THE UNIVERSE IS THE SCRIPTURE[FN#107] OF ZEN
1. Scripture is no More than Waste Paper.
[FN#107] Zen is not based on any particular sutra, either of
Mahayana or of Hinayana. There are twofold Tripitakas (or the three
collections of the Buddhist scriptures)-namely, the
Mahayana-tripitaka and the Hinayana-tripitaka. The former are the
basis of the Mahayana, or the higher and reformed Buddhism, full of
profound metaphysical reasonings; while the latter form that of the
Hinayana, or the lower and early Buddhism, which is simple and
ethical teaching. These twofold Tripitakas are as follows:
THE MAHAYANA-TRIPITAKA.
The Sutra Pitaka.-The Saddharma-pundarika-sutra,
Samdhi-nirmocana-sutra, Avatamsaka-sutra, Prajnyaparamita-sutra,
Amitayus-sutra, Mahaparinirvana-sutra, etc.
The Vinaya Pitaka.--Brahmajala-sutra, Bodhisattva-caryanirdeca, etc.
The Abhidharma Pitaka.--Mahaprajnyaparamita-sutra,
Mahayana-craddhotpada-castra, Madhyamaka-castra, Yogacarya
bhumi-castra, etc.
THE HINAYANA-TRIPITAKA.
The Sutra Pitaka.--Dirghagama, Ekottaragama, Madhyamagama,
Samyuktagama, etc.
The Vinaya Pitaka.--Dharmagupta-vinaya, Mahasamghika-vinaya,
Sarvastivada-vinaya, etc.
The Abhidharma Pitaka.--Dharma-skandha-pada, Samgiti-paryaya-pada,
Jnyanaprasthana-castra, Abhidharma-kosa-castra, etc.
The term 'Tripitaka,' however, was not known at the time of Shakya
Muni, and almost all of the northern Buddhist records agree in
stating that the Tripitaka was rehearsed and settled in the same year
in which the Muni died. Mahavansa also says: "The book called
Abhidharma-pitaka was compiled, which was preached to god, and was
arranged in due order by 500 Budhu priests." But we believe that
Shakya Muni's teaching was known to the early Buddhists, not as
Tripitaka, but as Vinaya and Dharma, and even at the time of King
Acoka (who ascended the throne about 269 B.C.) it was not called
Tripitaka, but Dharma, as we have it in his Edicts. Mahayanists
unanimously assert the compilation of the Tripitaka in the first
council of Rajagrha, but they differ in opinion as to the question
who rehearsed the Abhidharma; notwithstanding, they agree as for the
other respects, as you see in the following:
The Sutra Pitaka, compiled by Ananda; the Vinaya Pitaka, compiled by
Upali; the Abhidharma Pitaka, compiled by Ananda--according to
Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnyaparamita-castra).
The Sutra Pitaka, compiled by Ananda; the Vinaya Pitaka, compiled by
Upali; the Abhidharma Pitaka, compiled by Kacyapa according to Huen
Tsang (Ta-tan-si-yu-ki).
The Sutra Pitaka, compiled by Ananda; the Vinaya Pitaka, compiled by
Upali; the Abhidharma Pitaka, compiled by Purna--according to
Paramartha ('A Commentary on the History of the Hinayana Schools').
The above-mentioned discrepancy clearly betrays the uncertainty of
their assertions, and gives us reason to discredit the compilation of
Abhidharma Pitaka at the first council. Besides, judging from the
Dharma-gupta-vinaya and other records, which states that Purna took
no part in the first council, and that he had different opinions as
to the application of the rules of discipline from that of Kacyapa,
there should be some errors in Paramartha's assertion.
Of these three collections of the Sacred Writings, the first two, or
Sutra and Vinaya, of Mahayana, as well as of Himayana, are believed
to be the direct teachings of Shakya Muni himself, because all the
instructions are put in the mouth of the Master or sanctioned by him.
The Mahayanists, however, compare the Hinayana doctrine with a
resting-place on the road for a traveller, while the Mahayana
doctrine with his destination. All the denominations of Buddhism,
with a single exception of Zen, are based on the authority of some
particular sacred writings. The Ten Dai Sect, for instance, is based
on Saddharma-pundarika-sutra; the Jo Do Sect on Larger
Sukhavati-vyuha, Smaller Sukhavati-vyuha, and Amitayus-dhyana-sutra;
the Ke Gon Sect on Avatamsaka-sutra; the Hosso Sect on
Samdhi-nirmocana-sutra.
Zen is based on the highest spiritual plane attained by Shakya Muni
himself. It can only be realized by one who has attained the same
plane. To describe it in full by means of words is beyond the power
even of Gotama himself. It is for this reason that the author of
Lankavatara-sutra insists that Shakya Muni spoke no word through his
long career of forty-nine years as a religious teacher, and that of
Mahaprajnyaparamita-sutra[FN#108] also express the same opinion. The
Scripture is no more nor less than the finger pointing to the moon of
Buddhahood. When we recognize the moon and enjoy its benign beauty,
the finger is of no use. As the finger has no brightness whatever,
so the Scripture has no holiness whatever. The Scripture is
religious currency representing spiritual wealth. It does not matter
whether money be gold, or sea-shells, or cows. It is a mere
substitute. What it stands for is of paramount importance. Away
with your stone-knife! Do not watch the stake against which a
running hare once struck its head and died. Do not wait for another
hare. Another may not come for ever. Do not cut the side of the
boat out of which you dropped your sword to mark where it sunk. The
boat is ever moving on. The Canon is the window through which we
observe the grand scenery of spiritual nature. To hold communion
directly with it we must get out of the window. It is a mere stray
fly that is always buzzing within it, struggling to get out. Those
who spend most of their lives in the study of the Scriptures, arguing
and explaining with hair-splitting reasonings, and attain no higher
plane in spirituality, are religious flies good for nothing but their
buzzing about the nonsensical technicalities. It is on this account
that Rin-zai declared:[FN#109] 'The twelve divisions of the Buddhist
Canon are nothing better than waste paper.'
