Tions on Mute Sheep Monks 1

The silent saṃgha: Some observa-  tions on mute sheep monks 1

James A. Benn

Introduction

The question of how to deﬁ ne a Buddhist monk or Buddhist community is one that is not only of interest to scholars of monasticism; it also occupied the subjects of our studies. This article takes as its starting point the ways in which the monastic community (saṃgha, sengqie 僧伽) was classiﬁ ed in canonical and non-canonical Buddhist texts that circulated in medieval China (from roughly the fourth to the tenth century CE). When we look at some au- thoritative scholastic texts that Chinese Buddhists translated we may be surprised by their characterisation of the types of monks that were included in the saṃgha. These materials may challenge some of our commonly-held notions about Buddhist monks and the Buddhist monastic ideal. In particular, so-called “mute sheep monks” who are ignorant of scripture, unable to distinguish right from wrong, or even ugly from beautiful, are said to form part of the normative saṃgha. When some Medieval Chinese practitioners

 1 This article is based on a paper I gave at the conference on Buddhist monasticism held at the University of British Columbia in 2003. It was organ- ised by Professor Chen Jinhua, and sponsored by the Tzu Chi Foundation, Canada. A number of other papers given at the conference have now been gathered together published in revised form as Benn, Meeks and Robson, eds. 2010. I thank Chen Jinhua for inviting me to participate and for his many useful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Shayne Clarke provided valuable advice as I ﬁ rst started to wrestle with the problem of mute sheep monks. I should also like to thank Robert Sharf for his helpful suggestions as I revised the paper for publication.

Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 32 • Number 1–2 • 2009 (2010) pp. 11–38 12 James A. Benn

combined these visions of what the saṃgha was, or what it could be, with other, sometimes unrelated, doctrines, the result was an idealistic conception of a separate assembly of mute sheep monks that was in many ways quite the opposite of that described in scripture. These mute sheep monks were presented as being diligent in keeping the precepts and in performing austerities, self-eﬀ acing but not afraid to discipline their peers. Unlike some mute sheep monks described in scripture, who were unable to resolve disputes in the larger Buddhist community, these mute sheep were supposed to act as the leaders of the saṃgha. How, and why, did some medieval practitioners arrive at this somewhat unexpected ideal of the mute sheep monk?

The mute sheep saṃgha in the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise

The Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise) attributed to Nāgārjuna, is a text that deﬁ es easy categorization, but no one would question its importance for scholars who seek to reconstruct the background to the worldview of many early medieval Chinese Buddhists.1 The Treatise contains the following pas-

1 Lamotte 1944–1981. While commonly referred to by that title, the Dazhidu lun was known by a variety of names in medieval China. Among the Dunhuang manuscript versions and in citations by medieval authors we fi nd such titles as Dazhi lun 大智論 (Great Wisdom Treatise), Dazhi shilun 大智釋論 (Great Wisdom Explanatory Treatise), Dazhidu jing lun 大智度經論 (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom Scripture), Moheyan shilun 摩訶衍釋論 (Explanatory Treatise on the Mahāyāna), Mohe boruo boluomiduo jing shilun 摩訶般若波羅蜜多經釋論 (Explanatory Treatise on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā scripture). The last form is also attested in abbreviated form in the catalogue Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教録 (Record of Śākyamuni’s teachings compiled during the Kaiyuan reign-period ) 4, T no. 2154, 55:513a, and appears at the head of Sengrui’s preface to the Taishō canon version (no. 1509). Dazhi shilun 大智釋論, which is found in an earlier catalogue Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 (Collected records on the translation of the Tripiṭaka) 10, T no. 2145, 55:74c, appears to be another abbreviated variant. Mohe boruo boluomiduo jing shilun is probably the oldest title, and corresponds to the Sanskrit Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra. The term upadeśa also appears in the biographies of Nāgārjuna, see T 2047, 50.184c.18 The silent saṃgha 13 sage, which, when I fi rst read it, seemed to me to be rather remarkable. In response to the question, “what is the meaning of the term ‘saṃgha’?” (yun he ming sengjia 云何名僧伽) the Dazhidu lun sup- plies us with the following answer: saṃgha in Chinese means “assembly” (zhong 眾); several bhikṣus (biqiu 比丘) in one place are called a saṃgha, in the same way that the term “forest” indicates a collection of large trees in one place. Considered separately, the trees are not a forest, but if one takes them away one by one the forest ceases to exist; just so, an individual bhikṣu is not the saṃgha, but the saṃgha no longer exists if the bhikṣus are all removed. Having defi ned the term, the Dazhidu lun goes on to expound on four types of saṃgha, here using the abbreviated term seng 僧. Given that this single glyph has also been used in China since early medieval times to designate an individual monk (and this remains the conventional meaning of the character today) there is inevita- bly a certain amount of slippage in this passage and throughout our discussion between the corporate saṃgha and the monks who make up that saṃgha, and hence between the concepts of “mute sheep monk” and “mute sheep saṃgha.” 是僧四種。有羞僧。無羞僧。啞羊僧。實僧。云何名有羞僧。持戒不破。身口清淨。能別好醜。未得道。是名有羞僧。云何名無羞僧。破戒。身口不淨。無惡不作。是名無羞僧。云何名啞羊僧。雖不破戒。鈍根無慧。不別好醜。不知輕重。不知有罪無罪。若有僧事。二人共諍。不能斷決。默然無言。譬如白羊乃至人殺不能作聲。是名啞羊僧。云何名實僧。若學人若無學人。住四果中。行四向道。是名實僧。 There are four kinds of saṃgha: the saṃgha that knows shame (youx- iu seng 有羞僧, literally “saṃgha that has shame”), the shameless saṃgha (wuxiu seng 無羞僧), the mute sheep saṃgha (yayang seng 啞羊僧), and the true saṃgha (shi seng 實僧). Why is the saṃgha that knows shame so called? [The monks of this saṃgha] keep the precepts and do not break them. They are pure in body and speech. They can distinguish between beautiful and ugly,

and T no. 2058, 50.318b16. Since the Dazhidu lun is a discussion of doctrine in question and answer format, it would seem to belong to the genre upadeśa. See Demiéville 1973, 470 n. 1; on the attribution of the text to Nāgārjuna see pp. 475–476. 14 James A. Benn

but they have not yet attained awakening. Thus it is called the saṃgha that knows shame. Why is the shameless saṃgha so called? [The monks of this saṃgha] break the precepts. They are impure in body and speech. They commit every kind of evil. Thus it is called the shameless saṃgha. Why is the mute sheep saṃgha so called? Although they do not break the precepts, [the monks of this saṃgha] have dull faculties and lack wisdom. They cannot distinguish between beautiful and ugly. They do not know what is trivial and what is serious. They do not know what is considered a transgression and what is not. If there is some issue within the saṃgha and two people are arguing, they cannot resolve it. They are silent and do not speak, like white sheep who cannot make a sound even when they are slaughtered. Thus it is called the mute sheep saṃgha. Why is the true saṃgha so called? [The monks of this saṃgha] are those who abide in the four fruits (phala, guo 果) – whether they are śaikṣa (xueren 學人) or aśaikṣa (wuxue ren 無學人) – and those who cultivate the four accesses.2 Thus it is called the true saṃgha.3 If we restate this deﬁ nition in somewhat crude terms, the Dazhidu lun appears to claim that the only “true saṃgha” consists of those monks who are at the end of the path of practice (those who “abide in the four fruits”), or actively working towards that goal (those who “cultivate the four accesses”). But other (inferior?) saṃghas also exist: there is a saṃgha composed of good monks who have a sense of shame, a saṃgha of bad monks who are shameless, and ﬁ nally a saṃgha which consists of stupid monks who stand mute like sheep when confronted with disputes in the community. We may sum up the qualities of the mute sheep monk (or member of the mute sheep saṃgha) in the Dazhidu lun as follows: they do not break the precepts but they have a low spiritual capacity. They are

