名(Signature)：白立冰中華民國年月日 Date of signature ： ___07_______/___28_______/____2011______. Ch. engchi. i Un. v.

(4) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 4. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v.

(5) 5. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. Acknowledgements Many thanks to my advisor, Prof. Lin Chenkuo for offering his generous insights and guidance at every step of the path of composing this M.A. thesis. Thanks to Prof. Ching Keng and Prof. Hans-Rudolf Kantor for their continuous criticism and suggestions, without their guidance this thesis would never have come to fruition. Much love to Dad, Mom, Katy, and Sho.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v.

(6) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 6. TIME AND LIBERATION IN THREE-TREATISE MASTER JÍZÀNG‟S MĀDHYAMIKA THOUGHT 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 5. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION –THE PAST AND PRESENT OF EAST ASIAN MĀDHYAMIKA THOUGHT ...... 8 CHAPTER 1: THE CHINESE MĀDHYAMIKAS -- LINEAGE AND AUTHORITY IN THE THREE TREATISE “SCHOOL”.......................................................................................................................... 17 CURRENTS AND COUNTERCURRENTS ............................................................................................. 23 ―REFUTING FALSE VIEWS AND MANIFESTING THE TRUE TEACHING‖ 破邪顯正 .............................. 26 CHAPTER 2 -- THE MĀDHYAMIKA ANALYSIS OF TIME ................................................................ 33 Sēngzhào and the Early Chinese Mādhyamikas ........................................................................ 33. 政治大 (Z ) ............................................... 40. Things Do Not Move ................................................................................................................ 34 The Zhōnglùn and the Doctrine of Fourfold Negation ............................................................... 38. 立. JÍZÀ NG‘S COMMENTARY ON THE ZHŌNGLÙN. HŌNGGUĀNLÙN SHŪ. The Chapter Divisions 科判 of the Zhōngguānlùn-shū............................................................... 41. ‧ 國. 學. “Analysis of the Three Conditioned Charactersitics”〈觀三相品〉......................................... 42 CHAPTER 3: ON THREE-TREATISE MASTER JÍZÀNG‟S REFUTATION OF SARVĀSTIVA ....... 51. ‧. THE EXISTENCE OF REAL FACTORS THROUGHOUT THE THREE PERIODS OF TIME ............................. 55. y. Nat. DHARMATRĀTA 達磨多羅 ............................................................................................................ 60. sit. GHOṣAKA 瞿沙人 ......................................................................................................................... 63. al. er. io. VASUMITRA 和須密 ...................................................................................................................... 64. v. n. BUDDHADEVA 佛陀人 .................................................................................................................. 67. Ch. i Un. DĀRṣṬANTIKAS 譬喻部 ................................................................................................................ 71. engchi. CHAPTER 4: JÍZÀNG‟S ANALYSIS OF TIME.................................................................................... 73 THE DOCTRINE OF THE THIRD TRUTH AND THE PROBLEM OF TEMPORALITY .................................... 78 THE TEMPORALITY OF BECOMING THE BUDDHA ............................................................................ 82 THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE VERBAL TEACHING ........................................................................ 88 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 90 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................... 91 Sources in Canonical Collections............................................................................................. 91 Secondary References .............................................................................................................. 95.

(7) 7. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‟s Mādhyamika Thought Ernest Billings Brewster白立冰 Graduate Institute for Religious Studies at National Chèngchì University 國立政治大學宗教研究所. Abstract In this thesis, I hope to make a small contribution to the study of of Chinese Buddhism. The preliminary discussion in the first and second chapters takes the form. 政治大. of a historiographical overview of some concepts that developed within the Three-Treatise tradition of Chinese Buddhism between the 5th and 6th centuries. This serves to illuminate the intellectual practices of this unique tradition of thought, which has been largely underrepresented in Western-language studies of Buddhism. In the subsequent chapter, I will clarify the exposition of these ideas within Master Jízàng‘s commentary on the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikās《中論》, the Zhōngguānlùn-shū《中觀論疏》 (completed in 608 C.E.). The examination of this work and its immediate. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. er. io. sit. y. Nat. contexts promises to shed light upon the development of Mādhyamika thought in East Asia, especially with regards to the basic exegetical strategies of the Three Treatise tradition. The third and fourth chapters elucidates Jízàng‘s interpretation and commentary upon two seminal chapters within Nāgārjuna‘s Zhōnglùn, the ―Contemplation of the Three Characteristics‖〈觀三相品〉 and the ―Contemplation of Time‖〈觀時品〉. The. n. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. content of these two chapters reflect the doctrinal and philosophical diversity of the intellectual terrain in early 7th-century China. Jízàng‘s analysis in these chapters unfolds into a systematic refutation of the ―false doctrines‖ of the Indian Ābhidharmika sects, which, in turn, illuminate the divergent intellectual currents of Jízàng‘s milieu, as well as revealing the encyclopedic breadth of Jízàng‘s Zhōngguānlùn-shū as well as other monumental commentarial works of the period. The examination of Jízàng‘s refutation of the Sarvāstivādins in the fourth chapter – an as of yet unexplored facet of his considerable corpus – serves to enlarge our current comprehension of both Chinese intellectual culture during this critical juncture in Chinese history, and to enrich our understanding of the variegated exegetical and philosophical approaches of the great thinkers of 6th- and 7th-century China. The issues of time and transformation in Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika thought implicate contending theoretical models deriving from Indian Buddhist doctrine, which are, in.

(8) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 8. turn subjected to Jízàng‘s trenchant analysis along the lines of his reading of Nāgārjuna‘s and Āryadeva‘s philosophical works. It might be noted, as no explicit ―refutation‖ of rival Buddhist or non-Buddhist traditions is offered in Nāgārjuna‘s verses themselves, the exploration of this aspect of the Chinese commentarial tradition reveals an aspect of Mādhyamika analysis that has remained opaque in a field of study dominated by the reading of the South Asian and Tibetan canons. Although defined within traditional East Asian historiography as a ―school‖ of Chinese Buddhism stemming from the East Asian ―appropriation‖ of the Indian śāstra tradition, the characteristically Mādhyamika approach of Jízàng‘s work extends to the interpretation of the Mahāyāna sutras, ―indigenous‖ Chinese philosophical currents, and even ―apocryphal‖ Chinese Buddhist compositions. This intertextual dynamic, encompassing both śāstra and sūtra traditions, as well as indigenous Xuánxué and East Asian commentarial modes, coalesces in Jízàng‘s seminal work, the. 政治大. Zhōngguānlùn-shū. It is the project of this thesis to offer a useful point of reference from which to examine some of the intellectual factors underlying the development of Mādhyamika Buddhist hermeneutics in this critical period.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Introduction –the Past and Present of East Asian Mādhyamika Thought. ‧. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. The Mādhyamika teaching of emptiness – of śūnyatā – stands out as one of the doctrinal cornerstones of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Nāgārjuna‘s insight into the emptiness of conditioned arising「緣起性空」serves as one of the basic catechisms of the. n. Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions. But what does the teaching of śūnyatā offer for our understanding of the issues of temporality and transformation? Is ceaseless change an inescapable ―fact‖, or is there an immutable, ―permanent‖ reality beyond impermanence? Are the fluctuations of time and the transformation of entities that this engenders, merely illusions which. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. veil a broader, immutable Reality? Is time purely of illusive, delusory character, or does time also serve a positive role in Nāgārjuna‘s thought? Furthermore, what might this constructive function of time be in the context of Buddhist praxis? These basic questions concerning the philosophical import of Nāgārjuna‘s Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikās《中論》have continuously generated contenting readings of this seminal treatise, and have contributed to a well as a growing body of commentarial literature. In recent years scholars such as Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff have fruitfully probed the commentarial tradition associated with Nāgārjuna in the South Asian and Tibetan canons. And yet, what contributions or useful points of reference might the East Asian tradition of Mādhyamaka thought.

