8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 1/25
Chinese Buddhist Causation Theories: An Analysis of the Sinitic Mahāyāna Understanding ofPratitya-samutpādaAuthor(s): Whalen LaiSource: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 241-264Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1397998 .
Accessed: 19/01/2014 22:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy
East and West.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 2/25
WhalenLai Chinese Buddhist causation theories: An analysis of thesinitic Mahiayna understandingof Pratitya-samutpada
INTRODUCTION: BASICISSUES
Karl Potter in Presuppositions in Indian Philosophies has underscored the fact
that causation is a key and basic Indian philosophical concern. To achieve
liberation from the cycles of rebirth, samsira, and to break away from the
endless process of karma, it is important to realize the weak link in the chain
of causation and thereby to break from the world of cause and effect.' JosephNeedham, in his Science and Civilization in China,volume 2, points out, on the
other hand, that the Chinese did not have native concepts comparable to the
English terms of "cause" and effect." It was, he notes, the Buddhists from
India who first introduced such "causative" framework of analyzing relation-
ships to the Chinese.2 Needham's observation does not imply that the Chinese
in pre-Buddhist times had no sense of temporal sequence concerning what
went before and what came after as a consequence. For all practical purposes,the Chinese knew of antecedents and consequents, and her scientists in ancient
times were not ignorant of the working of the universe. What might distinguishthe Chinese perception of the sequential relationships, however, was her
tendency to use a organistic (Needham) or, biogenerative or procreatory model
to understandthe same relationship. Instead of the Western mechanical model
of "A as the cause produces B as the effect," the Chinese used a biologicalmodel instead: A as origin,pena, produces B as end, mob. The Chinese conceptsof pen/mo acted as the analytical tools to understand sequential relationships.
Representative of such an outlook would be the I Chingcconcept of Change
as life giving birth to life, or the (Confucian) notion of Heaven and Earthprocreating the myriad things or the Taoist idea of the Tao as the Mother of
all. The East-West difference is this: the mechanical model of cause and effect
tends to assume two distinguishable entities;3 the biogenerative model of penand mo suggests instead a fluid, organic continuum.4 The mechanical model
might be related to the notion of God as Creator and of Law, divine or natural.5
The pen-morelationship recalls a fertility motif. The termspen-mowere derived
from the pictograph of fertility: mother Earth or tree or wood. As the branch
is to the tree trunk, mo (the tip) is a natural outgrowth of pen (basis): that is,
the branchis an extension of the trunk. Similarly, Chinese cosmology repeatedlyinvokes the notion that the many are ultimately originated from, fathered by,and basically in harmony with, the One. "From the one pen came the myriadmo," characterized Han thought in general.6
Considering the fact that Indian philosophy was committed to the analysisof causative relationships and that the Chinese were more prompt to see the
fluidity between origin and end, it would appear that the Chinese Buddhists
would have some initial difficulties in digesting theparticulartheory of causation
proposed by Gautama the Buddha. Cultural boundaries, however, are neverabsolute, and it is to the credit of the Chinese Buddhists that they did make
Whalen Lai is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the Universityof California, Davis.
PhilosophyEast and West27, no. 3, July 1977. ? by The University Press of Hawaii. All rights reserved.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 3/25
242 Lai
an effort and succeed, in many ways, in understanding the implication of
Gautama's theory of causation. However, the Chinese had to come up with
some innovative terms to translate cause (hetu) and effect (phala). They chose
the words yind and kuoe, originally meaning approximately "the basis for"
and "the fruit" for cause and effect. Even in modem Chinese usage, yin-kuo
(commonlyused to
designatekarmic
retribution)does not
fully correspondto
the English concepts of cause and effect.7
Given the indigenous Chinese proclivity for an organic world view, it would
hardly be surprising that China would eventually modify the Buddhist theoryof causation to fit her own taste. Knowingly or unknowingly, that modification
did take place when Chinese Buddhist traditions attained maturityand ventured
independently toward a new articulation of older Indian Buddhist insights.The new articulation, the modifications, should not be seen as a distortion,
for in a verysubtleway, the Chinese gave an ingenious native twist to Gautama's
initial insights. This twist was inspired or facilitated by the fact that Gautama'scausation theory criticized a naive cause-and-effect sequence. The final result
might seem un-Indian to an Indological purist. It is clearly sinicized, but it
should be remembered that the same end product would equally appear non-
Chinese and evidently Indic to a Sinological purist. It would be best to regardthe final Chinese Buddhist formulations of causation theories as reflective of
an Indo-Chinese synthesis, better still, as the expression of sinitic Mahayana
speculations on the nature of ultimate reality.8Since causation is at the heart of Buddhist
thoughtas well as of Hindu
thought in general, a full treatment of the sinicization of this Indian aspectwould be practically impossible. In this short essay, I will focus primarily on
the way in which mature Chinese Buddhists reviewed, in retrospection, the
various causation theories within Buddhism. I will analyze, in a philosophical
manner, the implications of the Chinese retrospective evaluations and the
origins of the "hierarchial" structures. I will leave the more historical aspectsto another occasion.9 It will be shown that the kind ofpen-mo fluidity outlined
earlier and the Chinese inclinations toward cosmic monism transformed the
Indian Buddhist theory of causation. At the same time, Chinese metaphysicsinherited the philosophy of identity, infinity, and spontaneity (what Garma
Chang calls Totalism) via the Hua-yenf school's understanding of the Mad-
hyamika critique of temporality. In the Hua-yen school (which later influenced
Neo-Confucianism10) we will see an extravagant theory of a cosmic, infinite,
ceaseless autogenesis of the universe by the universe itself.
Buddhist causation theory has been the object of much study. RecentlyDavid J. Kalupahana in Causality. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1975)has provided us with an in-depth
study of the Indian side of the story and dispelled some myths and misunder-
standings of paticcasamuppada.According to Kalupahana, the early Buddhists
were empiricalphenomenalists and cause was seen as the sum total of coexisting
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 4/25
243
factors that gave rise to a consequent. Early Buddhist texts did not differentiate
between cause (hetu) and condition (pratyaya). The distinction between the
pair (with which I shall begin the discussion in the study) began with the
Sarvastivadins. Cause was then seen as comparable to a seed, and condition
as comparable to auxiliary factors (moisture, sun etc.) needed to bring the
seed to fruition as the result(phala).
Inadopting
atheory
of self-nature
(svabhdva)the Sarvastivadins risked reviving the old satkaryavadaphilosophy
(see following discussion, herein). Their attempt to salvage the Buddha's denial
of that philosophy with recourse to a new theory of momentariness (ksana) led
to a doctrine of the reality of static past, present, and future. The reaction was
the Madhyamika critique of Nagarjuna that denied any substance to the so-
called self-nature of things. Nagarjuna's emptiness philosophy (sunyavada)then led to a transcendentalcritique that went beyond the earlier phenome-nalism. The three times and causality were reinterpreted.1l
The meaning of causation clearly was at the heart of the Buddhistphilosophy.How the Chinese understood and reformulated that insight is therefore crucial
to Chinese Buddhist developments. Although the Chinese Agamas may
preserve some early Buddhist insights, by the time they were sophisticated
enough to move beyond the Taoistic exegesis, the Chinese fell under the later
influence of the Sarvastivada/Madhyamika phase. Shoson Miyamoto's "A
Reappraisal of Pratitya-samutpada"12can introduce us to the issues at hand.
THE MEANINGOF PRATITYASAMUTPADA
The theory of causation ascribed to Gautama has to be understood, at first,
in the context of other options in Indian thought.13 Gautama apparently
challenged the Upanisadic notion of a permanent soul or self, itman, and
posited what came to be known as the andtman tradition of no-self or no-soul.
Steering the Middle Path between extremes, Gautama equally avoided the
other alternative of the Ucchedavadins (annihilationists), who held the idea
that reality is totally fragmentated, and nothing ever lasts or affects what
comes after. In so steeringbetween the extremes, Gautama, often time impatient
with and indifferent to metaphysical speculations, gave no definitive answer.He left the problems to his followers to ponder upon in their metaphysical
spare time.
Closely related to the preceding, is Gautama's similar denial of parindmavdda
(evolutionism) on one hand, and irambhavdda(compositionism) on the other.