2 The four fruits are the attainment of the states of stream-enterer, once- returner, non-returner, arhat. The four accesses refer to the accesses to those fruits. The term śaikṣa applies to one who is still studying and has not attained the stage of arhat, while aśaikṣa refers to one whose path is complete: an arhat. 3 Dazhidu lun 大智度論 T no. 1509, 25:80a. Cf. the translation of Lamotte 1944–1981: 202. The silent saṃgha 15 incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and cannot resolve the disputes of others. Their silence on those occasions is like that of sheep about to be slaughtered, hence their name. The shameless monks, who will also be important to us at a later stage of this discussion, are simply those who break the precepts and are evil in every way. This passage was intriguing to me for a couple of reasons. First, this appears to be the only defi nition of the saṃgha contained in the Dazhidu lun, and frankly it is a somewhat baffl ing one: why is such detailed attention paid to such seemingly redundant members of the Buddhist community as the mute sheep monks? What is their role or purpose? How should they be treated by other monks or by the laity? The text off ers us no answers to these questions. Second, until encountering this passage I had only known of mute sheep monks in the later context of the Sanjie jiao 三階教 (The Teaching of the Three Levels), a somewhat unusual group of Chinese monks and nuns that fl ourished during the sixth to eighth centuries, and I had not expected to fi nd them mentioned in an earlier scholastic treatise.4 In search of clarifi cation, I followed the reference in Étienne Lamotte’s footnote to his translation of the text and con- sulted the entry on “ayō 啞羊” in the fi rst fascicle of Hōbōgirin 法寶義林 (Dictionnaire encyclopédique du Bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises).5 There, the origin of the Chinese term yayang 啞羊 is explained thus: “une interpretation fantaisiste du sk. eḍamūka “sourd-muet”, où le mot eḍa “muet” a été confon- du avec eḍa “mouton”” (a far-fetched interpretation of the Sanskrit eḍamūka, where the word eḍa “deaf” has been confused with the word eḍa “sheep”). This explanation seemed plausible to me. But if Hōbōgirin’s explanation was correct, then, since the term is explained in the Dazhidu lun by means of an extended analogy comparing the monks to white sheep who remain mute up to the point of death, it

4 In addition to the discussion of mute sheep monks in Jamie Hubbard’s work, mentioned below, see also the somewhat diﬀ erent approach taken by Lewis 1990, especially pp. 223–25. 5 Lamotte 1944–1981: 202 n. 4; Demiéville and May 1929–1999: 45. 16 James A. Benn would appear that this passage may not originally have been part of a Sanskrit text. It would not make much sense to gloss the term “deaf-mute” with a reference to “sheep.” My preliminary hypoth- esis was, then, that an apocryphal term had not only made its way into the Dazhidu lun, but was actually glossed within the text. Does this explanation of the mute sheep monk or mute sheep saṃgha accord with what we know about the Dazhidu lun? Po-kan Chou’s recent dissertation argues that the Dazhidu lun is an edited account of Kumārajīva’s (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 344–413 or 350–409) translation and explanation of a commentary on the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra made between 402 and 405.6 The editor was Sengrui 僧叡 (352–436), who also acted as Kumārajīva’s aman- uensis.7 Because of the collaboration of Kumārajīva and Sengrui, along with active participation in the making of the Dazhidu lun by the project’s sponsor, the non-Chinese ruler of the Later Qin, Yao Xing 後秦姚興 (365–416), Chou favours a “partly Chinese” authorship for the work.8 This theory seems plausible, and there are a number of features of the text that would tend to support that attribution. To give one readily apparent example, the Dazhidu lun’s explanation or commentary on the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra follows the Chinese word order rather than the Indian.9 Also, the style of the Dazhidu lun as a whole is that of a dialogue. As Chou points out, this is a characteristic not only of the Sarvāstivādin commen- tarial literature with which Kumārajīva was familiar but also of what he calls contemporary Chinese “Neo-Daoism.”10 But it also seems to reﬂ ect the actuality of the translation process: that is to say, Kumārajīva answered the questions of Yao Xing and Sengrui while translating the text, and these questions and answers were written into the text itself as the team went along. A good example of the back and forth nature of the text is the explanation of term

6 Chou 2000; see also Chou 2004. 7 On Sengrui’s dates see Chou 2000: 19, n. 1. 8 Chou 2000: 62. 9 See Chou 2000: 68 10 Chou 2000: 74–77. Generally xuanxue 玄學 or “Dark Learning” is to be preferred to the misleading term “Neo-Daoism.” The silent saṃgha 17

“bhagavat” in three alternative ways.11 Sengrui wrote down all that was said, but due to his involvement with other projects he did not consistently replace old Chinese translations of Buddhist technical terms with new ones, hence the presence in the Dazhidu lun of both old and new forms.12 As Chou concludes, the Dazhidu lun “is the witness of the translation, not the translation itself.”13 It seems possible that the section of the Dazhidu lun concern- ing mute sheep monks might have been the result of just such a dialogue. Kumārajīva himself could have supplied the gloss on the term “mute sheep” in response to a question from Sengrui or Yao Xing. But when we look further into the literature we fi nd two factors which appear to rule out the possibility of the term “mute sheep monk” being only an artefact of the composition process of the Dazhidu lun. First, the division of the saṃgha into four or fi ve types, each consisting of diff erent kinds of monk, is not unique to the Dazhidu lun. Second, the term “mute sheep monks” is attested in a number of other scriptures, some of them translated by Xuan- zang 玄奘 (600–664). Is it likely that a mistaken translation or apocryphal term could have been perpetuated by other translators?

The fourfold division of the saṃgha.

The fourfold division of the saṃgha according to the spiritual capacity or type of practitioner is striking in the above quotation from the Dazhidu lun, but it is far from unique in Buddhist canonical sources. Although our mute sheep monks are not always pre- sent among the four saṃghas, we can ﬁ nd the term in quite a few texts known in medieval China. Xuanzang’s translation of the great repository of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma lore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, explains that the term “bhikṣu” covers four types of monk: the bhikṣu in name only, the self-proclaimed bhikṣu, the bhikṣu who is a mendicant, and

11 Chou 2000: 78; Dazhidu lun T no. 1509, 25:70b; Lamotte 1944–1981: 115–116. 12 Chou 2000: 81–84. 13 Chou 2000: 80. 18 James A. Benn the bhikṣu who has destroyed the passions.14 The commentary on this work by Xuanzang’s disciple Fabao 法寶 (fl . ca. 703) amplifi es these defi nitions.15 According to him, a bhikṣu in name only is a layman who calls himself a bhikṣu. A self-proclaimed bhikṣu is a fully-ordained bhikṣu who repeatedly transgresses the precepts. In actuality he is not a bhikṣu, but only proclaims himself one. A mendicant bhikṣu is one who supports himself by begging. Only those sages who have destroyed the outfl ows (anāsrava, wulou 無漏) can be called bhikṣus in the highest sense. While this list does not include the mute sheep monks, it is not entirely dissimilar in form or meaning to the kinds of practitioner distinguished by the Dazhidu lun. The self-proclaimed bhikṣu is somewhat reminiscent of those monks in the shameless saṃgha of the Dazhidu lun, and the bhikṣu in the highest sense reminds us of the monks of the true saṃgha found in that same text. It seems that the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the commentary both draw here on the four-fold defi nition of the term “bhikṣu” that appears in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (Shisong lü 十誦律), a text also translated by Kumārajīva.16 To these four types of bhikṣu, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya add a fi fth: the monk who has received regular bhikṣu ordination by a fourfold act of public declaration. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya con- trasts this fi gure with the true bhikṣu who is infallible and cannot lose his status, unlike the ordinary monk who can be expelled from the saṃgha.17 The same series of fi ve types of bhikṣu appears again in canonical texts such as Xuanzang’s translation of the Yogācārabhūmi (Yujia shidi lun 瑜伽師地論).18 None of these typologies of monks features the mute sheep monk, although they do betray a noticeable fear or obsession with the possibility that

14 Apidamo jushe lun 阿毘達磨俱舍論 15, T no. 1558, 29:79b20–21. de la Vallée Poussin 1988: vol. II, 614–615. 15 Jushe lun shu 俱舍論疏 15, T no. 1822, 41:654c. 16 Shisong lü 1, T no. 1435, 23:2a–b. 17 Apidamo jushe lun 15, T no. 1558, 29:79b22–23. 18 Yujia shidi lun 瑜伽師地論 (*Yogācārabhūmiśāstra) 29, T no. 1579, 30:447a. The silent saṃgha 19 laymen could pose as monks and that monks who persistently broke the precepts could continue to call themselves bhikṣus. We can detect in these scholastic treatises some echoes of what must have been a real and continuing concern with policing the bounda- ries of the saṃgha. Probably, the ways and means by which men and women could take precepts or enter the saṃgha were often more dependent on immediate circumstances and cultural norms or precedents than they were on canonical regulations. The defi nitions of the term “saṃgha” or “bhikṣu” that were available to medieval Chinese seem to hint that it took more than ordination, or even observance of the Vinaya, to make one a true monk. In two other Sarvāstivādin works, the Apidamo shunzhengli lun 阿毘達磨順正理論 (*Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra) and Api- da mozang xianzong lun 阿毘達磨藏顯宗論 (*Abhidharmasama ya- pradīpika or *Abhidharmakośaśāstrakārikāvibhāṣya, Revealing the Tenets of the Abhidharma Treasury), bot h at t r ibuted to Sa ṃghabhadra (Zhongxian 衆賢) and translated by Xuanzang between 651 and 654, we fi nd a fi ve-fold division of the saṃgha as follows: 僧伽差，別略有五種。一無恥僧，二啞羊僧，三朋黨僧，四世俗僧，五勝義僧。無恥僧者，謂毀禁戒。而被法服補特伽羅。啞羊僧者，謂於三藏，無所了達補特伽羅。譬如啞羊，無辯說用。或言啞者，顯無說法：能復說羊言，顯無聽法用。即顯此類補特伽羅，於三藏中無聽說用。朋黨僧者，謂於遊散，營務鬥諍。方便善巧，結搆朋黨補特伽羅。此三多分造非法業。世俗僧者，謂善異生。此能通作法非法業。勝義僧者，謂學無學法，及彼所依器補特伽羅。此定無容造非法業。五中最勝是所歸依。 As for distinctions in the saṃgha, they are broadly of fi ve types: 1. “shameless monks;” 2. “mute sheep monks;” 3. “partisan monks;” 4. “vulgar monks;” 5. “monks in the supreme sense.” “Shameless monks” refers to those who break the precepts, but wear dharma robes. “Mute sheep monks” refers to those who understand nothing in the tripiṭaka. They are like mute sheep, who have no way to talk. Some call them “mute,” showing they have no way to preach the dharma; some again call them “sheep” indicating that they have no ability to listen to the dharma. Thus it is clear that these kinds of people have no means of hearing or speaking about what is in the tripiṭaka. 20 James A. Benn

“Partisan monks” refers to those who form factions and put all their eff orts into arguing; they join together for expedient means. These three categories (above) mostly create karma that goes against the dharma. “Vulgar monks” refers to good worldlings. They are able to perform actions that either conform to the dharma or go against it. “Monks in the supreme sense” refers to those who [engage in the study and practice of] the dharma of śaikṣa and aśaikṣa, along with the conditions on which the śaikṣa and aśaikṣa rely. Thus this type of person defi nitely cannot form karma that is contrary to the dharma. Of these fi ve, the supreme is the one in whom to take refuge.19 Along with some clarifi cation of how laypeople might be expected to treat these diff erent kinds of monks (they should take refuge only in the monks in the supreme sense, for example), we can see taking shape here a certain pessimism about the nature of the saṃgha. The shameless monks and mute sheep monks of the Dazhidu lun are now joined by monks who enjoy factional disputes and, taken together, these categories now outnumber those of the vulgar monks and the supreme monks. In Xuanzang’s translation, although the word “sheep” implies not being able to hear (i.e., deaf), he understands eḍamūka as “mute sheep” and not as “deaf mute.” Specifi cally, the mute sheep is someone who has no ability to hear or speak about what is in the Buddhist canon (tripiṭaka). Xuanzang’s translation gives us a further clue as to how to understand the apparent confusion between “deaf” and “sheep.” Although Franklin Edgerton in his Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (s.v. eḍamūka) is of the opinion that “stupid (lit. dumb) as a sheep” is the regular meaning of the compound in Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist literature, I am inclined to infer from Xuanzang’s translation that the compound is quite likely to be a pun.20 It means “deaf-mute” but suggests also the stupidity of the sheep. In this text the monks in question are quite clearly ignorant as to the contents of the Buddhist canon as much as they are sheep-like in their behaviour. It is noteworthy that another skilled

19 Apidamo shunzhengli lun (*Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra), T no. 1562, 29:557c. Cf. the parallel passage at T no. 1563, 29:870a. 20 Edgerton 1970. The silent saṃgha 21 translator, Yijing 義淨 (635–713) also understood eḍamūka as mute sheep in his translation of a passage on the term “saṃgha” from the *Mūlasarvāstivādavinayasaṃgrāha that echoes those deﬁ nitions in Xuanzang’s translations.21 We have seen then that the category of mute sheep monk appears in a number of Indian scholastic texts in the Buddhist canon, mainly connected with the Sarvāstivādin or Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition and translated by such luminaries as Kumārajīva, Xuanzang and Yijing. But it was not primarily through these texts that mute sheep monks became part of the religious scene in medieval China. The mute sheep monks described in the texts above are unable to discriminate between right and wrong, and unable to understand the tripiṭaka. They seem most unlikely models for monastic practice, and perhaps they were not intended to be emulated. Nevertheless, “mute sheep monk,” somewhat perversely, was taken up not as a pejorative term, but as a badge of honour by some medieval Chinese monastics.

Mute sheep monks in the Sanjie movement

Sanjie jiao 三階教 (The Teaching of the Three Levels) is the term we use today for a Buddhist movement that was centred around the charismatic monk Xinxing 信行 (540–594).22 This organization (or cult, perhaps) was very popular and inﬂ uential under the dynasties of both the Sui 隋 (581–618) and the Tang 唐 (618–907) although it was oﬃ cially proscribed a number of times. While the Sanjie movement was not as antinomian as has sometimes been made out, it certainly had a distinctive, and often separatist, attitude towards monastic practice. Xinxing’s favourite Buddhist sūtra was Da fangguang shi lun jing 大方廣十輪經 (Great Square and Broad Scripture of the Ten Wheels, *Daśacakra[kṣitigarbha]sūtra; hereafter *Daśacakra),

21 Genben sapoduodu lü she 根本薩婆多部律攝 7, T no. 1428, 24:566b. 22 The defi nitive works on the movement are – in Japanese – Yabuki 1927 and Nishimoto 1998 and, in English, Hubbard 2001. 22 James A. Benn and he quoted frequently from this work in his writings.23 There are two translations of the scripture: the fi rst attributed to an un- known translator of the Northern Liang 北涼 (397–439), and the second to Xuanzang. However, the earlier translation does not appear in catalogues prior to Fajing’s 法經 (d. u.) Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 (Catalogue of Scriptures) of 594, and Yancong’s 彥悰 (557–610) work of the same title produced in 602.24 It is entirely possible that it postdates the translation of the Dazhidu lun and thus could have borrowed terms and ideas from it. It does not appear to be apocryphal, although as a translation it is somewhat rough and ready.25 Xinxing himself seems to have been the fi rst infl u- ential teacher to cite from the *Daśacakra, although he was later followed by such learned doctors of the Chinese Buddhist tradition as Daoxuan 道宣 (597–667), Daoshi 道世 (fl . 656–668) and Fazang 法藏 (643–712).26 In particular, these authors cited the sūtra in dis- cussions of government interference in the aff airs of the saṃgha.27 The *Daśacakra took a fi rm line on this issue, insisting that even bad monks had the power to allow the laity to make merit. Let us look at the following passage from the sūtra, which forms part of a lengthy discussion on Vinaya: 復次﹐族姓子﹐有四種僧。何等為四﹖第一義僧﹐淨僧﹐啞羊僧﹐無慚愧僧。云何名第一義僧﹖諸佛世尊﹐大菩薩摩訶薩﹐辟支佛﹐於一切法﹐悉得自在。阿羅漢﹐阿那含﹐斯陀含﹐須陀洹﹐是七種人﹐名為第一義僧。諸有在家無法服者﹐不能具受波羅提木叉戒﹐不入布薩﹐自恣而得聖果。得聖果已﹐亦名第一義僧。云何名為淨僧﹖諸有能持波羅提木叉具足戒者﹐如律修行﹐威儀不犯﹐ 是名淨僧。

23 Yabuki Keiki found 130 quotations from the *Daśacakra in the Sanjie literature (Yabuki 1927: 594 and 644). More recently, Françoise Wang- Toutain (1998) has found more than 200 (p. 114, n. 474). 24 Wang-Toutain 1998: 19. T no. 2146, 55:120b, 121c; T no. 2147, 55:152c5. 25 Cf. Wang-Toutain 1998: 70–71. 26 Wang-Toutain 1998: 52–53. 27 Wang-Toutain 1998: 55–63. The silent saṃgha 23

云何名啞羊僧﹖不知根本罪﹐不知犯不犯﹐不知輕重﹐不知微細罪而可懺悔。愚癡無知﹐不見有罪可畏﹐亦不依止善知識丈夫。不數親近善知識丈夫故﹐不能諮問經中深義--何者是善非善﹐何者犯重﹐何者犯輕﹐ 修行何事為善﹐何事為惡。如是等相名啞羊僧。云何名無慚愧僧﹖若有人為自活命﹐來入佛法﹐ 而受波羅提木叉戒﹐ 悉皆毀犯﹐破和合僧﹐無有慚愧。不畏後世﹐內懷臭穢。其聲如貝﹐言辭堅壺。常懷嫉妒﹐愚癡憍慢。棄捨三業﹐但為利養。放恣六情﹐貪著五欲色聲香味﹐觸誹謗正法。如是等人﹐依止我法﹐心無慚愧。是故名為無慚愧僧。 Next, sons of good family, there are four kinds of monks. What are these four? They are the monks in the supreme sense, the pure monks, the mute sheep monks, and the shameless monks. Why are the monks in the supreme sense so called? These are all the buddhas and world-honoured ones, the great bodhisattva-mahā sattvas, and pratyekabuddhas, who have comprehensively attained mastery of all dharmas, arhats, anāgāmins (non-returners), sakṛdāgāmins (once-returners), srotāpannas (stream-enterers). These seven types of people are called monks in the supreme sense. [Also there are] those who are householders and do not have the dharma robe, who cannot receive in full the precepts of the prātimokṣa, who do not enter the poṣadha nor pravāraṇā, and yet by relying on themselves still gain the fruits of sagehood.28 All those who have attained the fruits of sagehood are called monks in the supreme sense. Why are the pure monks so called? All those who are able to uphold the full precepts of the prātimokṣa, who practice in accordance with the Vinaya and do not transgress the decorum, these are called pure monks. Why are mute sheep monks so called? They do not know the root transgressions. They do not know the diﬀ erence between transgression and non-transgression. They do not know if a transgression is minor or major. They do not know that it is appropriate to repent even the slightest transgression. They are deluded and ignorant, and do not see that if there is a transgression they should be ashamed. Also, they do not depend on good friends (kalyāṇamitras). Because they are not often close to good friends, they cannot debate the profound mean-

28 Poṣadha is the meeting of the saṃgha held every ﬁ fteen days. The pravāraṇā is a rite of confession performed at the end of the rainy season. 24 James A. Benn

ings found in the sūtras, [such as] what is wholesome, and what is not wholesome, what constitutes breaking a major precept, and what constitutes breaking a minor precept; whether cultivating this is good, or cultivating that is evil. Because of these characteristics they are called mute sheep monks. Why are shameless monks so called? Suppose there is someone, who for his own livelihood, enters the buddhadharma and receives the precepts of the prātimokṣa and breaks all of them, and destroys the united saṃgha without any shame. He is not afraid [of retribution] in a later lifetime, in his very bosom he is defi led. His voice is like [the sound of] a conch shell, his speech is rough and hard. He always nurtures envy and he is ignorant and dull. He dispenses with the three trainings and just values profi t. He gives himself over to the six emo- tions, and is subject to the fi ve desires of form, sound, smell, taste and touch. He slanders the true dharma. People like this depend on egotistical methods, and in their minds have no shame. Thus they are called shameless monks.29 We can see that although the saṃgha is here divided into four, as in the Dazhidu lun, this is a diff erent list and quite a diff erent kind of list. We may note in passing that in this text laypeople who have attained awakening are classifi ed as monks in the supreme sense, a claim that hints at interesting possibilities for how the category “monk” could be understood, especially in East Asia. But to judge from the length of the descriptions and the type of language used, the passage is intended to be read primarily with reference to the mute sheep monks and the shameless monks. This choice of emphasis is perhaps not surprising given the *Daśacakra’s major themes: the idea of the universal dharma, the belief that the degen- erate era of mofa 末法 (the decline of the dharma) had already begun, and the subsequent importance of the Vinaya and the respect due to monks in those desperate times.30 In the early Sanjie jiao literature the citations from the text come from the older translation, but in the later Sanjie fofa miji 三階佛

29 Da fangguang shi lun jing 大方廣十輪經 (Great square and broad scripture of the ten wheels, *Daśacakra[kṣitigarbha]sūtra) 5, T no. 410, 13:703a– b. 30 See Wang-Toutain 1998: 15–51. The silent saṃgha 25

法密記 (Secret Record of the Buddhadharma of the Three Levels) references are made to Xuanzang’s translation of 652, Dasheng daji dizang shilun jing 大乘大集地藏十輪經 (Mahāyāna Great Assembly Sūtra of the Ten Wheels of Kṣitigarbha). It is quite possible that Xuanzang or members of his translation team had some contact with members of the Sanjie movement, and that Sanjie ideas may have inﬂ uenced the translation.31 Let us now compare Xuanzang’s translation of the passage in question. 復次善男子﹐有四種僧。何等為四﹖一者勝義僧﹐二者世俗僧﹐三者啞羊僧﹐四者無慚愧僧。云何名勝義僧﹖謂佛世尊﹐若諸菩薩摩訶薩眾﹐其德尊高﹐於一切法﹐ 得自在者。若獨勝覺﹐若阿羅漢﹐若不還﹐若一來﹐若預流﹐如是七種補特伽羅﹐勝義僧攝。若諸有情﹐帶在家相﹐不剃鬚髮﹐不服袈裟。雖不得受一切出家別解脫戒﹐一切羯磨布薩﹐自恣悉皆遮遣﹐而有聖法。得聖果故﹐勝義僧攝。是名勝義僧。云何名世俗僧﹖謂剃鬚髮﹐被服袈裟﹐成就出家別解脫戒。是名世俗僧。云何名啞羊僧﹖謂不了知根本等罪﹐犯與不犯。不知輕重﹐毀犯種種小隨小罪﹐不知發露懺悔所犯。憃愚魯鈍﹐於微小罪﹐不見不畏。不依聰明善士而住。不時時間往詣多聞聰明者所﹐親近承事。亦不數數恭敬請問 - 云何為善﹖云何不善﹖云何有罪﹖云何無罪﹖修何為妙﹖作何為惡﹖如是一切補特伽羅﹐啞羊僧攝。是名啞羊僧。云何名無慚愧僧﹖謂若有情﹐為活命故。歸依我法﹐而求出家。得出家已﹐於所受持別解脫戒﹐一切毀犯﹐無慚無愧。不見不畏後世苦果。內懷腐敗﹐如穢蝸螺。貝音狗行﹐常好虛言﹐曾無一實。慳貪嫉妒﹐愚癡憍慢﹐離三勝業。貪著利養﹐恭敬名譽。耽湎六塵﹐好樂婬泆﹐愛欲色聲﹐ 香味觸境。如是一切補特伽羅﹐無慚僧攝。毀謗正法﹐是名無慚愧僧。 Next, good sons, there are four kinds of monk. What are these four? 1) monks in the supreme sense; 2) vulgar monks; 3) mute sheep monks; 4) shameless monks. Why are monks in the supreme sense so called? Buddhas and world- honoured ones, all the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, whose virtue is so honourable and lofty as to have mastery of all dharmas, pratyekabuddhas, arhats, non-returners, once-returners, stream-enterers: these seven types of people are monks in the supreme sense. There are also

31 Wang-Toutain 1998: 115–119. 26 James A. Benn

those beings who keep the appearance of being householders, who do not shave off their hair nor wear the monastic robe (kaṣāya), although they have not received all the separately preached precepts for renunciants, nor [do they participate in] the poṣadha or pravāraṇā, yet relying on themselves they succeed in completely ridding themselves [of all outfl ows], gaining the sagely dharma and attaining the fruits of sagehood. Because they belong to the category of supreme monks then they too are called monks in the supreme sense. Why are vulgar monks so called? They are so called because they shave off their hair, and wear the monastic robe. They then perfect all the precepts separately preached and explained for renunciants. Thus they are called vulgar monks. Why are mute sheep monks so called? They are so called because they do not know the root transgressions, or whether they violate them or not. They do not know minor or major transgressions, nor that for every kind of minor opportunity or transgression, one should arouse [the mind to] repent for one’s transgressions. They are stupid and dull. As for the smallest transgression they do not see it, they do not fear it. They do not depend on the wise good friends (kalyāṇamitras). They do not from time to time visit the places of the learned and clever to approach and serve them as teachers. Also, they do not have the oc- casion to respectfully ask, “What is good? What is not good? What [action] involves a transgression? What does not involve a transgression? What should one cultivate for good? What cultivation is bad?” Thus, all these people are included among the mute sheep monks. And therefore they are called mute sheep monks. Why are shameless monks so called? They are so called because some beings for their own livelihood take refuge in an egotistic dharma, and seek to leave home. Having left home they receive and uphold all the separately preached precepts, but break them all without shame and without fear. They do not see or fear the bitter fruit of a later life. Inwardly they nurture rottenness and fi lth like slimy snails. They talk like conch-shell trumpets and they walk like dogs. They love empty speech with nothing of substance. They are stingy, jealous, stupid, ar- rogant, and they avoid the three supreme forms of karma. They crave and are attached to profi t, reverence and fame. They are addicted to the six realms of rebirth and they enjoy sex and licentiousness. They The silent saṃgha 27

crave form, sound, smell, taste, tactile and mental objects. All persons like this are included among shameless monks. They slander the true dharma and thus are called “shameless monks.”32 Let us now sum up the characteristics of the mute sheep monks as presented in the two versions of the *Daśacakra. They do not know the basic transgressions, nor what constitutes transgression, nor whether a transgression is minor or major. They do not realize that they ought to be ashamed, nor know to repent if they do transgress. Because they have little contact with good companions in the dharma they cannot talk about the meaning of scripture. They are not described as silent per se, but they have few opportunities to discuss the sūtras with the wise. What is remarkable about the Sanjie movement is not their interest in the apocalyptic literature of the latter days, which painted such a bleak picture of the capacity of the saṃgha to understand and practice the dharma, but rather their enthusiastic identifi cation with the mute sheep monks of the *Daśacakra. The presentation of these practitioners in the two translations is anything but positive: the mute sheep monks are apparently only marginally superior to the shameless monks by virtue of their utter ignorance of every- thing. Nowhere in the scripture itself do we fi nd any sustained discussion of the role and signifi cance of the mute sheep monks be- yond this passage. The scripture describes the mute sheep monks, but does not appear to advocate any particular response to their particular situation. What evidence do we have for the Sanjie movement’s sense of identity with the scriptural mute sheep monks? The Zhi zhong- shi xufa 制眾事緒法 (Assorted rules for Community Regulation, hereafter Zhifa) is a text that appears to be a Sanjie disciplinary manual that was probably written by Xinxing himself. It has been preserved in a Dunhuang manuscript (Pelliot 2849) along with two other texts. Nishimoto Teruma 西本照真 has made the most exten- sive study of this text and I follow here the edition made by him in his recent monumental study of the Sanjie jiao.33

32 T no. 411, 13:749c-50a. 33 Nishimoto 1998: 578–601. 28 James A. Benn

For Xinxing, it seems, it was in fact the very stupidity of the mute sheep monks that prevented them from falling into error. In Xinxing’s vision the most profound problem aﬄ icting beings of his day was that they held views. The mute sheep monks, however, could not be guilty of having views on anything, since their minds were not capable of discrimination. In contrast to the ideal non- discriminating wisdom of the bodhisattva, we might perhaps call this quality “non-discriminating stupidity.” It is possible that this quality possessed by the mute sheep monks is the key to understanding why Xinxing was so keen to promote them as an ideal. Eric Greene, in a recent article, has begun to explore the historical connections between Sanjie jiao and the early Chan movements of the eighth century.34 Some of the eighth-century documents found at Dunhuang and now associated with Early Chan (for example, Wuxin lun 無心論 and Jueguan lun 絶観論) champion practices of no-thought – glossed variously as “mindlessness,” (wuxin 無心) “cessation of thought,” (jueguan 絶観) “no thinking” (wunian 無念) etc.35 These Chan exhortations to cease discursive thinking may represent a trend that ran in parallel with Xinxing’s vision of mute sheep monks who held no views and thus could not fall into discursive thought. Clearly, more research is required to de- termine the lines of connection that seem to run between Chan and Sanjie jiao ideas. Setting aside the immediate historical context for a moment, it is clear that Xinxing’s concern to promote mute sheep monks reﬂ ected attitudes to monastic practice that were by no means unique to his time and space. As Luis Gómez has shown, the Pāli Aṭṭhakavagga also urges monks to shun all views and thus avoid disputes with others.36 We might to do well, then, to think of the mute sheep monk as a particular way of conceptualising a perennial issue for Buddhists concerned with the correct mental attitude for practitioners.

34 Greene 2008. 35 These texts and others of their genre are brieﬂ y introduced in Sharf 2002, 47–51. 36 Gómez 1976. The silent saṃgha 29

Elsewhere in his writing, Xinxing had explicitly excepted the mute sheep monks from the class of beings in the third stage of the Buddhadharma who were all tainted by views of eternalism or nihilism, and this exception is probably what made the mute sheep monks most signiﬁ cant for his vision of the possibilities for Buddhist practice in the situation he and his contemporaries knew, one that was far removed from the Buddha in time and place.37 But in Sanjie monastic life the separation of mute sheep monks from beings who held views was not merely doctrinal or theoretical. The Sanjie monastic community lived, and for the most part practiced, apart from the rest of the medieval Chinese saṃgha. The ﬁ rst two items in the Zhifa are explicitly concerned with mute sheep monks. For the sake of space, let me concentrate on these two items in the following discussion, and leave the rest of the document for a later date. Let us see if we can make sense of what they say, and compare this vision of the mute sheep monk with that found in the canon. 別二衆法，第一。一，聖有成判，法師法師共同，侓師侓師共同,坐禪坐禪共同。自今已去，解行相當者，各別為衆。行當瘂羊僧者依瘂羊僧衆，行當智慧僧依智慧僧衆。雖分二衆，常依瘂羊僧為主。不得兩衆互相交雜。唯除二衆普聚，不在其限。又除月半月盡說戒時在蘭若処二衆和同為法事者，不在其限。 One: the rule of dividing the two assemblies. Item: there are distinctions among the sages.38 Dharma masters belong with other dharma masters; Vinaya masters belong with other Vinaya masters, [those who practice] seated meditation belong with [others who practice] seated meditation. From now on, one should associate oneself with those who are of one’s level in understanding and practice. One whose practice is equal to that of a mute sheep monk

37 Nishimoto 1998: 410, quoting from the Japanese copy of the Sanjie fofa 三階佛法 (Buddhadharma of the Three Levels) found in Yabuki 1927: 257. Hubbard 2001: 89. On the third stage (or level) of the Buddhadharma see pp. 84–89. 38 Compare this with Zhiyi’s 智顗 (538–597) manual of community regulations, which opens by stating that people’s natures are diﬀ erent. Guoqing bailu 國清百錄 (One hundred records of Guoqing monastery) 1, T no. 1943, 46:793c. 30 James A. Benn

should associate himself with the assembly of mute sheep monks; one whose practice is equal to that of a wise monk should associate himself with the assembly of wise monks. Although the assembly is divided in two one should rely on the mute sheep monks as the leaders. The two assemblies should not be mixed together with the exception of the two assemblies meeting in general congregation, which does not fall under this stricture. Also excepted is the case where the two assemblies at the time of the recitation of precepts at the middle and end of the month congregate in the place of solitude (araṇya) to perform together some matters of dharma. This case does not fall under the stricture.39 According to the fi rst item in the Sanjie disciplinary code, it was fundamental to Sanjie practice that the two assemblies of the mute sheep monks and the wise monks not be mixed, and yet of the two groups it was the ignorant and clueless mute sheep monks who were to be in charge of the saṃgha as a whole. We can see immediately that this is in some contrast to the portrayal of mute sheep monks in the *Daśacakra. In that sūtra they are depicted as having scarcely the ability to direct their own aff airs, let alone those of the larger community. The *Daśacakra mute sheep monks did not even have the sense to consult good friends in the dharma, but here we fi nd them functioning quite happily as an independent unit. We know from other sources that the Sanjie members were indeed physically separated from other monks. In 725 the emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712–756) issued orders to end this practice: 知彼反真搆妄出制斷之。開元十三年乙丑歲六月三日。勅諸寺三階院並令除去隔障。使與大院相通眾僧錯居不得別住。所行集錄悉禁斷除毀。 Knowing that they are contrary to the truth and incite falsehood, an edict was issued prohibiting them: on Kaiyuan 開元13.6.3 (February 18, 725) an imperial edict was issued to all of the cloisters of the Sanjie ordering the removal of all barriers. The followers will live in the main monastery with the community of monks. They may not maintain separate residences. The collected works of Xinxing are all prohibited and should be destroyed.40

39 Following Nishimoto’s edition. Nishimoto 1998: 578, lines 8–15. 40 Kaiyuan shijiao lu 18, T no. 2154, 55:679a; translated in Hubbard 2001: The silent saṃgha 31

The edict strongly suggests that prior to 725 there were physical walls or fences between the Sanjie cloisters and other parts of monasteries in which they were located. Reading this edict together with the Sanjie regulations might give us pause to think about what a Tang monastery actually looked like. As we know, many monasteries in the capital were not purpose-built edifi ces, but converted from the donated mansions of the aristocracy. These sprawling compounds must have off ered rather easy opportunities for smaller groups such as the Sanjie who wished to live and practice in com- mon. But whether or not the architectural layout of the monasteries was a signifi cant factor or not, it is clear that the mute sheep monks of the Sanjie jiao did not mingle with other monks and maintained separate residences, presumably only coming together for matters of Vinaya, as the Zhifa specifi ed. The second item in the Sanjie disciplinary code tells us a little more about the community of mute sheep monks. Unfortunately the text is somewhat poorly transcribed and garbled in places. I have made what sense of it I can, and my translation is tentative in places. 瘂羊僧衆簡擇人法，第二一，行行僧者，或名福德僧，或名瘂羊僧。唯有或從生或從出家已來不犯初篇二篇戒學十二頭陀。文當學無相三昧坐禪，義當亦名學空無空相空坐禪。唯除阿嘖門徒弟子及和僧衆内治罰破戒比丘已外，唯得自見自說自身一切惡，不得自見自說自身一切善，唯得見他說他一切善，不得見他說他一切惡。何以故。明一切邪見成就顛倒衆生，唯將一切正善人法解行作一切邪善人法解行，唯將一切邪善人法解行作一切正善人法解行故。不瞋罵出家人。不打縳出家人。不自私食用衆僧飲食財物。亦不將衆僧飲食財物與俗人。僧物尚不用，何況用佛物法物。不作十一種主。如此僧等能為僧檢校徒衆者得為種主。又或無專精不犯戒衆生，犯已能悔人余行與上同者，亦得兼為衆生。又徒衆莫問行之久近，現學能與上同者，得為徒衆。

214. See also Nishimoto 1998: 412. 32 James A. Benn

Two: Method of selecting people for the mute sheep monk assembly. Item. The practitioner monks of the single practice are sometimes called meritorious monks, and sometimes called mute sheep monks. It is just that some from birth, and some from when they left home, have not transgressed the precepts of the ﬁ rst and second chapters, and have studied the twelve dhūtaguṇas.41 For the text, they should study the seated dhyāna of the formless samādhi. For the meaning, they should each study the empty seated dhyāna of the marks of emptiness and non-emptiness. With the exception of times when they chastise disciples, or even discipline those within the saṃgha who break the precepts, they should always see and speak only about their own evils; they should not see or speak about any kind of good on their own part. They should only see and speak about good on the part of others, and should not see or speak about any kind of evil in them. Why is this so? It is because all of the perverted sentient beings who have realized heterodox views take all of the truly virtuous people, teachings, understandings, and practices as false people, teachings, understandings and practices and take all of the false people, teachings, understandings and practices to be truly virtuous people, teachings, understandings and practices. Do not chastise or curse those who have left home. Do not hit or bind those who have left home. Do not personally consume or use the food and drink or possessions of the saṃgha. Also, do not give the saṃgha’s food and drink or possessions to lay people. If the saṃgha’s property is not for use, then surely one cannot use the property of the Buddha or dharma. Do not act as one of the eleven types of leader.42 This kind of monk may, however, act along with the community as a kind of leader. Also, there are some with no focused essence, who do not transgress the precepts, or who having transgressed are able to repent. They may be placed in the category above. They can also be leaders of the assembly.43

41 The twelve ascetic practices. Sanjie literature seems to have followed the standard canonical list. See Hubbard 2001: 26–27. 42 The reference is presumably to the types of leader mentioned at *Daśacakra 6, T no. 410, 13:710a. 43 Reading 主 for 生. The silent saṃgha 33

Also, as for disciples of the community, do not ask whether their practice is longstanding or recent. If they display [evidence of] study that matches that described above, they may become disciples. 44 We may now arrive at the following characteristics of mute sheep monks as prescribed in the Sanjie jiao.45 They were to live separately from other monks, regularly coming together only for the recitation of the precepts. Either from birth onwards or at least after leaving home, they should not have broken the precepts. Those who had broken the precepts and had sincerely repented were still allowed to join the community, whereas, according to scriptural accounts, mute sheep monks did not even know that they ought to repent. They were ascetics who studied the twelve dhūtaguṇas, and they were also meditators who studied the markless samādhi. Asceticism and meditation explicitly took the place of scriptural study and exegesis, which according to scriptural accounts mute sheep monks were unable to master anyway. They were to behave in a self-eﬀ acing and humble manner; to see all good as residing in others and all evil in themselves. Yet they were also to play a vital disciplinary role and were not to refrain from chastising disciples who had broken the precepts. They were to respect other members of the saṃgha, and not slander, strike or tie them up. They were not to use the property of the saṃgha for themselves or give it to laypeople. They were not to serve as religious or secular leaders, but they could serve as leaders within the monastic community. We are thus presented with a very diﬀ erent picture of the mute sheep monk than that described in the *Daśacakra, or any other canonical source we have considered here. In fact, in this conception, the mute sheep monk is an austere, sincere, practice-oriented monk who diligently keeps the precepts, and this is far from the scriptural presentation of the clueless monk who cannot even understand the most basic Buddhist texts. Actually, as Nishimoto has suggested, the Sanjie jiao mute sheep monks are almost the ex- act opposite of the violent, precept-breaking, licentious, shameless

44 Nishimoto 1998: 579, lines 16–33. 45 See Nishimoto 1998: 413–414. 34 James A. Benn

monks as presented in the *Daśacakra.46 But we may imagine that Sanjie models were taken from closer to home as well. The ideals of the mute sheep monks probably off ered a monastic path that was the opposite of what the Sanjie community perceived around them: monks associated too closely with the state, scholar-monks tied up in book learning, a saṃgha that was licentious and poorly disciplined. In the *Daśacakra, the mute sheep monks are described as those who had little contact with good friends in the dharma. However, in Sanjie practice it was the mute sheep monks who were themselves the good friends. In another major Sanjie work, Practice that Arises in Accord with Capacity (Duigen qixing 對根起行), we fi nd the following passage: 明求一切善知識盡者，於内有三。一者文義俱不解瘂羊僧。二者解文不解義瘂羊僧。此二種瘂羊僧善知識，云何可識。必以法驗之，可知是非。於内有六階。一者三業性濡，從生已來，於他一切衆生，不敢共他相瞋相打，乃至不敢嫌他。二者性自縮頭，在家不能作家長，乃至不能作宮職。三者性自畏罪，不作十惡，亦不犯戒。四者從出家已來，性自持戒避罪。五者從出家已來，常縮頭，不肯作人主法主等。六者樂學十二頭陀，常樂受下，常樂受惡。從生乃至出家已來，具此六種，堪共同聚，依作善知識。設有犯戒，即多慚愧，恆不覆藏，雖犯禁戒，終不重犯，余行與上同者，亦依作善知識。三者利根人内，有徹到學當根七法六法，乃同上瘂羊僧畏罪等徹到者，亦得依作出世善知識。 Explaining the exhaustive search for good friends. Within [this category] are three kinds [of good friends]. The fi rst is the mute sheep monk who cannot understand the text or the meaning. The second is the mute sheep monk who can understand the text but not the meaning. How can one recognise these two kinds of good friends who are mute sheep monks? One must test them by means of the Dharma, then it is possible to know if they are [good friends] or not. Within [their actions] there are six levels [of attainment]. First, from birth onwards, their nature is pliant in performing the three forms of karma [acts of body, speech and mind] towards all other sentient beings. They do not dare to fi ght with others, or to hit them, they do not even dare to hate others.

