The Mind as the Buddha Nature: The Concept of the Absolute in Chan Buddhism

7/27/2019 The Mind as the Buddha Nature: The Concept of the Absolute in Chan Buddhism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-mind-as-the-buddha-nature-the-concept-of-the-absolute-in-chan-buddhism 1/11

THE MIND AS THE BUDDHA-NATURE:THE CONCEPT OF THE ABSOLUTE IN CH’AN BUDDHISM

By Yun-hun JanAlthough Ch’an Buddhism has a long history, the name of the Ch’an School (ch’an-men

or ch’an-tsung )(1) was a relatively late development. It was Tsung-mi (780-841), thegreat Master of Kuei-fung who, for the first time, adopted the term in the ninth centuryA.D. It is interesting to note that it was the same monk-scholar who used the School ofMind (hsin-tsung ) as a synonym of the Ch’an school. Tsung-mi was a scholar ofBuddhist thought who had personal experience in the broad-ranging knowledge ofCh’an traditions. He collected relevant materials and wrote extensively in an effort toanalyze the doctrine and practices of the tradition. His identification of the Mind with theCh’an indicates that, in his opinion, the Mind was the central focus of the school.Although Tsung-mi contributed a good deal to the understanding of Ch’an Buddhism, hiscontributions remained almost unknown for a thousand years; it is only during the lasttwo decades that scholars have gradually come to recognize his contribution, with

considerable astonishment and admiration. This article is an attempt to describe,analyze and assess Tsung-mi’s thesis that the doctrine of Mind is the central focus ofCh’an Buddhism and that the Mind itself is the absolute.

THE BACKGROUNDAlthough the early development of Ch’an in China is still not entirely known, its generaloutline is relatively clear. Initially there were a limited number of practitioners whofollowed the teachings of Bodhidharma and who often added new elements to thetradition. However, from the early days of the eighth century A.D., the tradition suddenly

began to flourish. Various teachers developed a following and achieved someeminence, all of them claiming that they were the true authorities of the Ch’an school. Inspite of their identical claims, their doctrines and methods for cultivation were partly inagreement and partly in conflict. Taking the doctrine of Mind as an example, most ofthese teachers agreed that the Mind in its essence is quiet, pure and absolute, while afew others remained ambiguous on the subject. Apart from this theoretical difference,there was also a controversy with respect to cultivation, namely, if the Mind is pure, allmental functions would be pure and that being the case, control of the mind would beunnecessary. On the other hand, if the mind is not entirely pure, then in spiritual effortssome control becomes essential. Those who spoke of the mind with a pan-realistic tonecan be represented by Ma-tsu or Tao-i (709-788) and his disciples. They were known at

the time as the Hung-chou school of Ch’an Buddhism. The teaching of Tao-i is wellknown for its dictum, "This Mind is the Buddha." He advised his disciples: "All of youshould realize that your own Mind is Buddha, that is, this mind is Buddha’s mind." (4)Monk P’u-yuan (748-834) of Nan-ch’uan stated that the "Tao is nothing but the ordinarymind." (5) Pang Yun, a lay disciple of Ma-tsu, also claimed that "with the three timesnon-existent, Mind is the same as Buddha-mind." (6) Monk Hui-hai, the favorite "greatpearl" of this same master, often told his audiences: "Your mind is the Buddha, it is



unnecessary to use the Buddha to search for another Buddha; your mind is the Law, itis unnecessary to use the Law to search for another Law." (7) If this claim that the Mind is the Buddha is difficult for scholars to understand withoutany explanation, the concept itself is even more difficult. This is inevitable since the

Ch’an school as a whole and the Hung-chou school in particular were fond of drasticmethods in striving to attain enlightenment. Taking a conversation as an illustration ofsuch difficulties, let us recall the story of Fa-ch’ang (752-839), another member of theschool. When this monk became the abbot of a monastery, he was asked by acolleague: "What have you learnt from the great Master that qualified you to become theabbot of this monastery?" "The abbot replied, "The great Master has told me that thisvery mind is the Buddha." "The Great Master has lately changed his way of teaching,"the questioner said, "he is now saying that this very mind is neither the Mind nor theBuddha." The abbot said, "This old fellow has confused people ceaselessly without anend. I do not care that he has said that it is neither the Mind nor the Buddha; I still holdthat this very mind is the Buddha." (8)When the great Master heard the conversation, he said that the abbot had now becomemature. The pan-realistic tone of the school was accurately noted by Tsung-mi when hewrote his typologies of Ch’an Buddhism. He described the school as follows:

[The school taught that all actions such as] the arising of mind, the movements ofthought, a snapping of fingers, a sigh or a cough, or to raise the eyebrows, all thefunctions of the whole substance of Buddha-nature... All coveting, hatred anddelusion, all acts of good and evil with their fruit of suffering and pleasure arenothing but Buddha-nature....(9)

In contrast with the aforementioned pan-realistic philosophy, there was anotherinfluential but shadowy branch of Ch’an Buddhism which is known as the Ox-Headschool. It was influential inasmuch as recent research has determined that many basicdoctrines as well as documents attributed to Bodhidharma are actually the works of thisschool. (10) It was shadowy inasmuch as recent research has disproved the claim thatthe founder of this school was a disciple of the fourth patriarch of Ch’an school. (11)Whatever the history might be, one fact is clear. By the eighth century A.D., Fa-jung(594-657) had already been accepted by Ch’an Buddhists as the founder of the Ox-Head school and the school was regarded as a branch of the Ch’an tradition. What wasthe principal doctrine of the school? The verses attributed to Fa-jung summarizes it asfollows: When no-mind, there is instantly nothing.

When nothing, one confronts instantly the reality of Heaven.This reality is the Tao which is great.Mind and Nature are never born,What is the use of views and knowledge?Even not a single dharma ever existed,Why care about perfuming and refinement? (12)



At the time Tsung-mi composed his treatises on the typology of Ch’an Buddhism, hedescribed the doctrine of the Ox-Head school as follows:

The sect has taught the absolute negation without anything to rely on. This is to

say that everything, both profane and sacred are dreamlike illusions and entirelynonexistent. The nonexistent does not begin from the present but is originally so.Even the knowledge which leads one to attain to nothingness is unobtainable.There are no Buddhas nor sentient beings, as all are identical in theDharmadhatu; and even the Dharmadhatu itself is merely a borrowed name. Ifthe mind is nonexistent, who will talk about the Dharmadhatu? As the cultivationitself is nonexistent, one should not cultivate; and as Buddhas are nonexistent,so their worship is unnecessary. If one claims that there is a dharma which isbetter than nirvana, I would still say that it is a dreamlike illusion. There is no Lawto follow, nor a Buddhahood to attain. Whatever the effort, all are deluding andfalse. (13)

Apart from the theoretical difference between the Ox-Head and Hung-chou schools,there was also a controversy regarding religious cultivation. According to the pan-realistic school of Hung-chou, since the Mind is the Buddha, thoughts and actions aremanifestations of the Mind. One should not restrain the Mind nor cultivate the Mind bythe Mind itself. Cultivation means doing nothing and letting the Mind be completely free.The Ox-Head School of Negation agrees with the teaching of doing nothing as the wayfor cultivation, but it supports this teaching on different grounds. Considering thateverything is dreamlike and entirely nonexistent, any cultivation is unnecessary. Onewould be a fool if he wasted time and effort for nothing. In contrast with the teaching ofdoing nothing, there were other schools of Ch’an which strongly opposed this radical

attitude. Of these opponents, the Northern school is representative. According to thisschool, although the mind is originally pure, it is often polluted by defilement due toignorance and cravings. One has to control the Mind so that it will not be furtherpolluted; and one has to study and to live a pure life so that the past pollutions will begradually removed.When these conflicting views and practical teachings are compared, the controversy isclear and dramatic. Tsung-mi recognized this situation as a problem when hecommented that "the doctrines preached by these established sects are contradictoryand obstructive to each other." (14) He further pointed out that "some claimed that frommorning to evening all actions arising from the views of discrimination are false; some