[FN#108] Mahaprajnyaparamita-sutra, vol. 425.
[FN#109] Rin-zai-roku.
2. No Need of the Scriptural Authority for Zen.
Some Occidental scholars erroneously identify Buddhism with the
primitive faith of Hinayanism, and are inclined to call Mahayanism, a
later developed faith, a degenerated one. If the primitive faith be
called the genuine, as these scholars think, and the later developed
faith be the degenerated one, then the child should be called the
genuine man and the grown-up people be the degenerated ones;
similarly, the primitive society must be the genuine and the modern
civilization be the degenerated one. So also the earliest writings
of the Old Testament should be genuine and the four Gospels be
degenerated. Beyond all doubt Zen belongs to Mahayanism, yet this
does not imply that it depends on the scriptural authority of that
school, because it does not trouble itself about the Canon whether it
be Hinayana or Mahayana, or whether it was directly spoken by Shakya
Muni or written by some later Buddhists. Zen is completely free from
the fetters of old dogmas, dead creeds, and conventions of
stereotyped past, that check the development of a religious faith and
prevent the discovery of a new truth. Zen needs no Inquisition. It
never compelled nor will compel the compromise of a Galileo or a
Descartes. No excommunication of a Spinoza or the burning of a Bruno
is possible for Zen.
On a certain occasion Yoh Shan (Yaku-san) did not preach the doctrine
for a long while, and was requested to give a sermon by his assistant
teacher, saying: "Would your reverence preach the Dharma to your
pupils, who long thirst after your merciful instruction?" "Then ring
the bell," replied Yoh Shan. The bell rang, and all the monks
assembled in the Hall eager to bear the sermon. Yoh Shan went up to
the pulpit and descended immediately without saying a word. "You,
reverend sir," asked the assistant, "promised to deliver a sermon a
little while ago. Why do you not preach?" "Sutras are taught by the
Sutra teachers," said the master; "Castras are taught by the Castra
teachers. No wonder that I say nothing."[FN#110] This little
episode will show you that Zen is no fixed doctrine embodied in a
Sutra or a Castra, but a conviction or realization within us.
[FN#110] Zen-rin-rui-shu and E-gen.
To quote another example, an officer offered to Tung Shan (To-zan)
plenty of alms, and requested him to recite the sacred Canon. Tung
Shan, rising from his chair, made a bow respectfully to the officer,
who did the same to the teacher. Then Tung Shan went round the
chair, taking the officer with him, and making a bow again to the
officer, asked: "Do you see what I mean?" "No, sir," replied the
other. "I have been reciting the sacred Canon, why do you not
see?"[FN#111] Thus Zen does not regard Scriptures in black and white
as its Canon, for it takes to-days and tomorrows of this actual life
as its inspired pages.
[FN#111] Zen-rin-rui-sha and To-zan-roku.
3. The Usual Explanation of the Canon.
An eminent Chinese Buddhist scholar, well known as Ten Dai Dai Shi
(A.D. 538-597), arranged the whole preachings of Shakya Muni in a
chronological order in accordance with his own religious theory, and
observed that there were the Five Periods in the career of the Buddha
as a religious teacher. He tried to explain away all the
discrepancies and contradictions, with which the Sacred Books are
encumbered, by arranging the Sutras in a line of development. His
elucidation was so minute and clear, and his metaphysical reasonings
so acute and captivating, that his opinion was universally accepted
as an historical truth, not merely by the Chinese, but also by the
Japanese Mahayanists. We shall briefly state here the so-called Five
Periods.
Shakya Muni attained to Buddhaship in his thirtieth year, and sat
motionless for seven days under the Bodhi tree, absorbed in deep
meditation, enjoying the first bliss of his Enlightenment. In the
second week he preached his Dharma to the innumerable multitude of
Bodhisattvas,[FN#112] celestial beings, and deities in the nine
assemblies held at seven different places. This is the origin of a
famous Mahayana book entitled Buddhavatamsaka-mahavaipulya-sutra. In
this book the Buddha set forth his profound Law just as it was
discovered by his highly Enlightened mind, without considering the
mental states of his hearers. Consequently the ordinary hearers (or
the Buddha's immediate disciples) could not understand the doctrine,
and sat stupefied as if they were 'deaf and dumb,' while the great
Bodhisattvas fully understood and realized the doctrine. This is
called the first period, which lasted only two or three[FN#113] weeks.
[FN#112] Bodhisattva is an imaginary personage, or ideal saint,
superior to Arhat, or the highest saint of Hinayanism. The term
'Bodhisattva' was first applied to the Buddha before his
Enlightenment, and afterwards was adopted by Mahayanists to mean the
adherent of Mahayanism in contradistinction with the Cravaka or
hearers of Hinayanism.
[FN#113] Bodhiruci says to the effect that the preachings in the
first five assemblies were made in the first week, and the rest were
delivered in the second week. Nagarjuna says that the Buddha spoke
no word for fifty-seven days after his Enlightenment. It is said in
Saddharma-pundarika-sutra that after three weeks the Buddha preached
at Varanasi, and it says nothing respecting Avatamsaka-sutra. Though
there are divers opinions about the Buddha's first sermon and its
date, all traditions agree in this that he spent some time in
meditation, and then delivered the first sermon to the five ascetics
at Varanasi.
