The Refuge of the Universal Dharma and Universal Sangha

6. The Refuge of the Universal Dharma and Universal Sangha

Just as the refuge of the Universal Buddha emphasizes the need to look to the essential truth that suffuses all phenomena, the San- chieh doctrine of the refuge of the teachings and community appropriate for sentient beings of the third level emphasizes the universality of the essential truth underlying or permeating all speci³c instances of the teachings or individual members of the community. Why? Because the blinders of our prejudices render a narrow, speci³c view or practice a source of harm rather than merit. Thus again it was the point of view of the sentient beings who would study and cultivate the doctrine that fueled Hsin-hsing’s efforts at systematization rather than a chronology of the Buddha’s sermons or doctrinal evaluation of the content of the scriptures; this put the focus on the needs of the sentient beings hearing the teachings now as the arbiter of validity.1 One can easily follow the reasoning of this hermeneutic—if you buy into the notion of the decline of our capacity to receive, understand, and uphold the dharma, then the emphasis in doctrinal classi³cation must shift away from such traditional norms as whether one or another scripture transmits the full and perfect wisdom or is merely an “accommodated” teaching, that is, away from teachings that are de³nitive (n‡t„rtha) versus teachings in need of interpretation (ney„rtha) and the yardstick of truth by which this is determined; the evaluation must be centered on sentient beings and their needs.

The Teachings in Accord with the Capacity of the First and Second Levels

As is usually the case with Hsin-hsing’s teachings, the doctrine appropriate for the sentient beings of the ³rst and second levels reµects their

1 For an overview of other Buddhist approaches to grading the teachings see the essays in Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed., Buddhist Hermeneutics (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1988). For an excellent overview of the radically “universal” rhetoric of the three levels see Mark Lewis, “The Suppression of the Three Stages Sect,” 213–25; for a discussion of his analysis of the suppressions of the three levels movement see chapter 8 below.

123 124 / universal dharma and universal sangha ability to accurately discern truth and falsity, hence the capacity to bene³t from particular teachings; more speci³cally, however, as discussed in chapter 4, it represents the difference between Ekay„na scriptures such as the Hua-yen Sutra and the sutras, Vinaya, and commentaries of the Triy„na:

[For sentient beings of the ³rst level] exhaustively taking refuge in the complete teaching is comprised of two items: (1) [taking refuge in] the Mahayana teaching of the sudden doctrine such as the Hua-yen Sutra and the many Mahayana sutras; and (2) [taking refuge in] the Mahayana teaching of universal understanding, that for the purpose of eliminating the malady of discrimination universally sees the Mahayana without question of non-Buddhist or Buddhist scripture, superior and inferior. [For sentient beings of the second level] exhaustively taking refuge in the complete dharma is comprised of the single category of the sutras, precepts, and commentaries of the Triy„na.2

Reµecting the usual attitude of Hsin-hsing, the refuge of the dharma for sentient beings of the ³rst and second level is to be found in the scriptures, precept texts, and commentaries of the Mahayana and the Triy„na. What, however, about those whose faculties were not up to accurate discernment, accurate discrimination of true from false?

The Universal Teaching of the Third Level

One of Hsin-hsing’s important teachings is that because the dharma is taught for the purpose of liberation it must be suited to the capacity of the practitioner. This doctrine is embodied in a phrase found throughout the literature and the title of one of Hsin-hsing’s important works, the Tui ken ch’i hsing fa ÏÍ|‘À, the “teaching on the practice that arises in accord with the capacity.” Simply put, Hsin-hsing taught that the speci³c or particular teachings and practices appropriate for the capacities of the ³rst two levels were not appropriate for the capacity of the third level.3 The San chieh fo fa tells us why, quoting from a wide variety of sutras to conclude that living beings of the third level cannot be saved by ordinary means; indeed, the buddhas cannot help, nor can all of the scriptures:

2 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 112. 3 The “practices that arise in accord with the capacity” is an oft-repeated phrase found throughout San-chieh literature, and is, of course, based on such traditional Buddhist ideas as “graduated teachings” (anupubbikath„, see below), up„ya, etc. The most detailed reasoning for this claim is given in the 24 sections of the San chieh fo fa, 291–304. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 125

The ³rst item is as explained in the K„šyapa-sðtra, which teaches that even one thousand buddhas are not able to save those sentient beings with the nature to be attached to the views of existence and emptiness. The second item is as clari³ed in the Fo ts’ang ching, which teaches that even a hundred-thousand- million-trillion buddhas would not be able to save these sentient beings who are attached to the views of existence and emptiness.… The ³fth item is as made known in the Nirvana Sutra, where it teaches that all of the sutras in their entirety are not able to convert those sentient beings whose nature it is to be attached to views of existence and emptiness.4

Why is it that “a hundred-thousand-million-trillion buddhas” or “all of the sutras” cannot help sentient beings of the third level? The basic answer is that, whereas the Ekay„na and Triy„na doctrines were suited for the sharper faculties of the ³rst and second levels, respectively, for the third level they were viewed as causing one to slander the dharma rather than bringing bene³ts.5 According to the San-chieh doctrine this is so because as long as correct views prevail in the world, a specialized, particularistic view, concerned with only one aspect of the dharma, will enable one to realize the fruits of liberation, but in an era when all of the sages and beings of true views have disappeared and sentient beings are pulled and swayed by their attachments to various viewpoints and dogmas, to emphasize only one aspect of the dharma as true is, by its very exclusiveness, to slander all the rest of the dharma. One common description of the beings of the third level is “blind from birth.”6 That is, for those of us in the third level with no eyes to perceive the

4 San chieh fo fa, 257. 5 “Slandering the true dharma” (Skt. saddharma-pratik¤epa) is a phrase found frequently in Mahayana texts and most likely had a sectarian rhetorical function during the birth and early articulation of the Mahayana scriptures, similar to the sectarian concerns voiced in the scriptures cited in chapter 2. Interestingly, the Sukh„vat‡vyðha-sðtra speci³cally excludes those who slander the dharma from the saving power of Amitabha (T #12, 268a). In the history of Chinese Pure Land thought we see a movement from Tan-luan (476–542), who accepted this limitation, to Tao-cho (562–645) and Shan-tao (613–681), who, based on the Kuan Wu-liang- shou ching, included even the “lowest of the low” in their soteriology. It is very possible that this was a doctrinal reaction to the teachings of Hsin-hsing (540–594) which were speci³cally aimed at the icchantika who slanders the dharma, especially as Tao-ch’o and Hsin-hsing both studied under the same teacher Hui-tsan (see Chapter One); on the San-chieh and Pure Land generally see Michibata Ryõshð, “Dõshaku to Sangaikyõ” and “Zendõ to Sangaikyõ,” in Chðgoku Jõdokyõshi no kenkyð (Kyoto: Hõzõkan, 1980); Yabuki, Sangaikyõ no kenkyð, 536–77. Also see Kenneth Tanaka, The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 62–64 for a discussion of who is included in the “lowest of the low.” 6 This term (Skt. j„tyandha) is often employed in Buddhist scriptures to indicate that ignorance is the fault of the perception not of the object (as, for example, in the ³rst chapter of theVimalak‡rti); it is also used to denote the icchantika, as in the Mah„parinirv„«a-sðtra. This 126 / universal dharma and universal sangha correct dharma, beset as we are by attachments to our views of existence and emptiness, our prejudices and sectarian bickering, to practice one aspect of the dharma, viewing it as the best or superior dharma, will inevitably cause us to slander the rest of the dharma. Thus, for sentient beings of the third level to practice the Ekay„na or Triy„na dharma when they are swayed by attachments and petty bickering is rampant is to cause harm rather than good, and instead of upholding the dharma one ³nds that one is committing the grievous offense of slandering the dharma. This is well stated in the Practice in Accord with the Capacity:

Question: Why is it that within the same Buddha-dharma the study of the universal teaching is purely bene³cial and without harm while the study of the particular teaching is both bene³cial and harmful? Answer: It is because the capacities [of sentient beings] differ. This has two meanings: (1) the universal teaching is without fault; (2) the particular teaching [must be] in accord with the capacity. That the universal teaching is without fault means that the essence of the universal teaching is the tathagatagarbha [Buddha], the Buddha-nature [Buddha], etc. All of the commonordinary people and the sages, the false and the true, without regard to superior or inferior capacity, can study this same one essence, which has no distinctions and is only the [universal teaching of the] tathagatagarbha and [therefore they can] be without fear of mistake [because it is] purely bene³cial and without harm. There are two reasons that the particular teaching [must be] in accord with the capacity. The ³rst clari³es why, [if the particular teachings] are in accordance with the capacity it is purely bene³cial and without harm: it is only those of the Ekay„na and Triy„na, those of the ³rst and second levels, who pro³t through the exaltation and study of the teachings of the sutras. This is because they have the capacity for the particular and thus their capacity is in accord with the study of [these sutras]; therefore it is purely bene³cial and without harm. The second [reason] is that if one whose capacity is not in accord [with the particularized teaching] studies the particularized teaching there is purely harm and no pro³t. Why is this? Because it is not in accordance with the capacity of the inferior person to cultivate the practice and teachings of the superior person.… To use a metaphor to explain these two items, for the perverted sentient beings [of the third level] to make distinctions and thereby incur harm is like a blind person shooting an arrow—because he cannot see, he will not hit what is another instance of the San-chieh teachings being aimed at a class of beings even lower than those to whom the teachings of the Pure Land were aimed. See, for example, the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching, wherein the meditation on the Pure Land is directed towards those who “if not blind from birth have eyes and are able to see the setting sun” (T #365, 12.342a). absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 127

he shoots at and will [accidentally] kill people, which is purely harmful and without pro³t. [On the other hand,] for the perverted sentient beings [of the third level] to study the Universal Dharma, reaping only bene³t without harm is like a blind person shooting an arrow at the ground—all of the arrows will hit [their target] and nobody will be [accidentally] killed. This is purely bene³cial and without harm.7

The actual differences between the particular dharma and the Universal Dharma are found listed throughout the San-chieh literature.8 However, these differences can be summed up by saying that living beings of the third level cannot be trusted to make distinctions between true and false, good and bad, etc., and so they must look to the universality of the essence rather than the distinctions of the manifestation. Thus all of the teachings of the ³rst and second levels are labeled pieh fa ƒÀ, particularized, limited, par- tial, or exclusive teachings, teachings that make distinctions in the dharma. This pieh fa is declared to be unsuitable for the liberation of the sentient beings of the third level, and it was taught that they must take refuge in the p’u fa 3À, the Universal Dharma, the totality of the dharma, the dharma that corresponds to the capacity of the weak, ignorant, and blind beings of the third level.9 What is most interesting, however, is not that the teachings of the Buddha were given universal and equal validity and relevence but that this same value was given to literally all teachings, even heresies. Because of their inability to discern speci³c truths and the emphasis on the universal nature of truth, the San-chieh followers were taught the eightfold refuge of the dharma appropriate for the third level: 1. the teachings of the sutras; 2. the teachings of the greatest evil; 3. secular teachings; 4. teachings that subvert the good; 5. the teachings of those who adhere to the twelve perverse views;

7 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 139–40; cf. ibid., 133. 8 The overall structure of the ³ve sections of the Practice in Accord with the Capacity is to give the speci³c reasons that “the path is not the same in the three stages; reasons that the place is not the same,” etc. 9 It is also interesting to compare the San-chieh usage of pieh fa and p’u fa with the cate- gories of pieh ƒ and t’ung ° in the p’an chiao of Chih-yen and Fa-tsang; see Yabuki, Sangaikyõ no kenkyð, 350–72; Gimello, Chih-yen, 369–92; Kimura, Shoki Chðgoku Kegon, 430–41, and his “Chigon–Hõzõ to Sangaikyõ,” Indogaku Bukkyõgaku kenkyð 27/1 (1978): 100–107. 128 / universal dharma and universal sangha

6. the teachings of those who adhere to correct views; 7. the teachings given in accommodation to the extreme views of nihilism and eternalism [i.e., the teachings of eternalism and nihilism]; 8. the Mahayana teaching of universal scope [or “the Mahayana teachings of the perception of the universal,” i.e., the teachings of the San- chieh].”10

Indeed, the San-chieh even went so far as to say that in this evil age, well past the time of knowledge and learning, it is precisely the propensity to acquire knowledge that creates the views of nihilism and eternalism because the age for extensive learning is past.11 As the San chieh fo fa mi chi puts it,

The station of the third level is that of the attainment of false views, ³xed, unchangeable, and not able to be saved by the ³ve divisions. This is also called the attainment of false understandings and false practices. The Nirvana Sutra teaches that the bhiksu Shan-hsing read, recited, and expounded the twelve divisions of the scriptures, meditated and obtained the Buddhist path of the four dhyanas, but he did not understand the meaning of even a single phrase or word. He was without even the slightest good roots and hence could not avoid slandering the Buddha.12

The part of the Mah„parinirv„«a-sðtra cited here comes in a section in which K„šyapa has asked the Buddha why he has declared the monk Shan- hsing even lower than icchantika, irremediable and destined to remain in hell many aeons. He further asks why the Buddha does not teach Shan-hsing the saddharma: “If you cannot save the bhiksu Shan-hsing,” K„šyapa con- cludes, “how can you be called one of great compassion and powerful skill in means?” In reply the Buddha illustrates his purpose with a number of stories that divide the merit of children, ³elds, utensils, and the like into three ranks, each of which are likened to the bodhisattva, the sravaka, and the icchantika, respectively. In each case the Buddha declares that the superior of the ³rst level takes precedence over the inferior of the third level (icchantika) because, like seeds sown in a rocky and thorny ³eld, teachings given to the

10 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 115; as we have seen, the “Mahayana teaching of the universal scope” is also included within the teachings for the sentient beings of the ³rst level. 11 San chieh fo fa, 263, 265. 12 San chieh fo fa mi chi, 75, citing the Mah„parinirv„«a-sðtra, T #374, 12.561c: “Although the bhiksu Shan-hsing recited the twelve divisions of the scriptures and attained the four dhyanas he did not understand the meaning of a single verse, a single phrase, or even a single word. Drawing near to evil friends he lost the four dhyanas; losing the four dhyanas he gave rise to evil and false views, teaching that there is no Buddha, no dharma, and no nirvana” (cf. the 36 chüan Mah„parinirv„«a-sðtra, T #375, 12.808a). absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 129 icchantika will not come to fruition. The Buddha then proceeds to tell a number of stories about the bhiksu Shan-hsing that illuminate his incorrigi- ble nature, his attempts to disrupt the sangha, and the like.13 This chapter of the Mah„parinirv„«a-sðtra (one of the more frequently cited chapters of one of the most frequently cited proof-texts in Hsin-hsing’s writings) is very interesting for its discussion of the icchantika as third in a threefold division of merit or capacity as well as for the interesting discussion of why Shan- hsing was allowed to remain in the sangha; perhaps this is related to the discussion of the character of the sangha of the third level discussed below. As with the sentient beings of the third level, the bottom line is that because of his evil nature Shan-hsing cannot help but pervert even the Buddha-dharma that he hears, twisting it until he ends up espousing heretical views. For these reasons Hsin-hsing placed little value on detailed doctrinal organization and ranking, instead stating that de³led discourse on the dharma was characteristic of the evils of the third level; moreover, the retribution one could expect from such discourse was equivalent to that of killing all of the sentient beings in the Three Thousand Great Chiliocosms.14 There are many similar injunctions throughout the literature, but again they may all be summed up by saying that sentient beings of the third level dare not attempt judgements about doctrinal matters—far better to remain silent and rely on the Universal Dharma. Following this hermeneutic to its natural conclusion, San-chieh followers were even enjoined to silence just as they were well-known for taking the practice of the Bodhisattva Never-Despise to heart, greeting everybody that they met with a bow of reverence for their essentially enlightened nature and their future realization of that nature. This prohibition against speech is vividly described in the biography of a later San-chieh teacher contained in the Pelliot collection of Tun-huang texts (Pelliot no. 2550). This text is particularly concerned to admonish the sentient beings of the third level against speech of almost any sort, based on the logic that if the ignorant and degenerate speak they cannot do so without committing slander and abuse. Hence we are told that

when the master presented the dharma and [rules of] conduct to his disciples, he forbade them all to open their mouths and had them remain silent like dead men. Even if it reached the point that they were beaten or killed, even if they passed through a thousand deaths, ten thousand deaths, or a million deaths, they could not speak to defend themselves. If subjected to all sorts of punish- ments, they could not speak to defend themselves. The only exception was that

13 T #374, 12.561a ff. 14 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 115–16. 130 / universal dharma and universal sangha

they could open their mouths to eat. This continued to the ends of their lives, and then they died like wild beasts.15

Thus too the same text tells of another follower who would not speak except to emulate the Bodhisattva Never-Despise, crying out to those that he met, I deeply reverence all of you and do not dare to disparage you. You are all walking the Way of the bodhisattvas and will become Buddhas.16

The Pure Land One Way

It is interesting to note that, faced with this same dilemma of practice in the age of the decline of the dharma, the Pure Land master Tao-ch’o emended a text to show that whereas all other teachings would be ineffective in the time of the latter dharma, the practices advocated in the Sukh„vat‡- vyðha-sðtra would still be ef³cacious and “the good dharma will faintly remain,” thus ensuring the ef³cacy of at least one text and one Buddha, thereby also raising both to a position of ultimate importance.17 As mentioned in chapter 3, Tao-ch’o was responsible for wedding the the- ory of mo fa to that of the Pure Land. Given the direction of the Pure Land teachings from the beginning, such a union was natural, and Tao-ch’o was quick to see the af³nity of the two teachings. Possibly inµuenced by the teachings of Hsin-hsing, Tao-ch’o too taught that the practice must be suited to the time and capacity of the practitioner. Then, basing himself on the Yüeh tsang fen and the Sukh„vat‡vyðha-sðtra, Tao-ch’o stated that the path that corresponded to the time and capacities of the living beings of his age was the path of the Pure Land:

Question: If all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, and all have undoubt- edly met many Buddhas in the numberless kalpas since the distant past, why is it that up until the present time they continue to revolve in samsara, and are not able to leave the burning house?

15 Cited in Lewis, “Suppression,” 223–24; an edition and study of this text was published by Õtani Shõshin in his ”Sangai bõzenji gyõjõ no shimatsu ni tsuite,” Keijõ Teikoku Daigaku bungakkai ronsan 7 (1938): 247–302. Lewis further notes that “‘Died like wild beasts’ may refer to dying in silence, or it could refer to the sect’s practice of exposing corpses in the wild to allow animals to feed on them” (p. 236 n. 48)—that is, the practice of “sky burial” discussed in chapter 1. 16 Lewis, “Suppression,” 224. 17 Tao-ch’o in the An lo chi, T #1958, 47.4b; see also chapter 3. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 131

Answer: Depending on the teachings of the Mahayana sages, it is because they have not yet gained the two surpassing teachings by which one escapes birth and death [samsara]. What are these two? One is called the Holy Path and the other is called Birth in Pure Land. The Holy Path [or Path of the Sage] is dif³cult to obtain in this age because we are far removed from the Great Sage [Š„kyamuni] and because the doctrines are deep and our understanding weak. Thus the Ta chi yüeh tsang ching [fen] states that in the time of mo fa, although myriads of sentient beings will cultivate the practices of the path, there will not be one who will obtain [the fruits]. Now the present age is the age of mo fa, the world of the ³ve de³lements. There is only the one gate of the Pure Land through which sentient beings can pass and enter upon the road. Thus the Larger Sutra explains: “If there is a sentient being who throughout his life commits evil actions, and who, at the end of his life, for ten thoughts continuously calls my name—if he is not born [into my Pure Land] may I not obtain enlightenment.”18

It is interesting to see the different answers given to the same question by the two movements most concerned with the Buddhist rhetoric of its own decline. The capacity of sentient beings is virtually nil and the traditional, heroic path of the sages is not a possibility. There was no question about that, and the evidence seemed to be in abundance everywhere. Yet, at the same time, the doctrine of universal Buddha-nature was also widely acknowledged—the question, then, was how to realize this enlightened nature. The answer of the Pure Land preachers was to accept the promise of salvation extended by the Buddha Amitabha, and they taught that it was only through such an acceptance that one could attain salvation—all other paths were far too dif³cult for the puny minds and capacities of the sentient beings living in the time of the decline of the dharma. On the other hand Hsin- hsing extended the Pure Land critique (or, rather, his esteem) to all texts and all Buddhas and so stressed that for icchantika and beings blind to the truth—beings of the third level—the acceptance of and dependence on only one aspect of the Buddha-dharma was to imply that all of the other teachings and buddhas were less than effective and hence to commit the offense of slandering the dharma. Therefore, as with the Universal Buddha, they emphasized the essential and nondual truth of the dharmadh„tu underlying all scriptures and doctrines. Thus we should take refuge in all buddhas, regardless of whether they are true buddhas or false demons; we should take refuge in all of the teachings without distinction, heresies and secular teachings as well as canonical texts; and, as we shall see, we should take refuge in the sangha of all sentient beings, whether monks or laity and whether they

18 T #1958, 47.13c. 132 / universal dharma and universal sangha keep the precepts or break the precepts.19 In other words, whereas the Pure Land teachers taught a particular Buddha and dharma, Hsin-hsing advocated a universalized response to the question of practice for sentient beings of lowered capacity. Of course, the rhetorical nature of Hsin-hsing’s universal- ism—a particular or speci³c universal—must not be forgotten.

The Refuge of the Sangha

Perhaps more doctrinally interesting and institutionally inµuential than the doctrine of the universal nature of the Buddha and the dharma was the stance regarding the nature of the sangha of the third level. As we have seen, Hsin-hsing’s view of the sentient beings of the third level was clearly negative, and this extended to the sangha as well—the monk who breaks the precepts as well as holds perverse views is characteristic of the third level. Hsin-hsing himself renounced the precepts. What did this mean for his followers and for the institutional practice of his movement? Was his movement an attempt to eliminate the distinction between sangha and laity, between the sacred and secular? If so, does that also mean that the Three Levels movement can best be understood in the context of Chinese lay Buddhist associations? Could this denial of the sanctity of the sangha have been the cause of the suppressions of his teachings? Let me begin to answer these questions with a brief look at how the texts describe the sangha of the ³rst two levels.

