mou zongsan's “transcendental” interpretation of huayan buddhism

jocp_1647 238..256

andres siu-kwong tang

MOU ZONGSAN’S “TRANSCENDENTAL”INTERPRETATION OF HUAYAN BUDDHISM

Among the Chinese philosophical scholars,Mou Zongsan (1909–1995)may be the first to offer very original interpretations of ChineseBuddhism. His magnum opus, Foxing yu Boruo ,1 inter-prets various representative schools of Indian and Chinese Buddhism,the Madhyamaka (zhongguan ), Yogacara Buddhism (weishi

), Tiantai, and Huayan, by focusing on two crucial Buddhist con-cepts: Buddha nature and prajña. For him, Buddha nature and prajñaare the frameworks in which all kinds of Buddhist doctrinal systemdevelop.2 Previous to this book, Mou has published Zhi de Zhijue yuZhongguo Zhexue (Intellectual Intuition andChinese Philosophy)3 and Xianxiang yu Wuzishen(Appearance andThing-in-itself),4 in which Mou primarily outlines theessential character of Tiantai and Huayan Buddhism in terms of theirvarious expressions of intellectual intuition, and clarifies the crucialdifferences between these two traditions.

In Foxing yu Boruo Mou gives a thematic philosophical analysisof the Huayan School and asserts that it is the end of the develop-ment of the “transcendental” analysis of the codependent originationof tathagatgarbha.First,Mou uses the notion of“One Mind OpensTwoDoors”in the Awakening of Faith to engage with Kant’s transcendentalphilosophy and constructs an ontology that consists of two levels: theontology of attachment (zhi de cunyou lun ) and the ontol-ogy of nonattachment (wuzhi de cunyou lun ), whichrespectively correspond to the knowledge of the phenomenon and theknowledge of thing-in-itself.5The ontology of nonattachment,for Mou,can be seen in the Chinese philosophies of Confucianism, Daoism, andBuddhism.6 Second, through this ontology Mou interprets ChineseBuddhism and judges Huayan Buddhism as the necessary develop-ment after Yogacara in Mahayana. Mou considers the “One Mind” ofthe Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana to be transcendental inessence and claims that Huayan School goes further in offering an

ANDRES SIU-KWONG TANG, Professor, Christian Thought (Theology and Culture) atHong Kong Baptist Theological Seminary. Specialties: German theology and dialoguewith Chinese philosophy, postmodern philosophy in theology. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38:2 (June 2011) 238–256© 2011 Journal of Chinese Philosophy

analytical interpretation of the ultimate fulfillment of the Buddharealm by referring to this transcendental mind.

This article will first give an account of Mou’s judgment of thetranscendental character of Huayan School by tracing his understand-ing of the doctrinal relationship between the “One Mind Opens TwoDoors” in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana and the “SimplyTrue Mind” of Huayan School. Second, Mou’s interpretation of “theco-dependent origination of tathagatgarbha” of Huayan School willbe analyzed so as to identify the sense in which Mou considers thatthe teaching of Huayan School is perfect. This will be explicated indetail in the second and third parts. However, Mou’s interpretation ofthe “Perfect” Doctrine of Huayan School draws our attention to thefact that the “distinctive” ontological explanation of all dharmas inHuayan teaching is different from that of the Tiantai School. Mouargues that the Huayan School is not the final and authentic “Perfect”Doctrine of Buddhism. In the fourth part we will discuss this in detail.Finally, does Mou’s transcendental interpretation do justice to theHuayan School? Wing-cheuk Chan (Chen Rongzhuo ) criti-cizes such a reading as a mere step toward a proper understanding ofthe dialectical essence of Huayan School.We will introduce this in thelast part of this article.

I.

As Mou clearly says in the preface of Foxing yu Boruo, prajña is thecommon element of Buddhism while Buddha nature is the key todifferentiating various systems within Buddhism.7 For him, “the issueof the difference between Hinayana and Mahayana and systemsamong Mahayana is Buddha-nature and its solution depends on theconcept of Buddha-nature but not prajña. This is the key.”8 OnlyBuddha nature can be the ontological ground or origin of all dharmasand the condition of possibility for attaining Buddhahood.9 A certainkind of Buddhist ontology must be established on the doctrine ofBuddha nature so as to move toward the perfect teaching of Bud-dhism. Otherwise the development of Buddhism is still far away from“perfection.” However, for Mou, the perfection that Huayan Schoolaims at is not the authentic one, about which we will say more insection II. Suffice it here to say that in Mou’s interpretation, Buddhanature, whether it is understood in terms of alaya consciousness(alaiye shi ), the “One Mind” or “Simple True Mind,” or the“Momentary Mind of Daharmata and Ignorance” (yinian wumingfaxing xin ), it is the crucial condition in determiningthe perfection of the Buddhist School.

239transcendental interpretation

Therefore, concerning the essential nature of the Huayan School,Mou, in Foxing yu Boruo, focuses on the discussion of Buddha natureso as to identify the nature of the “perfection” that this school seeks.Mou understands Huayan in the context of the philosophical devel-opment of Buddhism by focusing on the ontological issue of theexistence of all dharmas. Most noteworthy is the fact that Mou’sidentification of the Buddhist ontology of Huayan is a kind of tran-scendental analysis which is different from that of the alaya conscious-ness.This is because Huayan follows the standpoint of Dacheng QixinLun (Awakening of Faith). Mou considers the devel-opment of the alaya system of Yogacara into the system of the Trueand Constant Mind (zhanchang xin xitong ) of Awakeningof Faith to be logical and necessary within the doctrine of Buddhism.10

He explains this by looking at two issues:

One issue emerged out of the necessity to explain the ground ofall dharmas. The doctrinal system of the True and Constant Mindmaintained that the self-existing of the pure mind of Buddha womb(rulai zang ) is that upon which all dharmas depend andare grounded, which is a more complete than that of YogacaraBuddhism.11

For Mou, according to Yogacara Budhhism, all dharmas originate inthe alaya consciousness and have their grounding-place from thealaya consciousness, but alaya is merely an illusory consciousness-mind. Adhering to this explanation of the alaya consciousness, onecan only explain the cycle of life and death of all dharmas, and thiscycle is simply the dharmas of arising and cessation. But not alldharmas are the polluted dharmas of a revolving flow of arising andcessation. For Mou, this only explains the emergence of the polluteddharmas. He wonders what the origin of the pure dharmas of merit is,according to Yogacara Budhhism. In other words, how do we explainthe question of the grounding of pure dharmas?12

Mou then goes a step further and comes to the second question,namely “whether there is any assurance of attaining Buddhahood” inYogacara:13

since the non-leaking seed [in Yogacara] is formed through empiri-cally right hearing influences, the ground of the sentient beings’attainment of Buddhahood must also belong to the empirical, andsince this is a posteriori and empirical, then the ground on whichattaining Buddhahood rests has no necessary assurance.14

According to Mou, this question forces one to go a step furtherand finally find an a priori ground which is moreover transcend-ent and nonempirical. In other words, it brings out “the Buddha-Womb Self-Existing Pure Mind” (rulai zang zixing qingjing xin

) as the only way to thoroughly solve the question

240 andres siu-kwong tang

of the grounding of attaining Buddhahood.15 Mou considers this PureMind in nature to be nonempirical and yet it can make the puredharmas appear in the empirical world. Then, pressed by these twoquestions, Mou develops the point that Buddhism has to introduce thesystem of “the True and Constant Mind,” represented by the thoughtof the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana.16

It is clear that Mou sees the One Mind in the Awakening of Faith asthe transcendental True and Constant Mind which can be the origin ofall dharmas, including those in the cycle of life and death, and thosepure and nonleaking merits.17 According to Mou, only this transcen-dental mind can give a perfect, complete, and radical explanation ofthe pure dharmas, whereas the alaya consciousness of Yogacara canoffer an explanation of the arising of impure dharmas but not the pureone.18 Mou considers that the pure seeds in the system of Yogacara arestill empirical in essence. Therefore the pure seeds cannot take up theresponsibility of the emergence of the pure dharmas. Of this Mouclearly says, “[T]he alaya consciousness can directly lead to theopening of the arising-cessation door, but not directly to the openingof the door of purity.”19 Furthermore, the alaya consciousness itselfby nature cannot assure the attainment of Buddhahood.20 In otherwords, Mou asserts that the transcendental pure mind is responsiblefor the pure dharmas while the alaya consciousness merely theimpure one.

However this does not mean that the former cannot be the origin ofthe impure dharmas. Mou clearly explains,“The way of explaining thearising of the pure dharmas through the Buddha-Womb Self-ExistingPure Mind is direct, whereas the way of explaining the arising of theimpure dharmas through the Pure Mind is indirect.”21 For Mou thealaya consciousness is redefined by the Awakening of Faith as tran-scendent and immanent in order to give explanations to both the pureand impure dharmas. Concerning this indirect origination of theimpurity by the Pure Mind, Mou considers this as the intervention ofignorance (wuming ).22 Mou further employs Kant’s philosophyto explain the cause of ignorance. According to Kant our will is notthe Holy Will while our maxims are often at variance with our morallaw.This is because we have sensibility.23 Likewise,“[b]ecause we havesensibility, we are often led by material inclinations, which give rise toignorance and torpor.”24

Mou regards the framework of the “One Mind Opens Two Doors”“as a universal, commonly shared paradigm which can be applied tothe three doctrines of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, andcan even subsume Kant’s system.”25 Mou asserts that the “One MindOpens Two Doors” in the Awakening of Faith belongs to the levelof moral metaphysics or transcendent metaphysics (chaojue de


xingshang xue ).26 The difference between Mou andKant is merely that the former asserts the intellectual intuition ofhuman being while the latter denies it. In short, Mou asserts that the“One Mind” of the Awakening of Faith is a kind of intellectual intu-ition which can know the events-and-things-in-themselves, the realityas such. It is in this sense that the “One Mind” is called transcendent.

Against this philosophical understanding, Mou contends that theHuayan School is the climax of the system of “the True and ConstantMind” or “the Buddha-Womb Self-Existing Pure Mind” in the Awak-ening of Faith. In other words, on the one hand, Huayan’s understand-ing of the Buddha-spiritual-body presupposes “the True and ConstantMind” or “the Buddha-Womb Self-Existing Pure Mind” as its essen-tial nature. But on the other hand, Mou interprets the Huayan doc-trine of the codependent origination of the dharmas-realm as a kindof teaching of the ultimate fulfillment of all dharmas. To borrow theterm from Christian theology, we can say that this is a sort of escha-tology of Buddhism that eschatologically understands all dharmas.That is, the Huayan School’s doctrine of the codependent originationof the dharmas-realm is the ultimately perfect realization or actual-ization of all dharmas. In the following we will explore what thisperfect realization or actualization means in Mou’s interpretation.

II.