Thereupon Shakya Muni, having discovered that ordinary bearers were
too ignorant to believe in the Mahayana doctrine and appreciate the
greatness of Buddhahood, thought it necessary to modify his teaching
so as to adjust it to the capacity of ordinary people. So he went to
Varanasi (or Benares) and preached his modified doctrine--that is,
Hinayanism. The instruction given at that time has been handed down
to us as the four Agamas,[FN#114] or the four Nikayas. This is
called the second period, which lasted about twelve years. It was at
the beginning of this period that the Buddha converted the five
ascetics,[FN#115] who became his disciples. Most of the Çravakas or
the adherents of Hinayanism were converted during this period. They
trained their hearts in accordance with the modified Law, learned the
four noble truths,[FN#116] and worked out their own salvation.
[FN#114] (1) Anguttara, (2) Majjhima, (3) Digha, (4) Samyutta.
[FN#115] Kondanynya, Vappa, Baddiya, Mahanana, Assaji.
[FN#116] The first is the sacred truth of suffering; the second the
truth of the origin of suffering--that is, lust and desire; the third
the sacred truth of the extinction of suffering; the fourth the
sacred truth of the path that leads to the extinction of suffering.
There are eight noble paths that lead to the extinction of
suffering--that is, Right faith, Right resolve, Right speech, Right
action, Right living, Right effort, Right thought, and Right
meditation.
The Buddha then having found his disciples firmly adhering to
Hinayanism without knowing that it was a modified and imperfect
doctrine, he had to lead them up to a higher and perfect doctrine
that he might lead them up to Buddhahood. With this object in view
Shakya Muni preached Vimalakirtti-nirdeca-sutra[FN#117],
Lankavatara-sutra, and other sutras, in which he compared Hinayanism
with Mahayanism, and described the latter in glowing terms as a deep
and perfect Law, whilst he set forth the former at naught as a
superficial and imperfect one. Thus he showed his disciples the
inferiority of Hinayanism, and caused them to desire for Mahayanism.
This is said to be the third period, which lasted some eight years.
[FN#117] This is one of the most noted Mahayana books, and is said
to be the best specimen of the sutras belonging to this period. It
is in this sutra that most of Shakya's eminent disciples, known as
the adherents of Hinayanism, are astonished with the profound wisdom,
the eloquent speech, and the supernatural power of Vimalakirtti, a
Bodhisattva, and confess the inferiority of their faith. The author
frequently introduces episodes in order to condemn Hinayanism, making
use of miracles of his own invention.
The disciples of the Buddha now understood that Mahayanism was far
superior to Hinayanism, but they thought the higher doctrine was only
for Bodhisattvas and beyond their understanding. Therefore they
still adhered to the modified doctrine, though they did no longer
decry Mahayanism, which they had no mind to practise. Upon this
Shakya Muni preached Prajnyaparamita-sutras[FN#118] in the sixteen
assemblies held at four different places, and taught them Mahayanism
in detail in order to cause them to believe it and practise it. Thus
they became aware that there was no definite demarcation between
Mahayanism and Hinayanism, and that they might become Mahayanists.
This is the fourth period, which lasted about twenty-two years.
Now, the Buddha, aged seventy-two, thought it was high time to preach
his long-cherished doctrine that all sentient beings can attain to
Supreme Enlightenment; so he preached Saddharma-pundarika-sutra, in
which he prophesied when and where his disciples should become
Buddhas. It was his greatest object to cause all sentient beings to
be Enlightened and enable them to enjoy the bliss of Nirvana. It was
for this that he had endured great pain and hardships through his
previous existences. It was for this that he had left his heavenly
abode to appear on earth. It was for this that he had preached from
time to time through his long career of forty-seven years. Having
thus realized his great aim, Shakya Muni had now to prepare for his
final departure, and preached Mahaparinirvana-sutra in order to show
that all the animated and inanimate things were endowed with the same
nature as his. After this last instruction he passed to eternity.
This is called the fifth period, which lasted some eight years.
[FN#118] Nagarjuna's doctrine depends mainly on these sutras.
These five periods above mentioned can scarcely be called historical
in the proper sense of the term, yet they are ingeniously invented by
Ten Dai Dai Shi to set the Buddhist Scriptures in the order of
doctrinal development, and place Saddharma-pundarika in the highest
rank among the Mahayana books. His argument, however dogmatic and
anti-historical in no small degree, would be not a little valuable
for our reader, who wants to know the general phase of the Buddhist
Canon, consisting of thousands of fascicles.
4. Sutras used by Zen Masters.
Ten Dai failed to explain away the discrepancies and contradictions
of which the Canon is full, and often contradicted himself by the
ignoring of historical[FN#119] facts.
[FN#119] Let us state our own opinion on the subject in question.
The foundation of Hinayanism consists in the four Nikayas, or four
Agamas, the most important books of that school. Besides the four
Agamas, there exist in the Chinese Tripitaka numerous books
translated by various authors, some of which are extracts from
Agamas, and some the lives of the Buddha, while others are entirely
different sutras, apparently of later date. Judging from these
sources, it seems to us that most of Shakya Muni's original teachings
are embodied into the four Agamas. But it is still a matter of
uncertainty that whether they are stated in Agamas now extant just as
they were, for the Buddha's preachings were rehearsed immediately
after the Buddha's death in the first council held at Rajagrha, yet
not consigned to writing. They were handed down by memory about one
hundred years. Then the monks at Vaisali committed the so-called Ten
Indulgences, infringing the rules of the Order, and maintained that
Shakya Muni had not condemned them in his preachings. As there were,
however, no written sutras to disprove their assertion, the elders,
such as Yaca, Revata, and others, who opposed the Indulgences, had to
convoke the second council of 700 monks, in which they succeeded in
getting the Indulgences condemned, and rehearsed the Buddha's
instruction for the second time. Even in this council of Vaisali we
cannot find the fact that the Master's preachings were reduced to
writing. The decisions of the 700 elders were not accepted by the
party of opposition, who held a separate council, and settled their
own rules and doctrine. Thus the same doctrine of the Teacher began
to be differently stated and believed.