The Sangha of the First Level

The Practice in Accord with the Capacity, in the “seven sections that explain why the paths of liberation are not the same in each of the Three Levels,” describes the refuge of the sangha for each of the different levels:

The third [of the seven practices that lead to salvation] clari³es exhaustively taking refuge in all of the sangha [of the First Level]. There are three types within [this sangha]: 1. The sangha of all the noble bodhisattvas of the Ekay„na; 2. The sangha of the commonordinary bodhisattvas of the Ekay„na who have perfected correct views and transgress neither [the precepts nor the views];

19 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 114–15. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 133

3. The sangha of commonordinary bodhisattvas who have perfected correct views and, while they may break the precepts, do not transgress the views.20

The Sangha of the Second Level

Typically, having described the ³rst level largely in terms of the Ekay„na, the text describes the second level largely in terms in the Triy„na:

The third [of the seven practices leading to salvation] clari³es exhaustively taking refuge in all of the sangha [during the Second Level]. Within this there are twelve types: 1. The sangha of all noble bodhisattvas of the Triy„na; 2. The sangha of all noble pratyeka[buddhas]; 3. The sangha of all noble sravakas; 4. The sangha of all commonordinary bodhisattvas of the Triy„na who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views; 5. The sangha of all commonordinary pratyeka[buddhas] who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views; 6. The sangha of all commonordinary sravakas who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views; 7. The sangha of all commonordinary bodhisattvas of the Triy„na who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views; 8. The sangha of all commonordinary pratyekas of the Triy„na who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views; 9. The sangha of all commonordinary sravakas of the Triy„na who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views; 10. The sangha of all Triy„na bodhisattvas, both true and false;

20 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 112–13. The next item, the practice of saving sentient beings of the ³rst level, further describes the capacities of this level: “The fourth [of the seven practices that lead to salvation] clari³es exhaustively saving all sentient beings [within the First Level]. There are seven types [of beings to be saved]: (1) The noble bodhisattvas of the Ekay„na; (2) the commonordinary bodhisattvas of the Ekay„na who have perfected correct views and transgress neither the precepts nor the views; (3) the commonordinary bodhisattvas [of the Ekay„na] who have perfected correct views and, while they may break the precepts, do not transgress the views; (4) all of the sentient beings of the hells; (5) all of the sentient beings of the preta [realm]; (6) all of the sentient beings of the animal [realm]; and (7) all of the sentient beings of the asura realm” (Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 113). 134 / universal dharma and universal sangha

11. The sangha of all commonordinary pratyekas, both true and false; 12. The sangha of all commonordinary sravakas, both true and false.21

The Sangha of the Third Level

As one would expect given the description of the sentient beings of the third level, the sangha of the third level is comprised of both monks of correct views as well as those monks who have thoroughly “mastered” perverted and false views.

The third section clari³es exhaustively taking refuge in the monastic community; within this section there are six types: 1. The sangha that has taken the tonsure and wears the robes. 2. The sangha that is complete in the twelve kinds of perverted, false views. 3. The sangha that is complete in the twelve kinds of correct views. 4. The sangha, manifestations of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, that is attached to the views of emptiness and existence. 5. The sangha of the universal family.22 6. The Mahayana sangha of the universal scope.23

Similarly, the sentient beings of the third level to be saved include those sentient beings that have mastered the perverted and false views as well as those of correct views.24 As noted in chapter 4, whereas breaking the precepts is

21 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 113–14. The text continues with saving sentient beings of the second level: “There are sixteen [types] within the explanation of saving all sentient beings: (1) noble bodhisattvas; (2) noble pratyekas; (3) noble sravakas; (4) commonordinary bodhisattvas who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views; (5) pratyekas [who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views]; (6) sravakas [who have perfected correct views and violate neither the precepts nor the views]; (7) commonordinary bodhisattvas who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views; (8) pratyekas [who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views]; (9) sravakas, [who have perfected correct views and who, while they may violate the precepts, do not violate the views]; (10) the commonordinary bodhisattvas of the Triy„na, both true and false; (11) pratyekas, [both true and false]; (12) sravakas, [both true and false]; (13) sentient beings of hell; (14) sentient beings of the preta [realm]; (15) sentient beings of the animal [realm]; (16) sentient beings of the asura [realm],” Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 113–14. 22 Referring to the idea that, through countless aeons of transmigration, all sentient beings at one time or another have been our relatives. 23 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 115. As with the “Mahayana teachings of the universal scope” of the ³rst and third levels, this seems to refer to the practice of seeing all sentient beings as belonging to the Mahayana. 24 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 115; to the list of six types of sangha-refuge are added the beings of the hungry ghost, animal, and asura realms. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 135 common to all levels, breaking the precepts and harboring false views are the hallmark of sentient beings of the third level. But how can monks and nuns who are unable to keep the precepts and espouse views that oppose the teachings of the Buddha really be considered the jewel-like treasure of the monastic community whose very existence bene³ts all living beings? In what sense can we even talk about the refuge of the sangha as a spiritually distinct community and hence appropriate refuge for beings of the third level? In asserting that the sangha of the third level includes the monks of perverted and false views, some have asserted that Hsin-hsing was attempting to blur the line between sangha and laity, an important consideration given the continued development of this trend in Japan. Indeed, there is much in his teachings that supports such an interpretation. Among the elements that comprise this tradition we should take note of the general Mahayana rhetoric that honored the bodhisattva ideal over that of the arhat, included the laity among the audience of the Mahayana scriptures, and the like.25 Along with the various aspects of the Mahayana usually cited in this regard, though, it is particularly the practice of d„na, or giving, that was important to the San-chieh movement, as discussed below in chapter 7. D„na, of course, had traditionally been the exclusive practice of the laity, the practice whereby they supported the renunciant sangha and thereby attained merit that would result in a superior rebirth. In the Mahayana, however, d„na is understood to be the ³rst of the six perfections that the bodhisattva cultivates, and the recipient was not necessarily the monastic community but included the poor and suffering as well. Hence, as the outµow of the bodhisattva’s compassionate desire to aid sentient beings, d„na in its many forms was elevated from an inferior merit-generating practice to a practice that manifests the bodhisattva’s inexhaustible wisdom qua inexhaustible compassion. In addition to this generalized Mahayana teaching, the practice of d„na was given a unique systematization in the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching, a scripture of Chinese origin that is one of the most oft-cited in the San-chieh manuscripts.26 One of the unusual (though not unprecedented) claims in the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching is that the proper object of religious tithing is not the monastic community but the poor, orphaned, sick, and destitute.27

25 The relationship between this rhetoric and the institutional reality is as yet a controver- sial topic; hence I think it prudent to discuss the “lay” component of early Mahayana in terms of its rhetorical, polemic, or literary thrust rather than as necessarily indicating an institutional reality. As with the San-chieh movement, it appears that most of the proponents of the “lay” ideals were in fact precept-following monks. 26 T #2870, 85.1335c–1338c; see also Tokuno, “A Case Study of Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha and ‘The Book of Resolving Doubts’.” 27 Perhaps inµuencing the San-chieh practice of revering even animals as future buddhas, the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching also asserted that “Even if a person, over an in³nite number of 136 / universal dharma and universal sangha

