- THE MIND AS THE BUDDHA-NATURE:
- THE CONCEPT OF THE ABSOLUTE IN CH’AN BUDDHISM
- Yun-hun Jan
Although Ch’an Buddhism has a long history, the name of the
Ch’an School (ch’an-men(a) or ch’an-tsung(b))(1) was a relatively late
development. It was Tsung-mi(c) (780-841),(2) the great Master of Kuei-fung who, for the
first time, adopted the term in the ninth century A.D. It is interesting to note that it
was the same monk-scholar who used the School of Mind (hsin-tsung(d))(3) as a synonym of
the Ch’an school. Tsung-mi was a scholar of Buddhist thought who had personal
experience in the broad-ranging knowledge of Ch’an traditions. He collected relevant
materials and wrote extensively in an effort to analyze the doctrine and practices of the
tradition. His identification of the Mind with the Ch’an indicates that, in his
opinion, the Mind was the central focus of the school. Although Tsung-mi contributed a
good deal to the understanding of Ch’an Buddhism, his contributions remained almost
unknown for a thousand years; it is only during the last two decades that scholars have
gradually come to recognize his contribution, with considerable astonishment and
admiration. This article is an attempt to describe, analyze and assess Tsung-mi’s
thesis that the doctrine of Mind is the central focus of Ch’an Buddhism and that the
Mind itself is the absolute.
THE BACKGROUND
Although the early development of Ch’an in China is still not
entirely known, its general outline is relatively clear. Initially there were a limited
number of practitioners who followed the teachings of Bodhidharma and who often added new
elements to the tradition. However, from the early days of the eighth century A.D., the
tradition suddenly began to flourish. Various teachers developed a following and achieved
some eminence, all of them claiming that they were the true authorities of the Ch’an
school. In spite of their identical claims, their doctrines and methods for cultivation
were partly in agreement and partly in conflict. Taking the doctrine of Mind as an
example, most of these teachers agreed that the Mind in its essence is quiet, pure and
absolute, while a few others remained ambiguous on the subject. Apart from this
theoretical difference, there was also a controversy with respect to cultivation, namely,
if the Mind is pure, all mental functions would be pure and that being the case, control
of the mind would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if the mind is not entirely pure,
then in spiritual efforts some control becomes essential. Those who spoke of the mind with
a pan-realistic tone can be represented by Ma-tsu or Tao-i(e) (709-788) and his disciples.
They were known at the time as the Hung-chou(f) school of Ch’an Buddhism. The
teaching of Tao-i is well known for its dictum "This Mind is the Buddha." He
advised his disciples: "All of you should realize that your own Mind is Buddha, that
is, this mind is Buddha’s mind."(4) Monk P’u-yuan(g) (748-834) of
Nan-ch’uan stated that the "Tao is nothing but the ordinary mind."(5)
"Pang Yun(h), a lay disciple of Matsu also claimed that "with the three times
non-existent, Mind is the same as Buddha-mind."(6) Monk Hui-hai(i), the favorite
"great pearl" of this same master often told his audiences: "Your mind is
the Buddha, it is unnecessary to use the Buddha to search for another Buddha; your mind is
the Law, it is, unnecessary to use the Law to search for another Law."(7)
If this claim that the Mind is the Buddha is difficult for scholars to
understand without any explanation, the concept itself is even more difficult. This is
inevitable since the Ch’an school as a whole and the Hung-chou school in particular
were fond of drastic methods in striving to attain enlightenment. Taking a conversation as
an illustration of such difficulties, let us recall the story of Fa-ch’ang(j)
(752-839), another member of the school. When this monk became the abbot of a monastery,
he was asked by a colleague: "What have you learnt from the great Master that
qualified you to become the abbot of this monastery?" "The abbot replied,
"The great Master has told me that this very mind is the Buddha." "The
Great Master has lately changed his way of teaching," the questioner said, "he
is now saying that this very mind is neither the Mind nor the Buddha". "The
abbot said, "This old fellow has confused people ceaselessly without an end. I do not
care that he has said that it is neither the Mind nor the Buddha; I still hold that this
very mind is the Buddha."(8)
When the great Master heard the conversation, he said that the abbot
had now become mature. The pan-realistic tone of the school was accurately noted by
Tsung-mi when he wrote his typologies of Ch’an Buddhism. He described the school as
follows:
[The school taught that all actions such as] the arising of mind, the
movements of thought, a snapping of fingers, a sigh or a cough, or to raise the eyebrows,
all the functions of the whole substance of Buddha-nature... All coveting, hatred and
delusion, all acts of good and evil with their fruit of suffering and pleasure are nothing
but Buddha-nature....(9)
In contrast with the aforementioned pan-realistic philosophy, there was
another influential but shadowy branch of Ch’an Buddhism which is known as the
Ox-head school, It was influential inasmuch as recent research has determined that many
basic doctrines as well as documents attributed to Bodhidharma are actually the works of
this school.(10) It was shadowy inasmuch as recent research has disproved the claim that
the founder of this school was a disciple of the fourth patriarch of Ch’an
school.(11) Whatever the history might be, one fact is clear. By the eighth century A.D.,
Fa-jung(k) (594-657) had already been accepted by Ch’an Buddhists as the founder of
the Ox-head school and the school was regarded as a branch of the Ch’an tradition.