say all discriminate doings are real...." (15) At a practical level, he noted that "Some givefree course to their will; some restrain their mind." (16)How could this confusion be cleared up and those who seek enlightenment frombewilderment be set free? First, Tsung-mi collected all available documents of the Ch’anschools. Then, compared and analyzed them according to Buddhist doctrines. Hisdetachment from personal involvement gave him a degree of independence andobjectivity, and his analysis of Ch’an experiences in the light of Buddhist philosophy



made his presentation more systematic. As far as the Ch’an concept of the Mind isconcerned, he found that the same controversy also existed in Buddhist scriptures. Hestates: "In some sutras, the Mind has been blamed as a thief, hence it must be cut off;whereas in others, the Mind has been praised as the Buddha, hence it is urged tocultivate it. Some say it is good; while others say it is evil...." (17) THE FOUR ASPECTS OF MINDAfter careful study and deep reflection, Tsung-mi came out with a new interpretation ofthe Ch’an concept of Mind. His interpretation of the Mind is largely dependent on theframework of a well-known and accepted text, the Awakening of Faith [Ta-ch’eng ch’i- hsin-lun ] attributed to Asvaghosha. Based on this text, Tsung-mi considers that as adharma, the Mind has two aspects: the absolute and the phenomenal. (18) Theabsolute aspect is the substance (t’i ); and the phenomenal aspect is the appearance(hsiang ). The absolute aspect is universal and unchanging, yet it is capable of adaptingitself to particular and changing situations. He further argued that the unchanging

substance is the principal and that the changeable adaptations are its meanings. Thecentral problem lies with a dialectic understanding of the relationship between the twoseemingly incompatible aspects.Though Tsung-mi follows the theoretical framework of the Awakening of Faith bydividing the Mind into two aspects, his interpretation is not a mechanical transplantationor a simplistic compromise. Rather, it is a carefully thought out interpretation based onan assimilation of Buddhist philosophy as a whole. First, it involved dividing the Mindinto two primary aspects, the absolute and the phenomenal. Second, he furthertrifurcated the phenomenal into three aspects. Finally, he synthesized all the aspectsinto a unified system. Tsung-mi states that the Mind should be discussed using four

different terms. These four terms originated in different Sanskrit words as well as in theirChinese equivalents. Because of a lack of clear understanding of these terms,confusion and bewilderment have arisen. To remove this confusion and bewilderment, itis necessary to have a clear understanding of the different aspects of the Mind. Whatare these aspects? Tsung-mi states that the Mind can be understood in terms ofphysical, mental, collective consciousness, and the absolute. The first three aspects arephenomenal, and the last one is entirely absolute. Now let us see how he analyzed theMind into these four aspects.The first aspect of Mind in his analysis is the physical heart. He states it is originallyknown in India as hrdaya , which is one of the five viscera. Tsung-mi noted that the heart

had been discussed in a Taoist text, the Huang-t’ing ching [Yellow Court Canon (19)].This may lead some scholars to suspect that this concept may be a form borrowedwholesale from the Taoist theory of the physical body. This suspicion seems moreplausible when one reads from Reverend Nyanatiloka’s statement on hadayavatthu: "Inthe canonical texts, however, even in the Abhidhamma-pitaka, no such (physical) baseis ever localized, a fact which seems to have first been discovered by Shwe ZanOung." (20) As far as Chinese Buddhist tradition is concerned, the physical base ofconsciousness had already been mentioned in a commentary to the Yogacaryabhumi-



sastra, Yu-chia-lun chi by Tun-lun of the T’ang dynasty (618-906). (21) This is not tosuggest that Tsung-mi’s statement on the physical mind or heart owed nothing to theTaoist text, which is fact Tsung-mi himself had openly acknowledged in delineating thisaspect of mind.The second aspect of mind named by Tsung-mi was Yuan-lu hsin ,(22) which may berendered as "the Thinking Mind." The word yuan is understood as an abbreviation ofp’an-yuan which means "to cling on to conditional objects"; and lu means "to consider."The term indicates that the two important functions of this mind are its grasp and itsdiscrimination of objects. Tsung-mi himself identified this aspect with the eight kinds ofconsciousness found in Yogacarin philosophy. This includes both the consciousnessand the mental properties (cetasikas ). He further pointed out that some of them aredeterminable and others are not; some are good and some are evil. This aspect of Mindhas been discussed at length in various scriptures.The third aspect of Mind as listed by Tsung-mi is citta . In Chinese this is called chi-ch’i

hsin, literally meaning the "accumulative and ensuing mind." (23) This is identical withalayavijnana , the eighth consciousness in the Yogacara system. The descriptive term‘accumulative and ensuing’ denotes the principal functions of consciousness, that is, thecosmic process of consciousness as the Alaya "is the receptum of the impressions ofpast vijnanas , while in its own turn it gives rise to further vijnanas by maturing thoseimpressions." (24) Tsung-mi also contends that this aspect of mind is what the Taoistschool calls the ‘spirit’ (shen ) and what other religions in India call the ‘self’ (atman ). Hisinterpretation of Alayavijnana as the spirit or the Self certainly seems biased, as itimplies that the Taoist and Vedantic concepts of absolute are, in his judgment, really notthe absolute at all. Rather, they are only equal to the higher consciousness in theBuddhist scheme. However, as this is only of marginal interest here, we must leave the

development of this observation to some later discussion.The most important aspect of the Mind is the fourth, which Tsung-mi calls hrdaya orChien-shih hsin , literally meaning the "firm and solid Mind." (25) Tsung-mi claims thatthis actually "is the real Mind." He further urges that "because the eighth consciousnesshas no separate entity of its own apart from the Real Mind,"(26) it is easy for scholars tomisunderstand the two as being the same. The Real Mind has two functions:associability and dissociability with false thoughts. The associability is determined byignorance; when ignorance is removed by wisdom, the associability will be transformedinto dissociability. Tsung-mi explains that "the word ‘Associability’ refers to the inclusivepower of Mind in its relation to purity or Impurity. This is why the mind has been termed

as the Storehouse of consciousness. The word ‘dissociability’ refers to the exclusivepower of Mind in its relation to phenomena, i.e., the unchanging Substance. This is whythe Mind is also termed as Suchness. Both of them are jointly known as the Womb ofTathaagata." (27)Tsung-mi quotes from three scriptures to support his theory of absolute Mind and itsphenomenal aspects. The first quotation is from the Lankavatara Sutra , which statesthat "The name of nirvana is One-mind. One-mind is the Womb of Tathagata." (28) On



the basis of this quotation, he justifies his identification of the One-mind with the othertwo terms, nirvana and Tathagatagarbha. The second quotation comes from theSrimaladevi Sutra , which declares that "This Dharmakaya... when not free from theStore of defilement is referred to as the Tathagatagarbha." (29) This justifies Tsung-mi’scontention that the four aspects of Mind, both pure and impure are originally of the

same substance. The third quotation is from the Ghanavyuha Sutra , which is translatedas follows:The Womb of Tathagata spoken by the Buddha means alayavijnana; however,those of defective knowledge do not understand that the Womb is thealayavijnana. The relationship between the pure Womb of Tathagata and theworldly alayavijnana resembles gold and its productions such as finger-rings; thecharacteristics might be different, yet [the substance] is not. (30)

With the support of the aforementioned scriptural sources, Tsung-mi states that the"True Nature (bhutatathata ) of the original Enlightenment in all sentient beings is also

known as the Buddha-nature (Buddhata ) or the Mind (hsin-ti )." (31) In his opinion, thisTrue Nature "is the Source of all dharmas; this is why it has also been termed as theDharmata. It is the Source of both the deluded and the enlightened; this is the reasonwhy it is known as the Storehouse Consciousness or the Tathagatagarbha." (32)Although the four aspects of the Mind do not differ in substance, this does not mean thatthey are identical. In that event, there would be no dispute between our author and thepan-realistic school of Hung-chou. Tsung-mi explains that in substance there is nodifference between the deluded and the enlightened, as all of them have the Mind orBuddha-nature innately. Hence they are capable of enlightenment. However, theabsolute Mind is subject to momentary delusion if it is obscured by ignorance, thus

