5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

Ming-wood, Liu, The Three-Nature Doctrine and its Interpretation in HuayenBuddhism, Toung pao, 68 (1982) p.l8l

T 'oung Pao LXVIII, 4-5 (1982)

THE THREE-NATURE DOCTRINE ANDITS INTERPRETATION IN HUA-YEN BUDDHISM

BY

LIU MING-WOOD ~ ! l J . I l 5

CONTENTS·

Introduction..................................................... 181

I. The Concept of the Three Natures and its Transformation '" .. 182

II. The Dual Aspects of the Three Natures 195

III. The Unity of the Three Natures............ 200IV. Criticisms of the Yogacara Version of the Three-Nature Doctrine: The

Positions of Madhyarnika Buddhism and Hua-yen Buddhism Com-

pared 211

This article is written as a sequel of a former paper of mine enti-

tled "The P'an-chiao System of the Hua-yen School in Chinese Bud-

dhisrn'";! and it is basically an attempt to bring out the fundamen-

tal orientation of Hua-yen ¥M : thought through an examination of

its interpretation of the concept of the three natures. However, to

achieve this end, some background knowledge of the original im-

port of the doctrine and its historical transformation would be

necessary. Our study will commence with a short account of the

gradual development of the three-nature doctrine from its first in-

ception in the Samdhinirmocana-siitra to its fusion with the taihii-

gatagarbha doctrine ("the final teaching of the Mahayana" in Hua-

• Abbreviations:

TCCHL

TCIC

Treatise

(rt!) Hsii tsang-ching ;Jt~ffi1, edited by Ying-yin Hsii-tsang-ching wei-yuan-

hui ~ ! O r . l 1 1 t ~ ~ J l l . ~ ~ " $ (Hong Kong: 1967).

I nd og ak u b uk ky og ak u k en ky u ~PIt~f!l l l f5{~fiFf~.

Mahiiyi inasaTfl f :,raha-so.stra by Asanga,

Samdhinirmocana-siura.

T ~ is hO s h in s hi i daizokyo kiE~~*.fIll., edited by Takakusu Junjiro,$mil l lP: :X~. & Watanabe Kaikyoku iltllwl§ (Tokyo: 1924-1932).

T a -c h 'e ng c li'i- hs in fu n *~~~~lt·T a -c h 'e ng i- ch an g **~~.by Hui-yiian ~~.

H u a -y e n i ou -c h ia o chang *-l l I lCl i~. by Fa-tsang ~it.

HTC

IRK

MS

SS

T

1 Liu Ming-Wood, "The P'an-chiao System of the Hua-yen School in Chinese

Buddhism", T 'oung P ao LXVII (1981), pp. 10-47.

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning CompanyCopyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

182 LlU MING-WOOD

yen terminology) in the writings of Hui-yiian .~ of the Ching-

ying Temple ~~~, one of the most influential Ti-Iun masters

: f : t ! ! r u f B l f l i l j ofthe sixth century China. The main body of the article will

consist of a detailed critical analysis of the Hua-yen understandingof the three-nature concept as seen in the works of Fa-tsang i*i 'G,the so-called third patriarch of the Hua-yen School.

I.THE CONCEPT OF THE THREE NATURES AND ITS TRANSFORMATION

1. The Three-Nature Doctrine in the Samdhinirmocana-siitra:

The three natures are' 'imaginary nature" (parikalpita-svahhava),

"dependent nature" (paratantra-svahhava) and "perfect nature"

(parinispanna-suabhiioar. The doctrine of the three natures is one of

the principal tenets in the teaching of the Yogacara School in Indian

Buddhism, and already in the Samdhinirmocana-siitra (henceforth-abbreviated to SS), the earliest extant Yogacara text," an entire

chapter is devoted to the elucidation of the concept, where the three

natures are called "character" (lak~arta, hsiang m) instead of

"nature" (soabhaoa, hsing 1 1 : ).3

It is said that in brief, the characters of dharmas are of three types. What are these

three? They are: first, "imaginary character", secondly, "dependent character",

and thirdly, "perfect character". What is "imaginary character"? It indicates

names and conventions which attribute to all dharmas self-nature and distinctions,

and as a consequence, language arises. What is "dependent character"? It in-

dicates the conditioned nature of all dharmas , as is meant [by the Buddha when he

declares], "When this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises.Conditioned by ignorance are the karma-formations, ... and such is the origin of the

whole mass of suffering." What is "perfect character"? It indicates the equal and

2 The SS is commonly regarded as the forerunner of Yogacara Buddhism

because it is the earliest extant piece of writing which attempted to define in some

detail such concepts as the "storehouse-consciousness" (iilaya-vijiiiina), "seeds"

(bfja) and "three natures" (trisvabhiiva), concepts which later formed the basic fur-

niture ofYogacara philosophy. However, it should be stressed that its treatment of

these concepts is far from systematic, and despite the fact that Asanga and

Vasubandhu quoted it as authority on many occasions, it is basically a text on

religious practice and differs considerably both in style and content from such well-

known Yogacara classics as the Yogiiciiryabhiimi-siistTa, the M S and theTTi"fJ"liikiivi._jiiaPtikiirikii. .