This being the first open schism, one disruption after another took
place among the Buddhistic Order. There were many different schools
of the Buddhists at the time when King Acoka ascended the throne
(about 269 B.C.), and the patronage of the King drew a great number
of pagan ascetics into the Order, who, though they dressed themselves
in the yellow robes, yet still preserved their religious views in
their original colour. This naturally led the Church into continual
disturbances and moral corruption. In the eighteenth year of Acoka's
reign the King summoned the council of 1,000 monks at Pataliputra
(Patna), and settled the orthodox doctrine in order to keep the
Dharma pure from heretical beliefs. We believe that about this time
some of the Buddha's preachings were reduced to writing, for the
missionaries despatched by the King in the year following the council
seem to have set out with written sutras. In addition to this, some
of the names of the passages of the Dharma are given in the Bharbra
edict of the King, which was addressed to the monks in Magadha. We
do not suppose, however, that all the sutras were written at once in
these days, but that they were copied down from memory one after
another at different times, because some of the sutras were put down
in Ceylon 160 years after the Council of Patna.
In the introductory book of Ekottaragama (Anguttara Nikaya), now
extant in the Chinese Tripitaka, we notice the following points: (1)
It is written in a style quite different from that of the original
Agama, but similar to that of the supplementary books of the Mahayana
sutras; (2) it states Ananda's compilation of the Tripitaka after the
death of the Master; (3) it refers to the past Buddhas, the future
Buddha Maitreya, and innumerable Bodhisattvas; (4) it praises the
profound doctrine of Mahayanism. From this we infer that the Agama
was put in the present form after the rise of the Mahayana School,
and handed down through the hand of Mahasanghika scholars, who were
much in sympathy with Mahayanism.
Again, the first book of Dirghagama, (Digha Nikaya), that describes
the line of Buddhas who appeared before Shakya Muni, adopts the whole
legend of Gotama's life as a common mode of all Buddhas appearing on
earth; while the second book narrates the death of Gotama and the
distribution of his relies, and refers to Pataliputra, the new
capital of Acoka. This shows us that the present Agama is not of an
earlier date than the third century B.C. Samyuktagama (Samyutta
Nikaya) also gives a detailed account of Acoka's conversion, and of
his father Bindusara. From these evidences we may safely infer that
the Hinayana sutras were put in the present shape at different times
between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D.
With regard to the Mahayana sutras we have little doubt about their
being the writings of the later Buddhist reformers, even if they are
put in the mouth of Shakya Muni. They are entirely different from
the sutras of Hinayanism, and cannot be taken as the preachings of
one and the same person. The reader should notice the following
points:
(1) Four councils were held for the rehearsal of the Tripitaka
namely, the first at Rajagrha, in the year of Shakya Muni's death;
the second at Vaisali, some 100 years after the Buddha; the third at
the time of King Acoka, about 235 years after the Master; the fourth
at the time of King Kanishka, the first century A.D. But all these
councils were held to compile the Hinayana sutras, and nothing is
known of the rehearsal of the Mahayana books. Some are of opinion
that the first council was held within the Sattapanni cave, near
Rajagrha, where the Hinayana Tripitaka was rehearsed by 500 monks,
while outside the cave there assembled a greater number of monks, who
were not admitted into the cave, and rehearsed the Mahayana
Tripitaka. This opinion, however, is based on no reliable source.
(2) The Indian orthodox Buddhists of old declared that the Mahayana
sutras were the fabrication of heretics or of the Evil One, and not
the teachings of the Buddha. In reply to this, the Mahayanists had
to prove that the Mahayana sutras were compiled by the direct
disciples of the Master; but even Nagarjuna could not vindicate the
compilation of the doubtful books, and said (in
Mahaprajnyaparamita-castra) that they were compiled by Ananda and
Manjucri, with myriads of Bodhisattvas at the outside of the Iron
Mountain Range, which encloses the earth. Asanga also proved (in
Mahayanalankara-sutra-castra) with little success that Mahayanism was
the Buddha's direct teachings. Some may quote
Bodhisattva-garbhastha-sutra in favour of the Mahayana; but it is of
no avail, as the sutra itself is the work of a later date.
(3) Although almost all of the Mahayana sutras, excepting
Avatamsaka-sutra, treat of Hinayanism as the imperfect doctrine
taught in the first part of the Master's career, yet not merely the
whole life of Gotama, but also events which occurred after his death
are narrated in the Hinayana sutras. This shows that the Mahayana
sutras were composed after the establishment of early Buddhism.
(4) The narratives given in the Hinayana sutras in reference to
Shakya Muni seem to be based on historical facts, but those in the
Mahayana books are full of wonders and extravagant miracles far from
facts.
(5) The Hinayana sutras retain the traces of their having been
classified and compiled as we see in Ekottaragama, while Mahayana
books appear to have been composed one after another by different
authors at different times, because each of them strives to excel
others, declaring itself to be the sutra of the highest doctrine, as
we see in Saddharma-pundarika, Samdhinirmocana,
Suvarnaprabhasottamaraja, etc.
(6) The dialogues in the Hinayana sutras are in general those between
the Buddha and his disciples, while in the Mahayana books imaginary
beings called Bodhisattvas take the place of disciples. Moreover, in
some books no monks are mentioned.
