CHINA (_continued_)
SCHOOLS[790] OF CHINESE BUDDHISM
The Schools (Tsung) of Chinese Buddhism are an intricate subject of
little practical importance, for observers agree that at the present
day all salient differences of doctrine and practice have been
obliterated, although the older monasteries may present variations in
details and honour their own line of teachers. A particular
Bodhisattva may be singled out for reverence in one locality or some
religious observance may be specially enjoined, but there is little
aggressiveness or self assertion among the sects, even if they are
conscious of having a definite name: they each tolerate the deities,
rites and books of all and pay attention to as many items as leisure
and inertia permit. There is no clear distinction between Mahâyâna and
Hînayâna.
The main division is of course into Lamaism on one side and all
remaining sects on the other. Apart from this we find a record of ten
schools which deserve notice for various reasons. Some, though obscure
in modern China, have flourished after transportation to Japan: some,
such as the T'ien-t'ai, are a memorial of a brilliant epoch: some
represent doctrines which, if not now held by separate bodies, at
least indicate different tendencies, such as magical ceremonies,
mystical contemplation, or faith in Amitâbha.
The more important schools were comparatively late, for they date
from the sixth and seventh centuries. For two or three hundred years
the Buddhists of China were a colony of strangers, mainly occupied in
making translations. By the fifth century the extent and diversity of
Indian literature became apparent and Fa-Hsien went to India to
ascertain which was the most correct Vinaya and to obtain copies of
it. Theology was now sufficiently developed to give rise to two
schools both Indian in origin and merely transported to China, known
as Ch'êng-shih-tsung and San-lun-tsung[791].
The first is considered as Hinayanist and equivalent to the
Sautrântikas[792]. In the seventh century it passed over to Japan
where it is known as Ji-jitsu-shu, but neither there nor in China had
it much importance. The San-lun-tsung recognizes as three authorities
(from which it takes its name) the Mâdhyamikaśâstra and
Dvâdasanikâyaśâstra of Nâgârjuna with the Śataśâstra of his
pupil Deva. It is simply the school of these two doctors and
represents the extreme of Mahayanism. It had some importance in Japan,
where it was called San-Ron-Shu.
The arrival of Bodhidharma at Canton in 520 (or 526) was a great event
for the history of Buddhist dogma, although his special doctrines did
not become popular until much later. He introduced the contemplative
school and also the institution of the Patriarchate, which for a time
had some importance. He wrote no books himself, but taught that true
knowledge is gained in meditation by intuition[793] and communicated
by transference of thought. The best account of his teaching is
contained in the Chinese treatise which reports the sermon preached by
him before the Emperor Wu-Ti in 520[794]. The chief thesis of this
discourse is that the only true reality is the Buddha nature[795]
in the heart of every man. Prayer, asceticism and good works are vain.
All that man need do is to turn his gaze inward and see the Buddha in
his own heart. This vision, which gives light and deliverance, comes
in a moment. It is a simple, natural act like swallowing or dreaming
which cannot be taught or learnt, for it is not something imparted but
an experience of the soul, and teaching can only prepare the way for
it. Some are impeded by their karma and are physically incapable of
the vision, whatever their merits or piety may be, but for those to
whom it comes it is inevitable and convincing.
We have only to substitute _âtman_ for Buddha or Buddha nature to see
how closely this teaching resembles certain passages in the
Upanishads, and the resemblance is particularly strong in such
statements as that the Buddha nature reveals itself in dreams, or that
it is so great that it embraces the universe and so small that the
point of a needle cannot prick it. The doctrine of Mâyâ is clearly
indicated, even if the word was not used in the original, for it is
expressly said that all phenomena are unreal. Thus the teaching of
Bodhidharma is an anticipation of Śankara's monism, but it is
formulated in consistently Buddhist language and is in harmony with
the views of the Mâdhyamika school and of the Diamond-cutter. This
Chinese sermon confirms other evidence which indicates that the ideas
of the Advaita philosophy, though Brahmanic in their origin and
severely condemned by Gotama himself, were elaborated in Buddhist
circles before they were approved by orthodox Hindus.
Bodhidharma's teaching was Indian but it harmonized marvellously with
Taoism and Chinese Buddhists studied Taoist books[796]. A current of
Chinese thought which was old and strong, if not the main stream, bade
man abstain from action and look for peace and light within. It was, I
think, the junction of this native tributary with the river of
inflowing Buddhism which gave the Contemplative School its importance.
It lost that importance because it abandoned its special doctrines
and adopted the usages of other schools. When Taoism flourished
under the Sung Emperors it was also flourishing and influenced art as
well as thought, but it probably decayed under the Yüan dynasty which
favoured religion of a different stamp. It is remarkable that
Bodhidharma appears to be unknown to both Indian and Tibetan[797]
writers but his teaching has imparted a special tone and character to
a section (though not the whole) of Far Eastern Buddhism. It is called
in Chinese Tsung-mên or Ch'an-tsung, but this word Ch'an[798] is
perhaps better known to Europe in its Japanese form Zen.
Bodhidharma is also accounted the twenty-eighth Patriarch, a title
which represents the Chinese Tsu Shih[799] rather than any Indian
designation, for though in Pali literature we hear of the succession
of teachers[800], it is not clear that any of them enjoyed a style or
position such as is implied in the word Patriarch. Hindus have always
attached importance to spiritual lineage and every school has a list
of teachers who have transmitted its special lore, but the sense of
hierarchy is so weak that it is misleading to describe these
personages as Popes, Patriarchs or Bishops, and apart from the
personal respect which the talents of individuals may have won, it
does not appear that there was any succession of teachers who could be
correctly termed heads of the Church. Even in China such a title is of
dubious accuracy for whatever position Bodhidharma and his successors
may have claimed for themselves, they were not generally accepted as
being more than the heads of a school and other schools also gave
their chief teachers the title of Tsu-shih. From time to time the
Emperor appointed overseers of religion with the title of
Kuo-shih[801], instructor of the nation, but these were officials
appointed by the Crown, not prelates consecrated by the Church.
Twenty-eight Patriarchs are supposed to have flourished between the
death of the Buddha and the arrival of Bodhidharma in China. The
Chinese lists[802] do not in the earlier part agree with the
Singhalese accounts of the apostolic succession and contain few
eminent names with the exception of Aśvaghosha, Nâgârjuna, Deva and
Vasubandhu.
According to most schools there were only twenty-four Patriarchs.
These are said to have been foretold by the Buddha and twenty-four is
a usual number in such series[803]. The twenty-fourth Patriarch Simha
Bhikshu or Simhâlaputra went to Kashmir and suffered martyrdom there
at the hands of Mihirakula[804] without appointing a successor. But
the school of Bodhidharma continues the series, reckoning him as the
twenty-eighth, and the first of the Chinese Patriarchs. Now since the
three Patriarchs between the martyr and Bodhidharma are all described
as living in southern India, whereas such travellers as Fa-Hsien
obviously thought that the true doctrine was to be found in northern
India, and since Bodhidharma left India altogether, it is probable
that the later Patriarchs represent the spiritual genealogy of
some school which was not the Church as established at Nâlandâ[805].
It will be convenient to summarize briefly here the history of
Bodhidharma's school. Finding that his doctrines were not altogether
acceptable to the Emperor Wu-Ti (who did not relish being told that
his pious exertions were vain works of no value) he retired to Lo-yang
and before his death designated as his successor Hui-k'o. It is
related of Hui-k'o that when he first applied for instruction he could
not attract Bodhidharma's attention and therefore stood before the
sage's door during a whole winter night until the snow reached his
knees. Bodhidharma indicated that he did not think this test of
endurance remarkable. Hui-k'o then took a knife, cut off his own arm
and presented it to the teacher who accepted him as a pupil and
ultimately gave him the insignia of the Patriarchate--a robe and bowl.
He taught for thirty-four years and is said to have mixed freely with
the lowest and most debauched reprobates. His successors were
Sêng-ts'an, Tao-hsin, Hung-jên, and Hui-nêng[806] who died in 713 and
declined to nominate a successor, saying that the doctrine was well
established. The bowl of Bodhidharma was buried with him. Thus the
Patriarch was not willing to be an Erastian head of the Church and
thought the Church could get on without him. The object of the
Patriarchate was simply to insure the correct transmission from
teacher to scholar of certain doctrines, and this precaution was
especially necessary in sects which rejected scriptural authority and
relied on personal instruction. So soon as there were several
competent teachers handing on the tradition such a safeguard was felt
to be unnecessary.
That this feeling was just is shown by the fact that the school of
Bodhidharma is still practically one in teaching. But its small regard
for scripture and insistence on oral instruction caused the principal
monasteries to regard themselves as centres with an apostolic
succession of their own and to form divisions which were geographical
rather than doctrinal. They are often called school (tsung), but
the term is not correct, if it implies that the difference is similar
to that which separates the Ch'an-tsung and Lü-tsung or schools of
contemplation and of discipline. Even in the lifetime of Hui-nêng
there seems to have been a division, for he is sometimes called the
Patriarch of the South, Shên-Hsiu[807] being recognized as Patriarch
of the North. But all subsequent divisions of the Ch'an-tsung trace
their lineage to Hui-nêng. Two of his disciples founded two schools
called Nan Yüeh and Ch'ing Yüan[808] and between the eighth and tenth
centuries these produced respectively two and three subdivisions,
known together as Wu-tsung or five schools. They take their names from
the places where their founders dwelt and are the schools of Wei-Yang,
Lin-Chi, Ts'ao-Tung, Yün-Mên and Fa-Yen[809]. This is the
chronological order, but the most important school is the Lin-Chi,
founded by I-Hsüan[810], who resided on the banks of a river[811] in
Chih-li and died in 867. It is not easy to discriminate the special
doctrines[812] of the Lin-Chi for it became the dominant form of the
school to such an extent that other variants are little more than
names. But it appears to have insisted on the transmission of
spiritual truths not only by oral instruction but by a species of
telepathy between teacher and pupil culminating in sudden
illumination. At the present day the majority of Chinese monasteries
profess to belong to the Ch'an-tsung and it has encroached on other
schools. Thus it is now accepted on the sacred island of P'uto which
originally followed the Lü-tsung.
Although the Ch'an school did not value the study of scripture as part
of the spiritual life, yet it by no means neglected letters and can
point to a goodly array of ecclesiastical authors, extending down
to modern times[813]. More than twenty of their treatises have been
admitted into the Tripitaka. Several of these are historical and
discuss the succession of Patriarchs and abbots, but the most
characteristic productions of the sect are collections of aphorisms,
usually compiled by the disciples of a teacher who himself committed
nothing to writing[814].
In opposition to the Contemplative School or Tsung-mên, all the others
are sometimes classed together as Chiao-mên. This dichotomy perhaps
does no more than justice to the importance of Bodhidharma's school,
but is hardly scientific, for, whatever may be the numerical
proportion, the other schools differ from one another as much as they
differ from it. They all agree in recognizing the authority not only
of a founder but of a special sacred book. We may treat first of one
which, like the Tsung-mên, belongs specially to the Buddhism of the
Far East and is both an offshoot of the Tsung-mên and a protest
against it--there being nothing incompatible in this double
relationship. This is the T'ien-t'ai[815] school which takes its name
from a celebrated monastery in the province of Chê-kiang. The founder
of this establishment and of the sect was called Chih-K'ai or
Chih-I[816] and followed originally Bodhidharma's teaching, but
ultimately rejected the view that contemplation is all-sufficient,
while still claiming to derive his doctrine from Nâgârjuna. He had a
special veneration for the Lotus Sûtra and paid attention to
ceremonial. He held that although the Buddha-mind is present in all
living beings, yet they do not of themselves come to the knowledge and
use of it, so that instruction is necessary to remove error and
establish true ideas. The phrase Chih-kuan[817] is almost the motto of
the school: it is a translation of the two words Samatha and
Vipassanâ, taken to mean calm and insight.
The T'ien-T'ai is distinguished by its many-sided and almost
encyclopædic character. Chih-I did not like the exclusiveness of the
Contemplative School. He approved impartially of ecstasy, literature,
ceremonial and discipline: he wished to find a place for everything
and a point of view from which every doctrine might be admitted to
have some value. Thus he divided the teaching of the Buddha into five
periods, regarded as progressive not contradictory, and expounded
respectively in (_a_) the Hua-yen Sûtra; (_b_) the Hînayâna Sûtras;
(_c_) the Lêng-yen-ching; (_d_) the Prajnâ-pâramitâ; (_e_) the Lotus
Sûtra which is the crown, quintessence and plenitude of all Buddhism.
He also divided religion into eight parts[818], sometimes counted as
four, the latter half of the list being the more important. The names
are collection, progress, distinction and completion. These terms
indicate different ways of looking at religion, all legitimate but not
equally comprehensive or just in perspective. By collection is meant
the Hînayâna, the name being apparently due to the variously
catalogued phenomena which occupy the disciple in the early stages of
his progress: the scriptures, divisions of the universe, states of the
human minds and so on. Progress (T'ung, which might also be rendered
as transition or communication) is applicable to the Hîna and Mahâyanâ
alike and regards the religious life as a series of stages rising from
the state of an unconverted man to that of a Buddha. Pieh, or
distinction, is applicable only to the Mahâyanâ and means the special
excellences of a Bodhisattva. Yüan, completeness or plenitude, is the
doctrine of the Lotus which embraces all aspects of religion. In a
similar spirit of synthesis and conciliation Chih-I uses Nâgârjuna's
view that truth is not of one kind. From the stand-point of absolute
truth all phenomena are void or unreal; on the other hand they are
indubitably real for practical purposes. More just is the middle view
which builds up the religious character. It sees that all phenomena
both exist and do not exist and that thought cannot content itself
with the hypothesis either of their real existence or of the void.
Chih-I's teaching as to the nature of the Buddha is almost
theistic. It regards the fundamental (pên) Buddhahood as not merely
the highest reality but as constant activity exerting itself for the
good of all beings. Distinguished from this fundamental Buddhahood is
the derivative Buddhahood or trace (chi) left by the Buddha among men
to educate them. There has been considerable discussion in the school
as to the relative excellence of the _pên_ and the _chi_[819].
The T'ien-T'ai school is important, not merely for its doctrines, but
as having produced a great monastic establishment and an illustrious
line of writers. In spite of the orders of the Emperor who wished to
retain him at Nanking, Chih-I retired to the highlands of Chê-Kiang
and twelve monasteries still mark various spots where he is said to
have resided. He had some repute as an author, but more as a preacher.
His words were recorded by his disciple Kuan-Ting[820] and in this way
have been preserved two expositions of the Lotus and a treatise on his
favourite doctrine of Chih-Kuan which together are termed the
San-ta-pu, or Three Great Books. Similar spoken expositions of other
sûtras are also preserved. Some smaller treatises on his chief
doctrines seem to be works of his own pen[821]. A century later
Chan-Jan[822], who is reckoned the ninth Patriarch of the T'ien-t'ai
school, composed commentaries on the Three Great Books as well as some
short original works. During the troubled period of the Five
Dynasties, the T'ien-t'ai monasteries suffered severely and the sacred
books were almost lost. But the school had a branch in Korea and a
Korean priest called Ti-Kuan[823] re-established it in China. It
continued to contribute literature to the Tripitaka until 1270 but
after the tenth century its works, though numerous, lose their
distinctive character and are largely concerned with magical formulæ
and the worship of Amida.
The latter is the special teaching of the Pure Land school, also
known as the Lotus school, or the Short Cut[824]. It is indeed a
short cut to salvation, striking unceremoniously across all systems,
for it teaches that simple faith in Amitâbha (Amida) and invocation of
his name can take the place of moral and intellectual endeavour. Its
popularity is in proportion to its facility: its origin is ancient,
its influence universal, but perhaps for this very reason its
existence as a corporation is somewhat indistinct. It is also
remarkable that though the Chinese Tripitaka contains numerous works
dedicated to the honour of Amitâbha, yet they are not described as
composed by members of the Pure Land school but appear to be due to
authors of all schools[825].
The doctrine, if not the school, was known in China before 186, in
which year there died at Lo-yang, a monk of the Yüeh-chih called
Lokâkshi, who translated the longer Sukhâvatî-vyûha. So far as I know,
there is no reason for doubting these statements[826]. The date is
important for the history of doctrine, since it indicates that the
sûtra existed in Sanskrit some time previously. Another translation by
the Parthian An Shih-Kao, whose activity falls between 148 and 170
A.D. may have been earlier and altogether twelve translations were
made before 1000 A.D. of which five are extant[827]. Several of the
earlier translators were natives of Central Asia, so it is permissible
to suppose that the sûtra was esteemed there. The shorter
Sukhâvatî-vyûha was translated by Kumârajîva (_c._ 402) and later by
Hsüan Chuang. The Amitâyurdhyânasûtra was translated by Kâlayaśas
about 424. These three books[828] are the principal scriptures of the
school and copies of the greater Sukhâvatî may still be found in
almost every Chinese monastery, whatever principles it professes.
Hui Yüan[829] who lived from 333 to 416 is considered as the founder
of the school. He was in his youth an enthusiastic Taoist and
after he turned Buddhist is said to have used the writings of
Chuang-tzŭ to elucidate his new faith. He founded a brotherhood,
and near the monastery where he settled was a pond in which lotus
flowers grew, hence the brotherhood was known as the White Lotus
school[830]. For several centuries[831] it enjoyed general esteem.
Pan-chou, one of its Patriarchs, received the title of Kuo-shih about
770 A.D., and Shan-tao, who nourished about 650 and wrote
commentaries, was one of its principal literary men[832]. He
popularized the doctrine of the Pai-tao or White Way, that is, the
narrow bridge leading to Paradise across which Amitâbha will guide the
souls of the faithful. But somehow the name of White Lotus became
connected with conspiracy and rebellion until it was dreaded as the
title of a formidable secret society, and ceased to be applied to the
school as a whole. The teaching and canonical literature of the Pure
Land school did not fall into disrepute but since it was admitted by
other sects to be, if not the most excellent way, at least a
permissible short cut to heaven, it appears in modern times less as a
separate school than as an aspect of most schools[833]. The simple and
emotional character of Amidism, the directness of its "Come unto me,"
appeal so strongly to the poor and uneducated, that no monastery or
temple could afford to neglect it.
Two important Indian schools were introduced into China in the sixth and
seventh centuries respectively and flourished until about 900 A.D. when
they began to decay. These are the Chü-shê-tsung and Fa-hsiang-tsung[834].
The first name is merely a Chinese transcription of the Sanskrit Ko'sa and
is due to the fact that the chief authority of the school is the
Abhidharmakośaśâstra of Vasubandhu[835]. This work expounds the doctrine
of the Sarvâstivâdins, but in a liberal spirit and without ignoring other
views. Though the Chü-shê-tsung represented the best scholastic tradition
of India more adequately than any other Chinese sect, yet it was too
technical and arid to become popular and both in China and Japan (where it
is known as Kusha-shu) it was a system of scholastic philosophy rather
than a form of religion. In China it did not last many centuries.
The Fa-Hsiang school is similar inasmuch as it represented Indian
scholasticism and remained, though much esteemed, somewhat academic.
The name is a translation of Dharmalakshaṇa and the school is also
known as Tz'ŭ-ên-tsung[836], and also as Wei-shih-hsiang-chiao
because its principal text-book is the Ch'êng-wei-shih-lun[837]. This
name, equivalent to Vidyâmâtra, or Vijnânamâtra, is the title of a
work by Hsüan Chuang which appears to be a digest of ten Sanskrit
commentaries on a little tract of thirty verses ascribed to
Vasubandhu. As ultimate authorities the school also recognizes the
revelations made to Asanga by Maitreya[838] and probably the
Mahâyânasûtrâlankâra[839] expresses its views. It claims as its
founder Śîlabhadra the teacher of Hsüan Chuang, but the latter was
its real parent.
Closely allied to it but reckoned as distinct is the school called the
Hua-yen-tsung[840] because it was based on the Hua-yen-ching or
Avatamsakasûtra. The doctrines of this work and of Nâgârjuna may be
conveniently if not quite correctly contrasted as pantheistic and
nihilistic. The real founder and first patriarch was Tu-Fa-Shun who
died in 640 but the school sometimes bears the name of Hsien-Shou, the
posthumous title of its third Patriarch who contributed seven works to
the Tripitaka[841]. It began to wane in the tenth century but has
a distinguished literary record.
The Lü-tsung or Vinaya school[842] was founded by Tao Hsüan (595-667).
It differs from those already mentioned inasmuch as it emphasizes
discipline and asceticism as the essential part of the religious life.
Like the T'ien-t'ai this school arose in China. It bases itself on
Indian authorities, but it does not appear that in thus laying stress
on the Vinaya it imitated any Indian sect, although it caught the
spirit of the early Hînayâna schools. The numerous works of the
founder indicate a practical temperament inclined not to mysticism or
doctrinal subtlety but to biography, literary history and church
government. Thus he continued the series called Memoirs of Eminent
Monks and wrote on the family and country of the Buddha. He compiled a
catalogue of the Tripitaka, as it was in his time, and collections of
extracts, as well as of documents relating to the controversies
between Buddhists and Taoists[843]. Although he took as his chief
authority the Dharmagupta Vinaya commonly known as the Code in Four
Sections, he held, like most Chinese Buddhists, that there is a
complete and perfect doctrine which includes and transcends all the
vehicles. But he insisted, probably as a protest against the laxity or
extravagance of many monasteries, that morality and discipline are the
indispensable foundation of the religious life. He was highly esteemed
by his contemporaries and long after his death the Emperor Mu-tsung
(821-5) wrote a poem in his honour. The school is still respected and
it is said that the monks of its principal monastery, Pao-hua-shan in
Kiangsu, are stricter and more learned than any other.
The school called Chên-yen (in Japanese Shin-gon), true word, or
Mi-chiao[844], secret teaching, equivalent to the Sanskrit Mantrayâna
or Tantrayâna, is the latest among the recognized divisions of Chinese
Buddhism since it first made its appearance in the eighth century. The
date, like that of the translation of the Amida scriptures is
important, for the school was introduced from India and it follows
that its theories and practices were openly advocated at this period
and probably were not of repute much earlier. It is akin to the
Buddhism of Tibet and may be described in its higher aspects as an
elaborate and symbolic pantheism, which represents the one spirit
manifesting himself in a series of emanations and reflexes. In its
popular and unfortunately commoner aspect it is simply polytheism,
fetichism and magic. In many respects it resembles the Pure Land
school. Its principal deity (the word is not inaccurate) is Vairocana,
analogous to Amitâbha, and probably like him a Persian sun god in
origin. It is also a short cut to salvation, for, without denying the
efficiency of more laborious and ascetic methods, it promises to its
followers a similar result by means of formulæ and ceremonies. Like
the Pure Land school it has become in China not so much a separate
corporation as an aspect, and often the most obvious and popular
aspect, of all Buddhist schools.
It claims Vajrabodhi as its first Patriarch. He was a monk of the
Brahman caste who arrived in China from southern India[845] in 719 and
died in 730 after translating several Tantras and spells. His
companion and successor was Amoghavajra of whose career something has
already been said. The fourth Patriarch, Hui Kuo, was the instructor
of the celebrated Japanese monk Kobo Daishi who established the school
in Japan under the name of Shingon[846].
The principal scripture of this sect is the Ta-jih-ching or sûtra of
the Sun-Buddha[847]. A distinction is drawn between exoteric and
esoteric doctrine (the "true word") and the various phases of Buddhist
thought are arranged in ten classes. Of these the first nine are
merely preparatory, but in the last or esoteric phase, the adept
becomes a living Buddha and receives full intuitive knowledge. In this
respect the Tantric school resembles the teaching of Bodhidharma but
not in detail. It teaches that Vairocana is the whole world, which is
divided into Garbhadhâtu (material) and Vajradhâtu (indestructible),
the two together forming Dharmadhâtu. The manifestations of
Vairocana's body to himself--that is Buddhas and Bodhisattvas--are
represented symbolically by diagrams of several circles[848]. But it
would be out of place to dwell further on the dogmatic theology of the
school, for I cannot discover that it was ever of importance in China
whatever may have been its influence in Japan. What appealed only too
powerfully to Chinese superstition was the use of spells, charms and
magical formulæ and the doctrine that since the universe is merely
idea, thoughts and facts are equipollent. This doctrine (which need
not be the outcome of metaphysics, but underlies the magical practices
of many savage tribes) produced surprising results when applied to
funeral ceremonies, which in China have always formed the major part
of religion, for it was held that ceremonial can represent and control
the fortunes of the soul, that is to say that if a ceremony represents
figuratively the rescue of a soul from a pool of blood, then the soul
which is undergoing that punishment will be delivered. It was not
until the latter part of the eighth century that such theories and
ceremonies were accepted by Chinese Buddhism, but they now form a
large part of it.
Although in Japan Buddhism continued to produce new schools until the
thirteenth century, no movement in China attained this status after
about 730, and Lamaism, though its introduction produced considerable
changes in the north, is not usually reckoned as a Tsung. But numerous
societies and brotherhoods arose especially in connection with the
Pure Land school and are commonly spoken of as sects. They differ from
the schools mentioned above in having more or less the character of
secret societies, sometimes merely brotherhoods like the Freemasons
but sometimes political in their aims. Among those whose tenets are
known that which has most religion and least politics in its
composition appears to be the Wu-wei-chiao[849], founded about 1620 by
one Lo-tsu[850] who claimed to have received a revelation contained in
five books. It is strictly vegetarian and antiritualistic,
objecting to the use of images, incense and candles in worship.
There are many other sects with a political tinge. The proclivity of the
Chinese to guilds, corporations and secret societies is well known and
many of these latter have a religious basis. All such bodies are under
the ban of the Government, for they have always been suspected with more
or less justice of favouring anti-social or anti-dynastic ideas. But,
mingled with such political aspirations, there is often present the
desire for co-operation in leading privately a religious life which, if
made public, would be hampered by official restrictions. The most
celebrated of these sects is the White Lotus. Under the Yüan dynasty it
was anti-Mongol, and prepared the way for the advent of the Ming. When
the Ming dynasty in its turn became decadent, we hear again of the White
Lotus coupled with rebellion, and similarly after the Manchus had passed
their meridian, its beautiful but ill-omened name frequently appears. It
seems clear that it is an ancient and persistent society with some idea
of creating a millennium, which becomes active when the central
government is weak and corrupt. Not unlike the White Lotus is the secret
society commonly known as the Triad but called by its members the Heaven
and Earth Association. The T'ai-p'ing sect, out of which the celebrated
rebellion arose, was similar but its inspiration seems to have come from
a perversion of Christianity. The Tsai-Li sect[851] is still prevalent
in Peking, Tientsin, and the province of Shantung. I should exceed the
scope of my task if I attempted to examine these sects in detail[852],
for their relation to Buddhism is often doubtful. Most of them combine
with it Taoist and other beliefs and some of them expect a Messiah or
King of Righteousness who is usually identified with Maitreya. It is
easy to see how at this point hostility to the existing Government
arises and provokes not unnatural resentment[853].
Recently several attempts have been made to infuse life and order into
Chinese Buddhism. Japanese influence can be traced in most of them and
though they can hardly be said to represent a new school, they attempt to
go back to Mahayanism as it was when first introduced into China. The
Hinâyâna is considered as a necessary preliminary to the Mahâyâna and the
latter is treated as existing in several schools, among which are included
the Pure Land school, though the Contemplative and Tantric schools seem
not to be regarded with favour. They are probably mistrusted as leading to
negligence and superstition[854].
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 790: [Chinese: ] See especially Hackmann, "Die Schulen des
chinesischen Buddhismus" (in the _Mitth. Seminars für Orientalische
Sprachen_, Berlin, 1911), which contains the text and translation of an
Essay by a modern Chinese Buddhist, Yang Wên Hui. Such a review of Chinese
sects from the contemporary Buddhist point of view has great value, but it
does not seem to me that Mr. Yang explains clearly the dogmatic tenets of
each sect, the obvious inference being that such tenets are of little
practical importance. Chinese monasteries often seem to combine several
schools. Thus the Tz'ŭ-Fu-Ssŭ monastery near Peking professes to belong
both to the Lin-Chi and Pure Land schools and its teachers expound the
Diamond-cutter, Lotus and Shou-Lêng-Ching. So also in India. See Rhys
Davids in article Sects Buddhist, _E.R.E._ Hackmann gives a list of
authorities. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_ (chaps. VII and VIII), may still
be consulted, though the account is far from clear.]
[Footnote 791: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 792: It based itself on the Satyasiddhiśâstra of Harivarman,
Nanjio, Cat. 1274.]
[Footnote 793: This meditation however is of a special sort. The six
Pâramitâs are, Dâna, Sîla, Kshanti, Vîrya, Dhyâna and Prajñâ. The
meditation of Bodhidharma is not the Dhyâna of this list, but
meditation on Prajñâ, the highest of the Pâramitâs. See Hackmann's
Chinese text, p. 249.]
[Footnote 794: Ta-mo-hsüe-mai-lun, analyzed by Wieger in his _Histoire
des Croyances religieuses en Chine_, pp. 520 ff. I could wish for more
information about this work, but have not been able to find the
original.]
[Footnote 795: Also called Fa-shên or dharmakâya in the discourse.
Bodhidharma said that he preached the _seal of the heart_ (hsinyin).
This probably corresponds to some Sanskrit expression, but I have not
found the Indian equivalent.]
[Footnote 796: I-Ching, in his _Memoirs of Eminent Monks_, mentions
three pilgrims as having studied the works of Chuang-tzŭ and his
own style shows that he was well-read in this author.]
[Footnote 797: He is not mentioned by Târanâtha.]
[Footnote 798: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 799: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 800: Acâriyaparamparâ. There is a list of such teachers in
Mahâvaṃsa, V. 95 ff., Dîpavaṃsa, IV. 27 ff. and V. 69.]
[Footnote 801: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 802: The succession of Patriarchs is the subject of several works
comprised in the Chinese Tripitaka. Of these the Fu-fa-tsang-yin-yüan-ching
(Nanjio, 1340) is the most important, because it professes to be translated
(A.D. 472) from an Indian work, which, however, is not in the Tibetan Canon
and is not known in Sanskrit. The Chinese text, as we have it, is probably
not a translation from the Sanskrit, but a compilation made in the sixth
century which, however, acquired considerable authority. See Maspéro in
_Mélanges d'Indianisme_: Sylvain Lévi, pp. 129-149, and _B.E.F.E.O._1911,
pp. 344-348. Other works are the Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi (Nanjio, 1661), of Chih
P'an (_c._ 1270), belonging to the T'ien-t'ai school, and the
Ching-tê-ch'uan-têng-lu together with the Tsung-mên-t'ung-yao-hsü-chi
(Nanjio, 1524, 1526) both belonging to the school of Bodhidharma. See also
Nanjio, 1528, 1529. The common list of Patriarchs is as follows: 1.
Mahâkâśyapa; 2. Ananda; 3. Śanavâsa or Śanakavâsa; 4. Upagupta; 5.
Dhṛitaka; 6. Micchaka. Here the name of Vasumitra is inserted by some but
omitted by others; 7. Buddhanandi; 8. Buddhamitra; 9. Pârśva; 10.
Punyayasas; 11. Aśvaghosha; 12. Kapimala; 13. Nâgârjuna; 14. Deva
(Kâṇadeva); 15. Râhulata; 16. Sanghanandi; 17. Sanghayaśas; 18. Kumârata;
19. Jayata; 20. Vasubandhu; 21. Manura; 22. Haklena or Padmaratna; 23.
Simha Bhikshu; 24. Basiasita; 25. Putṇomita or Punyamitra; 26. Prajnâtara;
27 (or 28, if Vasumitra is reckoned) Bodhidharma. Many of these names are
odd and are only conjectural restorations made from the Chinese
transcription, for which see Nanjio, 1340. Other lists of Patriarchs vary
from that given above, partly because they represent the traditions of
other schools. It is not strange, for instance, if the Sarvâstivâdins did
not recognize Nâgârjuna as a Patriarch. Two of their lists have been
preserved by Sêng-yu (Nanjio, 1476) who wrote about 520. Some notes on the
Patriarchs and reproductions of Chinese pictures representing them will be
found in Doré, pp. 244 ff. It is extremely curious that Aśvaghosha is
represented as a woman.]
[Footnote 803: It is found, for instance, in the lists of the Jain
Tirthankaras and in some accounts of the Buddhas and of the Avatâras
of Vishnu.]
[Footnote 804: See Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, p. 290. But the dates offer
some difficulty, for Mihirakula, the celebrated Hun chieftain, is
usually supposed to have reigned about 510-540 A.D. Târanâtha
(Schiefner, p. 95) speaks of a martyr called Mâlikabuddhi. See, too,
_ib._ p. 306.]
[Footnote 805: It is clear that the school of Valabhi was to some
extent a rival of Nâlandâ.]
[Footnote 806: For a portrait of Hui-nêng see Kokka, No. 297. The
names of Bodhidharma's successors are in Chinese characters [Chinese:
]]
[Footnote 807: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 808: [Chinese: ] Much biographical information respecting
this and other schools will be found in Doré, vols. VII and VIII. But
there is little to record in the way of events or literary and
doctrinal movements.]
[Footnote 809: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 810: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 811: Lin-Chi means coming to the ford. Is this an allusion
to the Pali expression Sotâpanno? The name appears in Japanese as
Rinzai. Most educated Chinese monks when asked as to their doctrine
say they belong to the Lin-Chi.]
[Footnote 812: They are generally called the three mysteries (Hsüan)
and the three important points (Yao), but I have not been able to
obtain any clear explanation of what they mean. See Edkins, _Chinese
Buddhism_, p. 164, and Hackmann, _l.c._ p. 250.]
[Footnote 813: Wieger, _Bouddhisme Chinois_, p. 108, states that 230
works belonging to this sect were published under the Manchu dynasty.]
[Footnote 814: See _e.g._ Nanjio, Cat. 1527, 1532.]
[Footnote 815: [Chinese: ]. Tendai in Japanese. It is also called in
China [Chinese: ] Fa-hua.]
[Footnote 816: [Chinese: ]. Also often spoken of as Chih-chê-ta-shih
[Chinese: ]. Officially he is often styled the fourth Patriarch of
the school. See Doré, p. 449.]