According to Mou, Huayan follows the Avatamsaka Sutra in devel-oping its perfect system by focusing on the codependent originationof the dharmas-realm that is disclosed in the Buddha-spiritual-body. Itpresupposes the following basic presuppositions:27

1. Codependent origination and emptiness of nature (yuanqixingkong ).

2. The Buddha-spiritual-body of Vairocana (pilu zhena fo fashen).28

3. Sagara-mudra-samadhi (haiyin sanmei ) (the deep medi-tation of the Buddha-spiritual-body of Vairocana).

As we all know, “co-dependent origination and emptiness of sub-stance” is a common doctrine among various schools in Buddhism.Basically it means that the arising and cessation of all things are dueto conditions and it follows the emptiness of substance. The Buddha-spiritual-body of Vairocana, to put it simply, is one who alreadyattained Buddhahood without ignorance. This Buddha-spiritual-bodyis perfectly fulfilled and full of all kinds of infinite and limitless merits.In the deep meditation of this Buddha-spiritual-body, all kinds of


perfectly fulfilled dharmas are reflected and manifested infinitelyand limitlessly. Mou notes that the codependent origination of thedharmas-realm of Huayan School is quite different from the code-pendent origination of the alaya consciousness and the codependentorigination of tathagatgarbha.29 In sum, the former is the ultimatecodependent origination of the perfectly fulfilled dharmas whichare different from those originated by the alaya consciousness andtathagatgarbha, which have not yet attained the perfectly fulfilledBuddhahood.30 However, Mou insists that the former is the end of thedevelopment of the codependent origination of tathagatgarbha in theAwakening of Faith, and it is the former is the final and ultimaterealization and actualization of the latter.

However, the three presuppositions are merely the presuppositionswithin the system of the “Perfect” Doctrine of the Huayan School.What Mou means by this is that these three presuppositions mutuallypresuppose one another within the system of the “Perfect” Doctrine.We can call them the immanent principles of the Huayan Schoolwhich govern the operation of the codependent origination of thedharmas-realm. Furthermore, there are other presuppositions uponwhich these three are based. In other words, there are other extrasys-tematic conditions which make the codependent origination of thedharmas-realm possible. They are causes outside the system of the“Perfect” Doctrine, known as the extrasystematic causes31 that are notoutside Huayan teachings. The two presuppositions for the possibilityof the “Perfect” Doctrine of the codependent origination of thedharmas-realm are:

1. The reversing turn of the Simply True Mind (weiyi zhenxinhuizhuan ).

2. Arising dependent on condition and cessation dependent on con-dition (suiyuan qixian, suiyuan huanmie , ).

Since these two presuppositions of the extrasystem are the basis forthe three presuppositions within the system of the “Perfect” Doctrine,we may discuss the former first. Indeed, after explaining the maintheme of Avatamsaka Sutra, Mou first talks about “being changelesswhile following condition and following condition but being change-less” of the True-Suchess Mind (zhenru xin zhi “bubian suiyuan,suiyuan bubian” ), then the codepen-dent origination of the dharmas-realm, and finally the Special/Distinctive Doctrine of One Yana (i.e., the Buddha Yana throughwhich all can attain Buddhahood) Perfect Doctrine (biejiao yichengyuanjiao ), and the Common Doctrine of One YanaPerfect Doctrine (tongjiao yicheng yuanjiao ). The firstpresupposition is about the returning of the Simply True Mind to itself


by its own nature after following condition and losing itself in the cycleof the life and death; the second one is about the arising and cessationof all dharmas indirectly derived by the SimplyTrue Mind.The first oneis the ground for the Simple True Mind that can reach the perfectfulfilled reality of the codependent origination of the dharmas-realm.The second one is the ground which allows the polluted dharmas toemerge. In short, these two presuppositions point to the transcendentessence of the True Mind of Huayan in continuation with that of the“One Mind Opens Two Doors” in the Awakening of Faith.

Mou’s discussion of the True Mind (zhanxin ) of the HuayanSchool mainly focuses on the writings of Fazang (643–712),specifically chapter 10 of the Essay on the Difference and Unity of theDoctrine of the Ekayana Buddhism of Huayan (“huayan yichengfojiao yi fenqi zhang ),” in which the teach-ing of the “Special/Distinctive Doctrine of Ekayana” is explicated indetail. Most noteworthy is that Mou’s analysis is conducted within theframework of the system of the “True and Constant Mind.” Conse-quently he identifies Huayan’s teaching of the True Mind in terms ofthe Buddha-Womb Self-Existing Pure Mind. This is clearly expressedin Mou’s interpretation of Fazang’s idea of “being changeless whilefollowing condition and following condition but being changeless”(bubian suiyuan, suiyuan bubian , ). Here weshould be reminded that Mou’s interpretation is subject to his under-standing of the “One Mind Opens Two Doors” in Awakening of Faith.

The context of Fazang’s idea is the identity and difference of thethree substances (sanxing ) of Yogacara Budhhism. Fazanguses the following two ideas—“always being the origin withoutdestroying the derived” (buhuai mo er changben ) and“always being the derived without changing the origin” (budong bener changmo )—to explain the claim of the indifferenceof the philosophical implications of the teaching of the three sub-stances. On the one hand, all three point to the same origin: the Trueand Constant Mind. On the other hand, all three point to the samederived: the existence without substance. The former, that is, theorigin, consists of the “sense of changelessness” of the perfectlyfulfilled Buddha nature, the “sense of being without substance” ofthe other-dependent, and the “sense of emptiness in principle” ofthe attached. Mou explains that the changelessness of the perfectlyfulfilled means that the purity of the perfectly fulfilled itself isnot polluted and does not change when following the pure andimpure conditions. “Being without substance” is but the sense of the“emptiness of the substance” while “emptiness in principle” ofoverall attachment is the attachment of the appearance but not thesubstance.


