180

The story of Huayan Buddhism intertwines in many ways with many other more well-known forms of Buddhist thought. Even though there is nothing like a Huayan School in India at any point, the textual basis of Huayan includes materials clearly derived from Sanskrit sources. Huayan also stands at the crossroads of the sinicization of Bud-dhism, the process by means of which indigenously Chinese forms of Buddhism came into existence. In fact, some scholars have suggested that Huayan is the philosophy behind Chan (Jp. Zen) Buddhism and that Chan is the practice of Huayan, but it can be argued that, although Huayan is clearly more willing than Chan to engage in what might be seen as speculative metaphysics, it has its own meditative practice.

Of course, given the context of Buddhist thought, especially as the variety of Bud-dhist traditions proliferated in India and subsequently in China and elsewhere, all metaphysics is circumscribed by a pragmatic lack of dogmatism. There does not seem to be a necessary claim that this is actually how things are, but rather that this is a practical way to look at things if one wants to end existential disease or suffering. It is clear from the examination of scriptural texts that Buddhist soteriology has always been extremely pragmatic in its approach to truth. The notion of a single absolute truth is replaced by the idea of functional utility, known in the Sanskrit as up ā ya . The Bud-dhist tradition thus contains a wide assortment of soteriological approaches.

The Buddhist concepts of up ā ya (Ch. fangbian ) or “skillful means,” prajnapti (“convenient designation”) from Yog ā c ā ra and param ā rtha satya (“liberating discourse”) from Madhyamaka, justify a range of pragmatic propositions which represent a healthy way of viewing the world, regardless of what the world is actually like. In some sense, up ā ya refers to the diagnostic and prescriptive skill of a buddha or bodhisattva, who is ostensibly able to discern a particular person ’ s problem and recommend a helpful strat-egy for solving it. This is a completely contextual approach, though, because different problems lead to different strategies. Given the limitations of possible human experi-ence, and ruling out revelation and knowledge by virtue of authority, there is no way

11

The Huayan Metaphysics of Totality

ALAN FOX

A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy, First Edition. Edited by Steven M. Emmanuel.© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

the huayan metaphysics of totality

181

fi nally to know the answers to metaphysical questions. Therefore the goal is simply to fi nd a metaphysical stance that contributes to the ending of suffering.

Since suffering is traced to attachment to the idea of a permanent self and eternal, fundamental realities, Buddhist metaphysics seems to seek alternative ways of under-standing our experiences of self and reality which do not require us to posit permanent selves and fundamental realities. One early model along these lines involves breaking the personality down into fi ve aggregates or skandhas . The model suggests that the person is like a fi st, in the sense that a fi st is nothing but the arrangement of fi ve fi ngers. There is no fi st other than that composed of the fi ve fi ngers; the fi st does not “have” fi ve fi ngers, and the fi ve fi ngers do not “have” the fi st. When all fi ve fi ngers are arranged in a certain fashion, we call it a fi st, but it is not correct to say that the fi st has independent existence, or that a fi st comes into being or ceases to be. Similarly, the “self ” is composed of fi ve factors, which gives us a way of understanding the experience of selfhood without having to posit a permanent self. In the Abhidharma traditions, this analysis yields many more factors of experience, as many as 75 or 100.

We also fi nd in the Buddhist traditions a way of understanding the experience of reality without having to posit a fundamental reality. The metaphysics underlying Huayan ’ s philosophy of totality is based on the central Buddhist model of interdepend-ent causality known as pr ā tityasamutp ā da (Ch. yinyuan ( ), or “dependent origina-tion.” In earlier models, prat ī tyasamutp ā da was described as a 12-link chain of causation, in which each link causes the next in a linear fashion, with the twelfth link causing the fi rst link. In some sense, then, each link is causally connected to all of the other links. In Mah ā y ā na thought, particularly Huayan, it comes to be understood as an all-embracing web of causal relations defi ning reality: to say that something is real is to say that it participates in causal relations with everything else that can be said to be real. This changes the model from a primarily linear one to a “holographic” one, in which, at every moment, everything that can be said to be real is, in some sense, simul-taneously the cause and effect of everything else that can be said to be real. This approach acknowledges reality, but not fundamental reality, and acknowledges cau-sality, but not fi rst cause, thus avoiding the kind of ontological commitment which Buddhism generally takes to be the most proximate cause of suffering.

