sign in sign up
<<
Home , Buddhist meditation

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MAHĀYĀNA AND THERAVĀDA BUDDHIST : READING CHIH-I’S MOHO CHIH-KUAN AND ’S

Tony See Sin Heng (Buddhist College of Singapore (BCS))

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the connection between and Theravāda Buddhist meditation from the perspective of Chih-i’s Moho chih-kuan 摩訶止観 and considers its differences and similarities from Buddhist meditation and Buddhism. Although much scholarship has been devoted to the study of Chih-i’s concept of meditation, relatively few works have been engaged in a comparative study of his theory of mediation and Theravāda understanding of meditation. This paper makes such an attempt in the light of works done by exceptional works by scholars such as Swanson, Groner and Habito. In this paper, we examine why Chih-i used the term “chihi-kuan” 止観 and what practical implications it may have for meditators, what the philosophical background of chih-kuan is, followed by a consideration of the differences and similarities with the concept of meditation in Theravāda Buddhism.

KEYWORDS

Chih-i, Chih-kuan, Mahāyāna, T’ien-t’ai, Theravāda

16

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

INTRODUCTION

It is generally accepted that Chih-i’s theory of meditation is foundational to the development of the T’ien-t’ai school of Buddhism in . This school was credited with systematizing almost the entirely of the Buddha’s teachings and maintaining the centrality of the Lotus Sūtra 法華經. In fact, Paul Swanson has also gone to the extent of saying in his T’ien-t’ai : The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in (1989) that all roads towards understanding of Chinese Buddhism eventually lead to T’ien-t’ai Buddhism (Swanson 1989, x). This suggests that any study of meditation in the Chinese Buddhist tradition would be incomplete without considering the teachings of the T’ien-t’ai school of Buddhism. Given the centrality of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism to the study of Chinese Buddhism, it is remarkable why there is a relative lack of scholarship on T’ien-t’ai meditation in contemporary . The bulk of the work seems to be focused on -related studies and even Pure Land meditative experiences. In this paper, we hope to contribute to the current lacunae by turning our focus on the T’ien-t’ai perspective on meditation as this would help us understand how in China conceived of meditation. This would in turn inform our understanding of the varieties of meditative traditions and theories in our times. We begin with an examination of the concept of meditation as expressed by Chih-I in his massive text -ho Chih-kuan 摩訶止観, otherwise known as the Great Calming and Concentration. This will be followed by a study of the idea of mediation in Theravāda Buddhism. This will be followed by an analysis of their similarities and differences. One of the first things that we discover when we turn to the Mo-ho Chih-kuan is that meditation is not a matter of simply following one practice. In other words, early Chinese meditators did not advocate the sole practice of meditation to the exclusion of other practices. Unlike modern day and meditative movements, meditation is seen as part of a larger complex of religious practices. We say this because while meditation has become an important area of research by modern scholars, a trend that is gaining prominence especially due to the mindfulness circles, there is also a corresponding rise in the belief that the exclusive practice of meditation is sufficiently “Buddhist.” While the popular image of Buddhist practice is that of a person seated quietly in silent contemplation, this is not always the case in Buddhism. The study of Chih-i’s text on meditation, namely, the Mo-ho chih-kuan, reminds us that Buddhist meditation forms part of a larger body of practices. When we appreciate this point, important similarities with other . In Buddhism, for instance, it is emphasized that while mindfulness is an important factor for enlightenment, it is not the only factor for enlightenment There are a host of other mental factors that that need to be developed, and a host of mental defilements that need to be removed before the practitioner can make further progress. The Satipatthāna-sutta, for instance, teaches us that there are factors such Upekkhā (“equanimity”) and visuddhi (“purity”) that are equally important for the attainment of . These combinations of factors and support for practice should make us step back and think again about Buddhist practice, and question whether modern-day mindfulness movements give us an accurate picture of what Buddhist practice is. This paper seeks first of all to understand how meditation is conceived of by Chih-i, how it may be compared with Theravada meditation, and how these together differ from modern interpretations of mindfulness and what some of these factors are.