The former assumes that all phenomena evolve out of a basic ontological
source; the latter denies the existence of any basic substance/substances and
posits instead a plurality of coexisting entities that have no reference to ante-
cedent causes. The former aligns itself easily with the Vedanta or the Samkhya
traditions, the latter with the outlook of the Ucchedavadins. Gautama, in
following the Middle Path, steered between the eternalism of basic substance
source and the randomness of cut-up component elements that had absolutely
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 5/25
244 Lai
no links to one another. He wanted neither determinism nor indeterminism,
fatalism nor nihilism. He proposed then his theory of pratTtyasamutpida.
Basically, his theory proposes concomitancy: "There being A, there is B.
There being not A, there is not B." There being cravings, there is suffering.
There being the cessation of craving, there is cessation of suffering.14PratTtya-
samutpddahas been translated variously as dependent coorigination,inter-
dependent causation or simply as causation. Speaking probably from within
the "northern path" and Far Eastern tradition, Miyamoto notes:
Pratitya-samutpada is sometimes rendered 'causality' in English, but this is
very misleading because it is not mere cause-effect relationship; rather, it isan attempt to interpolate pratitya (auxiliary factor, condition) as the most
important condition in the formula of cause -- condition -> effect.15
Pratltyasamutpadaliterally means conditioned coarising. Pratyaya refers to
the condition or auxiliary cause or concomitant factor; samutpadarefers to
arising together. The Chinese had, not incorrectly, used the term yiian-ch'i9:
yiian for pratyaya and ch'i meaning rising for samutpida. Pratyaya is neither
the cause nor the effect, but, as Miyamoto points out, the key intermediate
factor in the normal sequence of cause -+ condition -> effect. Cause is hetu
(Chinese, yin), and effect is phala (Chinese, kuo). Hetu would bear phala or
cause, effect, when and only when the favored condition (pratyaya, yuan) is
present. Thus, for example, the seed (cause) would require moisture and earth
(the conditions, auxiliary causes, or concomitant factors) before it can produce
fruit(the effect). By interpolating
this intervening factor, Gautama very
ingeniously avoided the parindmatradition (evolutionism, that is, things evolve
froma basic materialcause) by insistingthat secondaryconditions arenecessary.
Similarly, Gautama avoided the irambhavada option (plurality of entities
coexisting with no reference to antecedent causes), by insisting that things
arise concomitant to and with one another (samutpada)because the mutual
conditions are ripe. Gautama, the philosopher-and-therapist,16avoided causal
determinism on the one hand and acausal coexistence on the other.
The reader by now realize that (1) the theory of pratTtyasamutpila is not
simply causation like A causes B, that is, not the naive cause-and-effect re-lationship, and (2) it was proposed within an Indian context out of a peculiar
range of options as was just explained. The difficulties facing an English-
speaking reader unfamiliar with the Indian concerns for various causalities
within their philosophical context, in this regard, are not very different from
the difficulties that faced the Chinese in the fourth to sixth centuries A.D.
China then had to acquire "causative relationships" which she never had use
for in her biogenerative (pen/mo) world view. China had to learn it outside
the philosophical context of the Indian obsession with causality. Finally,
having no prior notion of cause or effect (hetu phala), she had maybe double
the difficulties understanding the nuance of pratyaya as something between
cause and effect. China chose the right (right, perhaps by convention) term to
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 6/25
245
translate the Sanskritoriginal. She used the word yuan, which originally meant
"rim, along side" to evoke the meaning of "condition, auxiliary factor, con-
comitant cause." Like the choice of kuo for phala, the choice was forced but
eventually yiian serves its designated purpose. Miyamoto however wonders:
PratTtyasamutpidas translated into Chinese as yiian-ch'i; it remains a gravely
doubtful question whether the Buddhists and the intellectuals of the Far Eastgrasp the philosophical contents [of the original concept].17
Miyamoto notes that yiian-ch'i has been liberally used in China to simply
signify what is synonymous to yu-laih, which means whence-come, that is, a
theory of origination. Yiian-ch'i, like the English word "causality" used to
translate pratltyasamutpada, loses its more specific nuance in such common
usage. For example, prologues to treatises which tell us the reason for writing,are often called yiian-ch'i or yin-yiiani (cause-and-condition)-the book being
the result. The latter term was used in that liberal and nonliteral sense for"preface/reason for writing" as early as the sixth century A.D. in the Chinese
fabricated work, Awakening of Faith in Mahayana.18 Japanese Buddhists
followed similar practices. Legends of temples are called temple engi (engi
being the Japanese pronounciation for yiian-ch'i).
By such shorthanded understanding of pratTtyasamutpddas theory of ori-
gination, the Chinese very likely, at times, missed the nuances of the originalSanskrit. The absence of a native tradition of cause-effect thinking might have
been responsible for this reduction of a unique theory of causation to a generalterm for any causation. On the other hand, I also suspect that the very lack
actually allowed the Chinese to formulate their own theory of Buddhist
causation outside the mechanical cause-effect framework, so that they rein-
terpreted pratttyasamutpdda n an organistic manner. China in fact came upwith her own Middle Path that avoided causal determinism and acausal
indeterminism-just as Gautama did-but in her own unique Hua-yen theoryof a mysterious, spontaneous, efforescence of reality.19
To add to the complexity, Chinese Buddhists not only have to intuit what
Gautama meant by the idea ofpratltyasamutapdda,they also had to incorporatewhat the Indian Buddhist philosophers thought that Gautama had meant byit. In short, the issues involved are complicated. Generally speaking, Indian
Buddhists offered three interpretations of pratTtyasamutapdda. he Abhidhar-
mists, the Madhyamika philosophers, and the Yogacarins each have their
slightly different rendition of Gautama's insight. These slightly different
emphases by each of these, however, were enough to cause heated controversies
and schisms. As a whole, especially northern Abhidharmists were the rational-
izers who wanted to work out, in minute analysis, the conditions under which
different elements (dharmas) would arise together. They tended to interpret
pratTtyasamutpdda s (to wit) Conditioned Causation. In order to sustain a
theory of anatman, the Abhidharmists adhered to a doctrine of a plurality of
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 7/25
246 Lai
elements (dharmas)which, in combination-that is, following pratTtyasamut-
pada-produced the nominal existence of realities. They were the causalist
philosophers. Although they look for causal antecedents only in the immediate
moment-entity preceding the oncome of the next moment-entity, nonetheless,
they demonstrated a skill of causalistic analysis in listing different pratyayafactors.20 [Incidentally, medieval pious scholasticism in the West and Islamic
kalam were also interested in causuality as they too sought for the gate of
liberation from the world.]21
Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamika, questioned the assumption of the
elements (dharmas) n the Abhidharmic system and proposed instead an overall
theory of emptiness (svabhdva-iuinya).The theory of self-nature was shown byhim to be self-defeating. Conceptions of independent existents are empty.
Among the realities that he denied and showed to be isunyawere the qualitiesof time past, present, and future which his opponents, the Sarvastivadins,held
to be distinct categories. Nagarjuna was able to show the interdependence ofpast, present, and future, how each by itself had no claim to independentexistence as such and how any statement asserting their being intertwined (the
present preexists in the past, for example) would end up in inner contradictions
or antinomies. It is said that Nagarjuna developed the notion of pratltya-
samutpida in the direction of what Stcherbatsky would call relativity, or
better, interdependence (paraspari peksa) hsiang-i hsiang-tuij. If we use the
English term interdependent causation to designate prat7tyasamutpada, hen
we can say that Nagarjuna would accept interdependencebut negate causation.
Nagarjuna also emphasized the reality (or, to be exact, the emptiness) of the
whole, dharmatd,as opposed to the Abhidharmist fixation with the particulars;the changewas from dharmavdda o advayavdda, rom dristivada o sunyavdda.22
The Yogacara tradition offered its own understanding of the principle of
pratTtyasamutpadawithin its particular focus on the working of the [human]
psyche. Thus Yogacara was most able to show the interdependence of con-
sciousness [as subject]and name-and-form [as object], or the intricate relation-
ship between the false sense of the self and the false sense of the object in the
seventh consciousness [manas],that is, the emptiness that was in the structureofparatantra [dependent] level of reality i-t'a-hsing ch'ik. Intricate relationshipof interdependence or simultaneity was seen also in the mind's reception of the
external impressions. The impressions come simultaneously through the senses.