This is expressed most clearly in several Huayan texts and images. Historically, Huayan draws much of its inspiration from a variety of textual sources. We might identify in this regard the Huayan Jing ( Avata ṃ saka or “Flower Garland” S ū tra ), the Mahayana Awakening of Faith Treatise ( Dasheng Qixin Lun ), and a number of texts attributed to an early Chinese Buddhist thaumaturge, Dushun, including Meditative Perspectives on the Huayan Dharmadh ā tu ( ) and Cessation and Contemplation in the Five Teachings of Huayan ( Huayan wujiao zhiguan ).

The Huayan Jing itself is a voluminous hodgepodge of diverse and controversial composition. Parts of it seem to be Chinese translations of Sanskrit texts, such as the Gandavy ū ha S ū tra ; parts seem to be translations of other Sanskrit texts; and much of it seems to be of native Chinese composition. It presents a view of reality that can be described as fractal, or even psychedelic, with worlds within worlds within worlds, ad infi nitum. In the s ū tra , this macro/microcosmic “omniverse” is shaken periodically by earthquakes which might be seen as reminders to shake up and loosen or decon-struct fi xed ontological commitments, as in the following passage from Thomas Cleary ’ s

alan fox

182

translation: “Then the ocean of worlds of arrays of fl ower banks, by the power of the Buddha, all shook in six ways in eighteen manners, that is, they trembled, trembled all over, trembled all over in all directions . . . ” (Cleary 1993 , 148). Famous and powerful metaphors illustrating this insight include the famous “jeweled net of Indra.” Indra is one of the Vedic gods, mentioned in the Huayan Jing as one of an indeterminate number of Indras residing in an indeterminate number of Sumeru Palaces. Book I opens with a vivid description of the site of the Buddha ’ s awakening, representative of many such descriptions:

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was in the land of Magadha, in a state of purity, at the site of enlightenment, having just realized true awareness. The ground was solid and fi rm, made of diamond, adorned with exquisite jewel discs and myriad precious fl owers, with pure clear crystals. . . . There were banners of precious stones, constantly emitting shining light and producing beautiful sounds. Nets of myriad gems and garlands of exquisitely scented fl owers hung all around. . . . There were rows of jewel trees, their branches and foliage lustrous and luxuriant. By the Buddha ’ s spiritual power, he caused all the adornments of this enlightenment site to be refl ected therein. . . . By means of the ability to manifest the lights and inconceivable sounds of the Buddhas, they fashioned nets of the fi nest jewels, from which came forth all the realms of action of the spiritual powers of the Buddhas, and in which were refl ected images of the abodes of all beings. . . . Clouds of radiance of jewels refl ected each other.

(Ibid., 55–6)

Dushun seems to extend this idea in his Calming and Contemplation in the Five Teach-ings of Huayan ( Huayan wujiao zhiguan ; T. 1867 ) into the more elaborate one of a net which contains a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, which refl ects and is refl ected in every other jewel. In this sense, every “ dharma ” or “quanta of experience” is contained within every other dharma , even as it contains every other dharma and in fact contains itself as contained within every other dharma . This is what is referred to in the Huayan literature as “mutual containment” and “mutual penetration.” As Dushun puts it:

The manner in which all dharmas interpenetrate is like an imperial net of celestial jewels extending in all directions infi nitely, without limit. . . . Because of the clarity of the jewels, they are all refl ected in and enter into each other, ad infi nitum. Within each jewel, simul-taneously, is refl ected the whole net. Ultimately, nothing comes or goes. If we now turn to the southwest, we can pick one particular jewel and examine it closely. This individual jewel can immediately refl ect the image of every other jewel. As is the case with this jewel, this is furthermore the case with all the rest of the jewels – each and every jewel simultane-ously and immediately refl ects each and every other jewel, ad infi nitum. The image of each of these limitless jewels is within one jewel, appearing brilliantly. None of the other jewels interfere with this. When one sits within one jewel, one is simultaneously sitting in all the infi nite jewels in all ten directions. How is this so? Because within each jewel are present all jewels. If all jewels are present within each jewel, it is also the case that if you sit in one jewel you sit in all jewels at the same time. The inverse is also understood in the same way. Just as one goes into one jewel and thus enters every other jewel while never leaving this one jewel, so too one enters any jewel while never leaving this particular jewel. Question: Since you said that one enters into all jewels in one jewel without leaving this jewel, then