17

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

SAMATHA AND VIPASSANA IN THE MO-HO CHIH-KUAN

One of Chih-i’s earliest texts that give instructions on meditation is the Shih ch’an p’o-lo- mi tz’u-ti fa-men 釈禅波羅蜜次第法門 (Treatise on the Gradual Practice of Dhyana-paramita (T 46, no. 1916, 475-548). This is a text which was also commonly known as the Tz’u-ti ch’an- men 次第禅門 (The Gradual Practice of Ch’an). Strictly speaking, this text was not composed by Chih-i personally but a summary of his lectures which was edited by Kuan-ting. This massive text was later summarised into the Hsiao chih-kuan 小止観, a text composed around around 575, while Chih-i was working on Mt. T’ien-t’ai (from the age of 38 to 48). It was when Chih-i returned to the capital of Chin-ling from Mt. T’ien-t’ai in 585 that he composed the massive Mo-ho chih-kuan 摩訶止観（ Great Calming and Concentration ） (T 46, no. 1911) (Swanson, 2012: 2-3). Although there is a tendency to focus on his two other texts, which are exegetical his works on the Lotus Sūtra, namely the Fahua wenzhu 法華文句 (Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sūtra) and the Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra), it is also important to study his work on meditation in order to see the connection between meditation and the Lotus Sūtra. For instance, Chih-i’s use of the term “chih-kuan” was directly inspired by scriptural passages from the Lotus Sūtra 法華經 (T. 9.8a23–24), where it is stated that “The Buddha himself dwells in the Mahāyāna, and in accordance with his attainments, Is adorned with the power of concentration and wisdom, With which he saves sentient beings (Hsiao chih-kuan, T 46.462b5-11) (Swanson, 2012: 4). One of the immediate things that we should notice as we approach the Mo-ho chih-kuan is that Chih-i uses the term “chih-kuan” 止観 instead of “ch’an” 禪. The term “chih-kuan” consists of two words which means “stopping” or “calming” (śamatha) and “insight” or “contemplation” (vipaśyanā) respectively. Thus, the term chih-kuan is a translation of the term śamatha - vipaśyanā, a term that is, as we shall see, commonly shared by other Buddhist schools to describe the twin processes of meditation. So why did Chih-i use the term chih-kuan 止観 instead of a term that is more familiar with us today such as ch’an? The term ch’an is usually used as a transliteration of the Buddhist term for meditative stability called dhyana. There is evidence that Chih-i used this term at the initial stages of his career to refer “Buddhist practice” itself. According to Swanson, he believes that Chih-i may have switched to using the term chih-kuan because the word ch’an came to be associated with “one-sided” meditative practices that ignored other practices, and it may have even been associated with non-Buddhist practices such as Taoist meditative practices that became prevalent at the time. Thus, Chih-i may have adopted the term chih-kuan in the Mo-ho chih-kuan in order to distinguish it from other Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions (Swanson, 2012: 7). In my opinion, even though Swanson’s analysis is accurate, it is also possible that Chih-i adopted the term simply because it was a more accurate representation of Buddhist meditation. As mentioned previously, the term chih-kuan is a more accurate transliteration of the pair śamatha– vipaśyanā, which denotes both concentration and penetrating insight and wisdom which is shared by most Buddhist schools. Thus, in other words, he would have adopted this term even if there were no exclusive Buddhist and non-Buddhist adaptations of this term during his time. The Mo-ho chih-kuan describes various types of chih-kuan that are familiar to other traditional schools of Buddhism. According to Chih-i, there are basically two basic types of chih- kuan (T 46. 466c28-29): that of in meditation 坐禪, and that of “responding to objects in accordance with conditions” 歴縁対境. This latter form of meditation refers to that which involves maintaining a calm and insightful mind under various different conditions of life. This can be