(7) Most of the Mahayana sutras declare that they themselves possess
those mystic powers that protect the reader or the owner from such
evils as epidemic, famine, war, etc.; but the Hinayana sutras are
pure from such beliefs.
(8) The Mahayana sutras extol not only the merits of the reading, but
the copying of the sutras. This unfailingly shows the fact that they
were not handed down by memory, as the Hinayana sutras, but written
by their respective authors.
(9) The Hinayana sutras were written with a plain style in Pali,
while the Mahayana books, with brilliant phraseology, in Sanskrit.
(10) The Buddha in the Hinayana sutras is little more than a human
being, while Buddha or Tathagata in the Mahayana is a superhuman
being or Great Deity.
(11) The moral precepts of the Hinayana were laid down by the Master
every time when his disciples acted indecently, while those of the
Mahayana books were spoken all at once by Tathagata.
(12) Some Mahayana sutras appear to be the exaggeration or
modification of what was stated in the Hinayana books, as we see in
Mahaparinirvana-sutra.
(13) If we take both the Hinayana and the Mahayana as spoken by one
and the same person, we cannot understand why there are so many
contradictory statements, as we see in the following:
(a) Historical Contradictions.--For instance, Hinayana sutras are
held to be the first sermon of the Buddha by the author of
Saddharma-pundarika, while Avatamsaka declares itself to be the first
sermon. Nagarjuna holds that Prajnya sutras are the first.
(b) Contradictions as to the Person of the Master.--For instance,
Agamas say the Buddha's body was marked with thirty-two
peculiarities, while the Mahayana books enumerate ninety-seven
peculiarities, or even innumerable marks.
(c) Doctrinal Contradictions.--For instance, the Hinayana sutras put
forth the pessimistic, nihilistic view of life, while the Mahayana
books, as a rule, express the optimistic, idealistic view.
(14) The Hinayana sutras say nothing of the Mahayana books, while the
latter always compare their doctrine with that of the former, and
speak of it in contempt. It is clear that the name 'Hinayana' was
coined by the Mahayanists, as there is no sutra which calls itself
'Hinayana.' It is therefore evident that when the Hinayana books
took the present shape there appeared no Mahayana sutras.
(15) The authors of the Mahayana sutras should have expected the
opposition of the Hinayanists, because they say not seldom that there
might be some who would not believe in and oppose Mahayanism as not
being the Buddha's teaching, but that of the Evil One. They say also
that one who would venture to say the Mahayana books are fictitious
should fall into Hell. For example, the author of
Mahaparinirvana-sutra says: "Wicked Bhiksus would say all Vaipulya
Mahayana sutras are not spoken by the Buddha, but by the Evil One."
(16) There are evidences showing that the Mahayana doctrine was
developed out of the Hinayana one.
(a) The Mahayanists' grand conception of Tathagata is the natural
development of that of those progressive Hinayanists who belonged to
the Mahasamghika School, which was formed some one hundred years
after the Master. These Hinayanists maintained that the Buddha had
infinite power, endless life, and limitlessly great body. The author
of Mahaparinirvana-sutra also says that Buddha is immortal, his
Dharma-kaya is infinite and eternal. The authors of
Mahayana-mulagata-hrdayabhumi-dhyana-sutra and of
Suvarnaprabha-sottamaraja-sutra enumerate the Three Bodies of Buddha,
while the writer of Lankavatara-sutra describes the Four Bodies, and
that of Avatamsaka-sutra the Ten Bodies of Tathagata.
(b) According to the Hinayana sutras, there are only four stages of
saintship, but the Mahasamghika School increases the number and gives
ten steps. Some Mahayana sutras also enumerate the ten stages of
Bodhisattva, while others give forty-one or fifty two stages.
(c) The Himayana sutras name six past Buddhas and one future Buddha
Maitreya, while the Mahayana sutras name thirty-five, fifty-three, or
three thousand Buddhas.
(d) The Hinayana sutras give the names of six Vijnyanas, while the
Mahayana books seven, eight, or nine Vijnyanas.
(17) For a few centuries after the Buddha we hear only of Hinayanism,
but not of Mahayanism, there being no Mahayana teacher.
(18) In some Mahayana sutras (Mahavairocanabhisambodhi-sutra, for
example) Tathagata Vairocana takes the place of Gotama, and nothing
is said of the latter.
(19) The contents of the Mahayana sutras often prove that they were,
composed, or rewritten, or some additions were made, long after the
Buddha. For instance, Mahamaya-sutra says that Acvaghosa would
refute heretical doctrines 600 years after the Master, and Nagarjuna
would advocate the Dharma 700 years after Gotama, while
Lankavatara-sutra prophesies that Nagarjuna would appear in South
India.
(20) The author of San-ron-gen-gi tells us Mahadeva, a leader of the
Mahasamghika School, used Mahayana sutras, together with the orthodox
Tripitaka 116 after the Buddha. It is, however, doubtful that they
existed at so early a date.
(21) Mahaprajnyaparamita-castra, ascribed to Nagarjuna, refers to
many Mahayana books, which include Saddharma-pundarika,
Vimalakirtti-nirdeca, Sukhavati-vyuha, Mahaprajnyaparamita,
Pratyutpanna-buddhasammukhavasthita-samadhi, etc. He quotes in his
Dacabhumivibhasa-castra, Mahaparinirvana, Dacabhumi, etc.
(22) Sthiramati, whose date is said to be earlier than Nagarjuna and
later than Acvaghosa, tries to prove that Mahayanism was directly
taught by the Master in his Mahayanavataraka-castra. And
Mahayanottaratantra-castra, which is ascribed by some scholars to
him, refers to Avatamsaka, Vajracchedikka-prajnyaparamita,
Saddharmapundarika, Crimala-devi-simhananda, etc.
(23) Chi-leu-cia-chin, who came to China in A.D. 147 or A.D. 164,
translated some part of Mahayana books known as Maharatnakuta-sutra
and Mahavaipulya-mahasannipata-sutra.
(24) An-shi-kao, who came to China in A.D. 148, translated such
Mahayana books as Sukhavati-vyaha, Candra-dipa-samadhi, etc.
(25) Matanga, who came to China in A.D. 67, is said by his biographer
to have been informed of both Mahayanism and Hinayanism to have given
interpretations to a noted Mahayana book, entitled Suvarnaprabhasa.
(26) Sandhinirmocana-sutra is supposed to be a work of Asanga not
without reason, because Asanga's doctrine is identical with that of
the sutra, and the sutra itself is contained in the latter part of
Yogacaryabhumi-castra. The author divides the whole preachings of
the Master into the three periods that he might place the Idealistic
doctrine in the highest rank of the Mahayana schools.
(27) We have every reason to believe that Mahayana sutras began to
appear (perhaps Prajnya sutras being the first) early in the first
century A.D., that most of the important books appeared before
Nagarjuna, and that some of Mantra sutras were composed so late as
the time of Vajrabodhi, who came to China in A.D. 719.
To say nothing of the strong opposition raised by the Japanese
scholars,[FN#120] such an assumption can be met with an assumption of
entirely opposite nature, and the difficulties can never be overcome.
For Zen masters, therefore, these assumptions and reasonings are
mere quibbles unworthy of their attention.
[FN#120] The foremost of them was Chuki Tominaga (1744), of whose
life little is known. He is said to have been a nameless merchant at
Osaka. His Shutsu-jo-ko-go is the first great work of higher
criticism on the Buddhist Scriptures.
To believe blindly in the Scriptures is one thing, and to be pious is
another. How often the childish views of Creation and of God in the
Scriptures concealed the light of scientific truths; how often the
blind believers of them fettered the progress of civilization; how
often religious men prevented us from the realizing of a new truth,
simply because it is against the ancient folk-lore in the Bible.
Nothing is more absurd than the constant dread in which religious
men, declaring to worship God in truth and in spirit, are kept at the
scientific discovery of new facts incompatible with the folk-lore.
Nothing is more irreligious than to persecute the seekers of truth in
order to keep up absurdities and superstitions of bygone ages.
Nothing is more inhuman than the commission of 'devout cruelty' under
the mask of love of God and man. Is it not the misfortune, not only
of Christianity, but of whole mankind, to have the Bible encumbered
with legendary histories, stories of miracles, and a crude cosmology,
which from time to time come in conflict with science?
The Buddhist Scriptures are also overloaded with Indian superstitions
and a crude cosmology, which pass under the name of Buddhism.
Accordingly, Buddhist scholars have confused not seldom the doctrine
of the Buddha with these absurdities, and thought it impious to
abandon them. Kaiseki,[FN#121] for instance, was at a loss to
distinguish Buddhism from the Indian astronomy, which is utterly
untenable in the face of the fact. He taxed his reason to the utmost
to demonstrate the Indian theory and at the same time to refute the
Copernican theory. One day he called on Yeki-do[FN#122] a
contemporary Zen master, and explained the construction of the Three
Worlds as described in the Scriptures, saying that Buddhism would
come to naught if the theory of the Three Worlds be overthrown by the
Copernican. Then Yeki-do exclaimed: "Buddhism aims to destroy the
Three Worlds and to establish Buddha's Holy Kingdom throughout the
universe. Why do you waste your energy in the construction of the
Three Worlds?"[FN#123]
[FN#121] A learned Japanese Buddhist scholar, who died in 1882.
[FN#122] A famous Zen master, the abbot of the So-ji-ji Monastery,
who died in 1879.
[FN#123] Kin-sei-zen-rin-gen-ko-roku.
In this way Zen does not trouble itself about unessentials of the
Scriptures, on which it never depends for its authority. Do-gen, the
founder of the Japanese So To Sect, severely condemns (in his
Sho-bo-gen-zo) the notions of the impurity of women inculcated in the
Scriptures. He openly attacks those Chinese monks who swore that
they would not see any woman, and ridicules those who laid down rules
prohibiting women from getting access to monasteries. A Zen master
was asked by a Samurai whether there was hell in sooth as taught in
the Scriptures. "I must ask you," replied he, "before I give you an
answer. For what purpose is your question? What business have you,
a Samurai, with a thing of that sort? Why do you bother yourself
about such an idle question? Surely you neglect your duty and are
engaged in such a fruitless research. Does this not amount to your
stealing the annual salary from your lord?" The Samurai, offended
not a little with these rebukes, stared at the master, ready to draw
his sword at another insult. Then the teacher said smilingly: "Now
you are in Hell. Don't you see?"
Does, then, Zen use no scripture? To this question we answer both
affirmatively and negatively: negatively, because Zen regards all
sutras as a sort of pictured food which has no power of appeasing
spiritual hunger; affirmatively, because it freely makes use of them
irrespective of Mahayana or Hinayana. Zen would not make a bonfire
of the Scriptures as Caliph Omar did of the Alexandrian library. A
Zen master, having seen a Confucianist burning his books on the
thought that they were rather a hindrance to his spiritual growth,
observed: "You had better burn your books in mind and heart, but not
the books in black and white."[FN#124]
[FN#124] Ukiyo-soshi.