(9) 9. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. offer for this broader discourse? The issues of time and transformation unfold in the Mahāyana scriptures in the Chinese canon, whose verses often eulogize the Buddhas of the three times 三世諸佛. In embracing a cosmological worldview encompassing a multitude of Buddha-s and Bodhisattvas, the root texts of the East Asian canon, such as the Lotus Sūtra, develop an inter-referential approach to the Buddha‘s many avatars and manifestations throughout the past, present, and future. As taught by the Lotus, the critical reflection into the nature of the Buddha‘s past manifestations reveal them to be mere apparitions, specters of the Buddha‘s previous actions and past lives, and yet all pointing towards the eventual prospect of the Buddha‘s final and perfect awakening. Likewise, the final enlightenment of the Buddha harkens back to his past actions and identities. Each of. 政治大. the scenarios and parables of the Lotus is interwoven into the larger narrative of transformation. The reflective awareness into the broader dynamic of the Buddha‘s transformation, implicates all sentient beings, whom, as the Lotus proclaims, in turn receive the assurance (vyākaraṇa 授記) of their eventual becoming a Buddha. Such. 立. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. vatic announcements are part and parcel of the ―prophetic‖ genre of the later chapters of the Lotus Sūtra such as the ―Chapter on Peaceful Practices‖〈安樂行品〉. In accordance with the Sūtra‘s teaching, the ―Dharma-body‖ (dharmakāya 法身) of the Buddha, universaly pervades the three times 三世.. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. It is the potentiality for critical reflection into the issue of temporality -- inherent within the Lotus and the Mahāyāna sūtra-s -- that informs the Chinese Buddhists‘. v. critical appropriation and interpretation of the śāstra tradition. Indeed, the Sūtra texts – such as Kumārājīva‘s translation of the Lotus – afforded Master Jízàng 嘉祥吉藏大師 (549-623 C.E.) and other renowned Buddhist scholiasts with a framework for. Ch. engchi. i Un. critical reflection into the overwhelming, and seemingly contradictory teachings of the śāstra literature. On the other hand, it the very ambiguity of the Lotus and other sūtras, that offered a fertile ground for fruitful probing into the often terse and opaque passages of the śāstra-s. The examination of the contents of the śāstra-commentaries of the 6th and 7th centuries, thus reveals a mutual enhancement between sūtras and śāstra-s, each of which serves to augment the other as a source of doctrinal authority and to validate its philosophical and religious claims. And yet, this pervasive context of inter-referentiality that underlies the act/production of exegesis by the Chinese Masters on the śāstra literature, such as MMK, is too often overlooked. Indeed, the consideration of the Chinese commentarial tradition in its history sheds light upon a multi-faceted hermeneutical model, informed by both intra-textual and inter-textual dynamics. Amidst the many received layers of.

(10) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 10. śāstra interpretation, which elements are appropriated from the sūtra literature, which rejected, as well the understanding of any specific element of the text, are all informed by overlapping synchronic contexts. Likewise, the examination of the Zhōnglùn and its interpretation in history, likewise, implicates a diachronic context of gradual transmission and shifting intellectual trends vis-à-vis the emergence of new texts through time. Such is the relationship, for instance, between successive Chinese translations of the the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, on the question of whether or not the icchantika 一闡提 possess the inherent seed of enlightenment. Rather than an appeal to any particular sūtra text as an inviolable source of doctrinal authority, in matters of interpretation, the Chinese Buddhist masters of the 6th and 7th centuries instead pursued a mutually complementary engagement of the śāstra-s and the received sūtra literature: 1 As fascicle 5 of the Treatise on the Profundities of the Mahāyāna《大乘玄論》reads:. 政治大 The Śāstra-Master [i.e. Nāgārjuna] receives the teaching of the Two Truths and thus 立 gives rise to the two cognitions [of upāya 權 and prājña 實]. Truth (satya 諦) and. ‧ 國. 學. cognition are non-dual, for truth serves to form cognition, thus both [truth and cognition] are known as ―truths.‖ The Buddha employs the two cognitions to speak in reference to. ‧. the Two Truths. Truth and cognition are non-dual, for cognition serves to form truth, thus both [truth and cognition] are known as ―cognitions.‖ Thus, the Śāstra-Master. y. sit. discourse…. Nat. employs the Two Truths as the way of discourse, and the two cognitions as the object of. al. er. io. The Śāstra-Master [Nāgārjuna] employs the Two Truths as a corrective, and the two. v. n. cognitions as ancillary [to the Two Truths]. Thus, the Sūtra-s take wisdom as their. Ch. i Un. capability, and the Two Truths as their object. The śāstra-s take the truth as their. engchi. capability, and wisdom as their object. Thus, the capability of the sūtra-s serves as the object of the śāstra-s and the capability of the śāstra-s serves as the object of the sūtra-s; the object of the sūtra-s serves as the capability of the śāstra-s and the object of the śāstra-s serves as the capability of the sūtra-s. It is moreover so that the ancillary features of the sūtra-s provide the corrective for the śāstras and that the corrective for the sūtra-s furnishes the ancillary elements of the śāstra-s.‖ This ancillary element is not really an ancillary aspect, thus it is neither the capability nor object, neither ancillary nor central, neither sūtra nor śāstra, neither the teacher (i.e., the Buddha) nor disciple. In being neither the capability nor the object it is both the capability and the object; in being neither the ancillary nor central aspect it is both ancillary and central; being neither sūtra nor śāstra is is both sūtra and śāstra; being. 1. T45, no. 1853, p. 73, c04-7..

(11) 11. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. neither disciple nor teacher it is both teacher and disciple. Thus the karmic conditions of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, teachers and disciples emerge as mutually complementary, and together this is called the ―Middle Way‖『論主稟二諦，教發生二智。諦、智不二。以諦成智，故通受諦名。佛以二智說於二諦。諦、智不二，以智成諦，故通受智名。故論主以二諦為能論，以二智為所論……論主以二諦為正，二智為傍。故經以智為能，以諦為所。故論以諦為能，以智為所。是則經能為論所，論能為經所。經所為論能，論所為經能；亦是經傍為論正，論傍為經正，經正為論傍。此傍則非傍，故非能非所，非傍非正，不經不論，不師不弟；非能非所而能所，非傍正而傍正，不經論而經論，不師不弟而師弟，是佛菩薩經論師弟因緣相成，並得名中也。』. 2. 政治大. The edifice of Jizang‘s analysis of the Buddhist teachings is his notion of Two Truths, and their relation to the ―two cognitions‖ 二智 (or ―two wisdoms‖ 二慧) of upāya 權 and prajñā 實. The dynamic between these concepts serves to link and to. 立. ‧ 國. 學. reconcile the varied and often multivalent teachings of the sūtras and śāstras. In accordance with this hermeneutical framework, the sūtras take the Buddha‘s. ‧. enlightened cognition (prajñā) and as their point of departure, which in turn may be used to explicate the ―truth‖ (satya 諦) of the śāstra-s as its object. Likewise, the Two. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. Truths provide the point of departure for the śāstra-s, which serves to elucidate the insights of the Mahāyāna sūtras. The mutually complimentary relationship between sūtra-s and śāstra-s extends. n. iv n C concludes that what is primary, namely h e nthegBuddha‘s i Ugnosis (jñāna 智) is secondary h c for disciples, what is primary for disciples, truth (satya), is secondary for Buddha; the to the relationship between Buddha, the teacher, and his disciples. And Jizang. sūtras and śāstras are likewise. Given the basic capability of the śāstra text as a ―corrective‖ 正 to the sometimes inconsistent teachings of the various sūtra-s, it is for good reason that Jízàng selects Nāgārjuna‘s Zhōnglùn as the doctrinal cornerstone of his exegetical system. This notion of the śāstra text as ―skillful‖ means to reveal the fundamental teachings of the Buddha, is critical to Jízàng‘s reinvisioning of the Mahāyāna Two Truths as expedient ―verbal teachings‖ 教諦 . And yet, eventually, there is no hard-and-fast distinction between either śāstra or sūtra, for the Middle Way elides over the gap between primary and secondary, capability and object. Jizang describes this understanding of mutual independence as the revelation of the Truth of the Middle. Thus, for Jizang, the ―hermeneutic circle‖ between sūtra-s and śāstra-s does 2. T45, no. 1853, p. 73, c03..