3 In most early Yogacara texts, "svabhi iva" (nature) and "la~arta" (character)

are used interchangeably to designate the three natures. Refer to Iwata Ryozo

!E-1:fI~.=:. , "Sanshi) setsu ni okeru laksana, suabhiioa,~ nihsoabhdoa ni tsuite

' : : : ' i~IDt~1:..: tovt~ laksana, soabhiioa, nihsuabhaua 11:.--: l \ ,'-c, IBK, 26.2 (1978), pp.

945-948.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 183

true nature of all dharmas. This true nature is comprehended by bodhisattvas due to

their courage and energy, their well-directed mental effort and their abstinence

from false thoughts. As a result of the gradual attainment of this comprehension,

they realize fully the supreme, perfect enlightenment."

From this passage, we can see that even though the three natures

are given as "characters of dha rm as' , they have more todowith the

destinies of sentient beings relative to their ability to realize the con-

ditioned nature of their existence than with the nature and constitu-

tion of the physical and mental world. It is a common Buddhist

belief that our world and its objects are produced from causes and

as such are impermanent and devoid of self-essence. However, one

of the most deep-seated prejudices ofman is his tendency to take the

impermanent as permanent and to attribute the character of in-

dependent being to them. As a consequence, all sorts of false

distinctions arise. These distinctions, which do not correspond tothe true nature of things and are reflected in the distorting influence

of ordinary language, are termed "imaginary character" by the

siitra, "Dependent character" is related here to the doctrine of

dependent origination, and as such, it indicates not only the condi-

tioned nature of things but also the endless cycles of birth and death

as well as their ground - in short, the totality of conditioned ex-

istence ("the whole mass of suffering") in which man is imprisoned

due to his inclination to look on the "imaginary" as real. "Perfect

character" refers to the state when all discriminating activities have

come to an end, when the nature of dharmas is comprehended as it

actually is, impermanent and without essence. Since the com-prehension of the true nature of dharmas would lead to "the

supreme, perfect enlightenment", it is given the epithet of

" perfect" .

The siitra goes on to outline the relation of the three natures as

follows:

Imaginary character comes into being due to the attaching of names to

phenomena. Dependent character comes into being due to the grasping of ima-

ginary character [attributed to1 dependent character. Perfect character comes intobeing due to the non-grasping of imaginary character attributed to dependent

character. Sons of good family! If bodhisattoas comprehend exactly the imaginary

character attributed to dependent character, they would comprehend exactly all

dharmas which are without [self-] character. If bodhisattvas comprehend exactly the

dependent character, they would comprehend exactly all soiled dharmas. Ifborllzisat-

+ T, vol. 16, p. 693a. 15-25. Etienne Lamotte, trans., SS (Louvain: Universite

de Louvain, 1935), pp. 188-189.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

184 LIU MING-WOOD

toas comprehend exactly the perfect character. they would comprehend exactly all

pure dharmas. 5

Men wrongly believe that there are self-sufficient objects with

definite properties corresponding to the names people use to

designate them. These properties, which men wrongly imagine into

phenomena which are actually conditioned in nature, are their

"imaginary character". That is why the siitra asserts, "Imaginary

character comes into being due to the attaching of names to

phenomena ... If bodhisattvas comprehend exactly the imaginary

character attributed to dependent character, they would com-

prehend exactly all dharmas which.are without [self-) character". As

a consequence of this misapprehension, men remain forever in the

realm of dependent origination, driven by their ignorance from one

form ofkarma-existence

to another, and are completely oblivious ofthe real nature of their being. That by "dependent character" the

siitra refers primarily to this benighted state of existence is attested

by the description of it as "soiled" and as the outcome of "the

grasping of imaginary character attributed to dependent

character". Finally, "perfect character" is the' 'non-grasping of

imaginary character attributed to dependent character", a condi-

tion which is depicted as "pure" in the siitra because in this state,

the fallacy of misplaced concreteness has finally come to an end.

Realizing the transient and illusory nature of conventional life, men

are at last ready to be delivered from it. So the siitra continues:

Sons of good family! Ifbodhisattoas comprehend [exactly the imaginary characterattributed to dependent character, they would comprehend exactly all J dharmas

which are without [self-] character. [On comprehending exactly all dharmas which

are without self-character,] they would put an end to dharmas which are soiled. On

putting an end to dharmas which are soiled, they would realize dharmas which are

pure."