What was the principal doctrine of the school? The verses attributed to Fa-jung summarizes
it as follows:
When no-mind, there is instantly nothing.
When nothing, one confronts instantly the reality of Heaven.
This reality is the Tao which is great.
Mind and Nature are never born,
What is the use of views and knowledge?
Even not a single dharma ever existed,
Why care about perfuming and refinement?(12)
At the time Tsung-mi composed his treatises on the typology of
Ch’an Buddhism, he described the doctrine of the Ox-head school as follows:
The sect has taught the absolute negation without anything to rely on.
This is to say that everything, both profane and sacred are dreamlike illusions and
entirely nonexistent. The nonexistent does not begin from the present but is originally
so. Even the knowledge which leads one to attain to nothingness is unobtainable. There are
no Buddhas nor sentient beings as all are identical in dharmadhaatu; and even the
dharmadhaatu itself is merely a borrowed name. If the mind is nonexistent, who will talk
about dharmadhaatu? As the cultivation itself is nonexistent, one should not cultivate;
and as Buddhas are nonexistent, so their worship is unnecessary. If one claims that there
is a dharma which is better than nirvaa.na, I would still say that it is a dreamlike
illusion. There is no Law to follow, nor a Buddhahood to attain. Whatever the effort, all
are deluding and false.(13)
Apart from the theoretical difference between the Ox-head and Hung-chou
schools, there was also a controversy regarding religious cultivation. According to the
pan-realistic school of Hung-chou, since the Mind is the Buddha, thoughts and actions are
manifestations of the Mind. One should not restrain the Mind nor cultivate the Mind by the
Mind itself. Cultivation means doing nothing and letting the Mind be completely free. The
Ox-head School of Negation agrees with the teaching of doing nothing as the way for
cultivation, but it supports this teaching on different grounds. Considering that
everything is dreamlike and entirely nonexistent, any cultivation is unnecessary. One
would be a fool if he wasted time and effort for nothing. In contrast with the teaching of
doing nothing, there were other schools of Ch’an which strongly opposed this radical
attitude. Of these opponents, the Northern school is representative. According to this
school, although the mind is originally pure, it is often polluted by defilement due to
ignorance and cravings. One has to control the Mind so that it will not be further
polluted; and one has to study and to live a pure life so that the past pollutions will be
gradually removed.