Therefore, because of the purity of the perfectly fulfilled, andknowing the emptiness of the substance and that there is nothing toattach, one can reach actuality. Although they are three, they are notdifferentiated from one another,32 and we can understand the threeas the various expressions of the transcendental nature of the origin:the perfectly fulfilled Buddha nature, or the perfectly fulfilled TrueMind. Here Mou emphasizes that the statement, “always being theorigin but without destroying the derived,” is different from that ofBoruo Jing (Prajñaparamita-sutra), which merely talks ofthe reality of emptiness through prajña but does not give a rootexplanation of all dharmas.33 This means that the transcendentalorigin gives rise to the existence of all dharmas which are in realityempty, codependent, and without substance. However, this alsomeans that the doctrine of emptiness of the Huayan School is notdifferent from that of the Madhyamika in the analytical sense. Thatis, they both suggest that emptiness by nature is being and being bynature is emptiness (kong ji se, se ji kong ). ForMou, the relation between being and emptiness is a kind of analyti-cal in the sense that being in nature is codependent without sub-stance. It is therefore not dialectical as suggested by Wing-cheukChan, whose interpretations of Mou will be discussed in the lastsection.

The statement, “always being the derived without changing theorigin,” expresses the idea that all the derived are the same; that is,whether it is existences/beings because of following condition(suiyuan ), existences/beings that seem to be existing (siyou

), or existences/beings because of emotion (qingyou ), all arethe consequence of “without being polluted yet being polluted” of theperfectly fulfilled, being codependent and without substance. Thesethree derived always arise but do not affect the origin of the perfectlyfulfilled (yuanshi ).34 This means that the True and Constant Minditself is not affected even though all dharmas are arising through it,which will fully and perfectly realize itself. Here Mou once again takesFazang’s origin of the perfectly fulfilled as the True and ConstantMind which is transcendent in nature. However, this transcendentTrue and Constant Mind indirectly allows the arising of all dharmas,both the pure and the polluted. What Mou tries to show through theexplanation of Fazang is first the nature of the perfectly fulfilled, orthe True Mind and its relation to all dharmas.

In other words, Mou shows that the Huayan School does offer aroot explanation of all dharmas. Then Mou proceeds to discuss ifsuch a root explanation is perfect or not. If it is perfect then thefinal task would be the determination of whether it is the PerfectDoctrine. For Mou, on the one hand, Huayan is perfect for its


offering an ontological explanation of all dharmas. On the other,Mou further argues that whether the way of expressing or teachingthis root explanation should be considered as perfect or not is underthe control of certain criteria. Mou reads Fazang very carefully, espe-cially on the arising of all dharmas through the True and ConstantMind. This can be seen in his correction of Fazang’s statement that“the perfectly fulfilled can follow condition and becomes pure andpolluted because it does not lose its own purity.” Mou does not agreewith it since the changelessness of the True and Constant Mind isanalytical while the happening of following condition is synthetical.35

This means that by nature the True and Constant Mind does notchange, for that the happening of following condition depends on theindirect activity of the True and Constant Mind and the directactivity of ignorance (wuming).

Therefore, the True and Constant Mind does not directly and ana-lytically imply the happening of following condition; it is only throughthe function of ignorance that the True and Constant Mind followscondition.36 Mou claims what we can assert is that “the perfectlyfulfilled can leave ignorance and return to itself because it does notlose its own purity.”37 Obviously, Mou not only clarifies the nature ofthe perfectly fulfilled or the True Mind of Fazang as the True andConstant Mind but also its relation to the happening of followingcondition so as to point out the ontological explanation of all dharmasof the Huayan School. We should note that Mou’s clarification isconsistent with the essential nature of the transcendental True andConstant Mind, which is already explicated in the “One Mind OpensTwo Doors” in the Awakening of Faith. Mou considers that it is theunderstanding of “being changeless while following condition andfollowing condition but being changeless” in terms of the actuality ofthe perfectly fulfilled that makes the Huayan School special anddifferent from other schools.38 However, Mou follows the TiantaiSchool to criticize Huayan as special teaching but not perfect teach-ing. He employs the ideas of Zhanran (711–782) of the TiantaiSchool to say that the True Mind of Huayan is the Simply True Mindbecause “it merely denotes the Pure and True-Suchness Mind”(qingjing zhenru xin ).39 To put it simply, Mou wants toidentify the True Mind of Huayan as a transcendent mind. Moufurther explains this Simply True Mind as follows.

The Pure and True-Suchess Mind is the Buddha-Womb Self-Existing Pure Mind . . . , when this True Mind or the True-SuchnessPrinciple (zhenru li ) loses itself in nine realms. That is, itfollows condition and allows the pure and polluted dharmas to arisebut its own “purity-in-itself” does not change. This is because thearising of the nine realms through its following condition depends on


the function of ignorance. Therefore when it leaves ignorance andreturns to itself, it must come out from ignorance. This means that itmust leave the nine realms and return to its own original awakening(benjiao ) and manifests the Pure Mind or the True-SuchnessPrinciple so as to attain Buddhahood. This is the so-called “followingthe True-Suchness Principle and breaking the connection withthe nine realms” (yuanli duanjiu ).40 The True-SuchnessPrinciple is the content of the Pure Mind. The Pure Mind manifeststhis True-Suchness Principle by breaking the connection with the ninerealms.

Mou further follows Zhanran to discern the difference betweenthe Special/Distinctive Doctrine and the Common Doctrine withinBuddhism. The former takes the stand of “heterogeneous and non-indwelling” (yiti wuzhu ) while the latter makes the claimof “homogenous and non-indwelling” (tongti wuzhu ).41

These two are different versions of the relation between the Buddhanature and ignorance. Buddha nature is the ground of attainingBuddhahood while ignorance is the force that makes one’s life inau-thentic. “Heterogeneous and non-indwelling” emphasizes that bothare homogenous and nonindwelling while “homogenous and non-indwelling” that both are heterogeneous and nonindwelling.42 Itfollows that the “is” in the statement that “dharmata is ignoranceand ignorance is dharmata” ( faxing ji wuming, wuming ji faxing

, ) is to be understood in two differentsenses. The “is” in Tiantai connotes the homogenous whereas inHuayan the heterogeneous.43 Simply, the former advocates thatdharmata and ignorance mutually belong to one another whereasthe latter denies this kind of relation but promotes their mutualexclusion.44

For Mou, what the ontological explanation of the Huayan Schooloffers is merely for the dharmas of the cycle of life and death whichconsists of both the pure and the polluted but leaking, that is, imper-fect (youlou de ) in nature. However what Huayan teaches inthe doctrine of the codependent origination of the dharmas-realmis mainly the ontological explanation of all pure and nonleaking(wulou de ) dharmas. This means that there are two senses inthe Statement, “being changeless while following condition and fol-lowing condition but being changeless.” On the one hand, it is aboutthe present reality (xianshi de ); on the other hand, it is aboutthe ideal (lixiang de ). The former is about the cycle of lifeand death while the latter is about the leaving of ignorance andreturning to the True Mind itself.45 Mou mainly criticizes Huayan onthe latter point. In the following we discuss Mou’s interpretation ofthe latter.


III.

Since the dharmas of the cycle of life and death are the products of theTrue Mind in the status of losing itself, both the pure and the polluteddharmas of the cycle of life and death are the leaking and not theabsolutely pure ones. It is only when the True Mind leaves the statusof losing itself and returns to itself that all dharmas become pure.Thisis possible because the True Mind on the one hand is “non-pollutedyet polluted” (buran er ran ) and on the other “pollutedyet non-polluted” (ran er buran ). The “polluted yet non-polluted” True Mind returns to its original awakening so as to mani-fest the Buddha-spiritual-body in which the virtue or merit of prajñais fully actualized and the virtue or merit of cessation of losing inignorance is fully realized.46 Mou asserts this spiritual-body as thebody of tathagatgarbha of being empty yet not empty. It is empty sinceall the troubles, losses and the polluted, which are appearances,are empty. It is not empty since apart from all appearances thePure Mind contains infinitely pure virtues or merit.47 It is called thespiritual-body when it manifests its own nature of tathagatgarbha.

However, Mou points out that this spiritual-body with infinite andnonleaking virtues or merit is only manifested through the cessationof all dharmas arising in following condition and the returning to theTrue Mind. This is because all the nine realms, including the six pathsof hells, hungry spirits, beasts, titanic demons, humans, and deities, aswell as the three realms of sages, namely hearers, Solitary Buddha,and bodhisattvas, are in the status of losing. Huayan’s approach ofattaining Buddhahood is a way of breaking the connection of the ninerealms. For Mou, this is the logical consequence of the analyticalapproach in Huayan.48 For Mou, it is analytical because Huayanunderstands the nature of the True Mind as transcendent. Thereforeattaining Buddhahood is the process of the return of the True Mind toitself by disconnecting the nine realms in the status of losing.

The spiritual-body, according to Avatamsaka Sutra, is the Buddha-spiritual-body of Vairocana. In terms of dharmas-realm, this spiritual-body is called Buddha dharmas-realm ( fo fajie ). For Mou, onthe one hand, in this realm there are no dharmas that can be spokenof, and the virtues or merits of the Buddha-spiritual-body are the onlymanifestation.49 On the other hand, all dharmas in this realm are thenmerely the “showing” and “reflection” of the codependent originationin Buddha for all the living but not the arising of the nine dharmas-realms in the losing of the True and Constant Mind itself.50 This meansthat the True and constant Mind only shows and reflects all the puredharmas, or the already-transformed nine dharmas-realms, but notthe impure nine dharmas-realms.


According to Mou, the codependent origination of the dharmas-realm is merely the reflection of the Buddha Mind.Those events in thebeginning arise by “following condition.” Therefore after cessationthey are reflected and shown in the Buddha Sagara, that is, the medi-tation of the Buddha as the codependent origination of the dharmas-realm.51 In this sense, the reflecting and showing of this dharmas-realmis called the “origination of the Buddha nature” (xingqi ),52 whichmeans the originating of the perfect ability and merits of Buddha.Thisorigination of the Buddha nature, indeed, is a kind of “originating yetnon-originating” (qi er buqi )53 because it does not depend onany extracondition except its own nature. Therefore, “co-dependentorigination of the dharmas-realm” refers to the showing of thedharmas-realm by the Buddha-spiritual-body, which is naturally andperfectly coherent without hindrance (yuanrong wuai ) andperfectly fulfilled without limit (yuanman wujin ).54

Thus, for Mou, Huayan’s teachings of the six senses of the door ofcause (yinmen liuyi ), ten speculative codependent origina-tion without mutual-hindrance (shixuan yuanqi wuai ),the perfect coherence of the six appearances (liuxiang yuanrong

), and the doctrine of the dharmas-realm of Huayan (huayanfajie guan ) are nothing but the reality which is manifestedby the reflecting and showing of the Buddha-spiritual-body.55 Allthese are the analyses of the Buddha-spiritual-body and Buddhadharmas-realm, namely the reflecting and showing of the Buddha-spiritual-body and Buddha dharmas-realm. Mou repeatedly arguesthis as the further development and elaboration of the doctrine of the“co-dependent origination and emptiness of substance.”56 In otherwords, the four teachings mentioned above are but the variousexpressions of the codependent origination and emptiness of sub-stance. For Mou, all these various statements of the doctrine of thedharmas-realm of Huayan School are nothing but the developmentand elaboration of the doctrine of the codependent origination andemptiness of substance.

In sum, Mou clarifies the ontological conditions of Huayan Schoolfor the existence of all dharmas in two ways. First, he identifies theTrue Mind or Simply True Mind as the True and Constant Mind inthe Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana which is transcendental innature. Through its indirectly losing in ignorance, the True Mindallows all dharmas of the cycle of life and death to arise. This can becalled the “co-dependent origination.” Second, Mou goes further toargue that because by nature this transcendent True and ConstantMind can leave the status of being lost in ignorance and return toitself, it then plays the role of showing or reflecting all dharmas of thedharmas-realm which are perfect in nature. This can be called the


“origination of the Buddha nature.” Although these are the two waysin which different kinds of dharmas arise, for Mou, they are ultimatelyderived from the same “origination of the Buddha nature” but indifferent modes.57

Thus, Mou’s transcendental reading of Huayan constitutes twokinds of reading. The first is a kind of transcendental analysis of theTrue Mind of Huayan. The True Mind of Huayan is a kind of tran-scendent mind which is a priori and yet determining experience ofevents-things-in-themselves. The second is based on the first kind ofreading so as to offer an analytical reading of the True Mind afterattaining Buddhahood. In the first reading Mou not only offers anontological explanation of the existence of all dharmas in the cycle oflife and death based on the transcendent nature of the True Mind.Thisindirectly allows the arising of all dharmas of the cycle of life anddeath, but also puts forward the ontological ground in attainingBuddhahood in which all absolute pure dharmas are included. Andthis thereby provides the realm for the second reading of thedharmas-realm. In short, both readings respectively correspond to thepresuppositions of the external and internal system of the PerfectDoctrine of the Huayan School by Mou above. For Mou, the tran-scendental Simply True Mind alone bears the ontological responsibil-ity for the existence of all dharmas, including the cycle of life anddeath and the absolute pure.

IV.

However, Perfect Doctrine, for Mou, does not depend on the analyti-cal development and elaboration of the Buddha-spiritual-body but onthe two extrasystematic presuppositions.58 He further discusses theidentity and difference of the “Special/Distinctive Doctrine of OneYana Perfect Doctrine” and the “Common Doctrine of One YanaPerfect Doctrine.” What do these two terms mean? Fazang calls thePerfect Doctrine of Huayan the “Special/Distinctive Doctrine of OneYana Perfect Doctrine.” “Special/Distinctive Doctrine” refers to thedoctrine of teaching which is developed specially according to theBuddha-spiritual-body, the fully actualized Buddhahood. The “OneYana” is Buddha Yana.All the living can attain Buddhahood throughthis Buddha Yana. The term “Perfect Doctrine” means perfect coher-ence without hindrance, and the limitless perfectly fulfilled. Huayanunderstands the perfectly fulfilled in terms of the “inclusion of boththe central and the marginal” (zhuban juzu ) (i.e., both theBuddha realm and the nine realms are included) and the “limitless-ness of ten and ten” (shishi wujin ) (i.e., the limitlessness of


all and all), and the perfect coherence in terms of the “non-mutualexclusion between event and principle” (shili wuai ) and the“non-mutual exclusion among events” (shishi wuai ), both ofwhich are the further development and elaboration of the codepen-dent origination and emptiness of substance.59

For Mou, the Perfect Doctrine of the Tiantai School is the“Common Doctrine of One Yana Perfect Doctrine” in which the“Common” is the expedient doctrine (quanjiao ), meaning thatthe attaining of Buddhahood goes along with the living of the sixpaths (liudao ). In other words, Tiantai advocates the attainmentof Buddhahood without leaving the nine realms. On the contrary, the“Special” of Huayan School does not merely mean that the process ofattaining Buddhahood is one leaving the living of the six paths butalso implies that it does not share the practice of the expedient doc-trine.60 The Buddhahood attained in this way is merely the Buddharealm on the high tower where the Buddha exists apart from alldharmas of the cycle of life and death. Mou criticizes this gap betweenthe Buddha realm and the nine realms as expedient, that is, the originand the derived are not coherent with one another. Since the expedi-ent is not the real, it is necessary to dissolve it so as to be the True andPerfect Real.61 Otherwise, the Buddha-spiritual-body is exclusive butnot inclusive, excluding but not including all dharmas of the cycle oflife and death. Furthermore, for the Huayan School, dharmata is notattached to ignorance and ignorance is not attached to dharmata,whereas Tiantai School takes the stand that “dharmata attaches toignorance, and ignorance attaches to dharmata.”62

What Mou is concerned with is the criterion that makes a doctrineperfect. He does not allow the defense of the perfection of theHuayan School and says that the codependent origination ofthe dharmas-realm derived from the Buddha-spiritual-body alreadyincludes all dharmas without limit and that the all emerging in theSagara-mudra-samadhi are not mutually exclusive with separation.63