There is beginningless and apparently interminable mutual perfumation of
mind upon defilement and defilementupon mind. Yogacara, however, basicallyelaboratedupon Madhyamika understanding. Reality is without substance and
dependent on the subject-perceiver.23The Indian Buddhist expositions on pratTtyasamutpidawere not unknown
to the Chinese. However, in most cases, we will not encounter the Chinese
understanding of the Abhidharma, the Madhyamika, and the Yogacara
interpretation as has just been presented. Instead we find a peculiar phenom-
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 8/25
247
enon or division basic to Chinese self-understanding of those philosophies.
Among the Chinese Buddhist schools, the San-lun' (Three Treatises, Mdd-
hyamika) school and the T'ien-t'ai school are grouped as the shih-hsiangmschools that philosophize upon the Dharmata (insofar as Dharmati is often
translated as shih-hsiang in Chinese.) Shih-hsiang philosophy is generallyacausative. The Hinayana and the
Yogacaraschools are classified as the
yiian-ch'i or causation schools. These two major streams should theoreticallynot overlap, since the shih-hsiang wing was supposed to be "noumenalist"
concerned with dharmatdor the absolute-in-itself, whereas the yiian-ch'i wingwas usually depicted as being fixated only with causative phenomena involvinga plurality of dharmas or dharma-characteristics (laksana). However, it is
recognized that Madhyamika transcendentalism was reached only through a
thorough critique of phenomenalism and transvaluation of pratTtyasamutpidainto the paramirtha-void. Also, Chinese made the sinitic distinction between
Wei-hsinn (Mind Only) and Wei-shih0 (Consciousness Only). The former,represented by Ch'an (Zen), was supposed to be "noumenalist, dharmati-
orientated." The latter, represented by the school of Fa-hsiang, founded by
Hsiian-tsang, was relegated to a crypto-Hinayana, phenomenalist school. The
Chinese Buddhist school that achieved the highest synthesis of yiian-ch'i and
the noumenalist wei-hsin was the Hua-yen school. That synthesis had been
referred to as Wei-hsinyiian-ch'iP(Mind-Only Causation, noumenal phenom-
enalism) or as hsing-ch'iq (Essence Arousal; to be analyzed later). How all
these came about would require a complementary study.24 I would simply
suggest the unique Chinese rearrangements of the three basic Indian schools
in the following diagram.
IndianBuddhism
Abhidharma Chinese Re
Madhyamika a. Causative schools(phenomenal)
'arrangements/Developments
b. Noumenal schools(acausative)
Yogacara-< \ Abhidharma i) shih-hsianggroup
(all three >Consciousness only San-lun Madhyamikaabove arephenomenal \ \ T'ien-t'ai Madhyamika-schools) ii) mind-onlygroup
Ch'anResynthesis
Hua-yen < > Hua-yen <
(noumenal causative)
It can be noted that (Chinese) Madhyamika is traditionally not considered as
a causative school. There is some basis for this Chinese reading, namely, that
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 9/25
248 Lai
(1) Madhyamika is critical of the particularismof dharm-analysisand supportive
of the universalism of sunyata and dharmata-intuition,(2) the Chinese under-
stood and defined causationism largely as what is born or as origination. This
reading excluded the more intricate idea of pratTtyasamutpadas interdepen-
dence, as interpreted by Stcherbatsky. Madhyamika is thus not included in
the Chinese criteria of yiian-ch'i.25 Madhyamika indeed does not fall undersuch naive causationism.
Furthermorecausation (pratityasamutpiada, iian-ch'i), understood as theory
of origination (yu-lai), is responsible for the peculiar hierarchial classification
of four origins for causative realities.
THE HIERARCHYOF CAUSATIONTHEORIES
Takakusu in Essentials of BuddhistPhilosophy gives a clear English summary
of the four causation theories;26 that classification ultimately dates back to
the writings of Fa-tsang. The four are (1) causation by action-influence, or
karmacausation, (2) causation by the ideation-store, or ilayavijniinacausation,
(3) causation by thusness, tathatd, or, better, by the womb of the Buddha,
tathigatagarbha-causation, and (4) causation by the Universal Principle, or
Dharmadhdtucausation. These are not four separate theories but rather each
higher one incorporates the lower one(s) within itself.
The first, yeh-kan yiian-ch'it, is rather straightforward. All realities are due
to action producing necessary reactions. As such, it is not particularlyBuddhist
since all Hindus would subscribe to it. However, Chinese often lump thisoutlook on the Hinayana school (on the assumption that the higher theories,
beginning with ilayavijnana causation of Yogacara, are beyond Hinayana).
Karma causation is not the same as causation in classical Western physics.
There is no beginning and no end to samsira, that is, no firstcause, no telos
as with Aristotle. Since the chain of rebirth is circular, every stage is a cause
when viewed from its effect, while it is also an effect of an anticedant cause.27
In that general sense, cause and effect blend together. It may then be said
that there is a cause in the effect, and an effect in the cause. Strictly speaking,
the satkaryavdda position (effects preexist in causes) usually is denied by
Buddhism, although it does come into its fold.
Next is the ilaya(vijndana)causation of the Yogacara school lai-yeh yuan-
ch'iu. We will not find any corresponding compound like alaya (vijniina)
pratTtyasamutpadan Sanskrit. The term causation in alaya causation is actuallyused in the liberal sense that Miyamoto suggested earlier,namely, its originationtraced to a source in the alayavijntna, the storehouse consciousness. Takakusu
gives a rather general explanation why consciousness or mind is selected.
"Actions (karma) are divided into threegroups,
i.e., thoseby
the body, those
by speech and those by volition .... But the mind being the inmost recess of
all actions, the causation ought to be attributed to the mind-store or Ideation
store [alayavijndina]"italics mine).29 It seems that Takakusu, in his explana-
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 10/25
249
tion, recalls the favorite Shingon (Mantrayana) theme of "body, speech, and
mind" and associates alayavijn'dnareely with the centrality of mind-karma in
the first verse of the Dharmapada.30 The reason why the Chinese created
alayavijndanaausation as a causation theory is due to the recognition that, in
the Yogacara system, the origin of all illusions (and enlightenment too) is
traced to certain seeds(bUjas)
n thealayavijiina.
These seeds lie in the
alayavijniina,and sprout into the object-realm, which in turn influences the
mind by planting a new seed ... in an endless process of mutual dependence.31
Although there is no explicit alayavijnianaausation theory in Indian Mahayana
philosophy (sastra), as such it still can be accepted as a legitimate inference
from Yogacara. However, it is in the last two types of causation that we see
something that Fa-tsangv of the Hua-yen school discovered. These two types
are unknown to Indian schools. These two are unique to sinitic Mahayana
and deserve our scrutiny.
Tathata causation or tathigatagarbhacausation is the next causation which ishigher than that of ilayavijndana.Just as karma is traced, according to the
Chinese, to the mind or consciousness, the alayavijnina too has its basis in
tathata (thusness, suchness) or the tathigatagarbha (womb of the Buddha,
matrix of the Thus-come, embryonic buddhahood). This is how Takakusu
explains it:
Thusness [the noumenon] in its static sense is spaceless, timeless, all-equal,without beginning or end, formless, colorless, because the thing itself withoutits manifestation cannot be sensed or described. Thusness in its dynamic sense
can assume any form; when driven by a pure cause it takes a lofty form; whendriven by a tainted cause it takes on a depraved form. Thusness, therefore, isof two states. The one is the Thusness itself; the other is its manifestation, itsstate of life and death.32
Thusness causation, therefore, means that from out of the static noumenon
itself, the phenomenal life and death arise. Because it traces the root of reality,
the origin of all things, beyond the alayavijniina(considered in this scheme as
corresponding to a phenomenal consciousness),33 to thusness itself, it is
regarded, therefore, as superior to alayavijnina causation and is known as
ju-lai-tsang yiuan-ch'iw r chen-juyiian-ch'iX,34ausation, or better, origination
from the womb of the Buddha (ju-lai-tsang, tathigatagarbha) or thusness
(chen-ju,tathati, also translated as suchness).
The person who first discovered this theory was Fa-tsang. He found it
basically in the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, a work suspected to be a
Chinese fabrication. Takakusu's description of thusness given earlier draws
basically upon the Awakening of Faith, where it is said:
The (Suchness) Mind has two gates: the gate of Suchness and the gate of
samsira. The Mind as phenomena (samsadra)s grounded on the tathagata-garbha.What is called the alayavijniina s that in which "neither life nor death"
(nirvana) fuses with "life and death" (samsira) in a neither-identical-nor-differentiated manner.35
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 11/25
250 Lai
I have demonstrated, elsewhere, that Fa-tsang was clearly influenced by the
Taoist paradox of active inactivity (wu-wei erh wu-pu-weiy)as well as by the
logic in the I Ching (Book of Changes).36The Buddhist absolute, tathati, was
apparently seen as something similar to the TaoZ: in one aspect, static; in
another, dynamic. Just as the Chinese would see all activities as emerging out
of a primordial passivity (the Tao produces all things), the tathata causationtheory, regarded as a more profound causation, also is seen to be proposing
that life-and-death emerged from out of the static noumenal suchness itself.
There is no comparable (explicit) theory in Indian Mahayana. In fact, generally
the Indian Buddhist schools would state that Dharmata (tathata) supports
phenomena; it does not create phenomena.37 Tathatd causation as developed
by the Chinese would find a closer affinitywith the bhedibheda Vedantaschool
in Hinduism, which regards all things as somehow being generated from
Brahman (the India counterpart to the Taoist idea of Tao).38 The Chinese
Buddhist, however, would legitimatize their interpretation by finding supportin Buddhist scriptures like the SrTmalditra (Sheng-men-chingaa).
Therefore, O Lord, the tathdgatagarbhais the foundation, the support, thesubstratum of the immutable Buddha-dharmas which are essentially connectedwith, indivisible from (the Absolute) and unreleased from wisdom. [Similarly,it the tathdgatagarbhas the foundation etc.] of the worldly dharmas,producedby cause and conditions, which are by all means disconnected, differentiated
(from the Absolute) and separate from wisdom.39
Yet,it can be shown that the
Srlmaiisitra did not
supporta
theoryof the
tathigatagarbha creating the phenomenal realities or causing them to come
into being as the Chinese would see it. It only supports hem in an epistemological
way, that is, the mind is the seat of enlightenment as well as of nonenlighten-ment.40 Basing himself upon the controversial Awakening of Faith, Fa-tsangcame up with a theory of tathdgatagarbhacausation.
In the Awakening of Faith, there is a key metaphor that eventuallyprompted
Fa-tsang to see an identificationof cause and effect. That metaphor lies at the
heart of the third and fourth causation theories in the Chinese review of
causationism. That metaphor, henceforth on the lips of oriental Buddhistscompared the relationship between Suchness and phenomenal realities to the
relationship between water and the waves.
All forms of mind and consciousness are products of ignorance. Forms of
ignorance do not exist apart from the essence of enlightenment. They cannotbe destroyed and yet they cannot be not destroyed. This is like the water of thesea being stirred up by the wind.... So too it is with the innately pure mindof sentient beings. The wind of ignorance stirs it. The pure mind [water]and
ignorance were [originally] formless. [Now] the two [mind and form of
ignorance, water and wave] are inseparable.41
Using this metaphor, found in the Awakening of Faith, Fa-tsang was able to
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 12/25
251
argue that the phenomenal world [waves that rise and fall, analogy to life and
death, samsara] is generated out of Suchness [the water]. Fa-tsang went on to
underline that in essence, the two are not different-waves are still water. The
implication of this interpretation was very great for subsequent Chinese
Buddhist philosophies (especially, Ch'an),42 but in this discussion we will
only underline its ramifications for the Chinese understanding of causationism.
The water is the cause (strictly speaking, the material cause) and the waves
are the result. The wind that ruffles the water plays the role of the efficient
cause (in Aristotelian terms) or the condition, concomitant factor (pratyaya).Since the Awakeningof Faith says that the wetness of the water is not changedwhether it be static (water) or dynamic (wave), Fa-tsang said that the nature
of Suchness (the water's wetness) is none other than, or fully present in,
phenomena (the waves). "Chen-jusui-yiianpu-pienab:Suchness follows pratyaya
(the wind) without changing its essence" was the credo of suchness causation.43
The waves (phenomena) are none other than the water (noumena). It alsofollows that, when Fa-tsang applied this to his understanding of causation,
cause (water) and result (waves) are simultaneously present or coexisting,
ontologically fluid and intrinsically nondual (advaya). From this emerged the
very fascinating Hua-yen doctrine of totalistic simultaneity that can be found
in articles one, five and nine in the "Ten (Hua-yen) Mysteries or Profound
Theories" completed by Fa-tsang. I will cite again from Takakusu primarilyfor his relative availability.
1. The theory of co-relation, in which all things have co-existence and simul-taneous rise. All are co-existent not only in relation to space but also in relationto time. There is no distinction of past, present and future, each of them beinginclusive of the other. Distinct as they are and separated as they seem to be intime, all beings are united to make one entity-from the universal point ofview.5. The theory of complementarility by which the hidden and the manifestedwill make the whole by mutual supply. If one is inside, the other will be outside,or vice versa. Both complementing each other will complete one unity.9. The theory of 'variously completing then time-periods creating one entity.'Each of past, present and future contains three periods, thus making up nine
periods which altogether form one period-nine and one, ten periods in all.The ten periods, all distinct yet mutually penetrating, will complete the one-in-all principle ....44
All these contributed to the Hua-yen doctrine of simultaneity, t'ung-shihac.All
phenomena are t'ung-shihtun-ch'd, arising together at the same time, wu-aiae,
with no obstruction between one another, and hu-sheaf, subsuming each in
each, completely and wholly.The first articleproposes the simultaneous appearance of and correspondence
between cause (hetu) and effect (phala). The fifth article, influenced by the I
Ching tradition of the latent and the manifested, applies the same to the
complementation of the hidden (organic germ) and the actualized (fruit,
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 13/25
252 Lai
result) in their yin-yangag harmony. The ninth article followed the T'ien-t'ai
practice of creating a square of the number three (3 x 3) to produce nine,
which united in a One, forms the favored round number of ten (the perfect
number) in the Hua-yen world view. What is significanthere, for our concern,
is the curious interpresence of past, future, present in each other (3 x 3) and
all nine in one(the
final absolute inclusivetenth).
We can feel thathere,
in the
elimination of temporal sequence Fa-tsang was reasserting the organistic,
noncausative, native Chinese outlook outlined in the beginning of this essay.
(The elimination of spatial distinctions can be found in articles two, six, and
seven; the rest deal more with quality and quantity.45)
ACAUSATIONISM:THE MADHYAMIKACONTRIBUTION
I would like to return,at thisjunction, to the issue of the conflict and confluence
of Indian Buddhist and Chinese native assessment of time, and the curious
fate of pratTtyasamutpddan sinitic Mahayana at its peak.We said that Gautama very innovatively departed from a simple cause-effect
temporal sequence by interpolating the key component of pratyaya, auxiliarycondition or concomitant factor between cause and effect. The classical
formulation is that "A being present, B happens." Craving being present,
suffering happens. From an early date, there was a debate on whether the
chain of causation (usually twelve in number from ignorance through cravingsto life and death) involves time sequence. The usual classification is to regardit as spanning past, present, and future. (Takakusu made this clear by seeingtwo past causes, five present effects, three present causes, and two future
effects leading back to rebirth and a full circle.46) There were others who
argued that the twelve chains occur in a ksana, a split second. They would
deny that there was craving earlier and therefore there is now suffering, but
admit that there being craving, there is suffering. The denial of the reality of
past, present, and futureby the Mahasafighika,which influenced the Mahayana
and the Madhyamika school, is crucial in the abolition of time sequence, that
is, the discrete past, present, and future as held by the Sarvastivadins.