2. The Three-Nature Doctrine in the M ahiiyiinasaTfl.graha-siistra:

As the above discussion has shown, the three-nature doctrine

first formulated in the SS is essentially a doctrine on religious

deliverance, and as such, there is little in it that can be called

peculiarly "Yogacara". 7 It appears to be little more than a reaffir-

5 T, vol. 16. p. 693b. 21-c.1. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 190.

6 T, vol. 16, p. 693c. 1-3. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 190.

7 Though the SS propounds a theory of the evolution of the phenomenal world

resembling the ideation-only philosophy of the Yogararins in the chapter entitled,

"On the Characters of the Mind", no attempt is made to apply this theory to the

exposition of the three nature concept.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 1 85

mation of the orthodox Buddhist view that the comprehension of

the conditioned nature of things is a prerequisite of enlightenment.

Moreover ,.since no attempt is made in the SSto relate the tenet to a

particular :ontological theory of reality, the doctrine in thisrudimentary form is compatible with the teachings of all Buddhist

traditions, alike including the Madhyamikas, It was only when

such typical Yogacara concepts as the' 'storehouse-consciousness"

(iilaya-vijiiiina), "seeds" (bfja), etc., were brought in to fIB in the

outline of the tenet as presented in the SSthat the three-nature doc-

trine began to take on Yogacara character. Thus, much of the later

Madhyamika criticism of the doctrine was in many ways not a

criticism of the doctrine in its elementary form as found in the SS,

but an attack on many of the basic Yogacara principles which had

come to be associated with the doctrine when it was gradually'

transformed into an integral part of the system of thought of

Yogacara Buddhism.

The Yogacarins were not uniform in opinion in their formula-

tions of the doctrine of the three natures, and Wen-pei xVi, afollower of Hsiian-tsang j(~, mentioned nine different versions of

the tenet." Among the early Yogacara expositions of the doctrine,

the ones in the Yogacaryabhiimi- ;astra and the Madhyan tav ibhaga- sas t ra

are the most interesting; but so far as the Chinese understanding of

the concept is concerned, it is the version found in the Mahay i ina -

samgraha-si is t ra (henceforth abbreviated to M S) of Asanga which has

proved to be the most influential. The view of the MS on the prob-lem of the three natures is found mainly in the second chapter of the

work entitled "On the Character of the Cognizable". The chapter

opens with the following account of "dependent character":

What is dependent character? It refers to various ideas which have the

storehouse- consciousness as seeds and which proceed from false discriminations.

From these various ideas proceed all modes of being, all destinies and all im-

purities; and based on [ideas] dependent in character, [all forms of] false

discriminations arise. Thus, these ideas all proceed from false discriminations and

are in essence nothing more than ideas. Since they are the support of fictitious

manifestations, they are described as "dependent character;"."

As for "imaginary character", the siisira comments, "It is the

manifestation of objective [character, even though] there are on ob-

B Refer to Tun-lun i 1 i f l f i r , ed., Yii-ch'ieh-lun chi . f t f ( i (1m~ac, T, vol. 42, p. 759a-b.

9 T, vol. 31, pp. 137c. 29-138a. 11. Etienne Lamotte, trans. La Somm4 du Grand

Vehicule d'Asanga (Louvain, 1973), pp. 87-89.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

186 LIU MING-WOOD

jects but ideas only" .10 Finally, "perfect character" is "the com-

plete absence of objective character in dependent character". 11

The exposition of the three natures in the MS outlined above cor-

responds in main with that of the SS; but the analysis which follows

is far more intricate due to the design of the MS to bring the doc-trine in line with the ideation-only framework of Yogacara

philosophy. Like the SS, "dependent character" is given out in the

MS as encompassing the entirety of common existence, both

physical and mental. However, the conditioned nature of existence

is no longer described in such general, orthodox terms as "when

this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises", but is

explained by relating it to the Yogacara thesis of the presence in

every sentient being of a storehouse-consciousness, from which

evolves the whole world which it experiences. Thus, according to

the MS, our world is dependent in character because it consists ofideas originating from seeds in the storehouse-consciousness. These

ideas are further depicted as "proceeding from false discrimina-

tions", for the storehouse-consciousness as conceived in the MS and

understood in Yogacara Buddhism in general is the subject of

transmigration, and as such, is associated with impurities of all

forms from the beginningless past. 12 The sdstra traces the origin of

"imaginary nature" as follows:

Again, only at the presence of "imagination" and "the object of imagination' ,

would "imaginary nature" come into being. What do we mean by

,'imagination' " "the object of imagination" and "imaginary nature" here?