the huayan metaphysics of totality

183

how can one enter into all other jewels [without ever leaving the one jewel]? Answer: It is only because one does not leave this one jewel that one can enter into all jewels. If one left one jewel to enter into all jewels, it would not be possible to enter into all the jewels. Why? Because outside of this one jewel there are no other jewels. Question: If outside of this jewel there are no other jewels, then the net is made of only one jewel. How can you say that it is strung out of many jewels? Answer: It is only because there are no separate jewels that many can be fashioned into a net. How is this so? Because only this one jewel alone constitutes the whole net. If this one jewel were removed, there wouldn ’ t be any net at all. Question: If there is only one jewel, how can you say that they are woven into a net? Answer: A net woven of many jewels is itself a single jewel. Why is this so? The whole is constituted by its many parts. If there were no whole, the plurality of parts would also be absent. Therefore this net is constituted by each jewel. All entering into each – this is the way to understand this.

Typical of Chinese and especially Daoist rhetoric, there is a fair amount of equivoca-tion at work in these rhetorical paradoxes – to say that things are and are not is to say that things are what they are in one sense, and they are not in another sense. Each jewel is identical to every other jewel in some sense and unique in another sense, and this is what makes these formulations seem so bizarre and oxymoronic. We consistently see language in the Huayan literature which reconciles identity and difference, or part and whole. The whole is identical to the part in the sense that the whole is nothing but its parts, and the parts are identical to the whole in the sense that they wouldn ’ t be parts if not for the whole. This mutual defi nition – that the parts and wholes are defi ned by each other – is what is meant by these rhetorical paradoxes.

As Garma Chang describes the Huayan worldview: “the ‘larger’ universes include the ‘smaller’ ones as a solar system contains its planets, or a planet contains its atoms. This system of higher realms embracing the lower ones is pictured in a structure extending ad infi nitum in both directions to the infi nitely large or the infi nitely small. This is called in the Huayan vocabulary the view of ‘realms-embracing-realms.’” (Chang 1971 , 12). This metaphor, though, illustrates only the familiar model of the macrocos-mic containing the microcosmic. It seems the Huayan model goes further and suggests that “containment” works in both directions: just as the large contains the small, so does the small contain the large.

The Huayan Jing also contains many chapters whose titles invoke lists of ten qualities or aspects of some subject, such as “Ten Abodes,” “Ten Practices,” “Ten Inexhaustible Treasuries,” “Ten Dedications,” “Ten Stages,” and others, which have greatly infl u-enced the rhetoric of Huayan literature. For example, among the idiosyncratic formula-tions of the Huayan school are many lists of metaphors or ways of looking at things, such as the “Ten Mysteries,” the “Perfect Interpenetration of Six Forms,” and so on, but it is the idea of the “fourfold dharmadh ā tu ” that arguably serves as the most central doctrine. The term “ dharmadh ā tu ” has been used in many ways throughout the history of Buddhist thought in India and China.

In the P ā li Nik ā yas, there are passages which suggest that meditation or contempla-tion of dharmadh ā tu is the most profound method of attaining higher-order perspec-tives. For example, in the Samyutta Nik ā ya , dharmadh ā tu is one of the 18 dh ā tus . These dh ā tus represent the perceptual manifold, analyzed into subjective, objective, and medi-ational “realms.” They are, using the visual sense as an example: the physical eye itself,

alan fox

184

the sensory organ; the ostensible sensory object, such as “color,” which is seen; and the visual perceptive consciousness which mediates this sensory event. There are six such senses in this formulation, and in the Samyutta Nik ā ya dharmadh ā tu is treated as the object of the cognitive sense ( manovijñ ā na ). It is this understanding of dharmadh ā tu which is found most commonly in the P ā li Abhidharma materials, and is also dominant in the Therav ā da and Sarv ā stiv ā da Abhidharma traditions.

In the Prajñ ā p ā ramit ā literature, the term dharmadh ā tu is expressed in apparently negative formulations such as ś ū nyata or “emptiness.” Such expressions seem intended to deconstruct ontological fi xation on dharmadh ā tu as one more thing among other things. The Madhyamaka school, also, because of its deconstructive approach to the problem of contextual dissonance, focused on more cognitive, epistemological con-cerns. To the Madhyamaka tradition, terms such as dh ā tu (realm, sphere, context) or dharmadh ā tu are too easily ontologized. Actually, the Huayan notion of an inter-penetrative dharmadh ā tu is completely synonymous with the equation of sunyata and prat ī tyasamutp ā da . Dharmadh ā tu is a contextual interpretation of interdependent co-origination.

