Chiko's Criticism of the Hosso Sect, and Wonhyo's Influence

Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol. 50, No. 2, March 2002 (57)

Shigeki MORO

Introduction

Although Chiko ’qŒõ (709-770/781) of Gango-ji Œ³‹»Ž› temple is regarded as "the

greatest monk of the Sanron ŽO˜_ sect in the Nara period"1) and attention has been paid to his vehement criticism of the Hosso / Faxiang –@‘Š sect (the East Asian transmission of Yog- acara), little is known of his thought, aside from his work on Pure Land Buddhism. In this paper, I would like to examine the intellectual-historical position of Chiko's criticism against the Hosso sect, especially comparing with the criticism by Wonhyo Œ³‹Å.

Chiko's Criticism in the Han'nya-shingyo jutsugi

Wonhyo's Influences on Chiko

Chiko has been traditionally regarded as a follower of Jizang ‹g‘ affected by the new translations of Buddhist texts by Xuanzang Œºš÷ in the Tang period, because he belonged to the Sanron sect. However, in the first part of the general remarks in Chiko's Han'nya- shingyo jutsugi ”ÊŽá•SãS•q‹` (HJ), which is his only text preserved fully intact and the earliest commentary on the Heart sutra in Japan, Chiko quotes not only Jizang's texts but alsoWonhyo's Daehyedogyeong jongyo ‘åŒd“xãS•@—v (DJ) :

It is especially important that the paragraph (includes (5)) criticizing the three period teaching classification (ŽOŽž‹³”») of Kuiji ‰MŠî and Wonch'uk ‰~‘ª, which bluntly states that "the mistakes (of Kuiji and Wonch'uk) are terribly serious; [their inability to grasp the truth is] comparable to a blind person running around madly in the dark night" 2), depends on DJ. The three period teaching classification based on Samdhinirinocana-sutra is a doc- trinal separation of Buddhist teachings, which consists of the teachings of existence as the first period, the teaching of emptiness as the second period, and the teaching of the middle way as the third period3). The teachings of existence means the Hinayana teachings estab-

- 980 - ( 58 ) Chiko's Criticism of the Hosso Sect, and Wonhyo's Influence (S. MORO)

lished in the Four Agama sutras and the Abhidharma texts. The teaching of emptiness is connected with the Prajnaparamita sutras and the doctrine of the Madhyamika, especially Bhaviveka. The teaching of the middle way is the sublation of the first and second teachings, which is explained in the Yogacara texts such as Samdhinirmocana-sutra or the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu.

In Kuiji's commentary on the Heart sutra, named Panruoboluomiduo-xinjing youzan ”ÊŽá”g—…–¨‘½•SãS—HŽ^

, believers ofsunyata (•Ÿ‹óŽÒ) are critically set against followers of reasonability (”@œäŽÒ)who are closely associated with the claim of the Hosso sect,depending on the three period teaching classification. Wonch'uk's Foshuo panruoboluomiduo-xinjing- zan ”ÊŽá”g—…–¨‘½•SãSŽ^, which is also a commentary on the Heart sutra written from the point of view of a Yogacara scholar, regards the Heart sutra as the teaching of the second period.

Although strictly speaking, the views of Kuiji are different from those of Wonch'uk, it

is reasonable to interpret Chiko's comments on them as a criticism of the current Japanese

-979- Chiko's Criticism of the Hosso Sect, and Wonhyo's Influence (S. MORO) ( 59 )

Hosso sect, since the Sanron and Hosso sects were engaged in a mutual dispute on the auth-

enticity the Da-foding-jing ‘å˜Å’¸ãS (Sirraingaina-sutra) around the time when HJwas written (Tenpyo 16,744). The authenticity of Da foditig jing was vitally important for Sanron's

claims of more direct orthodoxy, because the sutra includes a verse that proves the truth of sunyata, which is also found in Bhaviveka's Dasheng-zhangzhen-lun ‘å•æ•¶’¿˜_ 4).

Criticism of the Three Period Teaching Classification in the HJ

The criticism of the three period teaching classification in the HJ consists of two parts.