(12) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 12. not lead to a critical impasse, but rather reveals the conciliatory pontential of both sūtra-s and śāstra-s to illuminate each other. Thus, to the Chinese scholiasts such as Jízàng, the Zhōnglùn furnished a platform for religious engagement into the diversity of the Buddhist teachings. Furthermore, given its status as a text steeped in the Indian tradition of argumentation and debate, the Zhōnglùn further helped to formulate Chinese thinkers‘ critiques of rival textual traditions, and with reference to this root text, bolstered the rhetorical effectiveness of their polemics by appealing to the authority of the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna. There is the sense in Jízàng‘s work that the Zhōnglùn text itself serves as the ―comprehensive discourse‖ 通論 3 that subsumes the other two Mādhyamaka treatises in Chinese translation, the Śata-śāstra《百論》and the Twelve Gates Treatise 《十二門論》. Naturally, these two śāstra-s may perhaps be best viewed as in themselves ―commentaries,‖ or as broader explanations of the Zhōnglùn and its. 政治大. philosophical ramifications by Nāgārjuna and his Mādhyamika successor, the Bodhisattva Āryadeva 提婆菩薩.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. The period of the Southern-Dynasties through the Suí and early-Táng witnessed an efflorescence of Mādhyamika studies. The large body of commentarial literature that emerged from the eristical intellectual terrain of this period, centered around the. ‧. interpretation of Nāgārjuna‘s Middle Stanzas and its ramifications to such core doctrines as the Two Truths and the Buddha-nature. In this paper I focus on Master Jízàng‘s 嘉祥吉藏大師 (549-623 C.E.). y. Nat. sit. al. er. io. monumental contribution to Mādhyamika studies, the Commentary on the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Zhōngguānlùn shū)《中觀論疏》(completed in 608 C.E.).. v. n. This understudied commentary provides a point of reference from which to investigate the intellectual underpinnings of the Three Treatise (Sānlùn) tradition of Chinese Buddhist exegesis. Through study of the Zhōngguānlùn shū, I seek to address certain theoretical implications of Jízàng‘s interpretation of Kumārajīva‘s鳩摩羅什 (343-413 C.E.) Chinese translation of the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna‘s龍樹菩薩famous. Ch. engchi. i Un. śastra. Although recognized as the founder of a East Asian Buddhist lineage purportedly based upon an Indian predecessor, Jízàng diverged from his Indian contemporaries Candrakīrti月稱 (ca. 600-650 C.E. ) and Bhavaviveka清辯 (ca. 500-578 C.E.) in his interpretation of the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikās (MMK). Given the authoritative status of the MMK as the fountainhead of the Mādhyamika doctrine, a closer look at Jízàng‘s commentary works promises to shed light upon the cross-cultural currents of. 3. Fascicle 5 of the Discourse on the Profundities of the Māhāyana reads《大乘玄論．卷五》: ―The Zhōnglùn gains its name from the teaching of the principle, thus comprehensively discoursing on the Three Treatises.‖『《中論》從「教理」為稱，通論三論。』(T45, no. 1853, p. 71, a17).

(13) 13. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. intellectual and religious exchange that coalesce in the great scholastic traditions of medieval China. Jízàng‘s commentary offers a vantage point from which to explore the diverse and variegated intellectual interactions between Indian and Chinese Buddhists in the early 7th century. The contents of Jízàng‘s considerable corpus pose important questions for the study of Buddhist doctrinal history. What conclusions can we draw as to Jízàng‘s understanding of Abhidharma thought, based upon his selection and usage of the literature available in Chinese translation at the time? How did Jízàng‘s reading of the Sarvāstivada tradition both reflect upon and inform his exegesis on the MMK? Although Jízàng was cognizant of Nāgārjuna‘s implicit criticisms of the Ābhidharmika-s in the MMK, Jízàng seems to have been wholly unaware of the Northern-Wèi period Chinese translation of the Vigrahavyāvartanī《迴諍論》, the. 政治大 cornerstone of Nāgārjuna‘s critique of Ābhidharmika epistemology (including their 立 theories of pramāṇa). And yet, Jízàng‘s commentary on the Zhōnglùn preserves a. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. wealth of information concerning Indian philosophical debates and offers an exceedingly detailed and trenchant critique of the Sarvāstivādin theory that ―real factors exist throughout the three periods of time‖ 三世實有 . The ardently. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. ―anti-realist‖ cast of Jízàng‘s argument would rest well with even the most doctrinaire of Indian Madhyāmika-s. Given that, following Jízàng, the complex ―realist‖ ontology of the Sarvāstivadins was largely discredited within the ―mainstream‖ traditions of Chinese Buddhism, the examination of Jízàng‘s arguments against the Sarvāstivadins. i Un. v. goes far to reveal the some of the main historical factors underlying the emergence of the Mādhyamaka philosophy to its place of primacy within the early Sinitic Buddhist systems. Jízàng‘s oeuvre is thus of indisputable historical importance in its potential to shed light upon the contours of this development. The broad currency of Jízàng‘s Mādhaymika interpretations in later Buddhist circles is attested to by the 8th-century sub-commentary by the early Heian-period scholiast Anchō安澄 (763-814), the Chūron-soki《中論疏記》.. Ch. engchi. The dynamic interplay between exegesis and eisegesis, epistemology and soteriology, lies at the heart of the East Asian tradition of Mādhyamaka thought. Given the intimate relationship between epistemology and theories of religious praxis in this period of Chinese scholastic literature, an accurate understanding of Jízàng‘s Zhōngguānlùn shū is critical to our understanding of the development of Buddhist doctrine across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. In this thesis, I shall first address the relevant historiographical perspectives on the Buddhist learning of the Southern Dynasties, and shall continue to examine the.