It should be understood that the mind-consciousness is "imagination", for it has

[the function of! making discriminations. Why? Because the mind-consciousness

has as seeds its own impregnation of names and speech, and it also has as seeds the

impregnation of names and speech of all [other] consciousnesses. As a conse-

quence, the mind-consciousness evolves with its myriad [forms of! discriminating

activities. Since the mind-consciousness discriminates and construes in all man-

ners, it is described as "imagination".

Next, "dependent nature" is "the object of imagination" .

Finally, in the manner one [discriminates and] turns dependent nature into [ob-

jects] imagined, [the dependent nature 1 so [discriminated] is known as "imaginarynature" .13

10 T, vol. 31, p. 138a. 12-13. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 90.

II T, vol. 31, p. 138a. 14-15. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 91.12 Even though the MS describes the storehouse-consciousness as the support of

both pure and impure dharmas (T, vol. 31, p. 135b. 23-26, Etienne Lamotte,

trans., p. 49), it maintains that only impure seeds are proper to the nature of the

iilaya, whereas pure seeds, produced by attending to true doctrines, only reside pro-

visionally in this root-consciousness (T, vol. 31, p. 136c, Etienne Lamotte, trans.,pp. 66-67).

13 T, vol. 31, p. 139b. 10-18. Etienne Lamotte, trans., pp. 108-109.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 187

"Imaginary nature" comes into being when the mind-conscious-

ness ("imagination") applies its function of discriminating to ideas

proceeding from the storehouse-consciousness, i.e., to "dependent

nature" ("the object of imagination'Tj.!" For example, being ig-

norant of the truth that all beings are ideation-only, the mind-

consciousness ascribes to them the property of independent reality,

and comes up with such notions as "permanent self" and' 'perma-

nent objects". These properties, which the mind-consciousness

falsely attributes to ideas but which are actually chimerical, are

what is meant by "imaginary nature". "Perfect nature" is the cor-

rect comprehension of the imaginary as imaginary, which arises

when the objective character which the mind-consciousness wrong-

ly imputes to ideas is finally realized to be void. In the teaching of

the Yogacarins, this intellectual transformation is at once a spiritual

transformation, which in Yogacara terminology would mean thefreeing of the storehouse-consciousness and its ideas (i.e., depen-

dent nature) from their former union with false discriminations

(i.e., imaginary nature), and their assuming a new form of being

which is perfectly pure and good. IS The fact that' 'perfect nature"

in the MS is also taken to denote this new state of being is suggested

by the quotation below, where "perfect nature" is characterized as

"immutable", "the object of pure thoughts'.' and "the

quintessence of all good dharmas":

Ifperfect nature is the complete absence of the character of the imaginary, why is

it perfect? Why do we call it "perfect"? We call it perfect because it is immutab le .Again, since it is t he o b je ct o f p u re [ th o ug h ts ] and t h e qu in te ssence o f a ll g oo d d ha rm a s, it is

given the most excellent designation "perfect" .16

14 From the very beginning of its existence, Buddhism recognized the existence

of six consciousnesses, i.e., eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-

consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness.

With the emergence of the concept of the storehouse-consciousness in Yogacara

Buddhism, a system of seven consciousnesses was formed, and that is the system

found in the Ss . Chinese Yogacarins generally believe in the existence of eight con-

sciousnesses, adding another consciousness called monas to the original scheme of

seven; but it is debatable whether this system of eight consciousnesses was taught in

such early Yogacara works as the Yogiic i iryabhilmi-si is tra and the M S.

15 In Buddhism, intellectual progress is meaningful only if it brings about

spiritual progress, and there is no such thing as pure speculation or "knowledge for

knowledge's sake". Much modern misinterpretation of Buddhist teachings stems

from failure to apprehend this soteriological intent of Buddhist philosophy.

16 T, vol. 31, p. 139b. 6-9. Etienne Lamotte, trans., pp. 107-108.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

188 LIU MING-WOOD

Several conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis of the

three-nature doctrine in the MS:

i. It agrees in outline with the characterization of the three

natures in the SS, but develops it further along the line of the

ideation-only philosophy of Yogacara Buddhism.

ii. Just as in the SS, "dependent nature" in the MS, refers to the

realm of birth and death, which results from man's failure to com-

prehend the conditioned nature of all entities. In the ontology of the

MS, this failure signifies the construction of an imaginary world of

real selves and objects out of various categories of ideas. This iswhy

"dependent nature" is depicted as "the support" of "false

discriminations" (imaginary nature) on the one hand, and it is also

said to proceed from them on the other hand. Finally, "perfect

nature" indicates the liberation from the cycle of mutual generation

of the "dependent" and the "imaginary", when all entities areperceived as they actually are, i.e. ideas only.

iii. So far as sentient beings are either non-enlightened or

enlightened, "dependent nature" always exists either as "ima-

ginary nature" or as "perfect nature". For ideas are either the

ideas of the non-enlightened and so are the product of false ima-

gination; or the ideas of the enlightened, in which case all unfound-

ed hypostatizations have disappeared.