18

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

practiced gradually by first engaging in sitting meditation, eventually leading to the latter type of meditation. Chih-i states that “First is to cultivate cessation-and-contemplation while sitting. The path can be practiced within any of the four types of activity 四威儀 [of walking 行, standing 住, sitting 坐, and laying down 臥, but sitting [in meditation] is the most superior [condition]. Therefore, I will first clarify cessation-and-contemplation in terms of sitting” (T 466c29–467a2). Thus, this passage suggests that even meditative practices are not restricted to seated meditation but can include a number of different approaches that include walking and standing (Swanson, 2012: 5). The Mo-ho chih-kuan Chih-i also categorizes all Buddhist practice under the comprehensive rubric of “four types of ” 四種三昧. The three types of samadhi refers to 1) constantly-sitting samadhi, 2) constantly-walking samadhi, 2) both-walking-and-sitting samadhi, and 4) neither-walking-nor-sitting samadhi. The first type of samadhi involves sitting in mediation and it is the content of “constantly-sitting samadhi” (T 46.11b29). Throughout the Mo-ho chih-kuan Chih-i maintains the importance of balancing meditation with learning. There is an implicit critique in his texts of those who are engaged in the practice of learning exclusively, but there is also a critique of those who practices meditation exclusively. Swanson has already presented a number of points to illustrate this point, so for our purposes we will refer to three of the more important and relevant ones. Firstly, in his introductory comments to the “ten modes of contemplation” 十乗観法, in the Mo-ho chih-kuan Chih-i claims that these modes are “models for beginners and an incentive for practitioners to attain omniscience (sarvajña),” but that “this is not something that can be known by meditation masters with an enlightenment that is darkened [by lack of learning] 闇證禅師, or by masters who merely read or the texts 誦文法師 [and do not practice meditation]” (T 46.52b15–16). This critique of meditation masters who merely read or chant the texts indicates that he wishes a strike a middle path between mere meditation and intellectual studies. In my , this does not mean that the practitioner should do less of both. The practitioner should engage in practicing both with diligence. This echoes the view that Chih-i took in the introduction to the smaller Hsia chih-kuan where he is also at pains to stress on the importance of a balance between meditation and learning. Thus, the first point is that Chih-i was critical not only of “Zen masters” who ignore learning, but also of scholarly types who ignore their meditative practice (Swanson, 2012: 7). Secondly, in his summary of a discussion on ten ways of “adapting the Buddha ” 融通仏法, Chih-i says that “I am not in agreement with either the textual scholars 文字法師 of this world, or in agreement with meditation masters practicing dhyana. There is a type of meditation master who is concerned only with the single intent of contemplation. Or, some are shallow and some are spurious [even with regard to meditation], and are completely lacking with regard to the other nine [issues of how to adapt the Buddha Dharma]. This is not a false charge. Those who have the eye of a later [stage] of erudition should realize and know this” (T 46.98a8–10). Thus, Chih-i once again critiques those who are either meditation masters or textual masters. Thirdly, in his summary of the section on “Contemplating the Sense Realms while Responding to Objects as Conditions Arise” (T 46.100b16–101c23), Chih-i also warns against a one-sided approach to Buddhist practice, this time in greater detail. Thus, in the three examples that we have given above, we can see that there is an express concern with practitioners who either emphasized meditative practice over study, or study over meditation (Swanson, 2012: 7–12). In summary, the above analysis suggests that Chih-i adopted the term chih-kuan instead of “ch’an” by the time of Mo-ho chih-kuan because of two main reasons. Firstly, he wanted to make a clear distinction between Buddhist practice proper from non-Buddhist Taoist practices and

19

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

Buddhists who claimed that meditation alone or textual learning alone suffices. The point, however, is not just to balance the two as if they were mutually exclusive. Rather, the point that Chih-i appears to be driving at is that the correct Buddhist practice must involve both textual study and meditation.

THE AIM OF MEDITATION ACCORDING TO CHIH-I: THE THREEFOLD TRUTHS

If Buddhist practice is to proceed by way of engaging in both textual study and meditation, and meditation is understood to mean both calming and insight, then the question arises as to what is the content of that insight? What is it that one gains insight into? Are there any degrees to that insight? Mahāyāna Buddhism in general prescribes that one must advance along distinct stages before one may arrive at the state of Buddhahood. These stages may be divided in various ways in different texts. In some texts, for instance, this path is divided into ten stages while others may categorize the stages differently. Although Chih-i recognizes these paths, his system is unique in formulating threefold stages, that of (1) 空 (realizing that all phenomena are empty and lacks a self-nature because they can only arise through a variety of causes and conditions), (2) conventionality 假 (recognizing the value of the mundane world, because although they are empty they still have conventional or provisional reality), and (3) the Middle, which consists of the simultaneous affirmation of both the emptiness and conventional reality of all things. This threefold classification of truth has been explained in detail by Ng Yu Kwan’s T’ien- t’ai Buddhism and Early Mādhyamika (1993). This threefold truth that the meditator must realize through calming and insight must be understood against the background of Chih-i’s all- encompassing system of three thousand worlds in one single thought moment. In Chih-i’s system, the minds of human beings at any one moment in time contains three thousand possible worlds. Chih-i obtained this number of three thousand by considering the mutual possessions of the ten worlds, the characterization of the ten characteristics and the three worlds. The ten worlds (shijie 十界) are elaborated in Shen Haiyan’s The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra: T’ien-t’ai Philosophy of Buddhism. They refer to 1) the world of Hell (diyu-jie 地獄界), 2) the world of Hungry Ghosts (egui-jie 餓鬼界), 3) the world of Animality (chuseng-jie 畜生界), 4) the world of Asuras (axiulo-jie 阿修羅界), 5) the world of Human beings (ren-jie 人界), 6) the world of Gods (tian-jie 天界), 7) the world of Sravakas (shengwen-jie 聲聞界), 8) the world of pratyeka-buddhas (yuanjue-jie 緣覺界), 9) the world of (pusa-jie 菩萨界) and 10) the world of Buddhas (fo-jie 佛界) (Shen, 2005: 64). These ten worlds do not refer to physical spaces or separate portions of space, but to ten different ways of perceiving the world, or, in our terms, ten different phenomenological worlds (Ziporyn, 138). Since each of the ten worlds interpenetrate the other ten worlds there are altogether one hundred worlds. Each of these one hundred worlds are in turn characterized by the Ten Suchness (十如是), these are namely, 1) Such an appearance (如是相), 2) Such a nature (如是性), 3) Such an entity (如是體), 4) Such a power (如是力), 5) Such an activity (如是), 6) Such a main cause (如是因), 7) Such a secondary condition, (如是緣), 8) Such an effect (如是果), 9) Such a retribution, (如是報), 10) Such a consistency from beginning to end (如是本末究竟等). Thus, there are in fact one thousand worlds at any one moment. And since these are contained within the Three Realms (三世間) of:

20

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

individuals (skandas), sentient beings (environing beings), physical environment, they make up a total of three thousand worlds in one thought moment” (yinian sanqian; 一念三千). When we situate Chih-i’s meditative processes of chih-kuan within this complex philosophical context, we begin to see that meditation is seen as an attempt to move through the stages from the lower worlds to the higher worlds. Literally, it has the power to move one from the experiential world of hell to the world of the Buddha. In the ten worlds system, the former six are usually referred to as the “six lower worlds” because they are characterized by beings that are possessed by the “” of anger, craving and delusion. It is in order to overcome these that one engages in meditation. Firstly, the word chih or “cessation” (dhyāna) actually involves a stopping and “emptying” of the mind of attachments to external forms so that passionate afflictions can be appeased. Secondly, once dhyāna is attained, the meditator goes on to develop guan or vipaśyanā, or what is usually known as contemplation or insight into the true nature of reality. This seems to coincide with what the Dacheng qixinglun 大乘起信論 (Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna) describes about meditative practice when it says that in calming and stopping or “chih,” that no sense object should be taken as object, not even the breath. Instead of taking them as objects, all thoughts should be discarded as they arise, including the thought of discarding them. Both the Dacheng qixinglun and Chih-i say that the wandering of thoughts is gradually controlled and then arrested by the reflection that all that is turned towards mind-only. It is only when the flow of wandering thoughts outwards is fully stopped that the defilements are suppressed and the ‘samādhi of thusness’ is entered, a state beyond the duality of subject and object which is the foundation of all other samādhis. While most would stop at this level, Chih-i’s distinctive threefold truth reminds us that this is not the final stage and that there is a third stage that needs to be reached. In order to bring the samādhi into perfection, one needs to return from emptiness and bring the mind back, so that one may abide naturally and spontaneously in its original state. This is sometimes described as the samādhi of thusness leads to the samādhi of ‘one movement’ (eka-caryā), or ‘one characteristic’ (eka-lakṣaṇa). At this level, the meditator realizes the oneness of the world of defilement and world of the Dharma. There is the sameness of the Dharma-body and the bodies of all beings. Here one realizes that there is no other places to escape to, there is no transcendent plane that one ought to abide in, one ought to rest in a state of non-abiding in either samsara or nirvāṇa.