(14) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 14. textual sources for Jízàng‘s commentary in order to clarify the intellectual contexts from which his work emerged. The reassessment of Jízàng‘s corpus is crucial to understanding a rich tradition of critical reflection into the Zhōnglùn that left a lasting mark on the transmission and development of Mādhyamika Buddhism across Korea and Japan. Jízàng‘s considerable corpus offers a point of reference from which to explore the development of the Chinese Mādhyamika teaching and its ramifications for the Buddhist conception of temporality and transformation. The philosophical issue of time and the hermeneutical concerns that it implicates, reflect upon both a diachronic and a synchronic context (that is, the act of exegesis at the level of the composition of the text). If we assume that the broader historical dialectics contribute to the unfolding of the philosophical dialectics, then the investigation of the historical trends serves to. 政治大. inform and illuminate the understanding of the philosophical issues at stake. Pace Hans-Georg Gadamer, to ―understand‖ means to understand differently. It can be realized only in oneself; it is achieved neither through mindless adherence to textual authority, nor willful misrepresentation, neither through exegetical objectivity nor eisegetical subjectivity. On the face of it, differences between Jízàng and Nāgārjuna. 立. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. must be acknowledged, and yet it is critical to examine the factors underlying such differences. In this sense, the study of Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika interpretations may help us apprehend the transformation of Buddhist exegetical endeavor and the shifting of role of the interpreter through history. Buddhist doctrines such as theory of the Two Truths 二諦 embody the. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. v. n. potentiality to philosophical dialectics inherent within the Buddhist teachings, and thus provided a platform for such thinkers as Jízàng to investigate Nāgārjuna‘s thought. As Jízàng points out, the Two Truths are at best expedient teachings, operating at the level of provisionality and meant to refer back to the ineffable Middle Way. At the point when the Ultimate Truth is granted determinate as a ―principle‖ it. Ch. engchi. i Un. becomes the subtle object of attachment. It is due to the constant danger of reifying the Two Truths as a unitary ―principle‖ 理, that Jízàng articulates the Two Truths as a verbal teaching 約教, rather than as a determinate ―principle‖約理. 4 This tension between contending models of the Two Truths reveals certain underlying hermeneutical concerns. Critical to Jízàng‘s didactic stance is his conception of the Two Truths as verbal teachings which, according to the Chinese 4. Whalen Lai has drawn our attention to this important distinction between Jízàng‘s interpretation of the Two Truths and that of the Buddhist Masters at the powerful Kāishàn monastery 開善寺 – see Prof. Lai‘s article, ―Once More on the Two Truths: What Does Chi-tsang Mean by the Two Truths as 'Yüeh-chiao 約教'?‖ Religious Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec. 1983), pp. 505-521..

(15) 15. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. Mahāyāna view, serve as didactic tools or expedient means guiding all sentient beings to eventual emancipation. This notion is inherent in Nagārjuna‘s verses which state that ―The various Buddhas speak the dharma on behalf of sentient beings in accordance with the Two Truths‖「諸佛依二諦；為眾生說法」.5 The Buddhist teaching itself, undergoes a transformation in time – diachronically -- although it is the ―sudden‖ revelation of the unreal and ultimately illusory nature of the Conventional that marks the synchronic climax of this religious progression. This transformation from concealed to un-concealed, from gradual cultivation to sudden realization, traces the soteriological evolution of the Three Vehicles prior to their ultimate convergence into the Unitary Vehicle of the ekayāna 一乘, as in the famous metaphor from the Lotus.. 政治大. The large body of literature that emerged from these cultural developments yields a variety of perspectives from which to explore the radical changes in religion and philosophy during the Southern Dynasties (ca. 420-589) and Suí periods (581-631). These overlapping intellectual contexts and cultural interactions, yield a vast body of literature, including sūtra and śāstra commentaries, as well as individual. 立. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. philosophical works and discourses. Although it is difficult to ignore the broad cultural ramifications of these intellectual transformations, in this paper I shall explore the issues germane to the transmission and interpretation of the Zhōnglùn within the textual communities of the 6th and 7th centuries. Of course, any discussion of early Mādhyamika thought in China cannot avoid. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. v. addressing Richard Robinson‘s monumental contribution to the field -- Early Mādhyamika in India and China.6 The central issue that Robinson addresses in this work is how the appropriation or ―borrowing‖ of linguistic, rhetorical, and logical aspects of Indian Mādhyamika texts shaped the development of the Mādhyamika system of thought in East Asia during the 5th and 6th centuries. Robinson thus engages. Ch. engchi. i Un. the broader topical issue of the ―transmission‖ of thought across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. While casting a keen analytical eye at the ―selective‖ application and appropriation of terminology by the Chinese thinkers, he views Mādhyamika thought as an essentially coherent and continuous development spanning the geographical regions of ―India‖ and ―China.‖ In the following passage, Richard Robinson illuminates some of the 5. Dàshèng xuánlùn《大乘玄論‧卷一》: ―The Two Truths are solely the gates of the verbal teaching, and do not pertain to the ontological truth.‖『二諦唯是教門，不關境理。』T45, no. 1853, p. 15, a17. 6. Richard H. Robinson, Early Mādhyamika in India and China, (New York: Samuel Weiser, 1978)..

(16) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 16. methodological presuppositions underlying his 1978 study: My system is an abstraction from the Mādhyamika systems which in turn describe the views of their Hīnayāna, Tīrthika, and Chinese opponents, which systems in turn refer to the world. Some of the texts to be described refer to the views of Other Buddhists or non-Buddhists which in term refer to the realm of facts. Thus a description of such a Mādhyamika text is a system about a system about systems of reality. There is a series of ranks in which the present exposition is abstraction from its domain of reference rather than a property of it. No matter how homologous system and meta-system may be, they are not the same system, and the distinct ranks buts not be confused. Before two texts are compared, each is analyzed and its systems described. Since the questions asked above refer to whole systems rather than to single components, they would not be answered by piecemeal comparisons. So one-system descriptions are prior to. 政治大 having as its domain of reference the previously established descriptions of the terms of 立 the comparison. The number of terms compared is immaterial to the method however multi-system comparisons. In comparison, a further rank of description is introduced,. ‧ 國. 學. much it may affect the practicality of the procedure.7. ‧. Given that the relevant questions implicate whole systems of thought rather than single components, it is critical to situate each work within its broader linguistic, rhetorical, and philosophical contexts. Thus, Robinson proposes the Chinese source should be first situated within its immediate linguistic context – with reference to contemporary Chinese exegetical perspectives -- and then analyzed as how it fits into. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. v. n. the meta-system. First each text by one writer must be examined as a primary object, then the broader systems of thought are correlated and a unitary system emerges. In light of the ―comparative‖ approach attempted by Richard Robinson in his work on Early Mādhyamika in India and China, I believe that it may be instructive to add a few remarks on the question of ―Sinification‖ in relation to the early. Ch. engchi. i Un. transmission of Mādhyamika thought in East Asia. This is a topical issue of relevance to this thesis. In recent years Professor Robert Sharf has questioned the relevance of the notion of ―Sinification‖ in discussing the interpretation of Buddhist texts in East Asia. Sharf describes that transmission of Buddhism in medieval China was in the Chinese encountering an already ―Sinified‖ tradition, wholly mediated through the Chinese language (given that very few Chinese monks could actually read Sanskrit texts). He thus denies that there was any real dialogue between China and India as ―discrete 7. Robinson (1978), pp. 18-9.