3. The Tathiigatagarbha Doctrine of the T a-ch 'eng cli'i-hsin fun

**~f;3~il8 (henceforth abbreviated to TCCHL) and the Three-Nature Doctrine in the Ta-cli'eng i-chang *** l~(henceforth ab-

breviated to TCIC).

The exposition of the three natures in the MS is on the whole

representative of the position of the early Indian Yogacarins.

However, this was not the way the doctrine was comprehended

when it was first introduced into China. This had something to do

with the peculiar development Yogacara Buddhism underwent in

China when it was initially imported into the country in the fifth

and sixth centuries.As we have seen, in the teaching of the MS, the

root-consciousness of sentient beings (the storehouse-conscious-ness) as the repository of both good and bad karma is regarded as

neither perfectly pure nor perfectly impure. 17 Moreover, so long as

17 To be more exact, the MS regards the storehouse-consciousness as essentially

impure, but amenable to good influences. See n. 12 above.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 189

it represents the ground of everyday existence and the origin of all

defilements, it is something which has to be chastened and

transformed by religious practice. While this is the manner most In-

dian Yogacara masters perceived the root-consciousness, the T'i-lun

and She-lun masters . ~ l f U m u ,as the early Chinese Yogacarins werecalled, believed on the contrary in the existence in every sentient

being of an intrinsically pure root-consciousness which they identified

with such well-known Buddhist concepts as the buddha-nature, the

tathdgatagarbha, the amala-consciousness, and even the storehouse-

consciousness.t" The teaching of these early Chinese Yogacarins is

succinctly laid down in the TCCHL which was formerly attributed

to Asvaghosa, the founder of Mahayana Buddhism, but now com-

monly believed to be the work of a T'i-lun master living in the se-

cond half of the sixth century. 19 Due to Fa-tsang's great enthusiasm

for this text as well as the enormous impact which the text hadasserted on Fa-tsang's teaching in general and his interpretation of

the three-nature doctrine in particular, 20 we have to spend a little

time on the system of thought of the TCCHL before continuing with

our discussion of the three natures themselves.

The basic tenet of the TCCHL is that there is in every sentient be-

ing a mind which can be viewed from two aspects: the absolute and

the phenomenal. In the absolute aspect, the mind is "the realm of

truth" (Dharmadhiitus, and as such, it is unborn, imperishable, and

undifferentiated, transcending all forms of verbalization. It is said

to be "truly empty", for it is unperturbed by defilements and free

from all marks of distinction. It is also said to be "trulynon-empty", for it is immutable, pure, and self-sufficient.

The absolute aspect of the mind is usually referred to in the

TCCHL as the tathatii, but it is also called the tathdgatagarbha, when ..

18 For a short sketch of the history of this early form of Chinese Yogacarism, re-

fer to my article, o p . cit., p. 13, nn. 10 & 11.19 The orthodox view is that the work was composed by Asvaghosa and trans-

lated into Chinese by Paramartha in 553. Both claims have been challenged, and

the debate on the origin and authenticity of the TCCHL constitutes one of the most

intriguing chapters in the history of modern Buddhist scholarship. For titles of

classic studies on the subject, refer to the selected bibliography in Yoshito S. Hake-

da, trans., The Awakening of Faith (New York & London: Columbia University

Press, 1967).

20 Fa-tsang's commentary on the TCCHL, entitled the Ch'i-hsin-lun i-chi

~f~~rii~~c, is unanimously regarded as the most authoritative interpretation of

the TCCHL, and has contributed more than any other commentary to the wide po-

pularity of the work in China in later times.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

190 LIU MING-WOOD

the author comes to deal with the mind's phenomenal aspect, which

is identified with the storehouse-consciousness, the basis of the

phenomenal world. So it reads,

The mind as phenomena (sa~ara) depends on the ta thi iga tagarbha for its ex-istence. Thus it is said that what is called the storehouse-consciousness is that in

which "neither birth nor death (nirvarza)" merges harmoniously with "birth and

death ( sa 1 ,1 ls a ra ) " , [and yet the two] are neither identical nor different.s!