When these conflicting views and practical teachings are compared, the
controversy is clear and dramatic. Tsung-mi recognized this situation as a problem when he
commented that "the doctrines preached by these established sects are contradictory
and obstructive to each other."(14) He further pointed out that "some claimed
that from morning to evening all actions arising from the views of discrimination are
false; some say all discriminate doings are real...."(15) At a practical level, he
noted that "Some give free course to their will; some restrain their mind."(16)
How could this confusion be cleared up and those who seek enlightenment
from bewilderment be set free? First, Tsung-mi collected all available documents of the
Ch’an schools. Then, compared and analyzed them according to Buddhist doctrines. His
detachment from personal involvement gave him a degree of independence and objectivity,
and his analysis of Ch’an experiences in the light of Buddhist philosophy made his
presentation more systematic. As far as the Ch’an concept of the Mind is concerned,
he found that the same controversy also existed in Buddhist scriptures. He states:
"In some suutras, the Mind has been blamed as a thief, hence it must be cut off;
whereas in others, the Mind has been praised as the Buddha, hence it is urged to cultivate
it. Some say it is good; while others say it is evil...."(17)
THE FOUR ASPECTS OF MIND
After careful study and deep reflection, Tsung-mi came out with a new
interpretation of the Ch’an concept of Mind. His interpretation of the Mind is
largely dependent on the framework of a well-known and accepted text, the Awakening of
Faith [Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin-lun(l)] attributed to’Asvaghosa. Based on this
text, Tsung-mi considers that as a dharma, the Mind has two aspects: the absolute and the
phenomenal.(18) The absolute aspect is the substance (t’i(m)); and the phenomenal
aspect is the appearance (hsiang(n)). The absolute aspect is universal and unchanging, yet
it is capable of adapting itself to particular and changing situations. He further argued
that the unchanging substance is the principal and that the changeable adaptations are its
meanings. The central problem lies with a dialectic understanding of the relationship
between the two seemingly incompatible aspects.
Though Tsung-mi follows the theoretical framework of the Awakening of
Faith by dividing the Mind into two aspects, his interpretation is not a mechanical
transplantation or a simplistic compromise. Rather, it is a carefully thought out
interpretation based on an assimilation of Buddhist philosophy as a whole. First, it
involved dividing the Mind into two primary aspects, the absolute and the phenomenal.
Second, he further trifurcated the phenomenal into three aspects. Finally, he synthesized
all the aspects into a unified system. Tsung-mi states that the Mind should be discussed
using four different terms. These four terms originated in different Sanskrit words as
well as in their Chinese equivalents. Because of a lack of clear understanding of these
terms, confusion and bewilderment have arisen. To remove this confusion and bewilderment,
it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the different aspects of the Mind. What
are these aspects? Tsung-mi states that the Mind can be understood in terms of physical,
mental, collective consciousness, and the absolute. The first three aspects are
phenomenal, and the last one is entirely absolute. Now let us see how he analyzed the Mind
into these four aspects.
The first aspect of Mind in his analysis is the physical heart. He
states it is originally known in India as h.rdaya, which is one of the five viscera.
Tsung-mi noted that the heart had been discussed in a Taoist text, the Huang-t’ing
ching(o) [Yellow Court Canon(19)]. This may lead some scholars to suspect that this
concept may be a form borrowed wholesale from the Taoist theory of the physical body. This
suspicion seems more plausible when one reads from Reverend Nyanatiloka’s statement
on hadayavatthu. "In the canonical texts, however, even in the Abhidhamma-pi.taka, no
such (physical) base is ever localized, a fact which seems to have first been discovered
by Shwe Zan Oung."(20) As far as Chinese Buddhist tradition is concerned, the
physical base of consciousness had already been mentioned in a commentary to the
Yogacaryaabhuumi-’saastra, Yu-chia-lun chi(p) by Tun-lun(q) of the T’ang dynasty
(618-906).(21) This is not to suggest that Tsung-mi’s statement on the physical mind
or heart owed nothing to the Taoist text, which is fact Tsung-mi himself had openly
acknowledged in delineating this aspect of mind.
The second aspect of mind named by Tsung-mi was Yuan-lu hsin(r),(22)
which may be rendered as "the Thinking Mind." The word yuan is understood as an
abbreviation of p’an-yuan(s) which means "to cling on to conditional
objects"; and lu means "to consider." The term indicates that the two
important functions of this mind are its grasp and its discrimination of objects. Tsung-mi
himself identified this aspect with the eight kinds of consciousness found in Yogaacaarin
philosophy. This includes both the consciousness and the mental properties (cetasikas). He
further pointed out that some of them are determinable and others are not; some are good
and some are evil. This aspect of Mind has been discussed at length in various scriptures.