Nagarjuna of the Madhyamika school showed, through his dialectics, theemptiness of the concretized realities of past, present, and future. Since he
apparently had no positive statement, it is hard to say what his position on
time was. His position after all was to have no position. Because of his criticism
of time sequentialism, Nagarjuna was regarded by scholars as not proposingthe usual causation scheme. It is from a writing attributed to him, rightly or
wrongly, that the Chinese derived the theory (found, for example, in T'ien-t'ai)that the three times are one: san-shih i-shihah.47The Chinese harmonizing
tendency or love for a final complementary Oneness is innate to the T'ien-t'ai
understanding of Madhyamika for its own purpose. The transformation
discussed may be depicted in the following manner:
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 14/25
253
Gautama's Nagarjuna's Chih-i'saiinterpolation emphasis on appropriationofpratyaya > interdependence of Nagarjuna:between cause (paraspardpeksa) the harmonismand effect. of the three times. of the three times.
tAbsence of cause a biogenerative the fluidity
and effect concepts > sequential model >and harmony ofin China. of origin and end origin and end
There is, I think, an important difference between interdependence and
harmonism. Things can be mutually dependent without necessarily adding upto a whole, to a unity. Yin-yang harmonism, however, implies this oneness
through complementation. It can be seen that this sense of oneness or harmonyin T'ien-t'ai was derived unconsciously more from the native Chinese cosmic
monism than from Nagarjuna who might not agree with such a theory of
mutual penetration.In this sinicization process, however, Chinese Buddhists incorporated
something which was alien to their own world view: namely, the notion of
immediate identity, hsiang-chiai (A = B). Reserving this issue for another
detailed discussion, I can only briefly, if somewhat dogmatically, state this:
the Chinese had the notion that the many emerged from the one. The One is
the origin (pen); the many, born of the one, is the end (mo). The origin and
the end, the one and the many are not disjointed like cause and effect, but fluid
like the Great Tao and myriad things. Yet, prior to the Buddhist, there was
not a native theory that claimed that the Many is immediately identical with
the One or that Being is immediately Nonbeing. The evidence seems to show
show that the Chinese Buddhist initiated this mutual identity concept.48 Yet,
paradoxically, it would be difficult to find Indian Buddhists saying that Beingis Nonbeing (Sat isAsat) or that the One is the Many in any logical/philosophical(as distinct from inspirational/scriptural) context. How then did the philosophyof immediate identity (hsiang-chi)begin in China?
It began with a particular Chinese translation of the prajrnparamiti sitra,
especially in Kumarajiva'schoice of the word chi-shihak as the copula that hasto be interpolated in the translation of "rupam iunyameva" (form [is] empty
only).49 The Chinese word for "is"-namely, chi-shih-is not requiredin San-
skritin this instance. Apparently, the Buddhistusages such as samsira is nirvana
or form is emptiness introduced a strength or magnitude of meaning (signifying
symmetrical identity), perhaps not available in earlier usage of the Chinese chi
(which usually means, that is, as in "A, that is, B"). Now A is B: A B.
Nagarjuna's exposition of the prajniparamitdsitra's insight into the emptinessof all things is known as the first nondual philosophy in India. This nondualityis generally used intentionally to negate and not to affirm: that is, thingsneither come nor go, are neither the same nor different. Only in a special
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 15/25
254 Lai
context, when this neither/nor logic is applied to the whole of wholes, to
Dharmata as suinyata,nirvana as samsara, nama-rupaas sunya, would it mean
a philosophy of total symmetrical identity (A B).50 A kind of monism of
intent, of intuitive insight, or of didactic negatation of Hinayana dualism is
then proposed. Chinese Buddhists, however, extended its usage, and we beginto hear of the One is the
Two, Beingis
Nonbeing,the One is the
Many,and
in our discussion here, the Water is the Wave, the Substance is the Function,
the Origin is the End, the Cause is the Effect, the Part is the Whole. Some of
these would be too extravagant to Indian logicians.51Now if we follow the early Taoist pen-mo logic in which total identity is not
involved, it would be more proper to say, with reference to the Awakeningof
Faith, that the passive water (pen) was in time ruffled up by the wind. Initial
passivity preceded the mo, activity. However, that would not be in the best
tradition of the Buddhist mutual identity theory. It is to the credit of the
commentator Wonhyo (Yiian-hsiaoal) that he underlined firmly the paradoxthat (1) the wind of ignorance has no beginning, therefore one cannot saythat at one time there was pacificity before the advent of activity, and (2) the
whole body of the water as one unit moves, that is, not just the surface of it as
if the substance or the pen remains immobile. In other words, there might be a
logical priority of passivity but there is not a chronological priority. Thus
Wonhyo says,
... the whole body of water moves, therefore the water is not separate from
the form of the wind [the wave-form].52... The forms of samsara [like the wet waves] are none other than the en-lightened essence [the wet water] .... The immutableMind itself is one withmutability. It is not mutability fuses with immutability.53
This unity of activity and passivity should be underlined because the same
notion occurred later in Neo-Confucian thought as the idea of activity and
passivity having one source (tung-chingi-yiianam).54 The Buddhist elimination
of a naive concept of time sequence (that is, the logic of pen-mo, or there is the
passive origin and then comes the active end) and the substitution of a para-doxical unity of passivity and activity in one substance is significant because
it introduces into Chinese thought, not just the notion of spatial identity (chi,as just mentioned) but also temporal simultaneity or spontaneity. The latter
led to the fourth theory of Dharmadhatu Causation, spontaneous generationof the universe in every split second-a theory unknown to India and more
extravagant than traditional Chinese cosmogonic pen-mo theories. In the
Dharmadhatu Causation, the One is immediately identical to and is spon-
taneously the Many.We may summarize the preceding discussion on the Indian contribution to
native Chinese outlook in the production of sinitic Mahayana notion of time
and causality in the following way: Indian Buddhist thought, directly or
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 16/25
255
indirectly, introduced to the Chinese the notion of (1) immediate identity, (2)
transtemporal simultaneity, (3) interdependence or matrix-relationship.The following diagram shows how the Indian Madhyamika influence and
the Chinesepen-momonism were synthesized into the Dharmadhatu Causation
theory:
MadhyamikaIndian contribution:
-identity
-simultaneitytotal-matrix of
dependence
Chinese native
cosmogonic view:"From the passive one
comes the active Manyin harmony."Substantive Monism.
[sequential; finite]
Dharmadhatu
causation:
"The One is the Many,
simultaneously active
and passive, each
generating itself and
all others in splitsecond." [non-
sequential; infinite]
I will explain below what Dharmadhatu Causation is, reserving the historical
issues for the last section of this essay.
THE CROWN OF CAUSATION: DHARMADHATU CAUSATION
Dharmadhatu Causation is so extravagant in conception that logical languageor explanation sometimes cannot depict it as well as analogies, metaphors, or
diagrams (especially mandala). Dharmadhatuis the realm of the Dharma, the
absolute, transcendental reality which, like the tathigatagarbha described
earlier, has both the noumenal and the phenomenal aspect. Takakusu calls it
the Universal Principle. He writes:
Buddhism holds that nothing was created singly or individually [but throughpratyaya, always with one another]. All things in the universe-matter andmind-arose simultaneously, all things in it depending upon one another, theinfluence of each mutually permeating and thereby making a universal sym-phony of harmonious totality. If one item were lacking, the universe wouldnot be complete; without the rest, one item cannot be. When the whole cosmosarrives at a harmony of perfection, it is called the 'Universal One and True,'or the 'Lotus Store.' In this ideal universe all beings will be in perfect harmony,each finding no obstruction in the existence and activity of another.55
As usual, the Dharmadhatu Causation subsumes all the previous causation
theories within itself. It is "the climax of all the causation theories; it is actuallythe conclusion of the theory of causal origination [pratTtya-samutpdda]nd is
already within the theory of universal immanence, pansophism, cosmotheism,
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 17/25
256 Lai
or whatever it may be called."56 The reader who finds it hard to picture what
these mean should perhaps imagine the scene of "all beings, from the highestto the lowest, are parts of one and the same Mandala."57 The world view here
is not static but extremely dynamic, not finite but infinite. Pascal's line-"the
center being everywhere, the circumference nowhere"-describing the awe-
inspiring and intimidating Infinite that threatened his ego, would beappro-priate. However, for the Buddhist, it would be a leap of joy to behold the
endless world of light. (Had Pascal only let go of his self 58) This is because
in the Dharmadhatu, everything can be the center, the whole, the One that
absorbs within itself the essence of all other entities, "like the net of Indra,where one jewel reflects all others," or comparable to the realm of the stars in
Plotinus, where one star captures the light of all other stars.59 Takakusu
describes the implications for causation:
It is the causation by all beings themselves and is the creation of the universeitself, or we can call it the causation by the common action-influence [karma]of all beings. Intensively considered, the universe will be a manifestation ofThusness or the Matrix of Tathagata (Thus come). But extensively consideredit is the causation of the universe by the universe itself and nothing more.60
It is an endless causation or ontogenesis of the universe in all its parts in a
mysteriously concerted manner of mutual influence and penetration. One has
to visualize something like a spontaneous, instantaneous, never-ceasing,
self-generating universe to catch a glimpse of Dharmadhatu causation.
How is this causation superior to the tathigatagarbhacausation that precedesit? The water-and-wave metaphor may be a very good illustration of their
differences and relationship. In the tathdgatagarbha causation, the water
(tathati, the noumenal) generates the waves (the phenomenal samsdra)throughthe action of the wind of beginningless ignorance. It is said that the water and
the waves are one in substance, in being wet and watery. The principle of the
identity of the noumenal and the phenomenal, in a causatively immediate
manner, was established. (This is different from the dictum, "samsdra is
nirvana,nirvana is samsara," which by itself does not involve causality.) The
wave is water; the water, in toto, moves as waves. The universal water and theparticular individual waves are one.
Dharmadhatu Causation, however, is not satisfied with just this identifi-
cation. It asks: What about the identity of one wave with all the other waves,and one drop of water with the whole body of water? It, therefore, goes one
step further to establish the principle of the interpenetration of every particularwave with all other particularwaves, individually or as a whole. This is known,in the Hua-yen scheme, as the shih-shihwu-aian. phenomenal fact and fact are
not obstructed. This is the basic new ideology of the One-is-All-All-is-One
philosophy.61 One is All is like the reflection of a candle in a hall of mirrors:
the one light is reflected in all the mirrors, and all mirrors reflect one another
in an infinite manner. All is One is like the telescoping of all the mirror images
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 18/25
257
into a crystal ball placed in the center. Fa-tsang, it is said, actually used these
two means to demonstrate to Empress Wu the mystery of this new world
view.62 Readers can also turn to his sermon on the Golden Lion for another
exposition of the same.63
THE SOURCE OR INSPIRATION FOR THE DHARMADHATUCAUSATION
Indian Mahayana philosophy (sistra) does not know of a Dharmadhatu
causation theory. That theory is derived from a creative Chinese reading of
the Buddhist sitras. Already the tathdgatagarbhacausation-based on the
Awakening of Faith-points toward this higher theory of Dharmadhatu
causation. Fa-tsang of the Hua-yen school had discovered this theory within
the scriptural (sutra) tradition, particularly, the Hua-yen or Avatamsakasitra.
The superiority of the Dharmadhatu theory over the tathdgatagarbha ausation
theory lies in the new insight into the extreme mystery that the part is the
whole, that the One is the All.In the English language, there is one essay on the Hua-yen sutra by D. T.
Suzuki on "The Gandavyiha."64 The Gandavyuhadepicts the pilgrimage of
Sudhana under the direction of Mafijusri. The pilgrim finally encounters
Samantabhadra. The Gandavyiuhas an independent work in Sanskrit that
forms now the last chapter of the 80-chapter Chinese Hua-yen (Avatamsaka)sutra. The pilgrimage of Sudhana leads eventually to the Dharmadhatu,the
ultimate realm of reality. The Gan.davytuhas thus known also as dharmad-
hitupravesa, ju fa-chieh p'iena?, enteringinto the realm of the dharma. I will
select two metaphors in the Dharmadhatu-vision to illustrate what this ultimate
realm is like. One metaphor is that of light or total luminosity. Suzuki's studydescribes this well:
Therefore, the Dharmadhatu is a world of lights not accompanied by anyform of shade. The essential nature of light is to intermingle without interferringor obstructing or destroying one another. One single light reflects in itself allother lights generally and individually.65
The intermingling of one and all, singly and totally, is precisely the motif basicto the notion of Dharmadhatu Causation, the realization of the One as the
All, and vice versa.
Sudhana, the pilgrim, journeyed toward the world of the infinite until he
came face to face with Samanthabhadra. Eventually, like in Plotinus' descrip-tion of the ascent of the soul, the seer (Sudhana) and the seen (Samantabhadra)
merged into one. Sudhana literally expanded in his physicospiritual stature
until he became one with the highly luminous body of the cosmic Buddha.66
This theme of an enlightened person (in fact, all enlightened persons, buddhas)
being an emanation of the cosmic Buddha can be seen in an early Mahayana
siutra, he Lotus sfitra. In the Avatamsakasutra, this theme is given the ultimate
expression.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 19/25
258 Lai
All these Bodhisattvas from the ten quarters of the world together with theirretinues are born of the life and vows of Samantabhadra the Bodhisattva ....
they are also able to expand their own bodies to the end of the universe ... theyreveal in each particle of dust all the worlds, singly and generally... emittinga deep, full sound form every pore of the skin, which reverberatesthroughoutthe universe... By means of their pure wisdom-eye they see all Buddhas ofthe past, present and future....67
This uncanny scene defies all our normal senses of dimension or time. Re-
peatedly we see the description that in every dust particle (the smallest) are
millions and millions of buddha-worlds (the infinite). Repeatedly we are
confronted with Sudhana's observation, that in every pore of the skin of the
Buddha, there are millions and millions of buddha-worlds. It is as if one has
stepped into a shadowless world of supreme luminosity and is confronted with
the impossible: that the smallest is immediately the greatest and vice versa.
That world is the world of the Dharmadhatu. It is based on this vision in thescripture and not on any formal philosophical doctrine of Indian Mahayanathinkers that we know of, that the Hua-yen school of Fa-tsang developed the
final theory of causation: Dharmadhatu Causation. (Sometimes the Esoteric
schools tops it with its own causation of the Five Elements but the crown of
causationism really belongs to Hua-yen.68)
However, philosophically and historically, the Dharmadhatu causation
passed through some key doctrinal hurdles before it became articulated. As
may be evident in our previous description, one of the characteristics of
Dharmadhatu Causation is that it is self-generative, autogenetic. Each of the
particular entities initiated its own emanative evolution. Fa-tsang referred to
this as hsing-ch'i, essence arousal or causation due to the Dharmata in itself.The Absolute is so absolute that it requires no external help to generate causal
phenomena. This means, in effect, that the Absolute requires no pratyaya,concomitant factors or auxiliary conditions, since it is its own generator. In
other words, strictly speaking, the Dharmadhatu Causation is no longer
yiian-ch'i, dependent coorigination (pratTtyasamutpaida)ut is hsing-ch'i, or
independent self-origination. Indeed, Fa-tsang intended hsing-ch'i to besuperior to yiian-ch'i,just as he intended Dharmadhatu causation to be superiorto tathdgatagarbhacausation.
At this point I will briefly review the latter. In the latter, tathata as water is
churned into waves of phenomena under the stimulation, that is, the condition,
(pratyaya) of the wind of ignorance. The absolute, tathata, still requirescondition (the wind) and still depends on something other than itself to become
creative. Not satisfied with this dependent status, Fa-tsang produced the
theory of hsing-ch'i. the self-arousal of the absolute into the realm of the
relative, the interpenetration of Dharmadhatu into Lokadhatu, by its ownvolition and without external help-especially not the wind of avidya, ignor-ance. In the world of light, light should be its own source of being. Once more,
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 20/25
259
Fa-tsang found in the Hua-yen sutra a justification of this new theory of
self-generation. Fa-tsang based this new theory on Ju-lai hsing-ch'iaP, he title
of chapter 32 of the 40 chapter of the Hua-yen sutra, benefitting from the
particular choice of Chinese words used in the translation. The Sanskrit
original is, as Takasaki Jikid6 has shown, Tathdgatotpattisambhava.
Here "utpatti" means the birth of the Buddha, i.e., the attainment of bodhi,while "sambhava" is used to show the manifestation of the dharmakiya invarious forms of the Buddha's activities. The former signifies Buddha's Wisdom
(ijnana)while the latter signifies Buddha's Compassion (karuna).69
Hsing-ch'i in its original Sanskrithas nothing whatsoever to do with a causation
'theory concerning the Dharmata's self-generating power of creation.
However, Hsing-ch'i can imply the awakening of the Buddha-essence in
man, and it would correspond to the concept of the arousal of the bodhicitta,
the mind of enlightenment. Hsing-ch'i was understood in that subjective,
meditative sense as the awakening of the Buddha-germ in man, by the firsttwo patriarchs of the Hua-yen school, Tu-shun (557-640) and Chih-yen
(602-668). The third patriarch, Fa-tsang, cosmicized and objectified this idea
of awakeningthe Buddha-germ.He reinterpretedthe germ, the tathagatagarbha,in ontological terms. The arousal of one's innate germ of enlightenment, the
Buddha-nature, now became the generation of the phenomenal realm from
the Dharma-essence.The germ became a kind of cosmic womb like the Mother
of all things in Taoism.
In thisway, Fa-tsang
institutedDharamadhdtu-causation,a-chieh yuan-chiaq. In it, the absolute dharmata(dharma-essence, Fa-hsingar),representing
the noumenal, generates, out of itself, causative phenomenon (yiian-ch'i). The
synthesis offa-hsing and yiian-ch'i thus produces hsing-ch'ias.Fa-tsang, there-
fore, synthesized Yogacara (yian-ch'i) and Madhyamika (shih-hsiang), and
Hua-yen could therefore claim to be the one Mind Only Causation (wei-hsin
yiian-ch'i)school.
SUMMARY
This article has surveyed the development of causative understanding, begin-ning with the classical doctrine of pratltyasamutpida, culminating in the
Hua-yen doctrine of Dharmadhatu Causation. The extent of coverage does
not permit, at times, clarifications on minute points. I hope, nevertheless, that
I have made the Chinese hierarchical classification hierarchical rationale of
Causation Theories-however esoteric and idiosyncratic it might appear on
first reading-intelligible and accountable. The esoteric Hua-yen outlooks are
not irrational; even its mysteries contain a rationale.
The presentation here does not seek to prove how Chinese misunderstood
pratityasamutpdda,but how creatively and ingeniously they had understood it
through retrospection and adopted it for their own particular independent
expression. The end product is sinitic Mahayana, a term I have coined to
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 21/25
260 Lai
designatea sinicizedMahayana hat remains aithful o the Dharma, he Lawor Truth,that wasnevermeant to be an Indianmonopoly.
All the finer points aside, the transformationof the pratTtyasamutpiidatheorycan be saidto be this:Gautama'sdiscoveryof theprincipleofpratrtya-samutpiidawithin an Indo-European ausativecontext was transposed ntothe Chinese
biogenerativeramework.The IndianBuddhist
core conceptofconcomitancy(the pratyaya-factorbetween 'mechanical'entities)has beentransformedn Chinainto thatof a cosmic and organicharmony.The rathertechnicalSanskritdependentcooriginationbecame,finally,the spontaneousautogenesis f theOne andtheAll, ajoyouscelebration f a (Taoist)animatedor animisticuniverse.From India, China learned the paradoxof identity,nonduality,relationality,and the timelesspresent.To these she contributedher nativeassumptionsof harmony,unity, fluidity,and a basic worldliness.
Together, he two culturesproduceda uniquevision of the infiniteabsolute,
within a uniquehistoryof faithfillingold bottleswithnewwine.
NOTES
1. Karl Potter, Presuppositionsin Indian Philosophies (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1963), pp. 93-116.
2. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1956), pp. 271, 280-289.
3. The philosopher Hume had leveled his criticism against causalism precisely on the ambi-
guities involved in this assumption of rarifiedentities.
4. This phenomenon has been expressed in terms of the aesthetical continuum by the philo-
sopher Filmer Stuart Cuckow Northrop.5. God is not continuous with his creation in the Biblical view, and even in Aristotle, the First
Mover or Cause is unmoved or uncaused. However, Needham's thesis that the notion of "natural
law" in Science in the West was a result of Western theism oversimplifies the issues; Needham,Science and Civilizationin China, pp. 563-574.
6. The Han Confucian cosmologists like Tung Chung-shu"tor the Taoist writers of Huai-nan-
tzu"a both subscribed to this generalnotion of cosmic evolution from the one to the many. However,
it was with the Neo-Taoists that the practice of treasuringthepen and repressingthe mo, chung-pen
ch'u-moa, began.7. As with the term pao-yingaw,also meaning retribution, yin-kuo designates the mysterious
autogenetic process of natural consequence. Both terms are affiliated with the notion of kan-ying,stimulus and response, in Han thought.
8. On the definition of sinitic Mahayana, see Whalen Lai, "The Emergenceof Sinitic Mahayana:T'ien-t'ai," paper read at the Association for Asian Studies conference at Toronto, 1976.
9. On the formation of the Hua-yen review of all the Buddhist traditions leading up to itself,see Fa-tsang's Wu-chiao-chang T. 45, no. 1866).
10. For a short discussion, see especially Wing-tsit Chan's A Source Book in ChinesePhilosophy
(Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 570, fn. 124; for details, see Imai Usaburo,
Sodai Ekigaku no Kenkyui Tokyo, Meiji, 1958). See also Chan's general remarks, Source Book,pp. 406-408. However, his statement that in Neo-Confucian philosophy, "the universe is ... dailyrenewed. This creative element is lacking in the Universal Causation [Dharmadhatu Causation]of Hua-yen," should be taken with the following qualification. Dharmadhatu Causation does not
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 22/25
261
subscribe to the I Ching notion of sheng-shengba,produce and reproduce, but it is extremely
dynamic, ceaselessly generative.
11. I am grateful for corrections and suggestions given by Prof. Kalupahana to this study.12. The essay, in English, is in Studies in Indologyand Buddhologypresented in honor of Prof.
S. Yamaguchi (Kyoto, 1955).13. See Karl Potter, Presuppositionsin IndianStudies, pp. 117-144.
14. The Four Noble Truths are given within the framework of pratitya-samutpida.
There is suffering. B
There is the cause of suffering. A oc B
There is the cessation of suffering. -A
There is the path to the cessation of suffering. -A oc -B
15. Miyamoto, Studies in Indologyand Buddhology, p. 156.
16. Gautama was known to avoid metaphysical issues not condusive to the task to eliminate
the pathology (nidina) of suffering, but his theory of pratityasamutpadaas a theory of the Middle
Path seems to, if not consciously, then unconsciously, offer a philosophical alternative to other
options.17. Miyamoto, Studies in Indologyand Buddhology, p. 153.
18. See Whalen Lai, "The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana: A Study of the Unfolding ofSinitic Motifs," (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, 1975). The second so-called translation of the
Awakening of Faith apparently avoided, in one place, that usage of the termyin-yuanin recognitionof the Chinese license.
19. I would not regard the Chinese understanding as a distortion but as a structural transmu-
tation of the intention of pratTtyasamutpddan a new cultural context. Christianity underwent
similar transformations in Rome.
20. For example, there are four types of pratyaya; see Kalupahana, Causality.21. The concern for causality and fate and its opposite, liberation from causal determinism,
could have been the philosophical expression of a historical, existential awareness of the tension
between necessity andfreedom in the medieval Weltzeit. Generally, classical philosophies are not
alert to this tension, being at home with physis, Tao, etc.22. See T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism(London, Allen & Unwin, 1955),
p. 49. The term relativity upset many oriental Buddhologists who came out of the Chinese San-lun
tradition of emphasizing the absolute void (atyanta-sunyata) as pi-ching-k'ungbb;the void in
Chinese San-lun is a nondependent void. On the sinicization of Madhyamika in China, see my"The Intended Meaning of the Term 'ch'eng-shihbC,' Hypothesis," (1976, submitted to Indogaku
Bukky6gaku Kenkyi) and Th. Stcherbatsky, The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana (Leningrad:
Academy of Science of the USSR, 1927).23. Yogacara developed the Two Truths theory of Nagarjuna into its own Three Truths/
Perspectives. The following is a concise summary:
a. perception of a rope as empty of perspective A: intuition into the
self-nature. reality-as-it-is, tathati.b. everyday perception of a rope as a perspective B (paratantra): subject-object
rope, nominal reality, realistic perception.c. misperception of a rope (in the dark) as perspective C: misperception, the object is
a snake. an illusion.
See T. Stcherbatsky, Discourse on Discrimination betweenMiddleand Extremes (Moscow, 1936),and Chan, Source Book, pp. 393-395.
24. See Whalen Lai, "The Meaning of Mind Only (Wei-hsin)", Philosophy East and West 22,no. 1 (Jan., 1977): 65-83.
25. Nagarjuna, on the other hand, clearly identified his philosophy of the Middle Path (Mad-
hyamika) with causationism itself; see his Madhyamika-kdrikds ncluded in Frederick J. Streng,
Emptiness(Nashville,Tenn.:
Abingdon, 1956).26. Takakusu, (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1947), pp. 23-36.
27. Takakusu, Essentials in BuddhistPhilosophy, p. 28.
28. Satkiryavdda holds that the effect is preexistent in the cause; see Karl Potter, Presuppositions
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 23/25
262 Lai
in IndianStudies, p. 106, and earlier discussion in this essay.29. Takakusu, Essentials, p. 31.
30. Dhammapdda, rans. P. L. Vaidya (Poona, 1934); see first verse, p. 53. All realities are said
to be of the mind, the doer of good and evil.