(17) 17. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. cultural traditions.‖ 8 Sharf‘s thesis here rests upon a strong notion of linguistic relativism, in arguing that the Chinese Buddhists were never unable to comprehend or access the Indian contexts of the Buddhist works through the Chinese translations. 9 This thesis focuses on the commentarial and exegetical contexts of the Chinese appropriation of Indian Mādhyamika texts. Nevertheless, for our purposes here, the accurate reconstruction of the terminology of Indian Buddhist texts in Chinese translation is critical to the contextualization of Jízàng‘s works. It is likely that Jízàng did not have mastery of Sanskrit and read the Buddhist sūtras and śāstras only through Chinese translation, but that does not mean that he did not comprehend the terminology of such Buddhist texts. Here I disagree with Sharf‘s extreme notion of linguistic relativism in its application to works of the Chinese Buddhist Masters such. 政治大. as Jízàng, which emerge from a pluralistic context of Buddhist philosophy and incorporate various currents of Indian philosophical thought into their works.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Chapter 1: The Chinese Mādhyamikas -- Lineage and Authority in the Three Treatise “School”. ‧ sit. y. Nat. Although recognized as one of the early Sinitic ―schools‖宗 of the Suí and early. n. al. er. io. Táng periods, the intellectual practices of the Three-Treatise lineage and the status of the Middle Stanzas (Zhōnglùn) within this tradition remain largely opaque and. i Un. v. understudied topics. Traditional East Asian historiography conceives of the so-called ―Three Treatise school‖ as an exegetical tradition which revolved around three seminal Mādhyamika Treatises: that is, the Zhōnglùn along with the Sata-śāstra《百論》(Treatise in One-Hundred Verses), attributed to Nāgārjuna‘s disciple, Āryadeva 提婆, and the. Ch. engchi. 8. ―I have argued that it is historically and hermeneutically misleading to conceive of the Sinification of Buddhism in terms of a dialogue between two discrete cultural traditions. On the one hand, ‗dialogue‘ is an inappropriate metaphor for a conversation that was, in many respects, one-sided.‖ Robert Sharf, Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism –A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), p. 21. 9. Sharf (2002), p. 18: ―Given the fragmentary nature of this encounter, the alterity of Indian Buddhism would have gone largely unrecognized by Chinese Buddhists. Besides, as philosophers of cultural incommensurability have noted, the ‗other‘ is only recognized as such to the extent that it can be transcribed into a meaningful and thus to some extent familiar idiom. Like ships passing in the night, seminal features of Indian Buddhist thought simply failed to capture the attention, or at least the imagination, of the Chinese. Even in the so-called golden age of the T'ang, the primary concerns of Buddhist exegetes…lay in areas that had intellectual antecedents in pre-Buddhist China.‖.

(18) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 18. Twelve Gate Treatise《十二門論》, traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna. As Jízàng‘s Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises《三論玄義》reads: Five-hundred years following the Buddha‘s final nirvāṇa there were five-hundred sects who lacked the knowledge of the Buddha‘s intent as the path to liberation (mokṣa). Thus, while remaining attached to the various dharma-s as possessing determinite characteristics, in hearing of the teaching of emptiness it was as if drawing a sword to split their hearts. Due to the fact that the aberrant sects had lost the original intent of the Buddha‘s teachings, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva created śāstra-s to destroy such delusions. 『佛滅度後五百歲後，有五百部，不知佛意為解脫，故執諸法有決定相，聞畢竟空如刀傷心。龍樹、提婆為諸部異執失佛教意，故造論破迷也。』10. In his Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises, Jízàng articulates the polemical. 政治大. import of the śāstra tradition, envisioned by the Bodhisattvas Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva in order to guard against the ―aberrant sects‖ that had emerged in the benighted age following the final nirvāṇa of the Buddha. The ―refutation of the false views amd manifestion of the true teaching‖ 破邪顯正 -- an engaged and. 立. ‧ 國. 學. confrontational ethos – thus lies at the very heart of Jízàng‘s analysis of the Buddhist. ‧. teachings. Jízàng‘s ―refutations‖ implicates non-Buddhist (tīrthikas 外道) schools such as the Sāṁkhyans 數人, Vaiśeṣika-s 衞世師, Ābhidharmikas 毗曇, as well as proponents of the Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra《成實論》, which Jízàng vehemently criticized as a ―Hināyānist‖小乘 work. For Jízàng, the thorough refutation of ―mistaken views‖ 邪. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. n. 見 is critical to the correct articulation of the Mādhyamika stance. As TAKAKUSU Junjiro 高楠順次郎 states, the bipolar aspects of ―refutation‖ and ―manifestation‖. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. might be best viewed as a unified heuristic aimed at facilitating a religious development towards the ―Right Contemplation‖ 正觀 that is unfathomable, even ―inapprehensible‖無所得:―The refutation itself of a wrong view ought to be, at the same time, the elucidation of a right view. That is to say, refutation is identical with elucidation, for there is nothing to be acquired.‖11 For Jízàng, the refutation of myopic or deluded views is synonymous with the elucidation of the correct view. Given the rhetorical import of Jízàng‘s exegetical project, Nāgārjuna‘s critique of the Ābhidharmikas, yet implicit in the kārikas themselves, is drawn into an ardently polemical stance in Jízàng‘s writings on Mādhyamika thought: 10. 11. Sānlùn xuányì, T45, no. 1852, p. 10, a19-22.. Junjirō Takakusu, The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1978), p. 104..

(19) 19. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. The Ābhidharmika-s are attached to the existence of a fixed nature (svabhāva) and deluded as to provisional existence (saṁvṛṭi-sat), thus they lose sight of the truth of the provisional (saṁvṛṭi-satya).12 They are further unaware that provisional existence is precisely as it is and devoid of real existence [from the perspective of the Ultimate], thus they further lose sight of the unitary True Void『毘曇執定性之有迷於假有，故失世諦；亦不知假有宛然而無所有，復失一真空。』13. In Jízàng‘s Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises, the emergence of the Ābhidharmika 毘曇 sects is traced back with the Buddha‘s disciple, Śāriputra 舍利弗.14 In their reliance upon the notion of an abiding ―self-nature‖ (svabhāva 自性) of. 政治大 Treatises were thus envisioned by Jízàng as the source of the true doctrine of the 立 Ultimate Truth, and thus served as an antidote to the myopic views of the. dharma-s, the Ābhidharmika-s lose sight of Ultimate Voidness 真空. The Three. ‧ 國. 學. Ābhidharmikas:. ‧. As for the Twelve Gates Treatise, the Treatise in One-Hundred Verses, these gain their name from the teaching of the principle. The Middle Stanzas (Zhōnglùn). sit. y. Nat. gains it name from the principle of the verbal teaching; its discourse penetrates the Three Treatises, which are all capable of disclosing the Middle [way]. And yet, as. io. al. er. the Three Treatises all serve to abandon the views of discontinuity and eternity and. n. iv n C described as the teachings of Middle? U hthe i e h n c g 『若是《十二門》、《百論》，此是「理教」為名。《中論》從教理為稱，通論 to manifest the correct contemplation of the Middle, might they not all be. 三論，皆得顯「中」。然者，三論同離斷‧常，俱顯正觀，豈不俱得名「中」耶？』15. The above passage uses the metonymy of Zhōng – the Zhōng of the Zhōnglùn – 12. Zhōngguānlùnshū: ―The five-hundred Ābhidharmika sects are attached to the notion of a determinate nature which exists, thus they fall into the [mistaken view] of the existence of the self-nature (svabhāva)‖ 『五百部等執定性有，即世諦墮性有，故成偏邪。』(T42, no. 1824, p. 22, b14(07)). 13. Sānlùn xuányì《三論玄義》T45, no. 1852, p. 6, a18.. 14. Dàshèng xuánlùn《大乘玄論》, T45, no. 1853, p. 71, a14. 15. Dàshèng xuánlùn《大乘玄論‧卷五》, fascicle 5, T45, no. 1853, p. 71a17-9..