The third aspect of Mind as listed by Tsung-mi is citta. In Chinese
this is called chi-ch’i hsin(t), literally meaning the "accumulative and ensuing
mind."(23) This is identical with aalayavij~naana, the eighth consciousness in the
Yogaacaara system. The descriptive term ‘accumulative and ensuing’ denotes the
principal functions of consciousness, that is, the cosmic process of consciousness as the
Alaya "is the receptum of the impressions of past vij~naanas, while in its own turn
it gives rise to further vij~naanas by maturing those impressions."(24) Tsung-mi also
contends that this aspect of mind is what the Taoist school calls the ‘spirit’
(shen(u)) and what other religions in India call the ‘self’ (aatman). His
interpretation of Alayavij~naana as the spirit or the Self certainly seems biased, as it
implies that the Taoist and Vedaantic concepts of absolute are, in his judgment, really
not the absolute at all. Rather, they are only equal to the higher consciousness in the
Buddhist scheme. However, as this is only of marginal interest here, we must leave the
development of this observation to some later discussion.
The most important aspect of the Mind is the fourth, which Tsung-mi
calls h.rdaya or Chien-shih hsin(v) , literally meaning the "firm and solid
Mind."(25) Tsung-mi claims that this actually "is the real Mind." He
further urges that "because the eighth consciousness has no separate entity of its
own apart from the Real Mind,"(26) it is easy for scholars to misunderstand the two
as being the same. The Real Mind has tow functions: associability and dissociability with
false thoughts. The associability is determined by ignorance; when ignorance is removed by
wisdom, the associability will be transformed into dissociability. Tsung-mi explains that
"the word ‘Associability’ refers to the inclusive power of Mind in its
relation to purity or Impurity. This is why the mind has been termed as the Storehouse of
consciousness. The word ‘dissociability’ refers to the exclusive power of Mind
in its relation to phenomena, i.e., the unchanging Substance. This is why the Mind is also
termed as Suchness. Both of them are jointly known as the Womb of Tathaagata."(27)
Tsung-mi quotes from three scriptures to support his theory of absolute
Mind and its phenomenal aspects. The first quotation is from the La.nkaavataara Suutra,
which states that "The name of nirvaa.na is One-mind. One-mind is the Womb of
Tathaagata."(28) On the basis of this quotation, he justifies his identification of
the One-mind with the other two terms, nirvaa.na and Tathaagatagarbha. The second
quotation comes from the ‘sriimaalaadevii-suutra, which declares that "This
Dharmakaaya... when not free from the Store of defilement is referred to as the
Tathaagatagarbha."(29) This justifies Tsung-mi’s contention that the four
aspects of Mind, both pure and impure are originally of the same substance. The third
quotation is from the Ghanavyuuha-suutra, which is translated as follows:
The Womb of Tathaagata spoken by the Buddha means aalayavij~naana;
however, those of defective knowledge do not understand that the Womb is the
aalayavij~naana. The relationship between the pure Womb of Tathaagata and the worldly
aalayavij~naana resembles gold and its productions such as finger-rings; the
characteristics might be different, yet [the substance] is not.(30)
With the support of the aforementioned scriptural sources, Tsung-mi
states that the "True Nature (bhuutatathataa) of the original Enlightenment in all
sentient beings is also known as the Buddha-nature (Buddlataa) or the Mind
(hsin-ti(w)."(31) In his opinion, this True Nature "is the Source of all
dharmas; this is why it has also been termed as the dharmataa. It is the Source of both
the deluded and the enlighted; this is the reason why it is known as the Storehouse
Consciousness or the Tathaagatagarbha."(32)
Although the four aspects of the Mind do not differ in substance, this
does not mean that they are identical. In that event, there would be no dispute between
our author and the pan-realistic school of Hung-chou. Tsung-mi explains that in substance
there is no difference between the deluded and the enlightened, as all of them have the
Mind or Buddha-nature innately. Hence they are capable of enlightenment. However, the
absolute Mind is subject to momentary delusion if it is obscured by ignorance, thus
differentiating itself into various views. Once the Mind is differentiated and involved
with views and responds to worldly affairs, then "there are differences between real
and false, root and branches."(33) When this difference is expressed in terms of
Mind, "the first three aspects of the Mind are appearances (lak.sa.na) while the
fourth is the True Nature (tattva) ."(34) Because of cause and conditions,
appearances arise from the Nature, and are differentiated as appearances. When the
manifold appearances are examined carefully, one finds that they are seemingly real but
are actually unreal. Although the characteristic appearance is unreal, it is not
completely empty, because the momentary appearances are the manifestations of the Mind
itself, which is absolute.