The storehouse-consciousness again has two aspects: the aspect of

enlightenment and the aspect of non-enlightenment. The aspect of

enlightenment is none other than the pure mind itself. The aspect of

non-enlightenment arises due to man's estrangement from this

pure origin. Thus, according to the TCCHL, man is by nature en-

dowed with the tathiigatagarbha, the quintessence of all virtues. Due

to his "ignorance" of this fact, the storehouse-consciousness and

the phenomenal world with all its impurities come into being. As a

consequence, all sorts of deluded thoughts, discriminations and at-

tachments appear, and man remains forever in samsiira.

However, the TCCHL is careful to point out that non-

enlightenment does not have reality outside the mind, for non-

enlightenment is part of the phenomenal aspect of the mind:

The mind, though pure in its self nature from the beginning, is accompanied by

ignorance. Being defiled by ignorance, a defiled [state of] mind comes into being.22

To emphasize the inseparability of the pure mind, ignorance and

the phenomenal world, the TCCHL resorts to the simile of the

ocean and the wind:

Ignorance does not exist apart from enlightenment: therefore, it cannot be

destroyed (because one cannot destroy something which does not really exist), and

yet it cannot not be destroyed (in so far as it remains). This is like the relationship

that exists between the water of the ocean (i.e., enlightenment) and its waves (i.e.,

modes of mind) stirred by the wind (i.e., ignorance). Water and wind are in-

separable; but water is not mobile by nature, and if the wind stops, the movement

ceases. But the wet nature remains undestroyed. Likewise, man's mind, pure in its

own nature, is stirred by the wind of ignorance. Both mind and ignorance have no

particular forms of their own and they are inseparable. Yet mind is not mobile by

nature, and if ignorance ceases, then the continuity [of defiled activities] ceases.

But the essential nature of wisdom (i.e., the essence of mind, like the wet nature of

the water) remains undestroyed.s>

21 T, vol. 32, p. 576b. 7-9. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., op. cit., p. 36.

22 T, vol. 32, p. 577c. 2-4. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., p. 50.

23 T, vol. 32, p. 576c. 10-16. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., p. 41.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 191

This theme of the oneness of the noumenal and the phenomenal is

undoubtedly central to the TCCHL, and posterity has not erred in

underscoring its significance. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind

that the TCCHL also judges it a "biased view" of the ordinarymen, who, "hearing that it is explained in the siitra that all defiled

states of samsiira in the world exist on the ground of the tathiigatagar-

bha and that they are therefore not independent of the tathatii, they,

not understanding this, think that the tathiigatagarbha literally con-

tains in itself all the defiled state of samsiira in the world" .24 To cor-

rect this biased view that the tathdgatagarbha is tainted, it should be

understood that:

The tathagatagarbha, from the beginning, contains only pure excellent qualities

outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, and is not separate, severed or different

from the tathatd. Defiled and soiled dharmas outnumbering the sands of the Ganges

are mere illusions. They are non-existent in essence, and from the beginninglessbeginning have never been united with the tathagatagarbha.F:

From the above account, it is obvious that the teaching of the

TCCHL coincides perfectly with Fa-tsang's delineation of "the

final teaching of the Mahayana" in his systern of five teachings.

Thus, it is not surprising that Fa-tsang has always regarded the

TCCHL and its tathdgatagarbha doctrine as the paragon of that par-

ticular form of Buddhist thought. 26 However, so far as the three-

nature doctrine is concerned, Fa-tsang was not the first person to

apply the concept of the taihiigatagarbha and the ontological scheme it

represents in China to the interpretation of the three natures.

Almost a century before the advent of Fa-tsang, Hut-yuan

(531-601), an eminent T'i-Iuri master and one of the most prolific

Chinese Buddhist monks of all times, had already begun the task of

reformulating the tenet of the three natures in that d irectiori.V Hui-

yuan's discussion of the three natures is found mainly in the

chapter entitled" Analysis of the Eight Consciousnesses in Ten Sec-

tions" in the TCIC, an encyclopaedia of Buddhism compiled from

the standpoint of the early Chinese Yogacarins , There, H'ui-yiian

identifies "perfect nature" with the tathiigatagarbha, the intrinsically

pure consciousness in man:

24 T, vol. 32, p. 580a. 17-20. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., pp. 76-77.

25 T, vol. 32, p. 5BOa.21-24. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., p. 77.

26 Refer to the account on the final teaching of the Mahayana in section 3of my

article, op. cit.