The term dharmadh ā tu (Ch. fa jie ) occurs with great frequency In the Huayan S ū tra itself. At no point, however, is it “explained” or analyzed. Rather, it represents the goal of the bodhisattva practice, the end of Sudhana ’ s journey in the fi nal chapter. In most cases, the term ru ( : “to enter”) is used as the functional qualifi er, suggesting that the nature of dharmadh ā tu is such that it must be entered. It is not necessary to ontologize dharmadh ā tu as any kind of mystical or “spiritual world” when it seems more likely to refer to a particular way of looking at the world, a particular perspective on reality. This understanding seems refl ected in early Huayan literature, and especially in one of the most basic models of meditation found in Huayan, that of the “four dharmadh ā tus .” This might be mistaken for a metaphysical model if dharmadh ā tu is understood as “world,” as it often is, and so this notion might seem to suggest that there are four separate worlds into which one might enter. This is true in an existential, though not an ontological, sense. In Buddhism, a “world” or dh ā tu has no independent status apart from a consciousness which apprehends it, and vice versa. To paraphrase the opening lines of the Dhammapada , the world is a thought, and to change your thoughts is to change the world. In that sense, then, the “four dharmadh ā tus ” are not four separate worlds but four cognitive approaches to the world, four ways of appre-hending reality.

Although it was really Chengguan (738–839), the fourth Huayan patriarch, who fi rst clearly articulated the “fourfold dharmadh ā tu ” analysis, the idea is clearly visible in a work attributed to Dushun (557–640), the acknowledged initial patriarch of the orthodox Huayan tradition, entitled Meditative Approaches to the Huayan Dharmadh ā tu . It has become a hallmark of the Huayan tradition and the centerpiece of its theoretical structure. This work was basically a meditation manual, outlining three approaches to (or “layers” of) meditation on the dharmadh ā tu . The three levels of meditation are: (1) meditation on “True Emptiness”; (2) illuminating the non-obstruction of prin-ciple and phenomena; and (3) meditation on “universal pervasion and complete accommodation.”

It is in Chengguan ’ s commentary to the Meditative Approaches that we fi rst fi nd a clear description of the fourfold dharmadh ā tu . Here, the three layers of meditation on

the huayan metaphysics of totality

185

dharmadh ā tu found in the Meditative Approaches are interpreted as the second, third, and fourth dharmadh ā tu : the fi rst layer becomes the second dharmadh ā tu – that of “prin-ciple” ( li ); the second layer becomes the third dharmadh ā tu – that of the “non-obstruction of principle and phenomena” ( lishi wuai ); and the third layer becomes the fourth dharmadh ā tu – that of the “non-obstruction of phenomena with other phenomena” ( shishi wuai ). The fi rst dharmadh ā tu – that of “phenom-ena” ( shi ) – refers to our ordinary, tacit, superfi cial interpretation of experience, and so Dushun did not consider it a meditative approach. It is important to emphasize that these dharmadh ā tus are not separate worlds – they are actually increasingly more holo-graphic perspectives on a single phenomenological manifold.

In some sense, then, similar to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, dhar-madh ā tu refers to the virtually infi nite manifold of possibilities, which coalesces into an actual reality through the cognitive approach or perspective adopted by a conscious mind. A convenient metaphor is one of those “magic eye” pictures, which seems like visual noise until you focus your eyes to the correct depth into the picture, at which point the image appears. Dharmadh ā tu or “reality” is like that, except that, instead of only one image being available, an infi nite number of different images is available depending on the depth and angle of viewing. Since, for the Huayan tradition, “princi-ple” is equated with “emptiness,” we might say that, in contextual terms, “principle” can be interpreted as “contextuality,” while “phenomenon” can be interpreted as the particular signifi cance of an event or ostensible thing. Specifi c signifi cance is thus determined relativistically by context, or principle.

When Huayan speaks of the “interpenetration of principle and phenomena,” it could be said that what is being described is the fact that, on the one hand, context is nothing other than the product of the interrelationships of its constituent signifi cance events, and that, on the other hand, the signifi cance of these events is determined by the context of which they are constitutive. “Interpenetration of phenomena with other phenomena” refers to the fact that all possible contextually determined signifi cances of particular events overlap and coexist simultaneously and at all times, without confl ict or obstruction.

What we think are the essences of objects are really therefore nothing but mere names, mere functional designations, and none of these contextual defi nitions need necessarily interfere with any of the others. The signifi cance of an object, and in fact its very reality, at any given moment is a function of the contextual perspective from which it is approached. At rest, all of these potential contextual perspectives interpen-etrate, in that each context is at that point still merely a possible approach to functional signifi cance. Functional designations are actualized when the moment of their use for some practical purpose is at hand and a particular perspective is adopted.

This model correlates again with modern quantum mechanical views of the uni-verse. Basically a statistical model of reality, quantum mechanics suggests that the occurrence of events can be described mathematically by a series of wave functions. As the occurrence of an event approaches, wave functions describe the probabilities of all particular possible outcomes of the event. These probability functions do not interfere with one another, and exist side by side until the event actually occurs. Until the event occurs, it is all of them and none of them. At that moment, one of the wave functions, that which describes the actual outcome, expands to 100 percent probability, while the

alan fox

186

others collapse to zero probability. The point is that, until the wave functions collapse and the event actually occurs, all possible outcomes are equally inherent, and it is only when the moment of actualization is at hand that one possible outcome becomes dominant.

This “all-in-one and one-in-all” philosophy pervades Huayan thought and rhetoric. Perhaps its most effective expositor was the seventh-century Huayan patriarch Fazang, who is famous for the demonstrations and metaphors which enabled him to explain Buddhist metaphysics to, among others, the Empress Wu, securing imperial support for his translation movement and for Buddhist institutions affi liated with his form of Huayan thought, often described as “orthodox.” Among his most well-known demon-strations were the “Hall of Mirrors” and the “Golden Lion.”

In the fi rst instance, Fazang used ten mirrors to conform to the “tenfold” precedent established in the Huayan Jing itself. Eight large mirrors were arranged in an octagon, with additional mirrors placed on the fl oor and ceiling. In the center of this space was placed a statue of the Buddha. Fazang then ignited a torch in the center, and the room was fi lled with refl ections within refl ections of the torch and the Buddha. This effec-tively demonstrated the Huayan view of reality as a web of causal relations, each “node” or interstices of which lacks any essential identity, and each of which is in some sense contained within everything else even as it contains everything else.

In the second case, Fazang used a meticulously carved statue of a lion made out of solid gold he saw at the Imperial Palace. Every detail of the lion was represented on the statue – every hair, every tooth, every claw, etc. While all of these parts seemed distinct and unique, in fact they were all gold. The goldness of the lion did not interfere with the details of the lion and vice versa. In this sense the golden substance represents the empty ( ś ū nya ) nature of all things, which does not interfere with the ostensible indi-viduality of all things. Things are unique and similar simultaneously, such that their uniqueness and similarity do not obstruct each other.

Of course, the metaphor illustrates that Fazang was willing and perhaps eager to reduce the world to a fundamental ontology, contrary to the premises of early Bud-dhism. The suggestion of an essential substance of which everything is a transforma-tion seems to threaten to re-enter Buddhist tradition periodically. Certainly, Fazang championed that interpretation of Yog ā c ā ra thought and the Awakening of Faith , as opposed to his rival translator Xuanzang, whose understanding was shaped by the years he spent studying at the Sanskrit Buddhist institutions in India.

One last metaphor or teaching device for which Fazang is famous is his description of the universe as a house or building. Each part of the house is in some sense the whole house, and the whole house is in each part. As above, so below – because the house is nothing but the rafters and joists, etc., each rafter is necessary for the whole to exist and, in that sense, each rafter is the whole building. It is true that such an omni-causal model confl ates the various types of causal relations that Aristotle, for example, distin-guishes, such as effi cient, material, fi nal, contiguous, and other types of causal rela-tions. On the other hand, the purpose of the model is not to distinguish causal subtleties but to stimulate contextual and perspectival fl exibility.

The infl uence of other forms of Chinese thought on Huayan is clear. The emphasis on non-dogmatic contextual fl exibility and perspectivalism sounds strikingly like ideas found in the writings of Zhuangzi ( ). Various ideas introduced into Chinese thought

the huayan metaphysics of totality

187

by Zhuangzi encourage the soteriological transcendence of perspectival fi xation through cultivation of higher order, more omni-perspectival viewpoints. We see what the Zhuangzi means by a “partial view” in Burton Watson ’ s ( 1968 ) translation of chapter 17: “Jo of the North Sea said, ‘You can ’ t discuss the ocean with a well frog – he ’ s limited by the space he lives in. You can ’ t discuss ice with a summer insect – he ’ s bound to a single season. You can ’ t discuss the Way with a cramped scholar – he ’ s shackled by his doctrines.’” Because of the limitations of perspective, signifi cance cannot universally apply across contexts. Particular doctrines and ideological approaches are “shackles” or “blinders” which accommodate only the narrowest range of experience. To paraphrase Hans-Georg Gadamer, there can be no truth through method: method presupposes specifi c categories of result. Even the merest formulation of a question, by orienting the point of view, determines the nature of the response. By limiting perspective, we are limiting signifi cance, and contextual fi xation of this kind restricts what Zhuangzi calls “carefree meandering.”

Most notable is the infl uence of the paradigmatic Chinese text known as the Dasheng Qixin Lun or Mahayana Awakening of Faith . According to Buddhist tradition, this text was written in Sanskrit by Asvagosa and translated into Chinese in the year 550 by the famous Central Asian translator Paramartha. This is disputed, however, by many scholars who believe that the text was actually Chinese in origin. According to its translator:

The work is a comprehensive summary of the essentials of Mahayana Buddhism, the product of a mind extraordinarily apt at synthesis. . . . The Awakening of Faith has exerted a strong infl uence upon other schools of Buddhism as well. Fa-tsang, the third patriarch and the greatest systematizer of the Hua-yen school of Buddhism, wrote what was regarded as the defi nitive commentary on the Awakening of Faith , and moreover used this text as a foundation in creating his systematization of Hua-yen doctrine, and for this reason the text has often been thought of as peculiarly the property of the Hua-yen School. For example, Tsung-mi, the fi fth patriarch of the Hua-yen School, also wrote a commentary on the Awakening of Faith and used its doctrines as a foundation in his attempts to synthe-size the three religions of China, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

(Hakeda 2005 , 3–10)

The core metaphor or model in the Awakening of Faith is the idea of the “One Mind” ( yi xin ). For Zongmi, fi fth patriarch of Huayan, this “One Mind” refers to the closure and unity of experience itself, which he characterizes as “intrinsic awareness” or “sen-tience,” among other things. From a phenomenological point of view, Zongmi sees awareness as the “bottom line.” It is pre-perspectival, and in that respect is identical to the dharmadh ā tu in its most comprehensive aspect. In the Awakening of Faith , two medi-tative approaches to the One Mind are adopted: those of Suchness ( tathata , zhen ru ) and sa ṃ s ā ra . It must be kept in mind, however, that these refer to two different perspec-tives on the One Mind, and do not describe two different entities or realities. According to the Awakening of Faith , One Mind includes both the one and the many.

Thus it would appear that such designations as “Suchness,” “Dharmadh ā tu,” “One Mind,” and so on, all represent various perspectives towards the so-called omni-context or phenomenological manifold, which is itself identifi ed with pre-perspectival, pre-dualistic “awareness.” As far as Zongmi ’ s own formulation is concerned, the key to the

alan fox

188

unity of theory and practice lay in the idea of “immediate awakening followed by gradual cultivation.” This also serves as Zongmi ’ s attempt to reconcile the ongoing controversy within the Chan tradition of his time over the sudden or gradual nature of practice and awakening. As Zongmi himself says in the Chan Preface:

The words “awakening,” “cultivation,” “immediate,” and “gradual” seem to be very far apart [in meaning], and yet they are complementary. This means that [among] the various Sutras and sastras and the various Chan gates, some say that one must fi rst attain success by means of gradual cultivation, and then immediately awaken. Others say that one must fi rst immediately awaken, and then one can practice gradual cultivation. Others say that by means of immediate cultivation, one awakens gradually. Others say that the Dharma is neither gradual nor immediate, and that both gradual and immediate refer to the capa-bilities [of various individuals]. Each has its intended meaning. To say that they [only] seem to confl ict is to say that, since awakening is the accomplishment of Buddhahood, funda-mentally there never were any klesas : this is why it is called “immediate,” because one need not practice cultivation in order to eliminate [ klesas ]. Then why continue to speak of gradual cultivation? Gradual cultivation is for when the klesas are not yet exhausted. The causal practice is not yet complete, so the resultant virtue is not yet ripe. How could it be called “immediate”? Immediate is that which is not gradual; gradual is that which is not immediate. Therefore they are said to be in confl ict. By reconciling them in the following discussion, I will show that immediate and gradual are not only not contradictory, but are actually complementary.