For Mou, this kind of perfection is merely that of the Buddha-spiritual-body but not that of the nonseparation between the Buddhaand the nine dharmas-realms in which the Perfect and Real Buddha(yuanshi fo ) is involved in the nine dharmas-realms in anexpedient way.64 Otherwise, there is still a separation out of whichanother kind of expedient emerges.65 This means that the separationbetween the Buddha and the nine realms of the cycle of life and deathappears. Regarding this separation, Mou differentiates the ninerealms in the Buddha-spiritual-body and the nine realms in itself.Although the Buddha-spiritual-body includes the nine dharmas-realms in itself, they are all virtues or merits corresponding to theBuddha nature which are different from the dharmas of each-realm-


in-itself.66 The former is the ideal reality but the latter is the presentreality in the status of losing. Therefore, the unity of the Buddhanature and all dharmas in the Buddha-spiritual-body or the Buddhadharmas-realm is not the same as that in the present reality. Theformer is Special/Distinctive because it focuses on the Buddha-spiritual-body alone in order to speak of the perfectly fulfilled ninerealms, while the latter is Common because it speaks of the Buddha-spiritual-body along with the nine realms in the status of losing. Topush the issue a step further, a question can be asked: does HuayanSchool offer any ontological interpretation of the nine realms of thecycle of life and death after the True Mind attains Buddhahood?67

Basically, Mou follows the Tiantai School in order to criticize theHuayan School by pointing out that the crucial criterion of discerningPerfect Doctrine lies in whether it advocates that one “becomesa Buddha by attaching to the nine dharmas-realms” ( ji jiu fajieer chengfo ) or not. For Zhanran, the Doctrine is“Perfect” and does not depend on whether the Buddha nature is“attaching to” the nine dharmas-realms or not ( ji bu ji ).Huayan is Special/Distinctive and not Perfect because the Buddhanature advocates does not attach to the nine dharmas-realms, and theBuddha nature and ignorance are heterogeneous from one another.68

On the contrary, the Tiantai School is Common and Perfect sinceit takes the stand that “Dharmata is ignorance and ignorance isdaharmata.” Dharmata, for Tiantai, includes the nine realms (xingjujiujie ) since dharmata and ignorance are homogenous.69 Wecan further understand these sayings in terms of mutual belonging.That is, dharmata and ignorance are different from one another yetmutually belong to each other. In this sense, the relation of theBuddha nature to the nine realms, and dharmata to ignorance, is to beclarified as being “attached to” or not, “including” or not, homog-enous or heterogeneous. This is a question of the basic ontologicalexplanation of all dharmas and the answer to it can be judged asPerfect or not Perfect, Common or Special. For Mou, the Perfect andCommon Doctrine should give a root explanation of the existenceof all dharmas of the nine realms when the True Mind becomes aperfectly fulfilled Buddha, the Buddha-spiritual-body.

V.

Let us now examine Mou’s interpretation of Huayan School as readby Wing-cheuk Chan, who questions Mou’s “correctedness.”70 Chanfirst points out that Fazang’s teaching of three substances cannot beunderstood in terms of the analytical. To put it precisely, the teaching


of the “Nature of Other-Dependent-Origination” (yita xing shuo) cannot be derived analytically from the teaching of

the “Co-Dependent-Origination and Emptiness of Nature” of theMadhyamika.71 Mou’s thesis that Fazang’s “emptiness is not differentfrom being” (buyi you zhi kong ) and “being is not differ-ent from emptiness” (buyi kong zhi you ) is no differentfrom Madhyamik’s “emptiness is not different from being” andYogacara’s “being is not different from emptiness.” Mou furtherconcludes that the perfect coherence between emptiness and being inHuayan School is analytical which can be approached through themeditation of prajña.72 According to Chan, Fazang’s statement that“emptiness and being are mutually coherent without hindrance”(kongyou wuai ) implies the “framework of dialectics” sothat the “not different” (buyi ) is not a kind of “direct identity”but the “identity of speculation in which the opposites mutually goout of themselves and become their own opposite.”73 On the otherhand, Fazang does not consider the “mutual coherence between emp-tiness and being” as something happening merely through the medi-tation of prajña. Indeed he understands it in terms of “Buddhadharmakaya.”74 This means that the meditation of prajña is analyticaland Buddha dharmakaya is dialectical.

Furthermore, Chan holds that in Mou’s interpretation, there areideas that can be elaborated in such a way that it leads toward a kindof dialectical reading of Fazang. First, Mou is aware that the HuayanSchool does “strangely develop and elaborate various implied specu-lative statements.”75 However, he immediately identifies this “devel-opment and elaboration” with the “analytical” and cannot discover itscharacter of “strange” “synthesis” and the framework of “dialecticalsynthesis” within it. Indeed the strangeness seen by Mou is nothingbut the “synthesis of the mutually going out of themselves and becom-ing their own opposite” mentioned above.76 Second, Mou also pointsout that “[Huayan School] says that the six appearances . . . is but‘the reality of the pramana of Suchness correlated to the wisdomof Suchness.’” (ru lizhi zhong ru liang jing ).77 Heclarifies that these six appearances are “not something usuallycalled determined concepts.”78 This is because the six appearancesare in the reality of the pramana of Suchness in correlating to thewisdom of the Simply True Mind. However, Chan finds that Mou doesnot go a step further to pinpoint an essential difference between the“six appearances” and the “determined concepts,” since the nature ofthe six appearances of Huayan is a kind of “infinite concepts” of“in-determined appearances” (wu jueding xiang ) whichbelongs to the “concepts of reason” but not the “concepts ofunderstanding.”79 Indeed, Mou clearly knows that “dialectics” is not


to be grasped in terms of understanding because it is beyond andabove, masters, directs, and moves understanding.80