31. Takakusu, Essentials, p. 32. See Chan, Source Book, pp. 370-395, esp. p. 371.
32. Takakusu, Essentials, p. 34.
33. On how consciousness, shihbd,became relegated to the realm of phenomena and below the
chen-juhsinbe,Thusness or Suchness Mind, see my "The I Chingand the Formation of the Hua-yen Philosophy," forthcoming Journal of Chinese Philosophy.
34. Actually, Fa-tsang used only the termju-lai-tsang yiian-ch'i but modern Japanese Buddho-
logists have learned to use the more liberal chen-ju yiian-ch'i term instead. That modem practice
might be dated back to usages in the Yoshino period in late Kamakura Japan. Strictly speaking,
ju-lai-tsang is not always symmetrically identical with chen-ju, for the dynamic tathdgatagarbha
responsible for the causation is tsai-fu chen-jubf"in bondage to phenomena." Only upon its release,is it truly chen-ju,tathatd.
35. See Hakeda, trans. Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1967), p. 36. The Chinese original is somewhat ingeniously ambiguous and much lies behind
the nuance of the terms hsin sheng-miehbg the Mind in its phenomenal aspect) and the sheng-mieh
hsinbh the phenomenal mind) and theirrelationship with the tathagatagarbhaand the alayavijnina.36. See my "The I Chingand the Formation of the Hua-yen Philosophy."37. The position here is that of Hsiian-tsangbi, representing (in my mind) the more orthodox
Indian position, but it was attacked by Fa-tsang.38. According to the bheddbhedaVedantins, Brahman (the Absolute) and the phenomenal
world are neither same nor different; the source of reality lies with Brahman. The Chinese Taoist
would also see reality as coming out of the Tao. Thus when Fa-tsang moved towards the Taoist
outlook, he unknowingly moved close to the bheddbhedaVedantins.
39. See Alex and Hideko Wayman, The Lion's Roar of the QueenSrTmaldNew York, Columbia
University Press, 1974), p. 105 for his translation; p. 44 for a discussion.
40. So understood, it is not too different from the moral Idealism of the opening lines of the
Dhammapdda.That the seat of power lies with a king does not mean that realities are created bythe king.
41. See Hakeda, trans. Awakening of Faith, p. 41. I do not follow the interpolations that Hekeda
added to his translation to make it more logical.42. For example, it would be difficult for an Indian Buddhist who adheres to the doctrine that
tathatd only "supports" phenomena to say, like the Ch'an Buddhist would, that a flower is im-
mediately as such the Absolute. That Ch'an statement is based on the faith in the presence of
tathata (the wetness of the water) in the flower (the wave) itself, that is, an immanentalistposition.That immanental position is thought to be derived however from Madhyamika. Tokiwa Daijo in
Bussho no kenkyu (Tokyo: Meiji Shoen, 1934), pp. 262-263, reviews the same issue from a different
angle.43. See
Fa-tsang's commentaryon the
Awakening ofFaith in T.
44, p.255c.
44. Takakusu, Essentials, pp. 124-126. A good translation of the Treatiseon the GoldenLion is
in Chan, Source Book, pp. 409-414. The essay on the Ten Mysteries was attributed to Tu-shunbj
and recorded by Chih-yenbk T. 45, No. 1868) but was more likely a Fa-tsang compilation.45. Takakusu, Essentials, pp. 124-126; see also Chan, Source Book, pp. 415-424 for another
similar treatise.
46. Takakusu, Essentials, pp. 26-27.
47. See Leon Hurvitz' "Chih-i," Melanges Chinoiset Bouddhiques12 (Brussels, 1960-1962) for
a discussion of the basic doctrines. I think there is a difference in saying, as Nagarjuna did, that
the three times are unreal, empty of self-nature and relative, and saying, with Chih-i, that the
three times are one or present in the "moment" (an Avatamsaka-suitra'snsight.)48. This can be inferred from the fact that such a Buddhist master as Chi-tsang of the San-lun
school had criticized the Taoist for "knowing about emptiness" but failing to "exhaust (that is,
to conceptually destroy even the assumption of) emptiness (as potential matter or as antitheses to
form or reality" chih-k'ung erhpu-chin-k'ungbI.
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 24/25
263
49. It seems, from my research so far, that the intentional use of a double compound-chi-shih
(both meaning "is")-was for the purpose of underlining this total identity or mutual identity,
hsiang-chi. The choice by Kumarajiva was therefore ingenious and innovative. He might have
borrowed the idea from Chih Tao-linbm,who was known to have used the word chi in his philosophyof "roving in the mysteries while abiding with forms, chi-seyu-hsiian"b. However, there the word
chi was used as a verb or adverb (Japanese: tsukub?,not as a copula sunawachi).I was alerted to
the possibly new use of the compound, che shih, in a conversation with Professor L. S. Yang at
Harvard.
50. In that sense, the Chinese interpretation of Madhyamika had this advaya philosophicalbasis.
51. It would seem, in reading Potter's book, that Indian Logicians generally would not acceptthe irrationality of the part being equal to the whole.
52. T. 44, p. 208b. The Suchness Mind is totally involved in the movements.
53. T. 44, p. 208b. The last sentence describes the "lower"layavijnina only.54. See Chan, Source Book, p. 570, and note 10 herein.
55. Takakusu, Essentials, p. 35.
56. Essentials, p. 118.
57. Essentials, p. 37. The reader of Takakusu should be aware that, from this page on, until
p.54, Takakusu was
actually describingthe Buddhist
philosophyfrom the
Hua-yenor Dharmad-
hatu perspective.58. Only those who grasp onto their persons or atmans and are unable to let go would be duely
frightened by this cosmic envelopment of the anatman no-self into the Dharmadhatu. For a
contemporary explanation of the Hua-yen philosophy, see Garma Chang's The BuddhistTeaching
of Totality (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971), chapter 1.
59. The net of Indra, a basic Hua-yen metaphor, is filled with glitteringjewels; see Nakamura
Hajime, "Interrelational Existence" in Philosophy East and West 17 (1964), for the link between
Plotinus and Hua-yen siitra.60. Takakusu, Essentials, p. 118.
61. The "One = All" formula is the traditional summary of Hua-yen philosophy i chi tuo, tuo
chi ibq.
62. See Sung Kao-seng-chuanbr,T. 50, p. 732; retold by Chang, BuddhistTeaching, pp. 22-24.
63. Chan, Source Book, pp. 409-414.
64. D. T. Suzuki, On Indian Mahayana Buddhism, ed. E. Conze (New York: Harper, 1968),
pp. 147-226, a most brilliant exposition on the numinous realm of the Dharmadhatu.
65. Suzuki, IndianMahdyana,p. 167.
66. Suzuki, IndianMahaiyna, p. 158.
67. Suzuki, Indian Mahayyna, p. 158; see passages in the Hua-yen sitra, T. 10, pp. 237-241.
68.antric Vairocana, however, did share the numen of Dharmadhatuand Dharmakdya.69. Takasaki Jikido, "Kegonyogaku to nyoraizo shiso," in Nakamura Hajime, ed., Kegon
shiso (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1960), pp. 282-288. The quotation here is from the author's own English
summary on p. 11 from the back. Fa-tsang even freely readju-laibs(tathdgata), thus-come, in such
a way to imply "The unchanging [suchness, tathati, jul is essence (hsing); the manifested function
(yung,) [seen in the word lai] is arousal (ch'i)." Thereforeju-lai is hsing-ch'ibt.This clever twist of
words is possible because the prajdi-piramitd satras had interpreted tathigata in terms of its
relationship withathata .
a; ig q tep y A,ffi4g
jS.
k
^ ff,
s
qm
aaWaaS
e
Eefm0;
ug>ttt)
u git gac i
~f np L ^ v ^n Vad f8
Ite0wnti G X wae
3p] ()h
E13K
P
AS^NkE x 01 A akaf
^ ISN
This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:36:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 (Lai 1977) Chinese Buddhist Causation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lai-1977-chinese-buddhist-causation 25/25
264 Lai
ag
ah=tH-B
ai
aj f;p
ak p
an **4,SE
apN itP
""nissit&D
ar &q
asit _(&jgg)
at
av**_,X
ax 4 g
ayA 1
ba lt
bb -
bc I
""blr?g
bd 3s
bh t *T
bi t--bi
,GfJ-IE
bk tp
bl*nqXffniT
bn qp t
bo<
bq_ p . ,pp
br -i- hf P#
bsAn*
bt, p ke