CHAPTER SIX

BUDDHIST ONTOLOGY

As shown in the previous chapter, adopted Yogācāra as a response to the challenge from the West about what true knowedge and true reality are. Yet his metaphysical quest did not make him discard moral issues and he felt compelled to modify, on purpose, the Yogācāra teaching, so that it could give a positive meaning to human life and to the world. However, the Yogācāra with which Liang was thinking was, in fact, the result of a lengthy process by which Indian had been transformed into Chinese Yogācāra. In other words, we have to take into account, not only the conscious changes that Liang made about Yogācāra, but also some changes that were introduced much before him and about which he was largely unaware. Indeed, Liang based his interpretation of the Dharma and the Yogācāra School for most part on . Though he had done research on Indian Buddhism while teaching at Peking University, his understanding of Indian Buddhist history was limited. He could rely only on traditional Buddhist literature in Chinese, and on modern Japanese and English literature, which was quite scarce at that time. One of the main differences between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism is related to the question of ontology. It is only in the nineteen-twenties that the question of Buddhist ontology became very controversial in China, as it still is today. But, for Liang, his understanding of Buddhism had already been shaped and he could not discard it. We shall therefore first examine the doctrinal debates surrounding the interpretation of the Awakening of Faith. Then, on the question of ontology, we shall examine the position of Indian Yogācāra and its subsequent development in China until modern times. This will allow us to further examine Liang’s understanding of Buddhist ontology, and finally to evaluate it.

The Doctrinal Debate on the Awakening of Faith

The debate about the orthodoxy of the Awakening started very early in Japan. In 1906, Issai Funabashi 舟橋水哉 (1874–1945) first devel- oped the hypothesis that it was written in China. In 1919, Mochizuki 106 chapter six

Shinko 望月信亨 (1869–1948) wrote an article in which he asserted that it was a Chinese product. In 1922, Liang Qichao wrote an article in Eastern Miscellanies in which he conceded that the Awakening did not belong to Indian Buddhism, but instead of seeing this as a problem, he boosted, as a nationalistic reaction, that Chinese people should take pride in having created, by themselves, such a profound text.1 From 1922 onward, Ouyang Jingwu offered classes on Yogācāra texts at the Chinese Institute of Inner Learning. His textual research on the newly rediscovered Yogācāra classics uncovered the original teach- ings of Indian Yogācāra. At the same time, this shed new light on the important texts of the Chinese Tripitaka, such as the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna. This text is traditionally considered an important śāstra in Chinese Buddhism, especially for the Huayan and Chan Schools. It was believed to have been written in Sanskrit by Aśvaghosa 馬鳴 (c. 80–c. 150) and translated into Chinese in 550 A.D. by Paramārtha 真諦 (499–569), a famous Indian translator of Buddhist texts.2 How- ever, the original Sanskrit text has never been found. And so, Ouyang Jingwu’s lectures shocked the Chinese Buddhist world.3 Ouyang Jingwu held that the Awakening should be rejected because its doctrinal content departed from orthodox Buddhism. Though the Awakening inherited categories from Yogācāra, it departed from it by constructing a fundamental ontology and by introducing concepts which were not found in earlier texts. Ouyang recognized that the concept of suchness, or zhenru, appeared occasionally in texts such as the Chengweishilun, but in those places it should be understood as a perfect cognitive state, underlying the mind’s constant and ever

1 In 1924, Liang Qichao published Dasheng qixinlun kaozheng 大乘起信論考證 [Tex- tual Critique on the Awakening] (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1924). 2 See Yoshito S. Hakeda, in the “Introduction” of The Awakening of Faith, translated with commentary by Yoshito S. Hakeda (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 1. Paramārtha 眞諦 came to by sea route in 546. In response to the request of the 梁武帝 (r. 502–549), he undertook the transla- tion of Buddhist texts. Among the 64 works in the 278 fascicles that he translated, were such influential scriptural texts as the Suvarna-prabhāsa-(uttama)-sūtra 金光明經, the Mahāyāna-samgraha 攝大乘論 and the Madhyānta-vibhāga 中邊分別論. About the life Paramārtha, see Diana Paul, Philosophy of Mind in Sixth Century China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984), 11–37. 3 The lectures were published later on: Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無, “Weishi jueze tan 唯識抉擇談 [Decisive Talks on the Consciousness-Only School],” (: Chinese Institute of Inner Learning 支那內學院, 1928).