In this argument Tsung-mi contends that though the appearances and the
substance are seemingly contradictory, they are actually neither in conflict nor mutually
obstructive. It is like a luminous pearl which has no fixed color of its own, but is
capable of reflecting all colors that is encounters.(35) The colors may be different and
contradictory and the luminosity of the pearl may seem to be incompatible with the colors,
yet they exist harmoniously among themselves, with no conflict or obstacle. It is only the
viewer who might be correct or mistaken, and misunderstand the situation. When deluded,
one would see these two categories as entirely different and think it impossible for them
to penetrate each other. When enlightened, one would see that all these aspects are
related, without any difficulty.
Tsung-mi points out that enlightenment is a religious experience, and
harmony is one aspect of this experience. It would be impossible for one to achieve a
higher and dialectical understanding of the One Mind and its manifold aspects if he is
interested aimlessly in bookish research, or trusts only to his personal experience, which
is limited in scope and individual in character.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INTERPRETATION
Tsung-mi’s interpretation of Mind is a very interesting and
significant contribution to the history of Ch’an Buddhism. Philosophically, this
represents a new Mahaayaana absolutism which has since dominated Chinese Buddhist thought.
Soteriologically, it brings each man directly into confrontation with religious reality
which is innately within man himself. The Buddhahood or nirvaa.na is no longer a remote
theory but an imminent possibility, and may be attainable by every man if he works at it.
With respect to Buddhist institutions, this philosophy has given qualified recognition to
monastic institutions, book learning, and meditation. These institutions may not insure
one the attainment of the highest religious goal, yet they are necessary is cultivation,
especially at the initial stages.
As far as philosophy is concerned, we may recall the intellectual
background of Tsung-mi. There were two contending schools in Ch’an Buddhism, the
first held that the Mind and its manifestations are all real, no cultivation is necessary
and everyday life is religious in itself. In other words, there is no difference between
sacred and profane whatsoever. In saying this, one may misunderstand this philosophy as
following Naagaarjuna’s precept that there is not the slightest difference whatsoever
between nirvaa.na and sa.msaara.(36) It is true that the sayings of these two schools are
very similar in tone but they have actually started from two different points. For
Naagaarjuna the absolute and the phenomenal are not different because both of them are
empty (‘suunya); for the Hung-chou school of Ch’an the Absolute and the
phenomenal are the same, because both of them are the Absolute. Once this position is
accepted, difficulties arise. Taking the concept of evil as an example, it has to be
maintained because evil does not exist by itself, but as a presentation of the Mind. As an
ultimate, consequence, all religious prescriptions become meaningless and unnecessary.
From its absolute point of view, it may argue for the nonexistence of
evil and the manifestation of the Mind without much difficulty. Yet one has to remember
that in Buddhist philosophy, absolute knowledge has to begin with phenomena. The main
difficulty for the Hung-chou school is that it holds to an absolute theory and applies it
to phenomena indiscriminately. So doing, it no longer remains within the Middle Path. To
follow this doctrine is to be led into three consequent errors, namely, confusing the
sacred and the profane at an empirical level, taking wrong as right, and disputing with
other schools of thought that may hold a perfect view of truth, or simply view the
absolute truth from a different angle.
The second Ch’an doctrine of Mind represented by the Ox-head
school claims that nothing is existent, neither the absolute nor the phenomenal. This also
has its difficulties. Although such as negative dialectic may be an effective tool for
determining the truth, at the same time it often misleads readers to regard its doctrine
as nihilism. While it skillfully demonstrates the fallacies of positive philosophy, it is
unable to provide a substitute. One may claim that the absolute can only be known through
negative dialectic, and there is no other possible substitute. But it should be remembered
that Buddhism has never existed simply as an academic philosophy but as a complete
religion. Philosophy is useful only when it serves religious purposes, and it is,
therefore, only one of the various aspects of religion, but not the whole of it. When
Tsung-mi’s interpretation is placed in context, his significant contribution is seen.