SAMATHA AND VIPASSANA IN THERAVĀDA BUDDHISM

At this point, it may be useful to make a comparative study of Chih-i’s view of meditation with other Buddhist traditions. In this paper, we will focus on the relationship between traditional Buddhist meditation and the meditation in the Theravāda and Tibetan. Firstly, in the Theravāda Buddhist perspective, it is said that meditation proper also consists of two distinct parts, these are namely “calming” (śamatha) and “insight” (vipassanā). The recognized author of the Theravāda Buddhist tradition Buddhaghosa also wrote in the Visuddhimagga or “The Path of Purification” that technique of calming meditation also involves the counteracting the tendency of the mind to restlessly seek out new and different objects of the senses. In the context of Buddhist psychology and philosophy, the mind is experiencing suffering because it is lost in the “sphere of the senses” (kāmāvacara). In this sphere, the mind is attached to various external objects, desire arises and this leads the mind to go through various rounds of cyclic existences. This forms the fundamental reason why there is a need to escape from this course world and into the “sphere of pure form”

21

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

(rūpāvacara). The experience of this refined world of pure form comprises four increasingly subtle dhyānas corresponding to the sixteen Brahma realms of the Buddhist cosmos (Gethin 177). In the Theravāda tradition this is to be accomplished by developing a basic capacity of the mind to rest undisturbed on an object of perception. This capacity, called “concentration” (samādhi) is in fact understood as a prerequisite for insight and it is not to be regarded as insight itself. In this condition, one enters into mental states that are quite different from that in habitual states which may be divided into stages called dhyānas ( jhāna). Buddhaghosa is famous for listing altogether to forty objects of meditation. Certain objects such as the six recollections (anusmṛti/ ) of the Buddha, the Dharma and the , good conduct, generosity, and the gods, along with mindfulness of death, are all suited to the preliminary practice of calm known as “access concentration” (upcāra-samādhi), which is a level of concentration considered to be on the brink of full dhyāna or “absorption” (appanā). Others such as the ten devices (kasiṇa) along with mindfulness of (ānāpāna-smṛti/ -) are suitable for both the preliminary and more advanced stages. Other like the four “formless” (arūpa) can only be cultivated by the more advanced practitioners. It is important that Buddhaghosa sees that not all meditation objects are suitable to everyone. He initially discusses this from two perspectives: (1) their suitability for the practice of the preliminary or advanced stages of calm meditation and (2) their suitability for different personality types (Gethin, 177). Some objects are suitable for certain personality types while others are more suitable for different levels. Thus, someone with a strong tendency towards sensual desire should balance this cultivating the ten meditations on “ugliness” (ásubha/ asubha), that is on the body in ten different degrees of putrefaction (Gethin, 177), while for someone with a tendency in intellectualize and get lost in speculations, mindfulness of breathing is recommended for cutting off discursive thinking. Someone whose temperament is irritable and tends towards anger and hatred might take one of the four coloured discs as meditation objects. In this connection, Buddhaghosa also emphasizes the importance of having a good friend (kalyāṇa-mitra/ - mitta) who can suggest and teach a suitable meditation subject. The meditation teachers is important because he stands in the place of the Buddha himself and one ought to have faith and trust in such a teachers in order to advance along the path of meditation (Gethin, 179). The overcoming of the and the coming into balance of these five limbs of dhyāna is important. Buddhaghosa describe the stages leading to access concentration in terms of three successive images or “signs” (nimitta) and five stages of joy (piti) (Gethin, 181). There are various stages of dhyāna leading to the brama-vihāras, but these are only a preparation to the development of insight and wisdom (Gethin, 187).

SAMATHA AND VIPASSANA IN

This connection between the two systems of meditation can help us to understand a variety of meditation in other Buddhist traditions. It suggests that in spite of the apparent differences their universal structures within the Buddhist traditions when we view it from the perspective of meditation. In Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, for instance, there is the teaching that we must have an exclusive reliance on the intoning the name of the Buddha Amitābha in order to attain Buddhahood. This practice of calling upon the name of the Buddha is called “nembutsu” and it may appear to be quite different from other forms of Buddhist meditation. However, when we view it from the perspective of meditation, the differences may only be apparent and the deep

22

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

structure emerges. An examination of its etymology will help to make this clear. The Japanese term is itself based on the practice of “” 念佛 in Chinese Buddhism. In China, although the term “nianfo” carries the sense of intoning vocally the Buddha’s name, the term “念” (nian) can also refers to a quiet and mindful recollection” 念 (nian) of the Buddha (fo) (Stevenson, 360). This double meaning of the term “nianfo” creates an ambiguity as to whether nianfo refers to vocal intonation or quiet reflection (Stevenson, 362). One of the most fervent advocate of this teaching is 親鸞, a 12th century who argued that by doing so we rely on the power of the Buddha to save us instead of our own power. This teaching has been controversial in the because it seems to challenge the traditional understanding of Buddhist teachings in terms of self-reliance. Instead of the image of the practitioner sitting quietly in meditation and relying on his own efforts for enlightenment, what we have here is the image of someone intoning the name of the Buddha, relying on his power for salvation, in what has come to be called “other- power” (Japanese: tariki). However, it is possible to resolve this controversy when we see it from from the perspective of meditation. One of the ways of doing is by tracing the origin of this idea back to its sources. Although it is true that Honen 法然, recommended the practice of nembutsu because it was “easy to practice” this does not mean that it is not a form of meditation (Atane and Hayashi, 2011). He believed that it was important to rely on easy practice because it was realistically impossible to rely on practices that relies on self-power. Besides, in orthodox Buddhist teachings the completion of the Buddhist path in time consists of many lifetimes of practice, over many inconceivable lengths of time. These teachings were regarded as “hard to practice” and almost impossible to follow through until the end, especially in the dharma-ending dark times and so were regarded as being useless by the Pure Land teachers. Any attempt to understand the nembutsu as a form of meditation must do so from the perspective of history. Historically, this form of practice can be traced back to early precedents in Chinese Buddhism. According to Shan-Tao 善導, a seventh-century Buddhist scholar in the Pure Land tradition, the practice of calling upon the name of Amitabha Buddha for salvation can be traced back to the term daśacitta meaning “the ten recitations” in the Buddhist . In his famous text entitled Methods of Contemplation on Buddha Amitābha, he states that “If, when I (Buddha Amitābha) am to attain Buddhahood, all sentient beings in the ten directions who wish to be reborn in my buddhaland recite my name at least ten times are not born there through the power of my vow, I will not realize enlightenment.” Thus, Shan-Tao transformed the meaning of the statement “just ten moments of mindfulness of Buddha Amitābha” and “the perfection of mindfulness of Buddha Amitābha” in the Larger to physical recitations of the Buddha’s name for ten times – “recite my name at least ten times” (Stevenson, 2007: 362).

INDIAN SOURCES

One may be tempted to check this double meaning against what Indian texts say, perhaps, there is no such ambiguity in the term? To do so, we need to start with an analysis of the original term that the term nianfo refers to. We find that it is a translation of the Sanskrit compound buddhānusmṛti which, in the Indian context, refers to the “the recollection or the bearing in mind (anusmṛti) of the attributes of a Buddha (Stevenson, 360). In other words, in its Indian derivative, the term buddhānusmṛti refers to a kind of practice in which one keeps the buddha perpetually in mind, it is better read in a meditative context where one stabilizes an image of the Buddha’s form in one’s mind. It is important to note that the Indian counterparts understood recollection of the 23

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

Buddha not in terms of vocal intonation. Furthermore, the major Indian sources tell us that it is not a self-contained exclusive practice but merely forms one part of a combination of practices that leads to enlightenment (Stevenson, 361). At its most basic level, the Buddha-mindfulness begins with the visual recollection of the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor excellences of the Buddha’s glorified body of form (Sanskrit: rūpa-kāya; Chinese: se shen). This is said to induce states of “religious transport” so that the practitioner comes face to face with the Buddha either in his beautified body form or in his incomprehensible and enlightened form. For this reason, the practice is associated with a form of meditation called buddhānusmṛti-samādhi (nianfo-sanmei) (Stevenson, 361). Although this meditative element is central to traditional Indian manuals, it is also associated with a plethora of rituals and devotional regimens such as the sustained recitation of the Buddha’s name, the intonation of spells, the of incense, repeated veneration and before the Buddha, confessions, dedication of merits and the profession of bodhisattva vows (Stevenson 361). In , this was organized into the “sevenfold peerless ” (saptānuttarapūja), and it was eventually developed into the system of “fourfold penance” in China. At the second stage, the practitioner may dispense with the recollection of the Buddha’s physical form and start to turn his or her towards the Buddha’s boundless spiritual powers and omniscience, until he or she ultimately arrives at the Buddha’s formless essence of enlightenment itself known as the mindful recollection of the Buddha’s body of truth or reality (Sanskrit dharma-kāya: Chinese zhen she, shixiang shen) (Stevenson, 361). Thus, while buddhānusmṛti may seem like a devotional practice that is dedicated to a particular Buddha’s form and qualities, a practice that seems to be opposed to what we have come to associate with meditative practice, its devotional aspect is only a beginning and it is understood to be a transitional stage that is supposed to lead one into deep meditative states (Stevenson, 361).

REVISITING THE SCHOLAR DEBATE ON ŚAMATHA AND VIPASSANĀ

While there are many scholarly debates regarding these two concepts, they are not about the same issues as that in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Most of these debates on Theravāda Buddhism in modern scholarship are concerned simply with the dialectic between śamatha and vipassanā. While a number of scholars have argued that calming or śamatha is merely a prelude to developing real insight in the form of vipassanā, other scholars argue that śamatha itself is the real practice of Buddhist meditation. As an early example, Winston King, in his Theravāda Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of (1980), for instance, argues that the practice of dhyāna was adopted from pre-existing Indian brahmanical yogic practices and that there is no insight to speak of in . This suggests that there is no need to develop insight because insight cannot be properly be regarded as “Buddhist” (Winston, 1980). On the other hand, has argued for precisely the opposite view and maintained that what was really innovative about Buddhist meditation is the attainment of peaceful states through the practice of dhyāna. He argued that since there was no evidence that this form of meditation existed in India prior to the appearance of Buddhism, that this form of meditation is substantially different from other forms of meditation practiced in India during the Buddha’s times (Bronkhorst, 1993). Thus, while there are scholarly debates in Theravāda Buddhist scholarship, they are primarily concerned with whether (śamatha) or “insight” (vipassanā) is to precede the other, and which is authentic and needs to be privileged. There is little disagreement regarding the content of that insight.

24

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, however, there is an issue concerning the actual content of that insight. This is where the similarity seems to end. Whereas the Theravāda Buddhist tradition seems to hold that in vipassana one realizes the truth of suffering, non-self and , three truths that are usually associated with the notion of “emptiness,” in the Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition this is inadequate because in addition to the realization of emptiness or dependent origination, one must not rest in this emptiness but must depart from this emptiness to realize the truth of a . This means that to ensure that the meditator does not then complacently dwell in the experience of emptiness because he or she would be without the urge towards compassionate action in the world, guan or vipaśyanā needs to undergo a further step in order to bring it into perfection. This is done by realizing that nirvāṇa is the same as saṃsāra, that there is a middle truth between emptiness and conditioned existence. This means that the meditator learns that he must remain in saṃsāra with compassion for suffering beings. If he does not take this last step, which is realizing the middle truth between conventional truth and the truth of emptiness, then he enters the path of the and reaches extinction. However, if he succeeds in doing so, he develops and courses through the stages of the Bodhisattva path. On the other hand, it is not so clear that we can associate Theravāda Buddhism with Hīnayāna Buddhism. It could be due to inadequate information collected at this stage in our scholarship we have yet to see the deeper connections between Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhist meditation. After all, historically, some Mahāyāna Buddhist criticized the Hīnayāna goals because of their apparent selfish wish for self-liberation without having the compassion to works towards the salvation of others, but when we examine the Theravāda Buddhist teachings, especially those in the scriptural collections, we can find that they are replete with many teachings on the need to have compassion and loving-kindness for others. Perhaps the critical question for Theravāda Buddhism is how to generate compassion when all one sees is impermanence, suffering and non- self. But this should be left for another paper. Suffice it here to say that since Theravāda Buddhism also emphasizes compassion and loving-kindness, then they are strictly speaking not Hīnayāna and could be fellow travellers on the bodhisattva path.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have considered Chih-i’s concept of meditation, specifically chih-kuan 止観 in his Moho chih-kuan 摩訶止観. We have found that he used the term chih-kuan 止観 instead of ch’an 禪 because he was concerned with making a distinction between what he deems to be orthodox Buddhist practice from Buddhist practices that were one-sided and non-Buddhist practices that also use the term ch’an. Since the history and the context of the word ch’an has changed, there is no reason to assume, at least from this text, that he would insist on rejecting this word today. Secondly, we have also provided the philosophical background against which Chih-i developed his theory of meditation, namely, his theory of three thousand worlds within one single thought moment (yinian sanqian; 一念三千), a theory that is derived from his close reading of the Lotus Sūtra 法華經. Finally, we have also made a comparative study of Chih-i’s idea of meditation with that of Theravāda Buddhism. Here, we find that there are more similarities than meets the eye since Chih-i’s structure of “calming” (śamatha) and “insight” (vipaśyanā) in the Moho chih-kuan, a text which is based no doubt on his careful analysis of meditation in relation to the Lotus Sūtra fits with the structure of (śamatha) and “insight” (vipassanā) as taught in the Theravāda school of Buddhism.

25

《禪與人類文明研究》第 7 期（2020） International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization Issue 7 (2020)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bronkhorst, Johannes. (1993). The Two Traditions of Meditations in Ancient India. New Delhi: Motilal. Gethin, Rupert. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. King, Winston. (1980). Theravāda Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga. University Park: Pa. Ng, Yu-Kwan. (1993). T’ien-t’ai Buddhism and Early Mādhyamika. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Shen, Haiyan. (2005). The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra: T’ien-t’ai Philosophy of Buddhism, Vol. 1 & 2. Delhi: Originals. Swanson, Paul. (2002). “Ch’an and Chih-kuan: T’ien-t’ai Chih-i’s View of “Zen” and the Practice of the Lotus Sūtra. Presentation at the International Lotus Sūtra Conference on the theme “The Lotus Sūtra and Zen”, 11-16 July 2002. Swanson, Paul. (1989). Foundations of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press. Ziporyn, Brook. (2000). Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity, and Value Paradox in Buddhist Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Asia Center.

BIOGRAPHY

See Sin Heng Tony is currently Assistant Professor in the Buddhist College of Singapore (BCS). His research interest is in Mahayana Buddhism and in Theravada Buddhism. He also has an interest in Comparative Philosophy and his recent publication includes Deleuze and Buddhism (London: Palgrave, 2017).

26