(T.2015)

Later on in the text, Zongmi specifi es what he means by “immediate awakening followed by gradual cultivation”:

There are those who say that one must fi rst suddenly awaken and then one can gradually [practice] cultivation. This refers to awakening as “insight.” (In terms of the elimination of hindrances, it is like when the sun immediately comes out, yet the frost melts gradually. With respect to the perfection of virtue, it is like a child which, when born, immediately possesses four limbs and six senses. As it grows, it gradually develops control over its actions.) Therefore, the Hua Yen [ Jing ] says that when the bodhicitta is fi rst aroused, this is already the accomplishment of perfect enIightenment.

The idea of immediate awakening followed by gradual cultivation rests upon a par-ticular understanding of the nature of “enlightenment,” an understanding which is fi rst formulated in the Awakening of Faith . Here, “enlightenment” is looked at from several different perspectives. To begin with, all sentient beings are regarded as funda-mentally already enlightened. As the result of what is termed “beginningless igno-rance,” this primordial awakening is forgotten, and the individual fi nds herself in sa ṃ s ā ra . At some point, one experiences an “initial” awakening, which then matures into a “fi nal” or “ultimate” awakening which is identical to the awakening of the buddhas. As Zongmi formulates it in the Chan Preface, the so-called initial awakening is termed “immediate insight awakening” and refers to the initial sudden insight into “One Mind” and the contextual nature of experience. However, what is being called “insight-awakening” involves more than merely intellectual understanding. In contex-tual terms, it refers rather to an existential realization of contextuality, or, in other

the huayan metaphysics of totality

189

words, to the fact that lived experience is indeed a complex of contextual closures. However, even though such insight-awakening has taken place, the habitual energies produced by conditioned fi xations have generated a powerful momentum, accruing over the course of, perhaps, an uncountable multitude of lifetimes. Therefore the purpose of “post-insight” practice of gradual cultivation is gradually to break these habits. When this gradual cultivation results in the elimination of habitual, neurotic obsessions and fi xations, this is what Zongmi calls “authenticated awakening.” Together, “insight-awakening” and “authenticated awakening” constitute “comprehensive enlight-enment.” Indeed, in the fi nal chapter of the Hua Yen S ū tra , it is suggested that, although the bodhisattva path consists of 52 distinct stages, as soon as one begins at the initial stage, one has already, in a sense, completed all 52 stages. Nevertheless, one must still proceed through the stages one at a time, much like a baseball player who hits a home run, and yet still has to run around and touch all of the bases to score a run. Thus, faced with the radical iconoclasm of some of the Chan traditions of his time, Zongmi manages to reconcile the spontaneous nature of awakening as emphasized in Chan with the need for textual study and meditation practice as emphasized in other, more classical forms of Buddhist tradition.

Although Huayan eventually ceased to function as an autonomous school of Chinese Buddhism, its thought had a signifi cant infl uence on the development of later forms of East Asian Mah ā y ā na Buddhism. As indicated, many scholars have linked Huayan to Chinese Chan Buddhism. Zongmi, in fact, claimed lineage credentials in both the Huayan and the Chan traditions. The important Korean Son Buddhist thinker Wonhyo also commented on Huayan, Zongmi, and the Awakening of Faith . Although in many cases the link to Huayan is not explicitly stated, nevertheless the rhetoric and categories of later East Asian Mah ā y ā na are indebted to the Huayan thinkers and texts.

References

Chang , Garma C. C. ( 1971 ). The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism . University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press .

Cleary , Thomas (trans.) ( 1993 ). The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra . Boulder, CO : Shambhala .

Dushun . Calming and Contemplation in the Five Teachings of Huayan (Huayan wujiao zhiguan , Taisho 1867 .

Hakeda , Yoshito (trans.) ( 2005 ). The Awakening of Faith . New York : Columbia University Press . Watson , Burton (trans.) ( 1968 ). The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu . New York : Columbia Univer-

sity Press .