Hsin-hsing seized upon this idea as the foundation of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, the famous charitable institution that I discuss in the next two chapters. Here I will only note that the institution of the Inexhaustible Store- house, centered around the converted mansion of Kao Chiung, statesman and ³nance minister of the Sui dynasty, attracted laity as well as members of the renunciant community, including members of the powerful P’ei family and Empress Wu. Finally, it should be remembered that, although Hsin-hsing was given a place in Tao-hsüan’s Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, he had in fact renounced the precepts though he continued to live as a monk.28 Still, as we shall see, Hsin-hsing did not really attempt to eliminate the distinction between monastic and lay—rather, he came from a strong Vinaya tradition and was adamant about the need for strict vigilance of the precepts. Why, then, does the sangha of the third level include those who both break the precepts and maintain false views? As with Hsin-hsing’s emphasis on d„na, this harshly critical estimation of the sangha of the third level may simply be the natural outcome of believing that the predictions of the decline of the dharma (discussed in chapters 2 and 3) had actually come to pass, replete with the various signs of moral, institutional, and doctrinal decay that those sources predicted. In the Ašoka-avad„na versions of the dis- appearance of the teaching, for example, the head of the sangha laments the dif³culty of ³nding anybody who can fully maintain the precepts in the time after the Buddha’s passing.29 The depictions of the sangha found in the Hsiang fa chüeh i ching were particularly inµuential in guiding Hsin-hsing’s reaction to the monastic decay of the times, especially that text’s criticism of the practices of “special invitations” (singling out individual monks as pri- vate or individual recipients of the donor’s muni³cence) and donating new buildings and images to the sangha rather than repairing the old. The Hsiang fa chüeh i ching and other texts criticized the monks who were lax in their discipline rather than af³rming them as the refuge, and thus still represent the production strata of the decline tradition anxious to restore proper discipline. Hsin-hsing, however, teaching the reality of the decline, proclaimed those very monks and nuns incapable of keeping the precepts to be the actual refuge of the sangha, the refuge appropriate for third level. As lives, were to make offerings to all the buddhas of the ten directions, and all of the bodhisattvas and disciples, it would not be as good as a person giving a mouthful of food and drink to an animal. The merit accruing therefrom is superior to the former by one million or ten million times, immeasurably and in³nitely.” T #2870, 85.1336a, cited in Tokuno, “The Book of Resolving Doubts,” 262. 28 See Mark Lewis, “Suppressions,” 216–21, for his analysis of how the San-chieh teachings “removed the distinction between monk and layman.” 29 T #99, 2.179a–b; T #2042, 50.127b–c. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 137 with the refuge of the dharma for the sentient beings of the third level, the rationale was that at the essential level all partake of the enlightened nature of the noble community of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and at the conven- tional level sentient beings of the third level are not capable of distinguishing the true monk from the false. Thus the Three Levels teaching on how one is to tithe to the monastic community, one of the sixteen practices of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, claims that donors should not only contribute to the corrupt monks but they should do so ³rst:

The third [of the sixteen practices of the Inexhaustible Storehouse] is the study of making inexhaustible offerings to the sangha; this consists in universally making offerings without questioning whether the members observe the precepts or transgress the precepts. Commentary: This means universally offering in one moment, not only to those who hold the precepts but also to those who break the precepts. According to the Ta chi yüeh tsang fen ching it is also necessary to make offerings ³rst to those who break the precepts or are without the precepts.30 The teaching of the Meditation Master [Hsin-hsing] led the donors, teaching them to ³rst give to the community of monks who give offense and later offer to the monks who request [offerings]. Why is this? The community of offending monks does not rely on the precepts, and this means that it is breaking the precepts. If the donor is not able to give to the community of monks who offend in their practice of the Buddha-dharma, then this is [not] the superior [practice].31 If [the monks] desire to receive [the offerings of] the alms-giver and request [that they receive offerings] ³rst, [you should] inquire as to whether or not they have taken in the offending community [of monks]. If not, [then you should] say that you cannot [make offerings to them] and you should not receive their requests.32

As radical as this might seem, it is neither without precedent nor without inµuence beyond Hsin-hsing’s community. Hsin-hsing’s position actually forms but one link in a chain of argument that sought to explain or excuse the presence in the sangha of monks who were less than stellar exemplars of purity, probably as a defensive move in the face of criticism from various quarters, lay supporters no less than secular authority.33 Another Buddhist

30 See Appendix C, note 63. 31 This is a tentative translation. The text is damaged at this point, indicating one missing character preceding ch’ao • “to go beyond,” which I have rendered as “superior.” 32 Commentary on the Inexhaustible Storehouse, 176; see Appendix C. 33 For an interesting description of a sort of self-regulating mechanism whereby the sangha itself, due to its recruiting successes, tried to control the number of monks who sought tonsure purely for worldly gain, see Torkel Brekke, “The Early Sa½gha and the Laity,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20/2 (1997): 7–32. 138 / universal dharma and universal sangha tradition that seemed to support this rationalization was that of the gluttonous monk Pi«ôla, well known in China from such texts as the Ch’ing Pin- t’ou-lu fa,34 the Ta a lo han Nan-t’i-mi-to-lo so shuo fa chu chi,35 and other texts and traditions translated from Indian originals as well as texts composed in China.36 John Strong has shown how Pi«ôla, one of the sixteen arhats whose mandate was to remain as a ³eld of merit during the period of the decline of the dharma, represents both ascetic tendencies and the appearance of gluttony, attracting meritorious donations and thereby serving as a pi«â- „laya, a “storehouse for alms-food” and an unsurpassed source of merit.37 This is well symbolized by the constant presence of his begging bowl in his representations as well as the empty seat prepared for him in the refectory and his role in the pañca-v„r¤ika sponsored by Ašoka.38 Related also to his reputation for gluttony is the well-known story of his breaking the monastic precepts through a display of his superpowers, speci³cally µying through the air to grab a begging bowl from atop a high bamboo pole.39 A ³nal aspect of his legend that relates to the San-chieh movement is the fact that Pi«ôla, prohibited from entering nirvana and enjoined to remain as a Field of Merit during the latter dharma (=À),40 is identi³ed as one willing and able to dis- pel doubts about the dharma, iconographically symbolized by the book that he carries and the appellation “Lion-Roarer.” In other words, the dharma persists in Pi«ôla even during the latter teaching, much as the Lotus allows continued access even in the time of the destruction of the dhama. According to Strong, then, the various legends of Pi«ôla address the fact that “some individuals in the Sangha could hardly be said to be paragons of monastic discipline and restraint … [thus] the thrust of the story … is to enjoin the making of offerings to monks who, whatever their reputation or appearance, are actually worthy recipients of d„na.… [The] intent is to com- bat the doubts of those who, in this profane age, would question the quali- ties of the bhik¤u.… [T]he ³nal claim is that despite appearances, Pi«ôla (and Buddhist monks after him) are possibly already powerful enlightened individuals and hence ³t foci for devotion.”41 The elements of the Pi«ôla

34 T #1689, translation attributed to Hui-chien in the ³fth century. 35 T #2030, translated by Hsüan-tsang in 654. 36 Cf. John Strong, “The Legend of the Lion-Roarer,” 52 ff. for discussions and English translations of these scriptures; see also above, chapter 3, n. 26. 37 Strong, “The Legend of the Lion-Roarer,” 66. 38 Strong, “The Lion-Roarer,” 81 ff; see below for the history of “maigre feasts” sponsored at the Hua-tu ssu. 39 Strong, “The Lion-Roarer,” 71 ff. 40 T #1689, 32.784b. 41 Strong, “The Lion-Roarer,” 67-68, 75. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 139 story—the age of decline, the seemingly corrupt monk who is in reality an enlightened being, the focus on d„na and the monks’ begging for alms-food, and Pi«ôla’s association with asceticism—all ³t extremely well with San- chieh teachings, especially with their doctrine of the Universal Buddha that sees all sentient beings as enlightened buddhas even though they break the precepts and harbor false views. Indeed, just as followers of the San-chieh bowed to all they met and declared their Buddhahood, Ašoka is reputed to have exclaimed upon meeting Pi«ôla, “Seeing you now, I see the Tath„gata and by this sight my faith has been doubled.”42 There are also, of course, a number of important differences between the Pi«ôla tradition and the San- chieh assertion that it is the corrupt and false monks who comprise the sangha of the third level, the most important of which is that Pi«ôla is, after all, an arhat who only appears to be gluttonous and breaking the precepts, whereas the San-chieh taught that the sangha of the third level actually is thoroughly corrupted.43 Of course, this is a moot point, considering that the prejudices of the sentient beings of the third level prevented them from accurate discernment in either case. Nonetheless, the rhetorical point had been scored: in the time of the decline of the dharma it is not necessarily an outward appearance of rigorous adherence to the precepts that is the deter- miner of the true renunciant—the reality is much more subtle. This “logic” was carried even further in the Japanese tradition, however, especially as seen in the Mappõ tõmyõki. Going the other way in both time and geography, the Mappõ tõmyõki, “The Candle of the Latter Dharma,” is a text attributed to Saichõ that played an important role in the formation of the decline tradition in Japan and was quoted extensively by Hõnen and Shinran (and criticized by Nichiren and Eisai).44 Quoting from many of the same canonical sources deployed by Hsin-hsing, the text argues that it is really “only in the time of the True Dharma [that] the bhik¤u who breaks the precepts de³les the pure sangha” because in the time of the decline of the dharma the monks and nuns will not be able to keep the precepts and will be renunciants in name only. During the time of the latter dharma, therefore, the “monks who break the precepts and the monk without the precepts are both True Treasures [i.e., the true sangha-refuge].”45 Another echo of Hsin-hsing’s teachings is found