[Footnote 817: [Chinese: ]. In Pali Buddhism also, especially in
later works, Samatha and Vipassanâ may be taken as a compendium of the
higher life as they are respectively the results of the two sets of
religious exercises called Adhicitta and Adhipaññâ. (See Ang. Nik. III
88.)]
[Footnote 818: In Chinese [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ],
[Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ].
Tun, Chien, Pi-mi, Pu-ting, Tsang, T'ung, Pieh, Yüan. See Nanjio,
1568, and for very different explanations of these obscure words.
Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 182, and Richard's _New Testament of
Higher Buddhism_, p. 41. Masson-Oursel in _J.A._ 1915, I. p. 305.]
[Footnote 819: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 820: [Chinese: ] The books are Nanjio, Nos. 1534, 1536,
1538.]
[Footnote 821: Among them is the compendium for beginners called
Hsiao-chih-kuan, (Nanjio, 1540), partly translated in Beal's _Catena_,
pp. 251 ff.]
[Footnote 822: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 823: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 824: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 825: The list of Chinese authors in Nanjio's Catalogue, App.
III, describes many as belonging to the T'ien-t'ai, Avatamsaka or
Dhyâna schools, but none as belonging to the Ching-T'u.]
[Footnote 826: For the authorities, see Nanjio, p. 381.]
[Footnote 827: Nanjio, p. 10, note.]
[Footnote 828: They are all translated in _S.B.E._ XLIX. The two
former exist in Sanskrit. The Amitâyurdhyâna is known only in the
Chinese translation. They are called in Chinese [Chinese: ],
[Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 829: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 830: [Chinese: ] The early history of the school is
related in a work called Lien-shê-kao-hsien-ch'uan, said to date from
the Tsin dynasty. See for some account of the early worthies, Doré,
pp. 280 ff. and 457 ff. Their biographies contain many visions and
miracles.]
[Footnote 831: Apparently at least until 1042. See De Groot,
_Sectarianism_, p. 163. The dated inscriptions in the grottoes of
Lung-mên indicate that the cult of Amitâbha flourished especially from
647 to 715. See Chavannes, _Mission. Archéol._ Tome I, deuxième
partie, p. 545.]
[Footnote 832: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 833: See for instance the tract called Hsüan-Fo-P'u
[Chinese: ] and translated by Richard under the title of _A Guide to
Buddhahood_, pp. 97 ff.]
[Footnote 834: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 835: See Watters, _On Yüan Chwang_, I. 210, and also
Takakusu, _Journal of the Pali Text Soc_. 1905, p. 132.]
[Footnote 836: [Chinese: ] The name refers not to the doctrines of
the school, but to Tz'ŭ-ên-tai-shih, a title given to Kuei-chi the
disciple of Hsüan Chuang who was one of its principal teachers and
taught at a monastery called Tz'ŭ-ên.]
[Footnote 837: [Chinese: ] See Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1197 and 1215.]
[Footnote 838: See Watters, _On Yüan Chwang_, I. pp. 355 ff.]
[Footnote 839: Ed. and transl. by Sylvain Lévi, 1911.]
[Footnote 840: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 841: His name when alive was Fa-tsang. See Nanjio, Cat. p.
462, and Doré, 450. The Empress Wu patronized him.]
[Footnote 842: [Chinese: ]. Also called Nan Shan or Southern mountain
school from a locality in Shensi.]
[Footnote 843: [Chinese: ]. Nanjio, Cat. 1493, 1469, 1470, 1120,
1481, 1483, 1484, 1471.]
[Footnote 844: [Chinese: ] or [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 845: From Mo-lai-yè, which seems to mean the extreme south
of India. Doré gives some Chinese legends about him, p. 299.]
[Footnote 846: For an appreciative criticism of the sect as known in
Japan, see Anesaki's _Buddhist Art_, chap. III.]
[Footnote 847: Nanjio, No. 530. Nos. 533, 534 and 1039 are also
important texts of this sect.]
[Footnote 848: In the T'ien-t'ai and Chên-yen schools, and indeed in
Chinese Buddhism generally, Dharma (_Fa_ in Chinese) is regarded as
cosmic law. Buddhas are the visible expression of Dharma. Hence they
are identified with it and the whole process of cosmic evolution is
regarded as the manifestation of Buddhahood.]
[Footnote 849: [Chinese: ] See the account by Edkins, _Chinese
Buddhism_, pp. 271 ff.]
[Footnote 850: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 851: [Chinese: ] See _China Mission Year Book_, 1896, p.
43.]
[Footnote 852: For some account of them, see Stanton, The Triad
Society, White Lotus Society, etc., 1900, reprinted from _China
Review_, vols. XXI, XXII, and De Groot, _Sectarianism and religious
persecution in China_, vol. I. pp. 149-259.]
[Footnote 853: The Republic of China has not changed much from the
ways of the Empire. The Peking newspapers of June 17, 1914, contain a
Presidential Edict stating that "the invention of heretical religions
by ill-disposed persons is strictly prohibited by law," and that
certain religious societies are to be suppressed.]
[Footnote 854: See, for an account of such a reformed sect, O.
Francke, "Ein Buddhistischer Reformversuch in China," _T'oung Pao_,
1909, p. 567.]