I think the problem lies within the "Wei-Shih" (Fa-hsiang, Vijnaptimatrata) school of the Venerable Hsuan Tsang which revived the notion that the "icchantika" is
agotra, basically devoid of the seed of enlightenment or one who has cut off the roots to Buddha-hood.
THE FOUNDING OF THE SCHOOL: TAO-SHENG AND HSIEH LING-YUN'
The Nirvana Sutra, from which the school drew its inspiration, was first translated
by Fa-hsienj, the pilgrim who brought it back from India, and
Buddhabhadra in 416. This shorter and earlier recension already introduced the
idea of "universal Buddha-nature", but as surely it also stated that the icchantika
was destitute of this seed of enlightenment. A later and longer version readmitting
the icchantika into the lot of the enlightenable was rendered, in Liang-chouk,
by Dharmaksema with the help of Tao-lang' in 421, but unfortunately this full
text would not arrive at the southern capital until a decade later, in 430. With
only the Fa-hsien version at hand, it was only natural that the southerners
regarded the exclusion of the icchantika to be the canonical position. For
someone to openly go against the words of the Buddha should, indeed in that
context, be punishable, according to the preceptual code, by banishment from
the community2. That was the fate at first for Tao-sheng who somehow intuited
that one day even the icchantika should be de jure (that is, tang-laim: in the natural course of time) given this seed of enlightenment3. Hui-kuann petitioned
the king for Tao-sheng's removal in 428-429, and Tao-sheng left the capital for
Lu-shan°, only to be vindicated the next year when the full text arrived from the
north.
It is not clear when Tao-sheng first intuited this "enlightenability of the
icchantika," but Hui-kuan's reaction was both sharp and apparently quick, such
that it is advisable to date it close to 428 itself. This is supported by a letter written
by Fan T'aiP to the pair, Hui-kuan and Tao-sheng, circa 426-428, at which time
the two were on speaking terms though already divided over gradual versus
sudden enlightenment4. (This other controversy warranted no expulsion of a
heretic, because the scriptures themselves show no decisive stand, unlike the
explicit exclusion of the icchantika in the then-available Nirvana Sutra.) Because
later in Ch'an (Zen"), the doctrine of sudden enlightenment was predicated upon
the idea of an innate Buddha-nature, it has been assumed that Tao-sheng also
arrived at the subitist position by way of the universality of Buddha-nature.5
However, nowhere in Tao-sheng's surviving writings do we find the formula,
chien-hsing ch'eng-for, "upon seeing one's (Buddha) nature, be [suddenly] enlightened."
That formula first appeared in Pao-liangs who is however judged a
gradualist because of his Ch'eng-shih leanings (see infra). Thus "sudden enlightenment"
and "universal Buddha-nature" were originally two separate
issues, discovered by Tao-sheng independent of one another.
In a separate investigation,6 I discovered that Tao-sheng proposed sudden
enlightenment even before he knew of the Nirvana Sutra. The idea came to him
probably at Lu-shan in the last decade of the fourth century when he was
apprenticed under the Sarvastivadin Sanghadeva and the famous hermit Huiyuant.
Sanghadeva translated the Abhidharmahrdayain 391 and chapter five of
this text specified that "the last act in training"-the vajrasamadhi (diamond
trance)-leading to enlightenment involves a one-step awakening, not any
gradual progression.7 Hui-yiian himself took a cue from this, and in his essay
San-pao-lunu (On Three Modes of Retribution) in 395 already so suggested a
nonkarmic (that is, noncausative) enlightenment.8 This then formed the basis for
the twin theories of Tao-sheng which should be read together, namely, "The
[nirvanic] Good admits no [karmic] retribution" for indeed it is through "sudden
enlightenment that one attains Buddhahood." It is only later that Tao-sheng
further grafted this Hinayana-based argument for sudden enlightenment to
items he learned in his next phase of scholarship under Kumarajiva: the
Emptiness philosophy of Madhyamika and the Ekayana doctrine of the Lotus
Sutra. He and Hui-kuan parted company then over suddenism and gradualism
as related to these two Mahayana doctrines.9 The doctrine of Buddha-nature
was known to both, but was not regarded as having any bearing, pro or con, on
that controversy. The proof lies in Hsieh Ling-yiin's defense of Tao-sheng in his
Pien-tsung-lunv dated 423. Nowhere in this classic defense is Buddha-nature
rallied to the side of suddenism. In fact, the only time it is mentioned was by an
137
opponent in support of the gradualist's cause.10 These facts, however, can only
be documented on a separate occasion.
Although sudden enlightenment was not derived originally from the universality
of Buddha-nature, the two did come together eventually and do represent a
key contribution in the founding days of the school. The argument for suddenism
based on the innateness of Buddha-hood (without as yet accepting the icchantika,
the exception) was first presented, as far as surviving documents go, by Huijui
(alias Seng-juiw)i n his Yii-i-lunx.T his work is not dated but I prefer to put it
after 423. Hui-jui notes:
The (Nirvana) sutra says, "Nirvana is non-extinction; the Buddha does have a
self. All sentient beings have Buddha-nature and will, upon completion of
cultivation, become enlightened." ... Nirvana lasts forever because it corresponds
to the mirroring (chaoy) element in men. The Great Transformation will
not cease and so the true basis [Buddha-nature] has to be. Still there are those
who doubt only the more, settling for gradual enlightenment and criticizing the
true (suddenist) understanding. '
These stubborn ones were compared to the icchantikas. 2 Finally, Tao-sheng
after his vindication and at the invitation of Hui-kuan to contribute a preface to
the southerners-edited text, offered this succinct statement:
The true principle is naturalness itself (chen-li tzu-janZ). Enlightenment is just
being mysteriously in tune to it. What is true permits no variance, so how can
enlightenment permit any change? The unchanging essence is quiescent and
forever mirroring (chao). If a person out of delusion goes counter to it, then
enlightenment indeed appears to lie beyound. If he with effort seeks it out, he
would reverse the delusion and return to the Ultimate. 3
Although the word Buddha-nature is not mentioned (in this or any other
prefaces)'4 and although sudden enlightenment is absent too, the implication is
clear: the direct uncovering of this innate, natural, unchangeable, mirroring
essence has to be sudden and total. For such cutting simplicity, Tao-sheng has
been loved by many, past and present.
The charm of his thesis notwithstanding, it must be judged as reflecting a
certain freedom, even license, in the founding days of the Nirvana school. There
is a certain Neo-Taoist innovation in his reading of the "real" intention of the
text, a meaning he regarded as lying behind the tools (the "rabbit snare") of the
language. Edward Conze well notes how the gradual versus sudden was never
that divisive an issue in India:
In fact, Indian Buddhist had made a distinction between "gradual" and
"sudden" enlightenment, but had regarded the second as the final stage of the
first and nobody had thought of taking sides for one or the other. Tao-sheng now
argues that since the absolute emptiness of Nirvana is absolutely and totally
different from all conditioned things, the enlightenment which mirrors [chao] it
must also be totally different from all mental stages which are directed at other
things. In consequence, enlightenment, if it is to be achieved at all, can be
achieved only in its totality, and not in a gradual or piecemeal fashion.
- Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-Nature: The Nirvāṇa School (420-589)
Author(s): Whalen Lai
Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 135-149
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press