42 From the Ašoka-avad„na, cited in Strong, “The Lion-Roarer,” 85. 43 Interesting in this regard is the Chinese version of the Kauš„mb‡ story, which uniquely contains an injunction to give to the monastic community even if they break the precepts; cf. Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, p. 182. 44 For a tranlsation and discussion of the Mappõ tõmyõki see Robert F. Rhodes, “Saichõ’s Mappõ Tõmyõki,” The Eastern Buddhist (New Series) 13/1 (1980): 79–103. 45 Ibid., 94. 140 / universal dharma and universal sangha in the Mappõ tõmyõki’s critique of the monastic practices of alms-seeking and receiving special invitations from the laity.46 Finally, similar to Hsin- hsing’s decision to abandon the precepts while living as a monk, “commentaries by Shin sect scholars agree that the teaching that the monk without the precepts is the true monk of the Latter Dharma expressed in the Candle of the Latter Dharma was inµuential in Shinran’s decision to openly marry and declare himself ‘neither monk nor layman’.”47 One of the most intriguing aspects of the Mappõ tõmyõki is that it is apparently a reaction to various imperial edicts aimed at controlling the sangha, leading me to wonder what, if any, similar motivations informed Hsin-hsing’s rhetoric of the corrupt monks as the true refuge? Of course, as with the legend of Pi«^ola, we need to exercise due care in assessing the inµuence of or continuities between the teachings of the San-chieh and the Mappõ tõmyõki, especially given their dif- fering origins and systematizations of the decline tradition. Still, as con- sumers of a decline tradition that prophesied the advent of a corrupt sangha, both did take the logical next step when they proclaimed such to be the reality of the monastic order, but the less obvious move of declaring such a corrupt sangha to be the true refuge as well perhaps indicates the inµuence of San-chieh teachings in Japan. Did this mean, then, that the members of the Three Levels communities lived a thoroughly secular or hedonistic lifestyle, doing what they wanted and ignoring all of the monastic rules, free to do as they wished with neither remorse nor retribution? Indeed, given such a characterization of the true monk, the true refuge of the sangha, why would anybody even make an attempt to follow the precepts?

The Sangha of the Third Level: recognizing evil and practicing virtue

One of the most common problems for any religious system that would posit such a thorough nonduality or identity of the true and the profane is how to validate the need for religious practice, practice that can only be based on the recognition or discrimination of differences in purity and impurity and moral judgements about good and evil. The nondual—that is, the not-one, not-two relation described in the refuge of the Universal Buddha—is not a simple, unidirectional reductionism. Non-duality is not monism. For example, as we have seen, at the same time we are exhorted to revere all sentient beings with the thought that they are fully enlightened buddhas, we are also told to “save all sentient beings,” activity that would

46 Ibid., 102. 47 Ibid., 84. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 141 not be necessary if the phenomenal fact of suffering sentient beings were lost in a monistic blur of absolute truth.48 Thus, at the same time that the universality of the pure nature is proclaimed, the particulars of the manifestation, that is to say, the degenerate sentient beings of the third level, are not overlooked.49 So in an interesting turn Hsin-hsing taught that the comple- ment of universal respect and the universally pervasive Buddha-nature is the “recognition of evil” (ÞÕ).50 This is to say that, while the practitioner of the third level was told to view others as none other than buddhas, they were to view themselves as thoroughly evil, recognizing their own capacity as inferior to all other sentient beings. One list therefore gives universal respect as the ³rst of the practices appropriate for the third level, followed by the recognition of evil. In further clari³cation the text then explains that universal respect is for everybody other than oneself:

The sixth item is the Buddha-dharma of one person and one practice. One person refers to seeing oneself alone as an evil person. One practice is as taught in the Lotus Sutra, wherein the Bodhisattva Never-Despise only cultivated one practice, that of respecting everybody other than himself as the Tathagata- garbha [Buddha], Buddha-nature [Buddha], Future Buddha, and Perceived Buddha.51

Thus the teaching of “recognizing evil” is but the other side of universal respect, the side that validates religious practice, the side that returns to the negative estimation of the degenerate beings of the third level described in chapter 4: the docile, silent, and community-oriented “mute sheep” monks. Hence the Chih fa, a recently discovered manual of Three Levels’ community regulations, states that the head of the community is to be a monk who, in addition to other quali³cations (discussed below)

should always see himself and speak of himself as thoroughly evil, and never think of himself or speak of himself as virtuous; he should, however, always see others and speak of others as virtuous, and never think of others or speak of others as evil. Why is this? It is because all of the perverted sentient beings who have realized false views take all of the truly virtuous people, teachings, understandings [true liberative practices that people teach?] and practices as false people, teachings, understandings, and practices and take all of the false people,

48 Okabe, “Buddhakan,” 270. 49 The San-chieh notion of the Universal Dharma, however, did not lend itself to such a recognition of the relevance of particular teachings, and the strident criticism inherent in their “one-way” hermeneutic is often cited as a reason for their suppression. 50 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 131–32. 51 Practice in Accord with the Capacity, 132–33. 142 / universal dharma and universal sangha

teachings, understandings, and practices to be truly virtuous people, teachings, understandings, and practices.52

In other words, it is the biased views that people hold that will prevent them from accurate discrimination of true from false, right from wrong even with regard to self and other—those of the third level cannot even be trusted to accurately judge themselves! The implications of this for the actual practice of Hsin-hsing’s communities are fascinating and constitute another remarkable facet of the San-chieh chronicle that, as with so much of their doctrine, places them not outside of the orthodoxy but squarely within the main currents of late Northern Dynasties, Sui, and T’ang Buddhism. What sort of practices did Hsin-hsing and those who subscribed to his ideas do in their day-to-day training? Just what did these evil sentient beings of the third level actually do? From the scant records we have it would seem that they did pretty much what most Chinese Buddhists of the time did, that is, live in a regulated monastic setting in which they engaged in a daily regimen of liturgy (typically including veneration of the buddhas, offerings, repentance, taking refuge, dedication of merit, and vows), practiced seated meditation (on such esoteric topics as the “emptiness that is the emptiness of nonexistence and the emptiness of form”), begged for food and cultivated other austerities (the dhðta practices), interacted with the laity (including bestowing lay precepts), studied the scriptures, and composed texts. The full study of this fascinating aspect of Hsin-hsing’s communities is beyond the scope of the present work; a brief introduction to the subject is, however, in order.

