Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies (2015, 28: 117–152) New Taipei: Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies ᷕ厗ἃ⬠⬠⟙䫔Ḵ⋩ℓ㛇ġ 枩 117–152炷㮹⚳ᶨ䘦暞⚃⸜炸炻㕘⊿烉ᷕ厗ἃ⬠䞼䨞㇨ ISSN: 2313-2000 e-ISSN: 2313-2019 Addressing the Mind: Developments in the Culture of Confession in Sui-Tang China Wendi L. Adamek Associate Professor, Dept. of Classics and Religion, University of Calgary Abstract This article addresses the multivalence of confession-repentance practice (chanhui ㆢ〼) in Chinese Buddhism of the sixth and seventh centuries in light of the polemical reformation of repentance practice in Chan texts of the eighth century. Drawing from her research on the Sui-Tang Buddhist site known as Baoshan ⮞Ⱉ (Treasure Mountain) in present-day Henan, the author first discusses inscribed passages from the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra (Mohemoye jing 㐑姞㐑俞䴻) and the Vinayaviniğcaya-UpƘliparipΩcchƘ- VǍtra (Jueding pini jing 㰢⭂㮀⯤䴻), supplemented by verses ascribed to Lingyu 曰塽 (518–605), one of the co-founders of Baoshan. Subsequent sections focus on passages from early Chan texts, tracing shifts in the soteriological rationalization of chanhui versus Chan practice. In previous work, the author discussed ways that fifth and sixth-century precepts and repentance liturgies, as well as texts on spiritual causes and remedies for disease, contributed the emergence of a distinctive Chan ideology of practice in the eighth century. In this article, further expanding on connections between repentance ritual, buddha-response, and buddha-nature, the author discusses different modes of confessional “addressing the mind.” Buddhist concern with volition and kleĞa (deep-seated karmic effects) is also briefly compared with Foucault’s discussion of psychoanalytic confession; the author proposes that what links these disparate confessional modes is the creation of enhanced awareness of the elusiveness of the causal power that shapes the self. Finally, the author proposes that the logic of practice at work in repentance liturgies and Chan anti-liturgical rhetoric is not really so different as it may appear. Keywords: Chinese Buddhism, confession-repentance practice, Baoshan, Chan/Zen 118 Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies Volume 28 (2015) 憅⮵⽫曰 ʇʇᷕ⚳昳Ⓒㆢ〼㔯⊾䘬䘤⯽ 杳倆䫃 ≈㊧⣏⌉䇦≈慴⣏⬠⎌℠⬠冯⬿㔁⬠䲣∗㔁㌰ 㐀天 㛔㔯㍊妶ᷕ⚳ἃ㔁䘬ㆢ〼⮎嶸炻⽆ℕ军ᶫᶾ䲨䘬⺋㲃㳩埴⇘ℓᶾ䲨䥒 ⬿㔯䌣ᷕ䘬婾嫱㓡朑䘬廱✳ˤἄ侭ὅ㒂⮵昳Ⓒἃ㔁俾⛘⮞Ⱉ炷⛐Ṳᷳ㱛⋿炸 䘬䞼䨞炻椾⃰妶婾䞛⇣˪㐑姞㐑俞䴻˫冯˪㰢⭂㮀⯤䴻˫ᷕ䘬ᶨṃ㭝句炻 㗗䓙⮞Ⱉ∝⥳Ṣᷳᶨ䘬曰塽炷518–605炸㇨⡆墄䘬⎍⫸ˤ㍍叿炻㍊妶㖑㛇 䥒⬿㔯䌣ᷕ䘬ᶨṃℏ⭡炻ẍ徥希ㆢ〼妋僓婾冯䥒ᾖ䘬廱嬲ˤἄ侭⛐ẍ⇵䘬 婾叿ᷕ炻㚦妶婾忶Ḽ军ℕᶾ䲨䘬ㆺ⼳ˣㆢ〼₨⺷炻ẍ⍲䕦䕭䘬䱦䤆⮶⚈冯 㱣䗪䘬㔯䌣㗗⤪ỽὫㆸℓᶾ䲨㗪䌐䈡䘬䥒⬿ᾖ埴⿅゛䘬↢䎦ˤ⛐㛔㔯ᷕ炻 ἄ侭娛徘ㆢ〼₨⺷ˣἃデㅱ冯ἃ⿏䘬斄忋炻Ἦ妶婾憅⮵⽫曰ㆢ〼䘬⎬䧖ᶵ ⎴㕡⺷ˤ⎴㗪炻䯉╖⛘㭼庫ἃ㔁䘬シ栀␴䄑゙炷kleğa炸冯‭㞗炷1926– 1984炸䘬䱦䤆↮㜸⺷⏲妋炻忚侴娵䁢忁ṃ徍䃞ᶵ⎴䘬ㆢ〼⼊⺷㗗⮵忈⯙冒 ㆹ䘬⚈㝄≃慷㍸檀奢䞍䘬䓊䈑ˤ㚨⼴炻ἄ侭㊯↢ㆢ〼₨⺷䘬⮎嶸␴䥒⬿⍵ ₨⺷婾溆䘬怷廗℞⮎᷎㰺㚱⁷堐朊ᶲ䘬恋湤ᶵ⎴ˤ 斄挝娆烉 ᷕ⚳ἃ㔁ˣㆢ〼ˣ⮞Ⱉˣ䥒 Addressing the Mind: Developments in the Culture of Confession in Sui-Tang China 119 Introduction This article addresses a particular soteriological trajectory in Chinese Buddhism, comparing a local instantiation of the widely-practiced rites of confession and repentance (chanhui ㆢ〼)1 in the sixth and seventh centuries with the increasingly polemical reformation of repentance practice in Chan 䥒 texts of the eighth century. An ostensible opposition between ritual and Chan/Zen is inscribed in current popular views of Buddhism. Although confession and repentance is a long-standing practice with roots in the uposatha ceremony of the earliest saৄgha and remains central to Chinese Buddhist devotional practice, it