46 Nishimoto 1998: 414. The silent saṃgha 35

Second, their nature is self-eff acing; as householders they do not become the heads of households, or even seek to take an offi cial position. Three, by nature they fear their own misdeeds, they do not commit the ten evils, or even break the precepts. Four, from the time they leave home by nature they uphold the precepts and avoid wrongdoing. Fifth, from the time they leave home they are constantly self-eff acing, and do not dare either rule men or the dharma. Sixth, they enjoy studying the twelve dhūtaguṇas they always enjoy receiving inferior things, and they always enjoy receiving bad things. If from birth up to after they have left home they have all these qualities, one can rely on them as good friends together with the community. If having broken a precept they are full of remorse and do not try to conceal it; and even if they break the prohibitions and precepts but do not re-off end and their other practices are as above, then one may rely on them as good friends. The third is the person of sharp faculties, who has comprehensively studied the six teachings or seven teachings in accordance with his capacity, if he also fears wrongdoing etc. in the same way as the above mute sheep monks, then one can rely on him as a good friend on the renunciant path.47 If we compare this list of qualities with the ideal mute sheep monk as presented in the Zhifa, we see exactly the same kinds of concerns, expressed slightly diff erently, possibly because Zhifa represents a slightly later stage in the development of Sanjie monastic practice. According to Duigen qixing, the mute sheep monks are passive and pacifi c from birth. As both householders and later as monks, they should avoid taking positions of responsibility. They should not break the precepts out of a fear of wrongdoing. They should be self-eff acing ascetics. They may not know the text or its meaning, but they were to practice the paths of asceticism and meditation. Although the scriptures describe them as dull-witted and spiritu- ally backward, the mute sheep monks of the Sanjie movement are

47 Nishimoto 1998: 489. Translation in Hubbard 2001: 90–91, with some modifi cations. 36 James A. Benn presented as a spiritual elite, conforming to the very highest standards of morality and discipline, and providing a model and source of support for the beings of the third stage or level. But to attempt to comprehend Sanjie jiao in terms of its doctrinal justifi cations may be to misapprehend the whole phenomenon. It would be better perhaps to consider the movement as a cult within Chinese Buddhist monasticism that may have arisen initially out of devotion to the charismatic fi gure Xinxing, but that perpetuated itself as a saṃgha within the saṃgha under a somewhat esoteric and particular slogan drawn from the founder’s favourite text – the mute sheep monk assembly.

Conclusions

The term “mute sheep monk” may have appeared fi rst in Kumā- raj īva’s translation but it also appears in a number of later texts. Evidence from these translations indicates that the term may be a clever pun (mute sheep for deaf mutes). Puns are notoriously hard to translate, even if one understands both meanings of a term, and one wonders how many other examples there are of this phenomenon in Chinese translations of Indic texts. The four-fold saṃgha of which the mute sheep monks are a part is not unique to the Dazhidu lun but is echoed in Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda texts. Why exactly the saṃgha was described in this way remains somewhat un- clear, but certainly in these scholastic texts the mute sheep monks were not ascribed with any signifi cant role or purpose. In the more apocalyptic world of the *Daśacakra we fi nd an amplifi ed description of the mute sheep monks. Although this text clearly supplied the inspiration for Xinxing’s ideal monastic community, the image of the mute sheep monk that we can reconstruct from Sanjie literature is overwhelmingly positive, and quite diff erent from the negative portrayal in the *Daśacakra. Does a rhetoric of the decline of the dharma, such as we fi nd in the *Daśacakra, necessarily imply more lenient standards for the saṃgha? It seems not. Although the Sanjie mute sheep monks were told to replace text and exegesis with meditation and ascetic practice, this does not necessarily imply any more than a similar rhetorical attitude The silent saṃgha 37 towards the written word in Chan. In other words, the mute sheep monks, like the lineages of Chan, look like a particularly Chinese solution to the problem of being located far from the Buddha in space and time. The mute sheep monk assembly may also represent a sincere attempt to work even harder at the monastic path, even when all seemed lost. All we know of Sanjie practice comes from texts, and the texts used by the Sanjie movement were prescriptive rather than descrip- tive. Can we really say then that the Sanjie monks were as diligent in practice as they were supposed to be? The insistence on moral conduct and humble demeanour represented by the fi gure of the mute sheep monk ought to make us at least a little suspicious that Sanjie rhetoric may not have translated into particularly high standards of conduct in the community. What these documents do show, I think, is that it is quite possible for a self-consciously elite group dedicated to upholding certain ideals of practice and decorum to arise within the larger monastic body. Standards in Buddhist monasteries have always varied widely, and no doubt similar events have occurred at other times and places across the range of Buddhist monasticism in Asia.

Abbreviations T = Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (100 vols., eds. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, et al.). Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai, 1924–1932.

Bibliography Benn, James A., Lori Meeks, and James Robson, eds. 2010. Buddhist Monasticism in East Asia: Places of Practice. London: Routledge. Chou, Po-kan. 2000. The Translation of the Dazhidulun: Buddhist Evolution in China in the Early Fifth Century. PhD, Committee on History of Culture, University of Chicago, Chicago. _____. 2004. “The Problem of the Authorship of the Mahā pra jñā pāra mi to- padeśa: A Re-examination.” Taida lishi xuebao (34): 281–327. de La Vallée Poussin, Louis. 1988. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Translated by Leo M Pruden. Berkeley, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press. 38 James A. Benn

Demiéville, Paul. 1973. “Sur Étienne Lamotte, Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nāgārjuna, tome II,” In Choix d’études bouddhiques (1929– 1970), 470–490, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Demiéville, Paul and Jacques May, et al., (eds) (1929–) Hôbôgirin: Dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises. Fascicules I–VIII (to date). Tokyo: Maison Franco- Japonaise. Edgerton, Franklin. 1970. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 1st Indian ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Gómez, Luis O. 1976. “Proto-Mādhyamika in the Pāli Canon,” Philosophy East and West 26, no. 2: 137–65. Greene, Eric. 2008. “Another Look at Early Chan: Daoxuan, Bodhidharma, and the Three Levels Movement.” T’oung Pao 94, no. 1–3: 49–114. Hubbard, Jamie. 2001. Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese Heresy. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Lamotte, Étienne. 1944–1981. Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nā gār juna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra), 5 vols., Louvain-La-Neuve: Université de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste. Lewis, Mark Edward. 1990. “The Suppression of the Three Stages Sect: Apocrypha as a Political Issue.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Jr. Robert E. Buswell, 207–238. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Nishimoto Teruma 西本照真. 1998. Sangaikyō no kenkyū 三階教の研究 A Study of the San-chieh-chiao, Tokyo: Shunjū sha. Wang-Toutain, Françoise. 1998. Le bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha en Chine du Ve au XIIIe siècle, Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient. Yabuki Keiki 矢吹慶輝. 1927. Sangaikyō no kenkyū 三階教之研究 [A Study

of the Sanjie jiao], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Textende