As even deadly poison proves to be medicine in the band of a good
doctor, so a heterodox doctrine antagonistic to Buddhism is used by
the Zen teachers as a finger pointing to the principle of Zen. But
they as a rule resorted to Lankavatara-sutra,[FN#125]
Vajracchedika-prajnya-paramita-sutra,[FN#126]
Vimalakirtti-nirdeca-sutra[FN#127]
Mahavaipulya-purnabuddha-sutra[FN#128]
Mababuddhosnisa-tathagata-guhyahetu-saksatkrta-prasannatha-sarvabhodhi
sattvacarya-surangama-sutra,[FN#129] Mahapari-nirvana-sutra,[FN#130]
Saddharma-pundarika-sutra, Avatamsaka-sutra, and so forth.
[FN#125] This book is the nearest approach to the doctrine of Zen,
and is said to have been pointed out by Bodhidharma as the best book
for the use of his followers. See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 175, 1761
177.
[FN#126] The author of the sutra insists on the unreality of all
things. The book was first used by the Fifth Patriarch, as we have
seen in the first chapter. See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15.
[FN#127] The sutra agrees with Zen in many respects, especially in
its maintaining that the highest truth can only be realized in mind,
and cannot be expressed by word of mouth. See Nanjo's Catalogue,
Nos. 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149.
[FN#128] The sutra was translated into Chinese by Buddhatrata in the
seventh century. The author treats at length of Samadhi, and sets
forth a doctrine similar to Zen, so that the text was used by many
Chinese Zenists. See Nanjo's Catalogue, Nos. 427 and 1629.
[FN#129] The sutra was translated into Chinese by Paramiti and
Mikacakya, of the Tang dynasty (618-907). The author conceives
Reality as Mind or Spirit. The book belongs to the Mantra class,
although it is much used by Zenists. See Nanjo's Catalogue, No. 446.
[FN#130] The author of the book sets forth his own conception of
Nirvana and of Buddha, and maintains that all beings are endowed with
Buddha-nature. He also gives in detail an incredible account about
Gotama's death.
5. A Sutra Equal in Size to the Whole World.
The holy writ that Zen masters admire is not one of parchment nor of
palm-leaves, nor in black and white, but one written in heart and
mind. On one occasion a King of Eastern India invited the venerable
Prajnyatara, the teacher of Bodhidharma, and his disciples to dinner
at his own palace.
Finding all the monks reciting the sacred sutras with the single
exception of the master, the King questioned Prajnyatara: "Why do you
not, reverend sir, recite the Scriptures as others do?" "My poor
self, your majesty," replied he, "does not go out to the objects of
sense in my expiration nor is it confined within body and mind in my
inspiration. Thus I constantly recite hundreds, thousands, and
millions of sacred sutras." In like manner the Emperor Wu, of the
Liang dynasty, once requested Chwen Hih (Fu Dai-shi) to give a
lecture on the Scriptures. Chwen went upon the platform, struck the
desk with a block of wood, and came down. Pao Chi (Ho-shi), a
Buddhist tutor to the Emperor, asked the perplexed monarch: "Does
your Lordship understand him?" "No," answered His Majesty. "The
lecture of the Great Teacher is over." As it is clear to you from
these examples, Zen holds that the faith must be based not on the
dead Scriptures, but on living facts, that one must turn over not the
gilt pages of the holy writ, but read between the lines in the holy
pages of daily life, that Buddha must be prayed not by word of mouth,
but by actual deed and work, and that one must split open, as the
author of Avatamsaka-sutra allegorically tells us, the smallest grain
of dirt to find therein a sutra equal in size to the whole world.
"The so-called sutra," says Do-gen, "covers the whole universe. It
transcends time and space. It is written with the characters of
heaven, of man, of beasts, of Asuras,[FN#13l] of hundreds of grass,
and of thousands of trees. There are characters, some long, some
short, some round, some square, some blue, some red, some yellow, and
some white-in short, all the phenomena in the universe are the
characters with which the sutra is written." Shakya Muni read that
sutra through the bright star illuminating the broad expanse of the
morning skies, when he sat in meditation under the Bodhi Tree.
[FN#13l] The name of a demon.
Ling Yun (Rei-un) read it through the lovely flowers of a peach-tree
in spring after some twenty years of his research for Light, and said:
"A score of years I looked for Light:
There came and went many a spring and fall.
E'er since the peach blossoms came in my sight,
I never doubt anything at all."
Hian Yen (Kyo-gen) read it through the noise of bamboo, at which he
threw pebbles. Su Shih (So-shoku) read it through a waterfall, one
evening, and said:
"The brook speaks forth the Tathagata's words divine,
The hills reveal His glorious forms that shine."
6. Great Men and Nature.
All great men, whether they be poets or scientists or religious men
or philosophers, are not mere readers of books, but the perusers of
Nature. Men of erudition are often lexicons in flesh and blood, but
men of genius read between the lines in the pages of life. Kant, a
man of no great erudition, could accomplish in the theory of
knowledge what Copernicus did in astronomy. Newton found the law of
gravitation not in a written page, but in a falling apple.
Unlettered Jesus realized truth beyond the comprehension of many
learned doctors. Charles Darwin, whose theory changed the whole
current of the world's thought, was not a great reader of books, but
a careful observer of facts. Shakespeare, the greatest of poets, was
the greatest reader of Nature and life. He could hear the music even
of heavenly bodies, and said:
"There's not the smallest orb which thou beholdest,
But in his motion like an angel sings."
Chwang Tsz (So-shi), the greatest of Chinese philosophers, says:
"Thou knowest the music of men, but not the music of the earth. Thou
knowest the music of the earth, but not the music of the
heaven."[FN#132] Goethe, perceiving a profound meaning in Nature,
says: "Flowers are the beautiful hieroglyphics of Nature with which
she indicates how much she loves us."
[FN#132] Chwang Tsz, vol. i., p. 10.