27 Biography of Hui-yiian in Tao-hsuan i f1lE':, Hsii kao-seng-chuan ~~f@{~, T,

vol. 50, pp. 4B9c-492a.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

192 LIU MING-WOOD

As for perfect nature, it refers to the real itself. Since the real is in essence eter-

nally quiescent and is not accompanied by falsehood, it is described as perfect.P"

As for "dependent nature", Hui-yuan defines it as "the real

[perceived] from the perspective of the false":

As for dependent nature, it refers to the real [perceived] from the perspective of

the false. Since the false comes into being supported by the real, and the real

evolves together with the false, we describe [their relation] as dependent. 29

Thus, if put in the words of the TCCHL, by "dependent nature",

Hui-yiian has in mind the phenomenal aspect of the mind, which

comes into being when the pure mind comes under the influence of

falsehood. This interpretation is further borne out by the passage

below, where Hui-yiian places under' 'dependent nature" the root-

conciousness and the entire phenomenal realm proceeding from. it:

As for dependent nature, there are various ways of analysing it:

Taken as a whole, it refers to all [entities] which are in nature dependent on

others.

Or it may be divided into two aspects, i.e., the true and the false, each [support-

ing] the other and so dependent on the other.

It may also be divided into three aspects: First, it refers to the root-

consciousness, which arises when the tathiigatagarbha, perfumed by evil habits [ac-

cumulated] from the beginningless past, appears in the abode of ignorance and

mingles with it.3~ Secondly, with the root-consciousness as basis, there arises the

28 TCIC, T, vol. 44, p. 528a. 23-24. Also see p. 528c. 20-24.

29 Ibid., p. 528a. 21-23.30 This sentence is based upon a passage on the tathagatagarbha in the Lankduatdra-

siara. See T, vol. 16, p. 556b-c and Daisetzu T. Suzuki, The Lankiiuatdra Siitra (Lon-

don: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1932), pp. 190-191. Judged solely from what

is said here, Hui-yuan seems to maintain that the tathiigatagarbha and the root-

consciousness are two different consciousnesses, and together with the seven con-

sciousnesses which are given in the discussion of the next two aspects of dependent

nature, they constitute a system of nine consciousnesses. The idea of the existence

of nine consciousnesses was actually propounded by the She-lun masters of Hui-

yuan's time. Though Hui-yiian saw nothing amiss in this teaching, being brought

up in the Ti-lun tradition, he would prefer the scheme of eight consciousnesses.

Further, following the practice of the Ti-lun School, he identified the storehouse-

consciousness with the pure mind in sentient beings, and called it by such names as

the "tathiigatagarbha", the' 'holy-consciousness", the' 'true-consciousness' , etc. Ingeneral, we may say that Hui-yiian means by "storehouse-consciousness" what

the TCCHL means by the pure mind, with "tathiigatagarbha" and "root-

consciousness" referring to the noumenal and phenomenal aspects of this mind

respectively. It is obvious that such readings of the concepts "storehouse-

consciousness" and' 'root-consciousness" represent a considerable departure from

the traditional Indian usage of the terms.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 193

adana-mind which is attached to [the idea ofJ the self.31 This mind is always accom-

panied by the four defilements, namely, secondary ignorance, self-belief, self-love

and self-conceit. Why does [this mind] come into being? This [mind with] attach-

ment [as its nature] comes into being due to the impregnation of the primeval habit

of grasping at [the idea ofJ the self. Nevertheless, it has as its ground the root-

consciousnes, for its [nature ofJ attachment evolves from the root-consciousness ....

Thirdly, with the root-consciousness as basis, there arises the six bodily organs

(i.e., eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind) and [their corresponding] objects and

consciousnesses. Why do they come into being? They come into being due to the

impregnation of names and concepts pertaining to the (five] skandhas, [eighteen]

dhiitus and [twelve] i9 'a tanas from the beginningless past, as well as the impregnation

of deeds good or bad.P

Hui-yiian begins his explanation of "imaginary nature" with a

discussion of what constitutes "the imaginary":

As for "the imaginary", it refers to the false itself. Due to the fabrication of the

false mind, erroneous appearances arise in profusion, which the false mind in tum

grasps at or rejects. That is why it is described as "imaginary".33

This passage seems to suggest that by "imaginary nature", Hui-

yuan has in mind what theMS means by "imagination", i.e., "the

function of falsediscriminations". However, subsequent discussion

shows beyond doubt that in the TCIC, "imaginary nature" is

meant to encompass objects imagined also. For example, when

Hui-yiian attempts to prove the oneness of the three natures, he

takes "imaginary nature" to be the "erroneous attachment to the

changing aspect of dependent nature" as well as "false dharmas":

The tathagatagarbha is perfect nature, which is the ground [of all beings]. What

evolves together with [perfect nature] when the latter comes under the influence of

bad habits and is born in [the abode ofJ ignorance is called dependent nature.

Besides perfect nature, there is nothing which [dependent nature] can depend on.

The erroneous attachment to the changing aspect of dependent nature is called

imaginary nature. Besides dependent nature, there is nothing which [the imagina-

tion] can imagine on. Again, in one dependent nature is included the false dharmas

which are described as "imaginary" and the true dharmas which are described as

"real" ... 34

31 In both the SS and the MS, adana-consciousness is the other name of the

storehouse-consciousness. Hui-yiian , however, adopts the practice of Paramartha

and the She-lun School, and uses the term to refer to the seventh consciousness,

which has as its basic function the discrimination of the self.32 TelC, T, vol. 44, p. 528c. 3-14. The two forms of impre~ation are men-

tioned and explained in the MS. See T, vol. 31, p. 137c and Etienne Lamotte,

trans., p. 85.

33 TCIC, T, vol. 44, p. 528a. 15-17.

34 Ibid., p. 529a. 11-16. Refer to n. 55 below.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

194 LIU MING-WOOD

Comparing the accounts of the three-nature doctrine in the MS

and the TCIC, we can see that the most apparent divergence rests

on their conception of "perfect nature". In the MS, "perfect

nature" indicates the transformed vision of the formerly non-enlightened

who after innumerable aeons of ceaseless assertion at last comes to

recognize the conditioned nature of mundane existence. The TCIC,

on the other hand, regards "perfect nature" as the pure consciousness

which every sentient being possessesfrom the very start, and it remains im-

maculate even amidst impurities. Given their different understan-

ding of the original nature of man as shown in their different

readings of "perfect nature", the metaphysical implications of

"dependent nature" and "imaginary nature" in the two works

naturally are not the same, though their objects of reference may

appear to be identicaL Even though in both the MS and the TCIC,"dependent nature" refers to the storehouse-consciousness and

ideas proceeding from it, whereas "imaginary nature" refers to all

the false distinctions which people read into "dependent nature",

these two natures are, in the MS, part and parcel of the original

constitution of man, for all are endowed with the inclination to

make unfounded distinctions and to be attached to the self to begin

with. The TCIC, on the other hand, shares the view of the TCCHL

and sees the eight consciousnesses as well as the entire phenomenal

world as the product of the interaction of the tathiigatagarbha (i.e.,

man's intrinsically pure consciousness) with a force foreign to its

essence, which it calls "evil habit" or "ignorance". Such being the

case, "dependent nature" and "imaginary nature" are in the on-

tological sense secondary to "perfect nature", even though in ac-

tuality they may accompany "perfect nature" all the time. In other

words, in the system of thought of the TCIC, there can be no

"dependent nature" and "imaginary nature" without "perfect

nature", but that is obviously not the case with the MS.

Thus, in the TCIC, the three-nature doctrine has become a vehi-

cle for the elucidation of a notion of reality quite different from that

of the MS.35 Or in the words of Fa-tsang, the version of the MS

represents the position of the elementary teaching of theMahayana, whereas that of the TCIC, the standpoint of the final

35 It should be noted that Hui-yuan quotes the MS frequently in his exposition of

the three natures. There are passages in the MS, which, taken out of context,

would seem to support an interpretation of the three natures similar to that of Hui-

yuan. These passages will be examined in detail in section III below.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 195

teaching of the Mahayana. Nevertheless, the aforementioned

dissimilarities in the two interpretations should not blind us to

several points on which they are similar:

i. In both works, the three-nature doctrine is intended for

teaching us what enlightenment consists of. That is, the three-

nature doctrine is presented basically as a soteriological doctrine in

both the MS and the TCIC.

ii. Both interpretations reflect a belief in the existence of a basic

consciousness in every sentient being, though they disagree on the

original nature of this consciousness.

iii. Both interpretations attempt to trace the origination of the

phenomenal world to a basic consciousness, though they diverge

again in their conceptions of the process of originating.

II. THE DUAL ASPECTS OF THE THREE NATURES36

Fa-tsang's (643-712) exposition of the three-nature doctrine is

mainly found in the final division of the Taishii edition of the Hua-

yen iou-chiao chang *M=li~~ (Treatise on the Five Teachings,

henceforth abbreviated to Treatise), where he attempts to refor-

mulate a number of central Buddhist concepts to bring them in line

with the Hua-yen view of universal harrnony.?" It would seem

strange that Fa-tsang has chosen to begin this division, which

represents his most systematic description of Hua-yen thought,

36 Fa-tsangs interpretation of the three-nature doctrine has been much dis-

cussed, though not always with insight. For some information in English, consult

K. N. Oh, "A Study of Chinese Hua-yen Buddhism with Special Reference to the

Dharmadhdtu (Fa-chieh) Doctrine", Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1976, pp.

158-162 and F. H. Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism (University