The Refuge of the Universal Dharma and Universal Sangha
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 indi- vidual members of the community. Why? Because the blinders of our preju- dices 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 systemati- zation rather than a chronology of the Buddha’s sermons or doctrinal evalu- ation 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 tradi- tional norms as whether one or another scripture transmits the full and per- fect wisdom or is merely an “accommodated” teaching, that is, away from teachings that are de³nitive (n‡t„rtha) versus teachings in need of interpreta- tion (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 analy- sis 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 chap- ter 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 com- plete 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 univer- sal understanding, that for the purpose of eliminating the malady of discrimi- nation 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 lit- erature 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, con- cerned 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 scrip- tures 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 igno- rance 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.