(20) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 20. to illuminate this text‘s status as the verbal teaching qua principle 教理. This emphasis on the Zhōnglùn as the ―source teaching‖宗, par excellence, goes hand in hand with the apotheosis of Kumārajīva as the direct conduit for the transmission of the Mādhyamika teaching to the Middle Realm via the Western Regions. As for the Source Teaching of Mādhyamika, one might look no further than the Zhōnglùn《中論》. Kumārajīva‘s 鳩摩羅什 translation of the Middle Stanzas in 406 C.E. was an event met with much anticipation at the capital of Cháng-ān, as attested to by Sēngruì‘s 僧叡 preface. 16 Of course, Sēngruì tells us that Kumārajīva was aided in his task by three-thousang disciples. 17 Kumārajīva‘s translation was transmitted together with a verse-by-verse commentary by Piṇgala 青目. Who is this elusive ―Blue Eyed Brahmin‖ 青目梵志 ? 18 When did he live and was his commentary composed? These recondite questions cast a large shadow over the study of the received text in the East Asian. 政治大. canon. In any case, in his commentarial works, Jízàng enumerates ―six faults‖ in Piṇgala‘s commentary, citing Master Tányǐng‘s 影師 criticisms that ―Piṇgala was strong in grasping analogies yet weak in searching for the appropriate words.‖『蓋是青目勇於取類、劣於尋文。』19. 立. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. The apotheosis of Kumārajīva‘s Chinese disciple, Sēngruì 僧叡 – often addressed by Jízàng as ―Master Ruì睿公‖, is rooted in Jízàng‘s recognition of Sēngruì. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. as has having received his master‘s mantle due to his prowess in the study of the Mādhyamika texts. As the preface to Jízàng‘s commentary on the Zhōnglùn〈中觀論疏序〉records :. Ch. i Un. v. When Kumārajīva arrived at Cháng-ān, many seized upon this opportunity to ask to. engchi. study his craft. His disciples were three-thousand, although only eight were to enter his lecture room, with Sēngruì as the leader. Kumārajīva‘s records read: “in my dotage it was Dàoróng and Sēngruì, in my youth it was Dàoshēng and Sēngzhào.” Kumārajīva would sigh and proclaim: “in the transmission of my craft, I have entrusted. Dàoróng,. Tányǐng,. and. Sēngruì!”. The. translation. of. the. 16. Hirai Shunei 平井俊榮, ―Sanron kyōgaku seiritsu-shi no sho montai -- Nansei Chirin Chūron-so ni tsuite‖〈三論教学成立史上の諸問題 –南斉・智琳《中論疏》について〉, Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of the Komazawa University 23.3 (1965), p. 143. 17. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p. 1, a10.. 18. Bocking, Brian, Nāgārjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Treatise, (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1995), pp. 395-405. 19. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p. 5, a18..

(21) 21. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. Tattvasiddhi-śāstra having been completed, Kumārajīva ordered upon Sēngruì to speak, then saying to Dàoróng: “within these debates in the śāstra there are seven refutations of the Ābhidharmika-s, all implicit in the subtle areas of the text, you need not refer back to me, for [Sēngruì] is a great talent.” Dàoróng replied: “the intellectual capacities of Sēngruì are multifaceted, he does not necessarily need to consult [the teacher.]” Thus, in analyzing the text continuously, they heartily praised the myriad achievements [of Sēngruì]. 什至長安，因從請業。門徒三千，入室唯八，睿為首領。文云：『老則融、睿；少則生、肇。』什歎曰：『傳吾業者，寄在道融、曇影、僧睿乎！』什翻《成實論》竟，命睿講之，謂道融曰：『此諍論中，有七處破阿毘曇，在言小隱，能不問：「我可謂英才」？』融曰：『其人思力有分，未必諮稟。』遂剖折無遺，眾益嗟重。20. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. As the above preface records, Tányǐng 曇影 and Sēngruì 僧睿 were adept in the study of both the Mādhyamaka texts as well as the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra《成實論》, having been instrumental in the preparation of that text‘s translation.21 As Jízàng. ‧. notes, through the study of the Mādhyamaka works, this early cohort of disciples were cognizant of certain veiled criticisms of the Ābhidharmikas, implicit within the text of the Tattvasiddhi.22 Given his reknown as a master of both the Mādhyamika treatises and the Tattvasiddhi, access to the full content of Tányǐng‘s commentary would shed light. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. i Un. v. upon the development of Chinese Buddhist exegesis during this elusive period. Unfortunately, Tányǐng‘s works are no longer extant. 23 Jizang cites Tányǐng‘s ―commentary‖疏 in the preface to the ZGLS as a source of exegetical authority --. Ch. engchi. there are extended citations of this work in Jízàng‘s various treatises and commentaries. 24 As the Subtle Meaning of the Three Treatises (Sānlùn xuányì) reads: The preface to Tányǐng‘s commentary on the Zhōnglùn reads: “although there is no principle that this śāstra does not exhaust and no verbal teaching that it does not 20. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p.1., a10-15.. 21. Hirai Shunei 平井俊榮, ―Sanron kyōgaku seiritsu-shi no sho mondai -- Nansei Chirin Chūron-so ni tsuite‖〈三論教学成立史上の諸問題 –南斉・智琳《中論疏》について〉, pp. 153-4. 22. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p.5, a15.. 23. Hirai Shunei, ―Sanron kyōgaku seiritsu-shi no sho mondai,‖ p. 156; 153-8.. 24. ZGLS, fascicle 9, T42, no. 1824, p. 133, c09-11..

(22) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 22. complete, in encompassing its seminal credo, it reconciles the Two Truths.” Now, I return to expounding the old interpretation, in accordance with which we are cognizant of the Two Truths as the Source Teaching 宗. 『曇影《中論序》云：『此論雖無理不窮，無言不盡。統其要歸，會通二諦。』今還述舊釋，故知二諦為宗也。』25. Clearly, Jízàng viewed Tányǐng‘s commentary as a source for the correct interpretation and deployment of the Two Truths doctrine. The correlation of the Two Truths with the ―source teaching‖宗 is a topos that Jízàng would invoke continually in his philosophical treatises and commentaries. As clarified in the above discussion on lineage and authority in the study of the Three Treatises, Jízàng‘s commentaries on the Zhōnglùn emerge from the overlapping contexts of inherited debates and doctrinal controversies. In the following section, I. 政治大. will clarify the various streams of thought that shaped the hermeneutical models of śāstra interpretation that informed Jízàng‘s philosophical and exegetical writings. Professor Robert Gimello has drawn a sobering assessment as to the historical fate of such Śāstra-based lineages as the so-called ―Three-Treatise tradition‖三論宗.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Professor Gimello cites ―an increasing concentration on the predigested doctrines of. ‧. the śāstra, as opposed to the sūtra literature, tended to force Chinese minds into Indian molds.‖26 Japanese Buddhist historians since YŪKI Reimon 結城令聞 have characterized the late 6th and 7th centuries by the emergence of a ―Suí-Táng New Buddhism,‖隨唐新佛教 which is described as a return to the sūtra literature, in favor of the śāstra and. er. io. sit. y. Nat. established commentarial traditions. Yet, how does Jízàng‘s corpus fit into this picture? When set against the backdrop of such historical trends, the so-called Three-Treatise tradition seems to exactly represent a counterexample against such a trend, on account of its status as a religious movement staking its identity firmly with the śāstra tradition.. n. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. However, when viewed in light of the mutually complementary relationship between the sūtra-s and śāstra-s, it is the desire to comprehend the sūtra literature that underlies the appropriation and interpretation of the śāstra-s; any intellectual movement to ―return to the sūtra-s‖ involves a necessary re-examination and reinvisioning of hermeneutical modes rooted in the received śāstra-s. This broader inter-textual dynamic involved in the emergence of the ―sūtra-based‖ traditions that have become known as the ―Tiāntái tradition‖ and ―Huáyán tradition,‖ remains an 25. ZGLS, T45, no. 1852, p. 11, c03-5.. 26. Gimello (1976), p. 143..

