Takeuchi Yoshinori's "Buddhist Spirituality" has this on Zhiyi's meditative methods:
"the samadhi which involves neither walking nor sitting the object of contemplation can be either good or bad thoughts. Good thoughts are observed as containing evil, and bad thoughts as containing good.It is important to practice the samadhi on evil, so that one is not enslaved to evil; in fact evil is never eradicated but retained as an object of samadhi, for evil is not an obstruction to enlightenment and enlightenment does not hinder evil. This samadhi reveals that any static and permanent...." sorry Google Books only let me have that much, but I'm surprised here at the lack of understanding, 'evil' just like 'good' is not a static nor permanent state, there are no such things - it's un-buddhist to assert such things.
...here's the blurb from Brooks Ziporyn's book
"Other than the devil, there is no Buddha; other than the Buddha, there is no devil.” The Chinese monk Siming Zhili (960–1028) uttered this remark as part of his justification for his self-immolation. An exposition of the intent, implications, and resonances of this one sentence, this book expands and unravels the context in which the seeming paradox of the ultimate identity of good and evil is to be understood. In analyzing this idea, Brook Ziporyn provides an overview of the development of Tiantai thought from the fifth through the eleventh centuries in China and contributes to our understanding of Chinese intellectual culture and Chinese Buddhism, as well as to basic ontological, epistemological, and axiological issues of interest in modern philosophy."
In Evil And/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity, and Value Paradox
(at google books), Brook Ziporyn writes that, according to Zhiyi, "The Buddha's evils are like Xishi's frown; as part of the totality of the Buddha, these evils only add to his perfection." (Xishi was a beautiful woman who was even more beautiful when she frowned.) Zhiyi also taught that "this capacity for evil must exist in him eternally." The same author writes that a later T'ien-t'ai patriarch, Zhanran, similarly taught that "sin and suffering are included in buddhahood." Zhanran recognized that the teaching of "evil inherent in the Buddha-nature" was a unique teaching of T'ien-t'ai, according to Ziporyn, distinguishing it from all others schools existing at the time. It is beginning to look as though the post was correct and that the heterodox idea of evil in the mind of the Buddha originated with Zhiyi, if
all of this is true and means what it appears to mean.
I'm going to keep looking for a bit. I would like to find an alternative interpretation of Zhiyi, one more consistent with Indian Buddhist thought, if possible.
Ziporyn's being a bit provocative in that text and in its sequel, Being and Ambiguity
, specifically in his treatment of the two (or for Zhiyi three) truths. That is: an act that is ultimately wise and compassionate can be, by conventional terms, evil or at least awful. The Lotus Sutra is, acc. to Ziporyn, exemplary of this, inclusive of the Buddha's conduct in that sutra, in which Buddha Shakyamuni has to bend reason in creative ways to say he's not *really* been a liar, he's just kept the whole truth back from his followers for their own good (ultimately good, provisionally bad). Hence good and evil "interpenetrate," to use Ziporyn's term.
Here's the relevant passage:
What is this strange 'charisma' that accrues to these lawless lawgivers who somehow place themselves in a position where they can, by definition as it were, 'do no wrong' no matter how much wrong they do? [...]
Gotama leaves his wife and child, and abandons his father's patrimony, not after fulfilling his Dharmic duties as an old man, but stealthily in the middle of the night. In the Mahayana version, in which his charisma is greatly amplified, he then goes on to repudiate all he had previously taught, and even, in the Lotus, baldly admits that it was all a pack of lies, and yet that he cannot for that reason be accused of lying (p. 411).
I should add that Ziporyn is describing this as admirable conduct. He's not criticizing Shakyamuni (or Jesus or Nichiren or any of the others he describes in this way). In the context of his argument, this is what liberation looks like. Buddha-activity is inscrutible and beyond conventional understanding. Go back to Lotus Sutra, chapter 4: you may find yourself tricked into shoveling horse droppings for decades even though this is, objectively, wholly unneeded and maybe even cruel, but is effective in helping one realize directly the uselessness of such practices in the light of one's own inherent capacity for awakening.
Now, on the topic of less "out there" and more conventional treatments of Zhiyi, see Ziporyn's own article on "Li" or Principle:www.fas.nus.edu.sg/philo/iw/resources/d ... n%20Li.pdf
Ng Yu-Kwan's book on Chinese Madhyamika, which touches on this question of evil:http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=5599
and Paul Swanson's fine work, Foundations of Tien Tai Philosophy:http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=4998
and then there's issue of "original enlightenment" or hongaku shiso which, some argue, follows logically from all this: that all is already awakened, Buddhahood is immanent and always has been, &c. This doctrine colors the entire discussion when it is taken up through a Japanese Buddhist lens.http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHI ... kurab.htmlhttp://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 05&start=0
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727