“Middle Way” Approach on Buddhist Ethics: Wŏnhyo on the Doctrinal Problem of the Buddha-nature and the Icchantika Lee Sumi Acta Koreana, Volume 22, Number 2, December 2019, pp. 231-248 (Article) Published by Keimyung University, Academia Koreana For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/756404 [ Access provided at 27 Sep 2021 12:36 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] ACTA KOREANA Vol. 22, No. 2, December 2019: 231–248 doi:10.18399/acta.2019.22.2.002 “Middle Way” Approach on Buddhist Ethics: Wŏnhyo on the Doctrinal Problem of the Buddha-nature and the Icchantika LEE SUMI The Buddhist ethical concept of kuśala (C. shan 善), which is usually rendered as “wholesome” or “skillful,” has drawn significant scholarly attention. Although scholars have not reached a consensus on how to approach Buddhist ethical systems, it seems to be commonly acknowledged that the wholesome dharmas in early Buddhism are divided into two types: the wholesome dharmas on the mundane level and the wholesome dharmas on the supramundane level. According to the typical account of Buddhist soteriology, a practitioner should cultivate these two types of wholesome dharmas in order to reach the final goal of nirvāṇa. However, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, in which the division between the mundane and the supramundane sphere was ultimately denied, the distinction between the wholesome dharmas on the mundane and supramundane levels was often seen as being problematic. As a result, a philosophical problem arose concerning how to explain the doctrinal contrast between the ultimate universality and the concrete particularities. In ancient East Asia this problem emerged centering on the two conflicting notions of the Buddha-nature (Skt. buddha-dhātu, alt. tathāgatagarbha, C. foxing 佛性), the universal spiritual capability innate in all sentient beings, and the icchantikas (C. yichanti 一闡提), “incorrigibles,” those who are devoid of the capability (or, the wholesome dharmas) to attain Buddhahood. This article discusses the philosophical conundrum entailed from doctrinal incompatibility between the universal capability to become a Buddha and the beings who lack the wholesome dharmas by examining the Silla scholar monk Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617–686) understanding of the four antinomies (Skt. catuṣkoṭi, C. siju 四句) on the Buddha-nature of the Nirvāṇa Sutra. LEE SUMI ([email protected]) is HK Research Professor in the Academy of Buddhist Studies, Dongguk University, Korea. 232 Acta Koreana, Vol. 22, No. 2, December 2019 Key words: Buddhist Ethics, Buddha-nature, icchantika, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617– 686), the Nirvāṇa Sutra In Buddhism the ethical concept of “wholesome” (Skt. kuśala, C. shan 善) is generally discussed in association with the final soteriological goal. In early Indian Buddhism, to attain liberation from the cycle of rebirth (Skt. saṃsāra, C. lunhui 輪廻), a practitioner should cultivate two types of wholesome dharmas: first, the wholesome dharmas on the mundane (Skt.loka , C. shijian 世 間) level and, next, the wholesome dharmas on the supramundane (Skt. lokottara, C. chu shijian 出世間) level.1 By cultivating the wholesome dharmas of the mundane level, practitioners receive a good reward, such as good rebirth among the six destinies (Skt. ṣaḍgati, C. liuqu 六 趣); once in a favorable condition, they proceed to conduct the wholesome dharmas on the supramundane level, which will ultimately lead them to the final goal of nirvāṇa. However, the mundane and the supramundane wholesome dharmas do not represent the entire scope of the Buddhist ethical concept of “the wholesome dharma,” or the dharmas that are characterized as wholesome. In Mahāyāna Buddhism the notion of a “sphere beyond the supramundane” (C. chu chu shijian 出出世間) emerged, fundamentally transcending the division between the mundane and the supramundane sphere.2 In terms of Buddhist soteriology, the concept of the wholesome dharma beyond the supramundane sphere accordingly appeared—the wholesome dharmas that transcend the distinction between the mundane and the supramundane sphere. According to the typical account of the early Indian Buddhist soteriology, a practitioner cultivates the mundane and the supramundane wholesome dharmas throughout numerous life times to reach the ultimate goal of nirvāṇa.3 By contrast, the 1 For instance, in his book on the bodhipakkhiyā dhammā (Skt. bodhipākṣikadharma, C. daopin 道品 or putifenfa 菩提分 法), Rupert Gethin discusses in detail that the early Buddhist texts, including the Pāli Nikāyas, the Abhidhamma, and the commentaries, coherently concern with the process whereby the ‘ordinary’ (lokiya), unawakened mind, transforms itself into the ‘world transcending’ (lokuttara), awakened mind, through various types of meditative practice (Gethin 2001 [1992], 6). 2 For instance, in the She dasheng lun 攝大乘論, Paramārtha’s translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra by Asaṅga (c. fourth century), “the wholesome dharma of the sphere beyond the supramundane” (C. chuchushi shanfa 出 出世善法) appears (T1593:31.131c08), and, in the Shedashenglun shi 攝大乘論釋, Paramārtha’s translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya by Vasubandhu (c. fourth century), it is stated, “While the wholesome [dharmas] of the two vehicles are called as supramundane [wholesome dharmas], [those] on the eighth stage through the stage of Buddhahood as [the wholesome dharmas] beyond the supramundane sphere. The supramundane dharmas are prescribed in respect to the mundane dharmas; the dharmas beyond the supramundane sphere are prescribed in respect to the supramundane dharmas” 論曰：出出世善法功能所生, 釋曰: 二乘善名出世，從八地已上 乃至 佛地名出出世. 出世法為 世法對治，出出世法為 出世法對治 (Shedashenglun shi T1595:31.263b07–10). 3 While the spiritual transformation from the mundane to the supramundane is generally accepted as the sote- riological scheme of the early Buddhism, there is some research that calls this view into question. In his book on the notion of diṭṭhi, or ‘view,’ in Theravāda Buddhism, Paul Fuller introduces two types of understanding of diṭṭhi in line with the general account of the two types of wholesome dharmas in early Buddhism, namely, “the opposition understanding of views,” according to which right view stands in opposition to wrong view, and “the no-views understanding of views,” in which right view is equated with no-view. Fuller ultimately denies this distinction and argues that “the attainment of right-view and the practicing of no-view amount to the same thing,” since “the consequence of achieving right-view is that one does not hold any views.” By indicating that Lee: “Middle Way” Approach on Buddhist Ethics 233 distinction between these two phases of cultivation is often ignored in Mahāyāna Buddhism. It is often stated such that the birth-and-death is none other than nirvāṇa (C. shengsi ji niepan 生死即涅槃); that the defilement is none other than the enlightenment (C.fannao ji puti 煩惱即 菩提); or that one becomes a Buddha upon seeing one’s own nature (C. jianxing chengfo 見性成 佛), suggesting that the enlightenment can be attained even at this very moment in present lifetime.4 As it is regarded that an ordinary being is not different from the Buddha, or the samsaric world is not distinguished from nirvāṇa, the wholesome dharmas are sometimes not regarded as what should be cultivated to accomplish the soteriological goal. Instead, the idea comes to the fore that every sentient being is already endowed with the Buddha-nature (Skt. buddha-dhātu, alt. tathāgatagarbha, C. foxing 佛性), the spiritual capability to become a Buddha. In other words, the ultimate goal of the enlightenment or the Buddhahood is not considered what is attained by cultivating the wholesome dharmas, but what is already inherent in all sentient beings. In this sense, the Buddha-nature may be said as a new type of wholesome dharma in the Mahāyāna worldview beyond the supramundane sphere.5 According to this Mahāyāna view, nirvāṇa also is not an object remote from the present world, but may be experienced anywhere and anytime—whether it be the mundane or the supramundane realm. This concept of nirvāṇa is well known as “nirvāṇa of no-abiding” (Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa, C. wuzhu[chu] niepan 無住[處]涅槃).6 right view is not simply another view opposed to wrong view, nor is it the rejection of all views, but apprehend- ing things without attachments, Fuller also makes an important point that right view is not a type of proposi- tion, which are adopted or believed in, but “a different order of seeing,” which should be practiced. This un- derstanding of right view seems to be addressing some features of right view beyond the supramundane level, in that right view is described as transcending the distinction between “the opposition understanding of views” and “the no-views understanding of views,” or the mundane level of right view and the supramundane level of right view. It may be said that although the soteriological scheme of early Buddhism may appear in these two levels, the supramundane elements were inherent in it and thus the distinction between the two levels may be seen as not viable from the ultimate perspective (Fuller 2005). 4 The birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are identified to each other in such Mahāyāna texts as the Laṅkāvatāra Sutra (Lengqie abatuoluo aojing 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T672:16.597a15–17), the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Dasheng zhuangyan jin- glun 大乘莊嚴經論 T1604:31.599a02), and Paramārtha’s translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra (She dasheng lun T. 1593:31.129b27–29). For the passages, in which defilements are identified to the enlightenment, see the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Dasheng zhuangyan jinglun T1604:31.622b12–13). The phrase that one becomes a Buddha upon seeing one’s own nature (C. jianxing chengfo 見性成佛), one of the well-known Chan phrases, is generally attributed to the school’s putative founder Bodhidharma 菩提達磨 (c. late-fourth to early-fifth centuries), and included in such a text as Huangbo Xiyun’s 黃檗希運 (?–850) Chuanxin fayao 傳心法要 (T2012:48.384a05–06) together with another phrase, “directly point to one’s mind” (C. zhizhi renxin 直指人心). 5 In fact, it is stated in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, that “the Buddha-nature is the wholesome [dharma]” 一闡提等無 有善法，佛性亦善，以未來有故一闡提等悉有佛性 (Dabanniepan jing T374:12.524c02–04); 世尊！一闡提輩 不斷佛性，佛 性亦善，云何說言斷一切善？(Dabanniepan jing T374:12.562c20–22).