is seldom recognized in Chan (Zen) circles as an integral part of the tradition to which Chan belongs. As an attempted counterbalance, here I wish to highlight certain shared soteriological underpinnings that bind together chanhui and Chan. And although it is beyond the scope of this article to adequately address debates over the psychological strengths or shortcomings of Buddhist practice, these contemporary issues are part of the implicit context for the theme of “addressing the mind.” In the following examples we will see different modes of addressing the mind: rebuking it, confessing and repenting its karmic burdens, evoking the means to transform it, attempting to present it, and turning it on its own emptiness of essence. The desire to decisively alter the indeterminable power of existential conditioning may be seen in both confrontation of the karma-burdened self and propitiation of the buddhas and/as buddha-nature. Drawing from research on the Sui-Tang Buddhist site known as Baoshan ⮞Ⱉ (Treasure Mountain) in present-day Henan, I first discuss inscribed passages from the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra and the Vinayaviniğcaya-UpƘliparipΩcchƘ- VǍtra, supplemented by verses ascribed to Lingyu 曰塽 (518–605), one of the 1 Chanhui ㆢ〼 is often translated “confession and repentance,” but I also use “repentance practice” or simply “repentance” to refer to the range of practices associated with this term. The following definitions and terms are condensed from the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (http://www.buddhism- dict.net/ddb/pcache/61id(b61fa-6094).html. Accessed 2/7/15): “To repent of any negative actions one may have done in one's present or past lives, so as to clear oneself of karmic obstacles that may be causing one worldly difficulties or restraining one’s spiritual progress. To confess one’s crimes before the Buddha. (Skt. pratideğayati, kaukΩtya; atyaya-değanƘ, değana, değanƘ-karaΧa, değanƘ- karaΧưya, değayati, nivedayati, SƘpa-değanƘ, pratikΩta, pratideğanƘ, NΙamâpatti- pratideğana). ㆢ is the transliteration of NΙamƘ, 〼 its translation, i.e. repentance; but also the first is interpreted as confession, cf. ㍸ değanƘ, the second as repentance and reform.” 120 Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies Volume 28 (2015) co-founders of Baoshan. Subsequent sections focus on passages from early Chan texts, tracing a process of reformulation or rejection of the soteriological value of chanhui. Buddhist preoccupation with the power of repentance ritual to eliminate deep-seated karmic effects is also briefly compared with Foucault’s discussion of psychoanalytic confession. I propose that what links these disparate confessional modes is the creation of enhanced awareness of the elusiveness of the causal powers that shape the self. Finally, I propose that the logic of practice at work in repentance liturgies is not really as different from the logic of practice in Chan anti-liturgical rhetoric as it may seem. Baoshan Baoshan is a network of rock-cut caves, devotional and memorial inscriptions, reliquary niches with portrait statues, and stelae and inscriptions with references to constructions and restorations. The site seems to have first attracted Buddhist attention due to its proximity to one of the passes through the Taihang ⣒埴 mountains that linked the Northern Qi ⊿滲 (550–577) capital of Ye 惜 with the former Northern Wei ⊿櫷 (386–534) capital of Luoyang 㳃春 to