Son-toku[FN#133] (Ninomiya), a great economist, who, overcoming all
difficulties and hardships by which he was beset from his childhood,
educated himself, says: "The earth and the heaven utter no word, but
they ceaselessly repeat the holy book unwritten."
[FN#133] One of the greatest self-made men in Japan, who lived
1787-1856.
7. The Absolute and Reality are but an Abstraction.
A grain of sand you, trample upon has a deeper significance than a
series of lectures by your verbal philosopher whom you respect. It
contains within itself the whole history of the earth; it tells you
what it has seen since the dawn of time; while your philosopher
simply plays on abstract terms and empty words. What does his
Absolute, or One, or Substance mean? What does his Reality or Truth
imply? Do they denote or connote anything? Mere name! mere
abstraction! One school of philosophy after another has been
established on logical subtleties; thousands of books have been
written on these grand names and fair mirages, which vanish the
moment that your hand of experience reaches after them.
"Duke Hwan," says Chwang Tsz,[FN#134] "seated above in his hall, was"
(once) reading a book, and a wheelwright, Phien, was making a wheel
below it. Laying aside his hammer and chisel, Phien went up the
steps and said: 'I venture to ask your Grace what words you are
reading?' The duke said: 'The words of sages.' 'Are these sages
alive?' Phien continued. 'They are dead,' was the reply. 'Then,'
said the other, 'what you, my Ruler, are reading is only the dregs
and sediments of those old men.' The duke said:
[FN#134] Chwang Tsz, vol. ii., p. 24.
'How should you, a wheelwright, have anything to say about the book
which I am reading? If you can explain yourself, very well; if you
cannot, you shall die.' The wheelwright said: 'Your servant will
look at the thing from the point of view of his own art. In making a
wheel, if I proceed gently, that is pleasant enough, but the
workmanship is not strong; if I proceed violently, that is toilsome
and the joinings do not fit. If the movements of my hand are neither
(too) gentle nor (too) violent, the idea in my mind is realized. But
I cannot tell (how to do this) by word of mouth; there is a knack in
it. I cannot teach the knack to my son, nor can my son learn it from
me. Thus it is that I am in my seventieth year, and am (still)
making wheels in my old age. But these ancients, and what it was not
possible for them to convey, are dead and gone. So then what you, my
Ruler, are reading is but their dregs and sediments." Zen has no
business with the dregs and sediments of sages of yore.
8. The Sermon of the Inanimate.
The Scripture of Zen is written with facts simple and familiar, so
simple and familiar with everyday life that they escape observation
on that very account. The sun rises in the east. The moon sets in
the west. High is the mountain. Deep is the sea. Spring comes with
flowers; summer with the cool breeze; autumn with the bright moon;
winter with the fakes of snow. These things, perhaps too simple and
too familiar for ordinary observers to pay attention to, have had
profound significance for Zen. Li Ngao (Ri-ko) one day asked Yoh
Shan (Yaku-san): "What is the way to truth?" Yoh Shan, pointing to
the sky and then to the pitcher beside him, said: "You see?" "No,
sir," replied Li Ngao. "The cloud is in the sky," said Yoh Shan,
"and the water in the pitcher." Huen Sha (Gen-sha) one day went upon
the platform and was ready to deliver a sermon when he heard a
swallow singing. "Listen," said he, "that small bird preaches the
essential doctrine and proclaims the eternal truth." Then he went
back to his room, giving no sermon.[FN#135]
[FN#135] Den-to-roku and E-gen.
The letters of the alphabet, a, b, c, etc., have no meaning whatever.
They are but artificial signs, but when spelt they can express any
great idea that great thinkers may form. Trees, grass, mountains,
rivers, stars, moons, suns. These are the alphabets with which the
Zen Scripture is written. Even a, b, c, etc., when spelt, can
express any great idea. Why not, then, these trees, grass, etc., the
alphabets of Nature when they compose the Volume of the Universe?
Even the meanest clod of earth proclaims the sacred law.
Hwui Chung[FN#136] (E-chu) is said first to have given an expression
to the Sermon of the Inanimate. "Do the inanimate preach the
Doctrine?" asked a monk of Hwui Chung on one occasion. "Yes, they
preach eloquently and incessantly. There is no pause in their
orations," was the reply. "Why, then, do I not hear them?" asked the
other again. "Even if you do not, there are many others who can hear
them." "Who can hear them?" "All the sages hear and understand
them," said Hwui Chung. Thus the Sermon of the Inanimate had been a
favourite topic of discussion 900 years before Shakespeare who
expressed the similar idea, saying:
"And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything."
[FN#136] A direct disciple of the Sixth Patriarch.
"How wonderful is the Sermon of the Inanimate," says Tung Shan
(To-zan). "You cannot hear it through your ears, but you can hear it
through your eyes." You should hear it through your mind's eyes,
through your heart's eyes, through your inmost soul's eyes, not
through your intellect, not through your perception, not through your
knowledge, not through your logic, not through your metaphysics. To
understand it you have to divine, not to define; you have to observe,
not to calculate; you have to sympathize, not to analyze; you have to
see through, not to criticize; you have not to explain, but to feel;
you have not to abstract, but to grasp; you have to see all in each,
but not to know all in all; you have to get directly at the soul of
things, penetrating their hard crust of matter by your rays of the
innermost consciousness. "The falling leaves as well as the blooming
flowers reveal to us the holy law of Buddha," says a Japanese Zenist.
Ye who seek for purity and peace, go to Nature. She will give you
more than ye ask. Ye who long for strength and perseverance, go to
Nature. She will train and strengthen you. Ye who aspire after an
ideal, go to Nature. She will help you in its realization. Ye who
yearn after Enlightenment, go to Nature. She will never fail to
grant your request.