"Fifteen years after the beginning of the Middle Day of the Law which followed the thousand years of the Former Day Buddhism spread eastward and was introduced into the land of China. During the first hundred years or more of the first half of the Middle Day of the Law, the Buddhist doctrines introduced from India were vigorously disputed by the Taoist teachers of China, and neither side could win a clear victory. Though it appeared at times as though the issue had been decided, those who embraced Buddhism were as yet lacking in deep faith. Therefore, if it had become apparent that the sacred teachings of Buddhism were not a unified doctrine but were divided into Hinayana and Mahayana, provisional and true, and exoteric and esoteric teachings, then some of the believers might have had doubts and turned instead to the non-Buddhist teachings. It was perhaps because the Buddhist monks Kashyapa Matanga and Chu-fa-lan feared such a result that they made no mention of such divisions as Mahayana and Hinayana or provisional and true teachings when they brought Buddhism to China, though they were perfectly aware of them. During the five dynasties that followed, the Wei, Chin, Sung, Ch’i and Liang, disputes took place within Buddhism over the differences between the Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true, and exoteric and esoteric teachings, and it was impossible to determine which was correct. As a result, from the ruler on down to the common people, there were many people who had doubts about the doctrine.
Buddhism thus became split into ten different schools, the three schools of southern China and seven schools of northern China. In the south there were the schools that divided the Buddha’s teachings into three periods, into four periods, and into five periods, while in the north there were the five-period school, the school that recognized incomplete-word and complete-word teachings, the four-doctrine school, five-doctrine school, six-doctrine school, the two-Mahayana-doctrine school and the "one-voice" school.
Each of these schools clung fiercely to its own doctrines and clashed with the others like fire encountering water. Yet in general they shared a common view. Namely, among the various sutras preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, they put the Kegon Sutra in first place, the Nirvana Sutra in second place, and the Lotus Sutra in third place. They admitted that, in comparison to such sutras as the Agon, Hannya, Vimalakirti and Shiyaku, the Lotus Sutra represents the truth, a "complete teaching" sutra that sets forth correct views. But they held that, in comparison to the Nirvana Sutra, it represents a doctrine of non-eternity, an "incomplete-teaching" sutra that puts forth heretical views. From the end of the fourth through the beginning of the fifth hundred years following the introduction of Buddhism in the Later Han dynasty, in the time of the Ch’en and Sui dynasties, there lived a humble priest named Chih-i, the man who would later be known as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che. He refuted the mistaken doctrines of the northern and southern schools and declared that among the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime, the Lotus Sutra ranks first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Kegon Sutra third. This is what occurred in the first five hundred years of the Middle Day of the Law, the period corresponding to that described in the Daijuku Sutra as the age of reading, reciting and listening.
During the latter five hundred years of the Middle Day of the Law, in the reign of Emperor T’ai-tsung at the beginning of the T’ang dynasty, the Learned Doctor Hsuan-tsang journeyed to India, spending nineteen years visiting temples and pagodas in the one hundred and thirty states of India and meeting with numerous Buddhist scholars. He investigated all the profound doctrines contained in the twelve divisions of the scriptures and the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Buddhism and encountered therein the two schools of the Hosso and the Sanron.
Of these two, the Mahayana Hosso doctrine was said to have been taught long ago by Miroku and Asanga and in more recent times by the scholar Shilabhadra. The latter transmitted it to Hsuan-tsang, who brought it to China and taught it to Emperor T’ai-tsung.
The heart of the Hosso doctrine lies in its assertion that Buddhist teachings should accord with the capacities of the listeners. If people have the capacity to understand the doctrine of the one vehicle, then the doctrine of the three vehicles can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the doctrine of the one vehicle, the only true way of enlightening them. For people such as these, the Lotus Sutra should be taught. On the other hand, if they have the capacity to understand the three vehicles, then the one vehicle can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the three vehicles, the only true way of enlightening them. For people such as these, the Jimmitsu and Shrimala sutras should be taught. This, say the proponents of the Hosso school, is a principle that T’ien-t’ai failed to understand.
Emperor T’ai-tsung was a very wise ruler whose name was known throughout the
world and who was said to have surpassed in virtue the Three Rulers and Five Emperors of antiquity. He not only reigned over the entire land of China, but also extended his influence to more than eighteen hundred foreign countries ranging from Kao-ch’ang in the west to Koguryo in the east. He was regarded as a ruler who had mastered both Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings. And since Hsuan-tsang was first in the favor and devotion of this wise ruler, there was none among the leaders of the Tendai school who ventured to risk losing his head by challenging him, and the true teachings of the Lotus Sutra were neglected and forgotten throughout the country.
During the reigns of T’ai-tsung’s heir, Emperor Kao-tsung, and Kao-tsung’s stepmother, Empress Wu, there lived a priest called Fa-tsang. He observed that the Tendai school was under attack from the Hosso school and took this opportunity to champion the Kegon Sutra, which T’ien-t’ai had relegated to a lower place, declaring that the Kegon Sutra should rank first, the Lotus Sutra second, and the Nirvana Sutra third among the sutras preached during the Buddha’s lifetime.
In the reign of Emperor Hsuan-tsung, the fourth ruler following T’ai-tsung, in the fourth year of the K’ai-yuan era, the Learned Doctor Shan-wu-wei came to China from the western land of India, and in the eighth year of the same era, the learned doctors Chin-kang-chih and Pu-k’ung also came to China from India. These men brought with them the Dainichi, Kongocho and Soshitsuji sutras and founded the Shingon school. This school declares that there are two types of Buddhist teachings: the exoteric teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, which are expounded in the Kegon, Lotus and similar sutras, and the esoteric teachings of Dainichi or Mahavairochana, Buddha, which are expounded in the Dainichi and similar sutras. The Lotus Sutra holds first place among the exoteric teachings. But although its fundamental principles somewhat resemble those of the esoteric teachings expounded by Dainichi Buddha, it contains no description whatsoever of the mudras and mantras to be used in religious rituals. It fails to include any reference to the three mysteries of body, mouth and mind and hence is to be regarded as an "incomplete teaching."
Thus all of these three schools mentioned above, the Hosso, Kegon and Shingon, attacked the Tendai school and the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Perhaps because none of the members of the Tendai school could measure up to the stature of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, though they were aware of the falsity of these other teachings, they did not attempt to speak out against them in public as T’ien-t’ai had. As a result, everyone throughout the country, from the ruler and high ministers on down to the common people, was led astray from the true teachings of Buddhism, and no one any longer came to attain enlightenment. Such were the events of the first two hundred years or more of the latter five-hundred-year period of the Middle Day of the Law.'" -- The Selection of the Time.
No comments:
Post a Comment