His analysis of Mind into four aspects is a creative interpretation. It may be viewed as a
new synthesis as it includes both the absolute and the phenomenal aspects of Mind. In this
way, Tsung-mi also clearly points out that though these aspects belong to one scheme, they
are not identical. It is this dialectical relation between the non-differentiation at the
absolute level and the differentiation at the phenomenal level that enables him to
overcome the difficulties created by the positive and the negative understanding of
Buddhism represented by the Hung-chou and Ox-head schools respectively. It is also through
his interpretation of absolute Mind that Tsung-mi is able to reunify Buddhism as one.
To view this philosophy in terms of its Indian background, the scheme
is largely influenced both by Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika. The concept of storehouse
consciousness is accepted, but it is augmented with the concept of absolute Mind. Some
Maadhyamika ideas of absolute are accepted, but the process and negations are not followed
with any conviction. Apart from these theoretical differences the Ch’an Buddhist
never loses sight of practices. Unlike the Indian Buddhists, the Ch’an Buddhist has
never been interested in purely logical arguments, but has focused more on religious
experiences. The identification of the Mind as the absolute is very important to
Ch’an soteriology. Throughout the history of Buddhism, mind has consistently surfaced
as one of the principal problems. With the exception of the Yogaacaarins, no other
Buddhist school ever argued, as forcefully as did Tsung-mi, that the Mind itself was the
absolute. What was the reason for him doing so? The answer is that according to Ch’an
tradition, the Mind is the key in religious life. A Ch’an text states that according
to Fo-ming ching ("The scripture of Buddhas’ names"), "Evils arise
from the Mind, so they have to be eliminated by the Mind."(37) Since all evil and
good begins from the mind, most of the Ch’an Buddhists consider "the Mind as the
Foundation." If this is the case, "One has to know the Foundation first in the
search for the liberation."(38) Another Ch’an text quotes a verse attributed to
Hui-ssu(x) (515-557), the founder of the T’ien-t’ai school and an expert in
meditation: "In the discussion of learning, it is necessary to penetrate the Mind
first. If the Mind is penetrated, all laws are penetrated simultaneously."(39)
Tsung-mi agrees with this view. He states, "The Mind is the Source of all dharmas.
What dharmas are not included in this Source?"(40) This Mind becomes "impure
when deluded; pure when enlightened, sacred when cultivated and profane when uncultivated,
capable of producing all the dharmas, both conditioned as well as unconditioned."(41)
The cultivation of Ch’an Buddhism in this doctrine, therefore, is the cultivation of
Mind. Once the Mind is illuminated, the teachings contained in the scriptures and the
experience from meditation and the moral life all become meaningful and beneficial.
Otherwise, these efforts are not only fruitless but could even become obstacles to
enlightenment. The focus of Mind as the absolute makes the salvation no longer an academic
or remote goal, but a personal and immediate one with each of us. This is the soteriology
of Ch’an Buddhism, and this is the significance of Tsung-mi’s contribution to
the tradition.
ABBREVIATIONS
CYC Ch’an-yuan chu-ch’uan-chi Tu-hsu.(y) Chinese text and
Japanese translation by Shigeo Kamata(z) under the title of Zen no goroku 9: Zengen
shosenshutojo (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1971).
Tsung-mi’s other work, Ch’an-men shih-tzu ch’eng-hsi
t’u, is also included in this volume. T Taisho shinshuu daizokyo. (Tokyo: Taisho
Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924-1932).
TP T’oung Pao.
NOTES
1. CYC pp. 13 and 17 for the term of ch’an-men; pp. 57, 86, 210
and 320 for ch’an-tsung. Compare Sekiguchi Shindai(aa), "Zenshuu no
hassei," Fukui sensei shoju ki’nen Toyo shiso ronshuu (Tokyo, 1960), pp.
321-338.
2. Jan Yun-hua, "Tsung-mi and his Analysis of Ch’an
Buddhism", TP 58 (1972): 1-54; for a detailed study of Tsung-mi, see Shigeo Kamata,
Shuumitsu kyogaku no shisoshi teki kenkyuu (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture,
University of Tokyo, 1975).
3. CYC, pp. 30 and 254.
4. Chang Chung-yuan, Original Teachings of Ch’an Buddhism
(New York: Vintage Books, 1971), pp. 149 ff.
5. Wu, John C. H., The Golden Age of Zen (Taipei: The National
War College, 1967), p. 94.
6. Sasaki, Ruth Fuller, et al. trans. The Record of Layman
P’ang, a Ninth Century Zen Classic. (New York: Weatherhill, 1971), p. 86.
7. Tsu-t’ang chi(ab) by Ching and Yun (Taipei: Kuang-wen shu-chu,
reprint of Korean woodblock edition, 1972), p. 265b.
8. Wu, op. cit., pp. 95-96.
9. Jan, op. cit., "Tsung-mi," TP, 58, p. 46.
10. Sekiguchi Shindai, Daruma daishi no kenkyuu, (Tokyo: Shunju sha,
1957), 82-185; Yin-shun(ac), Chung-kuo ch’an-tsung shih (Taipei: Hui-jih chiang
t’ang, 1971), pp. 85-128.
11. Yin-shun, op. cit., pp. 96-98.
12. Translated from the Chueh-kuan lun(ad), T, 48, p. 564a.
13. Jan, "Tsung-mi," TP, 58, p. 38 with some minor
modifications.
14. Ibid., p.36.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. "This Mind includes in itself all states of being of the
phenomenal world and the transcendental world...." From Yoshita S. Hakeda’s
translation of The Awakening of Faith (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 28.
19. For original text of Tsung-mi’s description of Mind, see CYC,
pp. 70ff. For his reference to the Taoist text, see the Huang-t’ing nei-ching
yu-ching chu, in the Cheng-t’ung Tao-tsang(ac) (Popular Edition, Taipei: I-wen
Yin-shu kuan, 1977). vol. 10, pp.8245-8246.
20. See Buddhist Dictionary (Colombo: Frewin, 1972), p. 62; compare Compendium
of Philosophy (London: Pali Text Society, 1967 reprint), pp. 277f.
21. As Kamata has pointed out, in the other work of Tsung-mi, Tsung-mi
has also referred to this Taoist text. It is obvious that the statement such as
"Various paths converged at the same point; essences returned to the One...." is
parallel to Tsung-mi’s thought. See Yuan-chueh-ching ta-shu ch’ao(af), chapt.
I/A in the Hsu Tsang-ching (Taipei: Chung kuo fo-chiao hui reprint, 1967), vol. 14, p.
206a.
22. CYC, p. 70.
23. Ihid.
24. A.K. Chatterjee, The Yogaacaara Idealism (Varanasi: Banaras
Hindu University, 1962), pp. 115f.
25. CYC, p. 70.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Translated from Ju Leng-chia Ching(ag) chapt. 1, T, vol. 16, p.
519a.
29. From the translation of A. Wayman, The Lion’s Roar of Queen
Sriimaalaa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), p. 98.
30. Translated from the Ta-ch’eng mi-yen ching(ah), T, no.
681,vol. 16, p. 776a.
31. CYC, p. 13.
32. Ibid., l7.
33. Ibid., p.70.
34. Ibid.
35. See Jan, "Tsung-mi" 58, pp. 51 -53 under the subtitle
"A Metaphorical Description."
36. From Kenneth K. Inada’s translation, Naagaarjuna, A
Translation of His Muula madhyamak-akaarikaa (Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970),
chapt. 25, verse 20, p. 158.
37. This has been quoted by Hui-hai, a Ch’an monk in his book,
Tun-wu yao-men(ai), Chinese text with a Japanese translation by Hirano Shuujo(aj), Zen no
goroku 6: Tongo Yomon (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1970), p. 8.
38. Ibid.
39. From Tsung-ching lu(ak) , by Yen-shou (pp. 904-975), chapt. 97
(Hangchou, 1876, wood-block edition), p. 13b.
40. CYC, p. 254.
41 Ibid., p. 170.
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/meditation/Zen/009-buddhanature.htm