(23) 23. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. understudied aspect of the Chinese Buddhist traditions of the Táng period, especially in light of their intellectual debt from the Buddhist learning of the 5th and 6th centuries.. Currents and Countercurrents The consideration of the Three Treatises in East Asian history reveals the fact that the central Mādhyamika treatises from whence the Three Treatise ―school‖ 宗 derives its name, might, for all intensive purposes, be more accurately described as school of ―four treatises‖四論.27 Indeed, while traditional East Asian historiography usually refers to a ―Three Treatise Lineage,‖ these the three root texts were in fact. 政治大. studied in conjunction with Dàzhìdù-lùn, Nagārjuna‘s monumental commentary on the Larger Prajñāparāmita Sūtra《大品》.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. An examination of the historical record from the 5th-century reveals a rich and fruitful period of study and critical engagement with the Zhōnglùn. At the forefront of this intellectual milieu was Zhìlín 智琳 (409-487) , whose commentary – the. ‧. Zhōnglùn-shū《中論疏》-- is unfortunately no longer extant.28 HIRAI Shunei 平井俊榮 has reconstructed certain passages from this important work – the Zhōnglùn-shū --. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. on the basis of Anchō‘s sub-commentary to Jízàng‘s ZGLS. Although originally hailing from Gāochāng 高昌 (Karakhojo) near Turkestan, Zhìlín moved to the Eastern-Jìn capital of Jiànkāng 建康 following the warfare in the. v. North. The tradition of Sānlùn studies that Zhìlín initiated, characterized by an intense focus upon the theory of the Two Truths, is what Jízàng refers to as the ―Old Doctrine‖舊說. The 8th-century Tiāntái patriach, Jīngxī Zhànrán 荊溪湛然 (711-782), identified this Jiànkāng era as harkening in the ―Southern Tradition‖南宗 of Sānlùn.. Ch. engchi. i Un. In his groundbreaking research into the Three-Treatise tradition, Hirai Shunei cites the Tōiki dentō mokuroku《東域傳燈目錄》,29 which mentions 10 separate commentaries on the Zhōnglùn composed from the period of the Southern-Qí, Suí, up to the early Táng Dynasty:30. 27. Traditional Eas Asian Buddhist historiography recognizes a ―Four-Treatise school,‖ the northern counterpart to Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika school. 28. Hirai Shunei (1965), ―Sanron kyōgaku seiritsu-shi no sho mondai,‖ pp. 143-161.. 29. Tōiki dentō mokuroku《東域傳燈目錄》, compiled by Eichō of Kōfuku-ji Temple 興福寺沙門永超, T55, no. 2183, p. 1159. 30. Hirai Shunei (1965), p. 154..

(24) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 24. 1.. Jízàng 吉藏,Zhōngguān lùnshū《中觀論疏》: ten fascicles. 2.. Jízàng 吉藏, Zhōnglùn lüèshū《中論略疏》: one fascicle. 3.. Jízàng 吉藏, Zhōnglùn xuán《中論玄》: one fascicle. 4.. Yuánkāng 元康, Zhōnglùn-shū《中論疏》: six fascicles. 5.. Xīnghuāng Fǎlǎng 興皇法朗師, Zhōnglùn-xuán《中論玄》: one fascicle. 6.. Master Zhìlín 智琳法師, Zhōnglùn-shū《中論疏》: five fascicles. 7.. Tányǐng 曇影, Zhōnglùn-shū《中論疏》: two fascicles. 8.. Master Shuò 碩法師, Zhōnglùn-shū《中論疏》: sixteen fascicles.. 9.. Unattributed, Zhōnglùn zhǐguī《中論旨歸》: one fascicle. 10. Yuánkāng 元康, Zhōnglùn sānshí liùménmén shì《中論三十六門門勢》: one fascicle. However, the Sānlùn zōngzhāng-shū 《三論宗章疏》 only mentions four commentaries:. 立. 政治大. Jízàng 吉藏,Zhōngguān lùnshū《中觀論疏》: ten fascicles. 2.. Jízàng 吉藏, Zhōnglùn xuán《中論玄》: one fascicle. 3.. Xīnghuáng Fǎlǎng 興皇法朗, Zhōnglùn xuán《中論玄》: one fascicle. 4.. Yuánkāng 元康, Zhōnglùn shū《中論疏》: six fascicles31. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 1.. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. The above catalogues of Sānlùn works reveal the fruits of a vigorous period of study on the Zhōnglùn that persisted throughout the Southern Dynasties. During this politically fractured era, Mt. Shè 攝山 served as a comparatively stable center for. n. Buddhist learning, especially for the tradition exegesis upon the Zhōnglùn. It was at Mt. Shè where the masters of the Two Truths Doctrine resided and taught, including such luminaries as Master Sēngquán 僧詮, Sēnglǎng 僧朗, and Fǎlǎng 法朗. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. (507–581).These figures emerged from a fractious backdrop characterized by intense debate on such topics as the Two Truths. These fruitful discussions on the Prājñāpārāmita literature and its relation to the predominant concerns of Xuánxué thought persisted throughout the period of the Southern Dynasties and into the 7th century, eventually culminating in Jízàng‘s commentary on the Zhōnglùn.32 Of course, outside of the confines of the cloister, such topics were debated amidst Eminent Monks and literati in the Qīngtán 清談 coteries of the South, at that point home to many émigrés seeking escape from the upheavals and warfare in the North.. 31. T55, no. 2179, p. 1137, c12-15; Hirai Shunei (1965), p. 157.. 32. Hirai Shunei (1965), p. 161..

(25) Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. 25. Traditional Buddhist historiography has seen Sēngquán and Sēnglǎng together as heralding in a transition between the ―Old Doctrine‖ 舊說 and the ―New Doctrine‖ 新說 of Sānlùn studies. In his sub-commentary on Zhìyǐ‘s Profound Meaning of the Lotus (Fǎhuá xuányì shìqiān)《法華玄義釋籤》, Zhànrán records: From the Liú-Sòng Dynasty onward, the Three Treatises were mutually handed down [from teacher to student]. Although there were many masters of the Three Treatises, they all followed the teachings of Kumārajīva. However, with the drifting by of the years and generations, the texts and commentaries were scattered and lost. From the period of the Southern-Qí dynasty onwards, the profound philosophical heritage 玄綱 [of the Sānlùn teaching] was utterly exhausted – the propagation of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra flourished. 政治大 preference to the Abhidharma teachings. At that time, Master Fǎlǎng of Kǒryo and 立 arrived in the region south of the Yangzi (Jiāngnán) and at the court of arrived at the in Jiāngnán, while in the Héběi region (north of the Yangzi), they granted exclusive. ‧ 國. 學. court of Qí Emperor Wǔ (reign: 482-493). He denounced the Tattvasiddhi masters, among whom there was no opponent [to retort him] and whose tongues were tied. From. ‧. that point on, Master Fǎlǎng himself propagated the teachings of the Three Treatises, During the reign of Liáng Emperor Wǔ, he mandated 勅 for ten persons and Quán of. y. Nat. Śamatha-vipaśyanā Temple to engage in the study of the Three Treatises. For nine of. sit. them it was merely a puerile game, but only Quán of Śamatha-vipaśyanā Temple had. al. er. io. scholarly achievement. Among Master Quán‘s pupils, only four entered his lecture room.. n. iv n C 慧布. While heading task U h e n gthec h i to apprehend the words of the excelled in meditation 禪 , while Huìyǒng for the letters and. At the time people said: “Master Xīnghuáng and Fǎlǎng roost in hermitage which pleases Huìbù Zhìbiàn 智辯 passages.”. 33. Clearly, the Southern Lineage 南宗. initially propagated the. Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, while only subsequently valorizing the Three Treatises.『自宋朝已. 來，三論相承。其師非一，並稟羅什。但年代淹久，文疏零落。至齊朝已來，玄綱殆絕；江南盛弘《成實》，河北偏尚毘曇。於時、高麗朗公至齊建武，來至江南。難《成實》師結舌無對。因茲朗公自弘三論。至梁武帝，勅十人、止觀詮等令學三論。九人但為兒戲，唯止觀詮習學成就。詮有學士，四人入室。時人語曰：『興皇、伏、虎、朗栖霞得意布。長干領語，辯禪眾，文章. 33. Huìyǒng 慧勇, Huìbù 慧布, Zhìbiàn 智辯, and Fǎlǎng 法朗 form the so-called ―Four Friends‖四友, the four renowned disciples of Sēngquán -- see Lǚ Chéng 呂澂, Zhōngguó Fóxué sīxiǎng gàilùn《中國佛學思想概論》（Táipěi: Tiānhuá chūbǎn shìyè gǔfèn yǒuxiàn gōngsī 天華出版事業股份有限公司, 1982）, p. 148-9..