The Pure Practice of Corrupt Monks

Our sources for the study of the actual life of the Three Levels communities are sparse, consisting primarily of the various biographies of Hsin- hsing, his followers and sympathizers, secular records relating to the Inexhaustible Storehouse and its headquarters in the Ch’ang-an temple of the Hua-tu ssu (detailed in chapter 8), the various handbooks of San-chieh liturgical, confessional, and penitential rite (different recensions of the Seven Roster Buddhan„ma), contemplation manuals, and, most importantly, Pelliot #2849, the above-mentioned Chih fa, perhaps authored by Hsin-hsing himself.53

52 Chih fa, 579; lest one get the impression that such a head monk would be of little use in guiding the community, it should be noted that the Chih fa speci³cally notes that these warn- ings do not apply when he is admonishing the monks or administering discipline. 53 An overview of many of the biographical sources can be found in Jamie Hubbard, “Salvation in the Final Period,” 320–330; see also Hubbard, “Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions” absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 143

On a perusal of these materials, the ³rst thing that becomes apparent is that in spite of the rhetoric of the debased sangha and in spite of Hsin- hsing’s own example of abandoning the precepts, the fact of the matter is that Hsin-hsing and his followers highly respected the monastic institutions and were strict in their observance of codes and punishment of infractions. No doubt this partly reµects what Jan Nattier has dubbed the “we-try-harder” response to the lowered capacity for practice, for such a situation “requires additional efforts by would-be Buddhist practitioners (efforts that fall within traditional frameworks) if there is to be any hope at all of reaching the goal.”54 Probably at least as important, however, is the simple fact that Hsin- hsing inherited a Buddhist tradition of practice that itself emphasized precepts, austerities, and monastic rigor, not uncommon in Chinese Buddhism of the time. He sought the precepts from Hui-tsan, for example, a teacher noted for his seated meditation practice, study of the Vinaya, strict vigilance of the precepts, and cultivation of the fang teng repentance rite, all characteris- tics of Hsin-hsing and his followers as well as of Chih-i, Tao-ch’o, and others of the time.55 Likewise, Hsin-hsing’s return to lay status should probably be seen not as an indication that he wished to eliminate the difference between renunciant and lay but rather as a sign of his respect for the precepts, either because he felt that if he could not follow the precepts he should abandon them or, as Nishimoto has recently suggested, because of his propensity for labor and desire to bene³t both the Field of Merit (the Buddha, dharma, and sangha) as well as the Field of Compassion (needy sentient beings).56 Thus, too, the majority of Hsin-hsing’s followers and those later associated with the movement were monks whose eminence is indicated not only by the simple fact and Yabuki, Sangaikyõ no kenkyð,, esp. 34–45; the most up-to-date and complete account of these biographical materials is in Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 25–154. Perhaps the most remarkable evidence for the actual practices of the Three Levels comes from a recently discovered San- chieh manuscript (Pelliot 2849) containing three separate texts: a manual of San-chieh monastic regulations, the Chih fa £À in one chüan, rules for begging food (Ch’i shih fa F7À), and a manual for receiving the eight precepts (Shou pa chieh fa 1kwÀ) in one chüan. My attention was ³rst drawn to this remarkable manuscript by Daniel Stevenson, who brieµy discussed it in “The T’ien-t’ai Four Forms,” 278–80; since then, Nishimoto has also studied the text and published an edition of the manuscript; see Nishimoto Teruma, Sangaikyõ, 407–74 and 578–601. 54 Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, 137; see also Lewis, “Suppressions,” 210–13. 55 T #2060, 50.575b; see also chapter 1, 7–8 and 24. On the practice of the fang teng repentance see Stevenson, “The T’ien-t’ai Four Forms,” 82–94; on the role of fang teng in preceptual traditions see ibid., 186–88; on repentance in the San-chieh eight-precept ceremony see the Shou pa chieh fa, 595–99; Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 459–66. 56 Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 56. 144 / universal dharma and universal sangha that their biographies were recorded, but also because many, such as Seng- yung and Pen-chi, were given the title Ch’an shih ,‚, “Master of Meditation,” while others, such as Ching-ming, are referred to as Fa shih À‚, “Master of the Teaching,” and yet other San-chieh monks were accorded the title of Ta te Ø…, “Great Virtue” (Skt. bhadanta), one of the highest monastic titles in the land.57 According to the Chih fa the monk appointed to oversee San-chieh communities—though regarding himself as evil and others as virtuous—was in fact required to be virtuous himself, to cultivate the dhðta practices and the seated meditation of the “formless samadhi” (wu hsiang san mei [oX*), and to have never violated the precepts since becoming a monk. Similarly, those appointed to oversee the Inexhaustible Storehouse were always said to be well known and, in one rather ironic case, was a monk reputed to be “diligent in the cultivation of the precepts.”58 Laxness in the community was clearly not permitted; being late to the practice hall, speaking out of turn or during practice, or breaching the etiquette of hierarchy were all singled out as punishable offenses, and expulsion from the community was deemed appropriate for some infractions (see below, 145–47, and note 64). None of this indicates a belief that traditional monastic practices, particularly observance of the precepts, were no longer thought to be possible.59 Although Hsin-hsing returned to lay status, the regard in which he was held by his followers led them not to abandon the precepts but rather to be strict in their observance. Indeed, the Chih fa manual of San-chieh community regulations speci³cally prohibits those who have discarded the precepts from even joining the community and requires the expulsion of any who might have already done so or may simply be thinking about doing so.60 The preceptual tradition was apparently important for lay followers as well, and the Chih fa advocates

57 For Seng-yung see T #2060, 50.583c; for Pen-chi see T #2060, 50.578a; Hui-liao and Fa- tsang were two San-chieh monks accorded the title of Ta te; see chapter 8 and Hubbard, “Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions,” 267–69. 58 See chapter 8, 202–203. 59 Chih fa, 579. 60 Chih fa, 588–89. An important distinction is made for those who abandoned the precepts prior to the promulgation of the Chih fa regulations, provided that they did so according to the Vinaya and under the direction of a monastic teacher (shih seng ‚R, preceptor?)—an exception made, perhaps, by Hsin-hsing for himself or for others forcibly defrocked in the persecution of 574–577? Compare the diametrically opposed rhetoric in the biography of the “anonymous Meditation Master” of the San-chieh whose teachings led his followers to abandon their precepts, although here too it was clearly not the denigration of the precepts but rather the weight or importance attached to the precepts that led to the monks’ feeling impure or unworthy of lay d„na and hence felt that they should return to lay status—that is, they felt that they were not worthy to be “one who receives offerings,” the literal meaning of bhiksu; Pelliot 2550, Tun huang pao tsang, 122.60a; see also the edition in Õtani Shõshin, “Sangai bõzenji,” lines 93, 131, 144, 212. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 145 fellowship with those who have taken the ³ve precepts, the eight precepts, the two hundred and ³fty precepts, and the bodhisattva precepts; the same manuscript also contains the Shou pa chieh fa 1kwÀ in one chüan, Hsin- hsing’s manual for administering the eight precepts to the laity.61 So, too, the constant association of San-chieh followers with the austerities of the dhðta, various liturgical, repentance, and meditation practices (“in the evil world after the Buddha’s extinction all of the evil home-departed ones should only take seated meditation as their foundation”)62 belies the notion that they forsook the disciplined life or saw no distinction to be made between monastic and lay life or among different practitioners; these practices also place them well within the norms of Northern Dynasties Buddhist practice.63 But should we not expect that the institutional organization of the Three Levels would eliminate distinctions and ranking not only between lay and monastic but also among the various practitioners themselves, based upon either the doctrinal rhetoric of universal Buddha-nature or, conversely, the universal degeneracy of the third level sentient beings? After all, are not all sentient beings either already enlightened buddhas or else monks in name only, monks who are more characterized by their infractions and prejudice than by their virtue? Although we might think that these doctrines would lead to a utopian or egalitarian community characterized by a removal of distinctions or µattening of difference among the practitioners, such does not appear to be the case with the organizational structure of the Three Levels movement. In fact—and in keeping with the rhetoric of the p’u fa that was as exclusive or particular as the pieh fa—the institutional practice of the Three Levels seems rather to have enforced distinctions according to ability, hierarchies or ranks according to practice, and separation of community members according to capacity and training as well as for punitive purposes.64