differentiating itself into various views. Once the Mind is differentiated and involved withviews and responds to worldly affairs, then "there are differences between real andfalse, root and branches." (33) When this difference is expressed in terms of Mind, "thefirst three aspects of the Mind are appearances (laksana ) while the fourth is the TrueNature (tattva )." (34) Because of cause and conditions, appearances arise from theNature, and are differentiated as appearances. When the manifold appearances areexamined carefully, one finds that they are seemingly real but are actually unreal.Although the characteristic appearance is unreal, it is not completely empty, becausethe momentary appearances are the manifestations of the Mind itself, which is absolute. In this argument Tsung-mi contends that though the appearances and the substance

are seemingly contradictory, they are actually neither in conflict nor mutually obstructive.It is like a luminous pearl which has no fixed color of its own, but is capable of reflectingall colors that is encounters. (35) The colors may be different and contradictory and theluminosity of the pearl may seem to be incompatible with the colors, yet they existharmoniously among themselves, with no conflict or obstacle. It is only the viewer whomight be correct or mistaken, and misunderstand the situation. When deluded, onewould see these two categories as entirely different and think it impossible for them to



penetrate each other. When enlightened, one would see that all these aspects arerelated, without any difficulty.Tsung-mi points out that enlightenment is a religious experience, and harmony is oneaspect of this experience. It would be impossible for one to achieve a higher and

dialectical understanding of the One Mind and its manifold aspects if he is interestedaimlessly in bookish research, or trusts only to his personal experience, which is limitedin scope and individual in character.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INTERPRETATIONTsung-mi’s interpretation of Mind is a very interesting and significant contribution to thehistory of Ch’an Buddhism. Philosophically, this represents a new Mahayana absolutismwhich has since dominated Chinese Buddhist thought. Soteriologically, it brings eachman directly into confrontation with religious reality which is innately within man himself.

The Buddhahood or nirvana is no longer a remote theory but an imminent possibility,and may be attainable by every man if he works at it. With respect to Buddhistinstitutions, this philosophy has given qualified recognition to monastic institutions, booklearning, and meditation. These institutions may not insure one the attainment of thehighest religious goal, yet they are necessary is cultivation, especially at the initialstages.As far as philosophy is concerned, we may recall the intellectual background of Tsung-mi. There were two contending schools in Ch’an Buddhism, the first held that the Mindand its manifestations are all real, no cultivation is necessary and everyday life isreligious in itself. In other words, there is no difference between sacred and profane

whatsoever. In saying this, one may misunderstand this philosophy as followingNagarjuna’s precept that there is not the slightest difference whatsoever betweennirvana and samsara. (36) It is true that the sayings of these two schools are verysimilar in tone but they have actually started from two different points. For Nagarjuna,the absolute and the phenomenal are not different because both of them are empty(sunya ); for the Hung-chou school of Ch’an the Absolute and the phenomenal are thesame, because both of them are the Absolute. Once this position is accepted, difficultiesarise. Taking the concept of evil as an example, it has to be maintained because evildoes not exist by itself, but as a presentation of the Mind. As an ultimate, consequence,all religious prescriptions become meaningless and unnecessary.From its absolute point of view, it may argue for the nonexistence of evil and themanifestation of the Mind without much difficulty. Yet one has to remember that inBuddhist philosophy, absolute knowledge has to begin with phenomena. The maindifficulty for the Hung-chou school is that it holds to an absolute theory and applies it tophenomena indiscriminately. So doing, it no longer remains within the Middle Path. Tofollow this doctrine is to be led into three consequent errors, namely, confusing thesacred and the profane at an empirical level, taking wrong as right, and disputing with



other schools of thought that may hold a perfect view of truth, or simply view theabsolute truth from a different angle.The second Ch’an doctrine of Mind represented by the Ox-Head school claims thatnothing is existent, neither the absolute nor the phenomenal. This also has its

difficulties. Although such a negative dialectic may be an effective tool for determiningthe truth, at the same time it often misleads readers to regard its doctrine as nihilism.While it skillfully demonstrates the fallacies of positive philosophy, it is unable to providea substitute. One may claim that the absolute can only be known through negativedialectic, and there is no other possible substitute. But it should be remembered thatBuddhism has never existed simply as an academic philosophy but as a completereligion. Philosophy is useful only when it serves religious purposes, and it is, therefore,only one of the various aspects of religion, but not the whole of it. When Tsung-mi’sinterpretation is placed in context, his significant contribution is seen. His analysis ofMind into four aspects is a creative interpretation. It may be viewed as a new synthesis,as it includes both the absolute and the phenomenal aspects of Mind. In this way,

Tsung-mi also clearly points out that though these aspects belong to one scheme, theyare not identical. It is this dialectical relation between the non-differentiation at theabsolute level and the differentiation at the phenomenal level that enables him toovercome the difficulties created by the positive and the negative understanding ofBuddhism represented by the Hung-chou and Ox-Head schools respectively. It is alsothrough his interpretation of absolute Mind that Tsung-mi is able to reunify Buddhism asone.To view this philosophy in terms of its Indian background, the scheme is largelyinfluenced both by Yogacara and Madhyamika. The concept of storehouseconsciousness is accepted, but it is augmented with the concept of absolute Mind.

Some Madhyamika ideas of absolute are accepted, but the process and negations arenot followed with any conviction. Apart from these theoretical differences the Ch’anBuddhist never loses sight of practices. Unlike the Indian Buddhists, the Ch’an Buddhisthas never been interested in purely logical arguments, but has focused more onreligious experiences. The identification of the Mind as the absolute is very important toCh’an soteriology. Throughout the history of Buddhism, mind has consistently surfacedas one of the principal problems. With the exception of the Yogacarins, no otherBuddhist school ever argued, as forcefully as did Tsung-mi, that the Mind itself was theabsolute. What was the reason for him doing so? The answer is that according to Ch’antradition, the Mind is the key in religious life. A Ch’an text states that according to Fo- ming ching ("The Scripture of Buddhas’ Names"), "Evils arise from the Mind, so they

have to be eliminated by the Mind." (37) Since all evil and good begins from the mind,most of the Ch’an Buddhists consider "the Mind as the Foundation." If this is the case,"One has to know the Foundation first in the search for the liberation." (38) AnotherCh’an text quotes a verse attributed to Hui-ssu (515-557), the founder of the T’ien-t’aischool and an expert in meditation: "In the discussion of learning, it is necessary topenetrate the Mind first. If the Mind is penetrated, all laws are penetratedsimultaneously." (39) Tsung-mi agrees with this view. He states, "The Mind is the Sourceof all dharmas. What dharmas are not included in this Source?" (40) This Mind becomes



"impure when deluded; pure when enlightened, sacred when cultivated and profanewhen uncultivated, capable of producing all the dharmas, both conditioned as well asunconditioned." (41) The cultivation of Ch’an Buddhism in this doctrine, therefore, is thecultivation of Mind. Once the Mind is illuminated, the teachings contained in thescriptures and the experience from meditation and the moral life all become meaningful

and beneficial. Otherwise, these efforts are not only fruitless but could even becomeobstacles to enlightenment. The focus of Mind as the absolute makes the salvation nolonger an academic or remote goal, but a personal and immediate one with each of us.This is the soteriology of Ch’an Buddhism, and this is the significance of Tsung-mi’scontribution to the tradition.

ABBREVIATIONSCYC Ch’an-yuan chu-ch’uan-chi Tu-hsu . Chinese text and Japanese translation byShigeo Kamata(z) under the title of Zen no goroku 9: Zengen shosenshutojo (Tokyo:

Chikuma Shobo, 1971).Tsung-mi’s other work, Ch’an-men shih-tzu ch’eng-hsi t’u , is also included in thisvolume. Taisho shinshuu daizokyo . (Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924-1932).TP T’oung Pao .