(26) Ernest Brewster 白立冰. 26. 勇。』故知南宗初弘、《成實》，後尚三論。』34 HIRAI Shunei 平井俊榮 envisions of the Mt. Shè period as an efflorescence of Mādhyamika studies, and of the mountain itself as a nexus for the early development of Tiāntái in the South where Mādhyamika studies first merged 先容 with nascent meditation traditions, such as Ox-Head Chán 牛頭禪 . Traditional East Asian historiography views the Mt. Shè period 攝山三論 as a watershed of Three Treatise studies during the Southern Dynasties, which witnessed the emergence of a newly engaged strain of Sānlùn though under the heading of the ―New Doctrine‖ 新說. Master Sēnglǎng, in particular, is heralded as an innovator of Zhōnglùn exegesis and is often cited in Jízàng‘s works. Jízàng speaks of Sēnglǎng as an assertive proponent of the Third Truth Doctrine 三諦論, as in the denouement to Jízàng‘s famous tract, the Subtle Meaning of the Three Treatises. 35 As Sēnglǎng‘s most. 政治大. accomplished disciple, Sēngquán was natural successor to inherit his teacher‘s mantle. 36脈絡 Xinghuáng Fǎlǎng 興皇法朗 (a.k.a. Master Fǎlǎng 大朗法師 [507-558]), holds. 立. ‧ 國. 學. the distinction of serving as Jízàng‘s teacher, under whom he took the tonsure at the tender age of seven. 37 Fǎlǎng clearly exerted an indelible influence upon Jízàng‘s. ‧. early education and intellectual growth. Indeed, Jízàng inherited his direct spiritual and intellectual predecessors -- Sēnglǎng and Fǎlǎng -- concerns with the polemical ethos of ―refuting false views and manifesting the true teaching‖ (pòxié xiǎnzhèng 破邪顯正)38 -- a confrontational stance that reaches an apogee of rhetorical vehemence. sit. y. Nat. al. er. io. of in Jízàng‘s works -- was inherited from his direct spiritual and intellectual. n. predecessors, Sēnglǎng and Fǎlǎng.. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. “Refuting False Views and Manifesting the True Teaching” 破邪顯正 Here one might pose the question -- who is the envisioned target of the polemics 34. Fǎhuá xuányì shìqiān, T33, n1717, p. 951, a19-28.. 35. T45, no. 1852, p. 14, c21-22.. 36. For an analysis of Sēngquán‘s biographies, see Yonemori Shunsuke 米森俊輔, ―Shikan Sōsen no kenkyū‖〈止観寺僧詮の研究〉, Bukkyō gaku kenkyū《佛教學研究》（Kyōtō: , Ryūkoku daigaku Bukkyō gakkai 龍谷大學佛教學會）, Vol. 60/61 (05）, pp. 44-73. 37. 38. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p. 29, c05.. This rhetorical framework evokes a more than passing resemblance to the Sarvāstivāda (Vaibhāṣika ) framework of purvapakṣa 論破 (refutation) and siddhanta 極成..

(27) 27. Time and Liberation in Three-Treatise Master Jízàng‘s Mādhyamika Thought. of these Southern Sānlùn Masters: Sēngquán, Fǎlǎng, and Jízàng? The so-called ―Ābhidharmikas‖毘曇 figure heavily in the works of the great 6thand 7th-century Buddhist Masters, most notably the record of Tiāntái Master Zhìyǐ. Here the Pītán are represented as proponents of a deluded attachment to the Buddhist doctrine as ―apprehensible‖有所得, while lacking access to the complete revelation of the Mahāyāna which is unfathomable, even ―inapprehensible‖無所得. But who are the so-called Pītán? Do they correspond to active textual communities at the time of Jízàng, or are they merely ―straw-men‖, imagined opponents serving largely serving as a rhetorical foils? The examination of Jízàng‘s corpus reveals that the ―Pītán tradition‖「毘曇宗」39 was associated with the study of the Vaibhāṣika tradition of Sārvāstivada thought, especially the Āpítán pípōshālùn《阿毘曇毗婆沙論》(Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra) ,. 政治大 translated by the Indian Master Buddhavarman in the North. 立 The consideration of the textual record from the South reveals that the study of 40. ‧ 國. 學. the Abhidharma in this region similarly centered around the Sarvāstivādan tradition of exegesis, specifically the Āpítánxīn-lùn《阿毘曇心論》(Abhidharmahṛdaya), translated. ‧. by Gautama Saṃghadeva 瞿曇僧伽提婆 and Lúshān Huìyuán 廬山慧遠 (334–416)41 in 391 on Mt. Lǚ 廬山 (in modern-day Jiāngxī province),42 and the Záāpítánxīn-lùn 《雜阿毘曇心論》translated by Saṃghavarman 僧伽跋摩 in 434.. y. Nat. sit. n. al. er. io. Insofar as Modern Asian scholars speak of a Chinese Mādhyamika ―school,‖ it should be fair to speak of a Chinese Ābhidharmika ―school‖毘曇宗, based upon study. v. of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.43 By that same token, might we even point to a Chinese Dārṣṭāntika ―school,‖ 39. Ch. engchi. i Un. Zhōngguānlùn-shū, ―The Contemplation of Saṃskāra-s‖〈觀行品〉, T42, no. 1824, p. 106, c23.. 40. The Āpítán pípōshālùn; 60 fasc. T 1546 no. 28; by Kātyāyanīputra 迦多衍尼子; translated into Chinese in 437 by Buddhavarman of the Northern-Liáng Dynasty 北涼‧天竺沙門浮陀跋摩, Daotai 道泰 et al. As Jízàng reports in his Sānlùnxuányì: ―‗Vibhāṣā‘ means ‗broad explanation.‘ This text was translated into Chinese during the Western Liáng-period, originally comprising 100 fascicles. Later, it was incinerated by roving troops, and now only 60 fascicles remain. [This text] explains the Jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra『「毘婆沙」者，此云廣解。於西涼州譯出，凡有百卷。值兵火燒之，唯六十卷現在。止解三《犍度》也。』T45, no. 1852, p. 2, b29-c1. 41. See Huìyuán‘s preface -- Chūsānzàng jìjí (T55, no. 2145, p. 72, c01-29).. 42. Chūsānzàng jìjí, T55, no. 2145, p. 10, c12; see Whalen Lai, ―Tao-sheng‘s Theory of Sudden Enlightenment Re-examined,‖ Sudden and Gradual (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), pp. 174-8. 43. ZGLS, T42, no. 1824, p. 106, c23..