61 Chih fa, 581; see also the Shou pa chieh fa, 595–600; the manual actually includes nine precepts; see Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 459–65. 62 Chih fa, 581; a large portion of the Chih fa is devoted to detailed instructions on seated meditation practice. 63 Regarding the dhðta practices, for example, a perusal of the historical records quickly reveals that Chih-i and Hui-tsan are only a few of the many monks said to have cultivated the dhðta practices; many questions remain, however (for example, did they actually practice all twelve or thirteen dhðta or only a subset)—in other words, did dhðta function less literally and more as a trope to signify “rigorous practice,” etc. A more thorough study of these practices in the Chinese context would no doubt be very revealing. For similarities between the liturgical and prayer/meditation practices of Hsin-hsing, Chih-i and other contemporaneous Buddhist monks see Stevenson, “The T’ien-t’ai Four Forms,” 170–72, 182–88, 264–81, passim; T’ang Yung-t’ung has also shown how San-chieh ideas and practices in general reµect the Buddhism of the Northern Dynasties; see his Han Wei liang chin nan pei ch’ao Fo chiao shih, 817–20. 64 For a comparison of the San-chieh and T’ien-t’ai disciplinary procedures and other community regulations see Nishimoto’s study of the Chih fa manual of San-chieh community 146 / universal dharma and universal sangha

Thus, as with the opening lines of Chih-i’s manual of community regulations,65 the opening lines of the Chih fa declare that because there are distinctions in the noble teachings, the communities must henceforth be distinguished according to understanding and practice; accordingly, the monks of the San-chieh community are to be separated from the community of monks of wisdom and they are not to come together as an entire assembly except for the twice-monthly recitation of the precepts and “universal gath- erings” (p’u chu 3´).66 It is perhaps here that we see the origins of the San- chieh subtemples or cloisters whose existence was prohibited in 725.67 Because sentient beings of the third level are not all of the same capacity there are distinctions in the way that meditation is to be practiced within the San-chieh community:

The capacities of the ordinary people who live after the extinction of the Buddha, the evil sentient beings of the evil time and the evil world, are not the same. There are those of the superior [capacity], middle, and the lowest of the low; because there are differences in capacity there are likewise differences in the practice of visualization (kuan hsing Ö‘).68

The text proceeds to outline the various differences in visualization practice for the different capacities before moving on to proper decorum for the Visualization Hall (Kuan Fo t’ang ÖM}), guidelines for the hall monitor, liturgical forms for offering and repentance ceremonies, procedures for begging, rules for receiving visitors, and instructions on observing the proper hierarchies in seating arrangements as well as in the well-known San-chieh practice of greeting people according to the practice of the Bodhisattva Never-Despise (even in this greeting of universal homage the regimen and regulations in Sangaikyõ, 407–73, esp. 452–59. See also Stevenson, “Some Con³gurations of Devotional Cult Usage,” 11–20, who also shows how the organizational structure of San-chieh community life resembles that of the T’ien-t’ai community. Although the Chih fa has given us some sense of San-chieh cultus-based organization, we are still lacking a good sense of San-chieh ecclesiastic structure. 65 Li chih fa, T #1934, 46.793c. 66 The Three Levels monks are referred to as the “congregation of mute sheep monks” (ya yang seng chung ÝæRL; Chih fa, 578); see above, chapter 4, 88–91. I take this injunction to separate the Three Levels monks from the monks of wisdom to be referring to the practice of maintaining separate San-chieh quarters (cloisters or subtemples, San-chieh yüan X‰Š), in which the monks of the “mute sheep” community lived; the monks of wisdom would then refer to the larger temple community; the whole of the Chih fa seems to be addressing the monks of the “mute sheep” community. On the San-chieh yüan see chapter 8, 214–15; on “mute sheep” see Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 308, 410–12, 414–17. 67 See chapter 8, 214-15. 68 Chih fa, 582. absolute delusion, perfect buddhahood / 147 hierarchy of superior and inferior must always be observed). As with the other procedures detailed in the Chih fa, the penalty for not observing the proper hierarchy in greeting is also given, in this case segregation or removal from the congregation to a different place of practice, regardless of whether the offender is a monk or a layperson.69 Other discipline to be meted out for infractions of the regulations include: added prostrations for being late for practice; 100 “penalty prostrations” (fa li pai pai s r/sß0) for talking in the Visualization Hall and, after three infractions, removal from the hall; 100 prostrations for not entering or leaving the Hall according to the proper etiquette; 100 prostrations for being out of line when doing prostrations; expulsion from the community for speaking of the faults and merits of others.70 In short, the overwhelming impression conveyed by the regulations of the Chih fa is that the San-chieh community was very much in step with other monastic communities of the time, which is to say rigorous in its attitude towards precept and practice. In any case, San-chieh teachings certainly did not advocate slighting the precepts or the monastic community, abandoning the regulated life of the monastery, or eliminating the distinctions of monastic hierarchy.

Summary

One of the frequent charges leveled against the notion that “all sentient beings possess the nature of a Buddha” is that it leads to precisely the sort of position taken by Hsin-hsing, i.e., all beings are buddhas at this very moment. Such a position was seen to deny the facts of ignorance and suffering and thereby obviate the need for practice, resulting in a lack of integrity at the personal, institutional, and social levels. Hsin-hsing, however, seems to argue that nonduality does not at all entail a µight into a thoroughly non- speci³c realm but fully and simultaneously includes the world of discrimi- nated phenomena, the realm of ignorance, the reality of the suffering incurred by sentient beings due to that ignorance, and the various and different capacities and inclinations of those sentient beings. Hence there are numerous different practices offered within the San-chieh community to accord with a variety of different needs. The nonduality of the dilemma— the pure Buddha-nature that is the reality of each and every sentient being of the third level while yet they are simultaneously characterized as thoroughly evil—is refracted as the duality of the solution: “universal respect” for the essentially enlightened nature of all phenomena while yet “recognizing the

69 Chih fa, 588–89. 70 For a comparison with T’ien-t’ai disciplinary measures see Nishimoto, Sangaikyõ, 452–54. 148 / universal dharma and universal sangha evil” of one’s own deluded existence. Recognition of one’s own de³ciencies is what allows for the possibility, indeed, the necessity, of religious practice. In the case of Hsin-hsing and his followers this practice looked to an increased awareness of the need for rigorous monastic practice, and particular emphasis was placed on renunciation and charity. Thus, just as their lev- eling of all doctrine in the “Universal Dharma” (p’u fa) should be understood not as actually denying doctrinal distinctions (pieh fa) or actually af³rming all teachings as equal but rather a rhetorical strategy aimed at legit- imating their own particular and speci³c doctrine so, too, their teachings on the monk who neither holds the precepts nor has a correct understanding of the dharma did not mean that their own communities were lacking in traditional monastic regimen, including strict observance of the precepts, seated meditation, and liturgical rite, or that they disregarded different levels of understanding or were egalitarian or bereft of hierarchy in their social organization. Interesting, though—and perhaps in keeping with the parallel structure of universal respect and recognizing evil—is that at the same time that Hsin-hsing taught a rigorous monastic life for his own community he also offered an “easy path” for the commonordinary people of the third level. Based on the radical relation of all beings and all phenomena as described in the Hua-yen Sutra, this easy path was given institutional form as the Inexhaustible Storehouse, one of the more spectacular examples of a Buddhist charitable institution. What was the Inexhaustible Storehouse, how was it doctrinally and institutionally constituted, and how did it work to provide access to an “economy of salvation” for sentient beings of the third level? These questions are the subject of part four.