First part (T2202.57.4b28-c12): in order to criticize the three period teaching classification which evaluates Samdhinirmocana-sutra to be of a greater degree of profundity than the

Prajnaparamita sutras, Chiko demonstrates that Mahapraji rainita (‘å”ÊŽá) preaches the three natures (ŽO•«) doctrine by quoting the Madhyantavibhaga (’†ç²•ª•Ê˜_) and Maha- vanasamgraha (•Û‘å•æ˜_). Needless to say, the three natures doctrine, which is also taught in the Samdhinirmocana-sutra, is a very important for the Yogacara schools.

Second part or (5) : Chiko shows that Prajnaparamita sutras have complete revelation of meaning (—¹‹`) as does the Samdhinitmocana-sutra. The Samdhinirmocana argues that the third period teaching by Buddha has complete revelation based on the fact that it is not yet at the stage where the debates have been settled (”ñæy˜_ˆÀ‘«•ˆ•Š). By the same token, according to Dazhidu-lun, the Prajnaparamita-sutra is also at the stage beyond debates (–³

). This form of verification is also seen in the DJ. As I point out in Moroæy•ˆ [2000],

Wonhyo's criticism of the three period teaching classification entailed treating the Samdh-

inirinocana-sutra on the same level with the Prajnaparamita sutras, based on his approach of reconciliation (˜aæy) or "interpenetrated Buddhism" (’Ê˜Å‹³). Attitude against the Hosso Sect in Hokke genron-ryakujutsu

Since Chiko's Hokke-genron-iyakujutsu –@‰ØŒº˜_—ª•q (HGR) is not extant, we have no recourse but to extrapolate its contents from the compilation of its quotations by later generations5). It is very important, however, that HGR mentions the tradition of the debates between Silabhadra ‰úŒ« and Jnanaprabha ’qŒõ in India6) which is in turn based on the stat- ement of Divakara it ’n”kæd—… quoted in Dasheng-qixinliin-yiji ‘å•æ‹N•M˜_‹`‹L by Fazang –@‘

. According to Divakara, Silabhadra, who was a scholar monk of Yogacara, espoused the three period teaching classification based on Samdhinirmocana-sutra.

Jnanaprabha, by cosited his view of the three period teaching classification (consisting of the first teaching of the four noble truths, the second teaching of Mahayana of Dharma-character –@

-978- (60) Chiko's Criticism of the Hosso Sect, and Wonhyo's Influence (S. Mono)

‘Š‘å•æ and the last teaching of Mahayana of No-characteristics –³‘Š‘å•æ ), based on Dasheng-

iaozhi-jing ‘å•æ–•’qãS. m

If we take this quotation into consideration, it is reasonable to suppose that Chiko believed that the Sanron, rather than Hosso, was the most superior sect. This supposition can be supported by noting his above-related critique. However, the style of criticism by HJ and

Wonhyo stands in distinct contrast to the attitude seen in the HGR. Paradoxically, the contra- diction between the HJ and HGR demonstrates that Wonhyo's influence on Chiko was deep, because he could not ignore Wonhyo's method of critique, despite the conviction that he and his colleagues held in Sanron's superiority to Hosso.

Works Cited Hirai, Shun'ei [1987]. Hokke-genron no chi-cshaku-tekikenkyu. Tokyo : Shunju-sha. Matumoto, Nobumichi [1985]. "Daibucchokvo no shingi-ronso to nanto-rokushu no doko." Ko- mazawa-shigaku 33. Moro, Shigeki [2000]. "Shiragi Gangyo no sanji-kyohan hihan : Daiedokvoshuyo wo chushin ni." IBK 49-1 (97). Sueki, Fumihiko [1982]. "Chiko Han'nva-shingyo-jutsugi ni tsuite : Naracho Sanron-kyougaku no ichi danmen." Bukkvo-kyor-ino kenkvu. Tokyo : Shunju-sha.

1) Sueki [1982] 2)–À•T”V•r”@‘´áÚŽÒ‹¶‘––»–éT2202.57.4c2-3 3) According to Huizh-a

o Œd•À, who is regarded as the head of Kuiji's disciples in Japanese tradition, the term "period"

(Žž) should be interpreted not only as a sequence of time (‘OŒã), but also as a sort of contents (‹`

). See TI 832.43.660c 15. 4) See Matsumoto [ 1985]. 5) See Hirai [ 1987], pp. 75-100 —Þ

6) T2299.71.213a-b

〈 Key Words〉智光,般若心經述義,法華玄論略述,三時教判批判,元暁 (Part-time Lecturer, Waseda University)

-977-