As a conclusion, it suffices to say that for Chan, the “system of theorigination of the Buddha nature” (xingqi xitong ) is not tobe understood as a Kantian “transcendental idealism” but a kind ofHegelian “absolute idealism.”81 This does not necessarily mean thatwe have to deny the insight of Mou’s defining the “co-dependentorigination of tathagatgarbha” of Awakening of Faith in the Mahayanaas transcendental analysis. In a certain sense, it is necessary for thepossibility of the “co-dependent origination of the dharmas-realm” topresuppose this transcendental analysis of the “co-dependent origi-nation of tathagatgarbha.” But the “co-dependent origination of thedharmas-realm” itself is definitely not any “transcendental analysis”but “dialectical synthesis.”82 For Chan, it is precisely this position of“dialectical synthesis” that makes Huayan different from the Schoolof the “co-dependent origination of tathagatgarbha.” In other words,Chan can agree with Mou that Huayan presupposes the transcenden-tal analysis of Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana as its own base, buthe differs from Mou in that Huayan goes beyond this base and arrivesat the position of dialectical synthesis. In other words, for Chan,Huayan essentially is dialectical synthesis which presupposes tran-scendental analysis. Following this, then, we may add that Mou’s con-clusive remark of Huayan as Special/Distinctive Doctrine is valid notbecause of its analytical character but because of its dialectical char-acter. In this sense, Mou’s understanding of Huayan pertains to thestarting point of its doctrine but not its final achievement of dialecticalmovement.

HONG KONG BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARYHong Kong, China

Endnotes

The author would like to extend his thankfulness to the comments provided by ananonymous reviewer, Professor Chung-ying Cheng, and Professor Wing-cheuk Chan.

1. Mou Zongsan, Foxing yu Boruo (Taipei: Xuesheng Shuju, 1982).2. Ibid., preface, vol. 1, 3.3. Mou Zongsan, Zhi de Zhijue yu Zhongguo Zhexue (Taipei: Shangwu Yinshuguan,

1971).4. Mou Zongsan, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen (Taipei: Xuesheng Shuju, 1975).5. Ibid., preface, 7–8.6. Ibid., preface, 8.7. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, preface, 3.8. Mou Zongsan, Siyinshuo Yanjianglu (Taipei: Ehu Publisher, 1997),

198.9. See Mou, Siyinshuo Yanjianglu, 284–85.


10. Mou, Zhongguo Zhexue Shijiu Jiang (Taipei: Xuesheng Shuju,1983), 284.

11. Ibid. The English translation is quoted from Julie Lee Wei with modification. Lee’stranslation can be found at http://www.nineteenlectures.org/

12. Mou, Zhongguo Zhexue Shijiu Jiang, 284.13. Ibid.14. Ibid., 284–85.15. Ibid., 285.16. Ibid., 285.17. Ibid., 291.18. Ibid., 293.19. Ibid.20. Ibid.21. Ibid., 293–9422. Ibid., 294.23. Ibid., 295.24. Ibid., 295, cf. 296.25. Ibid., 298.26. Ibid., 299.27. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 556.28. Pilu Zhena is the Buddha who manifests the unity of the dharmas in himself/herself.29. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 491.30. Professor Chung-ying Cheng points out that the Huayan point is that once there is the

Vairocana, there is then the perfect presentation of all dharmas including the impurebecoming pure. Mou may find it only happens within the deep meditation of theBuddha-spiritual-body of Vairocana.

31. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 556.32. Ibid., 501.33. Ibid., 502.34. Ibid.35. Ibid., 506.36. Ibid.37. Ibid.38. Ibid., 513.39. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 507.40. Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 420; cf. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 503.41. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 503.42. Ibid.43. Cf. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 503.44. Professor Chung-ying Cheng points out that as both dharmata and ignorance are

nonindwelling in nature, the nonindwelling of the former allows all the pure dharmasemerge while the nonindwelling of the latter allows all the polluted dharmasemerge.

45. Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 416.46. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 517.47. Ibid.48. Ibid., 518.49. Ibid.50. Ibid., 525–26.51. Ibid., 528.52. Ibid., 518.53. Ibid., Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 426.54. Ibid., Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 519.55. Ibid.56. Ibid.57. Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 427.58. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 554–55.59. Ibid., 556–57.


60. Ibid., 558.61. Ibid., 558–59.62. Professor Chung-ying Cheng comments that for Huayan one has to see impure seeds

being transformed into the pure ones, that is why there is still no gap. But, in my view,it seems that Mou does not take this stand. Mou considers that only the True Mind isthe ground of transforming.Therefore the transformation of the nine dharmas-realmsis possible only when the True Mind of the nine dharmas-realms fully actualizes itsBuddha nature.

63. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 559.64. Professor Chung-ying Cheng suggests that the expedient is still for the purpose of

transforming, not preserving. Nevertheless, for Mou, preserving comes first sincewithout it transforming is impossible.

65. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 560.66. Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 419.67. Professor Chung-ying Cheng suggests that the nine realms are then creatively decon-

structed but Mou may not have this insight. For Huayan, this is a possible reading.68. Mou, Xianxiang yu Wuzishen, 420.69. Ibid., 423.70. Wing-cheuk Chan (Chen Rongzhuo), “Lun Weishixue yu Huayanzong

zhi ‘Benxing’: Dui Foxing yu Boruo zhi Liangdian Fansi,” Ehu Xuezhi

4 (1990): 79–97.71. Chan, “Lun Weishixue yu Huayanzong Zhi ‘Benxing,’ ” 90.72. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 513–14.73. Chan, “Lun Weishixue yu Huayanzong Zhi ‘Benxing,’ ” 90.74. Ibid., 91.75. Ibid.76. Ibid.77. Mou, Foxing yu Boruo, vol. 1, 542.78. Ibid., vol. 1, 537, 542.79. Chan, “Lun Weishixue yu Huayanzong Zhi ‘Benxing,’ ” 93.80. Ibid.81. Ibid.82. Ibid., 94.


mou zongsan's “transcendental” interpretation of huayan buddhism

Documents