NOTES1. CYC pp. 13 and 17 for the term of ch’an-men ; pp. 57, 86, 210 and 320 for ch’an- tsung . Compare Sekiguchi Shindai, "Zenshuu no hassei," Fukui sensei shoju ki’nen Toyo shiso ronshuu (Tokyo, 1960), pp. 321-338.2. Jan Yun-hua, "Tsung-mi and his Analysis of Ch’an Buddhism," TP 58 (1972): 1-54; fora detailed study of Tsung-mi, see Shigeo Kamata, Shuumitsu kyogaku no shisoshi teki kenkyuu (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 1975).3. CYC, pp. 30 and 254.4. Chang Chung-yuan, Original Teachings of Ch’an Buddhism (New York: Vintage

Books, 1971), pp. 149.5. Wu, John C. H., The Golden Age of Zen (Taipei: The National War College, 1967), p.94.6. Sasaki, Ruth Fuller, et al. trans. The Record of Layman P’ang , a Ninth Century Zen Classic . (New York: Weatherhill, 1971), p. 86.



7. Tsu-t’ang chi by Ching and Yun (Taipei: Kuang-wen shu-chu, reprint of Koreanwoodblock edition, 1972), p. 265b.8. Wu, op. cit., pp. 95-96.9. Jan, op. cit., "Tsung-mi," TP, 58, p. 46.10. Sekiguchi Shindai, Daruma daishi no kenkyuu , (Tokyo: Shunju sha, 1957), 82-185;Yin-shun, Chung-kuo ch’an-tsung shih (Taipei: Hui-jih chiang t’ang, 1971), pp. 85-128.11. Yin-shun, op. cit., pp. 96-98.12. Translated from the Chueh-kuan lun , T, 48, p. 564a.13. Jan, "Tsung-mi," TP, 58, p. 38 with some minor modifications.14. Ibid., p.36.15. Ibid.16. Ibid.17. Ibid.18. "This Mind includes in itself all states of being of the phenomenal world and thetranscendental world...." From Yoshita S. Hakeda’s translation of The Awakening of Faith (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 28.19. For original text of Tsung-mi’s description of Mind, see CYC, pp. 70ff. For hisreference to the Taoist text, see the Huang-t’ing nei-ching yu-ching chu , in the Cheng- t’ung Tao-tsang (Popular Edition, Taipei: I-wen Yin-shu kuan, 1977). vol. 10, pp.8245-8246.20. See Buddhist Dictionary (Colombo: Frewin, 1972), p. 62; compare Compendium of Philosophy (London: Pali Text Society, 1967 reprint), pp. 277.21. As Kamata has pointed out, in the other work of Tsung-mi, Tsung-mi has alsoreferred to this Taoist text. It is obvious that the statement such as "Various paths

converged at the same point; essences returned to the One...." is parallel to Tsung-mi’sthought. See Yuan-chueh-ching ta-shu ch’ao , chapt. 1 in the Hsu Tsang-ching (Taipei:Chung kuo fo-chiao hui reprint, 1967), vol. 14, p. 206a. 22. CYC, p. 70.23. Ihid.



24. A.K. Chatterjee, The Yogacara Idealism (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1962),pp. 115f.25. CYC, p. 70.26. Ibid.27. Ibid.28. Translated from Ju Leng-chia Ching chapt. 1, T, vol. 16, p. 519a.29. From the translation of A. Wayman, The Lion’s Roar of Queen Srimala (New York:Columbia University Press, 1974), p. 98.30. Translated from the Ta-ch’eng mi-yen ching , T, no. 681,vol. 16, p. 776a.31. CYC, p. 13.32. Ibid., l7.33. Ibid., p.70.34. Ibid.35. See Jan, "Tsung-mi" 58, pp. 51 -53 under the subtitle "A Metaphorical Description."36. From Kenneth K. Inada’s translation, Nagarjuna, A Translation of His

Mulamadhyamakakarika (Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970), chapt. 25, verse 20, p.158.37. This has been quoted by Hui-hai, a Ch’an monk in his book, Tun-wu yao-men ,Chinese text with a Japanese translation by Hirano Shuujo, Zen no goroku 6: Tongo Yomon (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1970), p. 8.38. Ibid.39. From Tsung-ching lu, by Yen-shou (pp. 904-975), chapt. 97 (Hangchou, 1876, wood-block edition), p. 13b.40. CYC, p. 254.41 Ibid., p. 170.

Documents

The Mind as the Buddha Nature: The Concept of the Absolute in Chan Buddhism