the south (Henan), and with the Northern Qi secondary capital Jinyang 㗱春 (present-day Taiyuan) in the north (Shanxi). It is said that Baoshan was first marked as a Buddhist place by the monk Daoping 忻ㄹ (488–559) during the Eastern Wei 㜙櫷 (534–550). Daoping’s disciple Lingyu won imperial recognition for the site, and appears to have been the designer of the devotional program at the main cave, Dazhusheng ⣏ỷ俾, which is the source for the inscriptions discussed here. Baoshan has a distinguished heritage stemming from the brief but brilliant efflorescence of Northern Qi Buddhism: Daoping was the disciple of the Northern Wei 櫷 master Huiguang ㄏ⃱ (468–537), who was later considered the founder of the Southern Branch of the Dilun ⛘婾 (Stages Treatise) school that developed in Ye. The “Southern” and “Northern” designations are based on the biographies of Bodhiruci 厑㍸㳩㓗 (d. 527) and Huiguang in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan 临檀₏⁛,2 which show two lines of affiliation based on exegesis and practice of the YogƘFƘra tenets of Vasubandhu’s DaĞabhnjmikasnjtropadeĞa, 3 a commentary on the 2 T 2060, 50: 429a5–16, 607c19–20. 3 Shidi jing lun ⋩⛘䴻婾, T 1522, 26; translated in 511. Addressing the Mind: Developments in the Culture of Confession in Sui-Tang China 121 DaĞabhnjmika-snjtra on the ten stages of the bodhisattva path, included in the Avataۨsaka-snjtra.4 Dazhusheng cave provides a focal point from which to explore the intersections between Dilun soteriology, final age eschatology, and repentance practice. Working from scriptural models, in the fifth through eighth centuries Chinese Buddhists developed new rituals for taking the bodhisattva precepts, and these ceremonies included formulae of confession and repentance: chanhui. Repentance and precepts were soteriologically linked as vows; that is, harnessing the power of volition in order to remove the effects of its past misuse. Recognizing one’s past negative actions and praying to the buddhas to aid in removing karmic residue was an important initial stage of the bodhisattva path. Indeed, many Chinese Buddhist rituals exhibit a basic structure that includes repentance as a constituent element.5 What is at stake in Dilun practice and on display in the design of Dazhusheng cave is belief in the capacity of repentance rituals to remove kleğa, deeply engrained habitual afflictive patterns, through the evocation of mutually responsive buddha- nature/presence. Before proceeding further, I would like to briefly note the important place that studies of chanhui have in the field of medieval Chinese Buddhism. I cannot list all the relevant work, but Daniel Stevenson’s 1987 dissertation, “The T’ien-T’ai Four Forms of SamƘdhi and Late North-South Dynasties, Sui, and Early T’ang Buddhist Devotionalism,” is an invaluable orientation to the relevant texts and soteriological issues. Stevenson provides both schematic comparison and in-depth discussion of the fifth- through seventh- century Chinese devotional-liturgical materials incorporating chanhui, as well as their Indian counterparts, in order to contextualize Zhiyi’s 㘢柿 (538–597) work. Kuo Li-ying’s 1994 monograph on fifth- through tenth-century repentance texts (Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du cinqième au 4 The two lines of affiliation were said to stem from disagreements between Bodhiruci and Ratnamati ≺恋㐑㍸ (active early 6th cent.) at the Northern Wei- sponsored translation atelier in Luoyang.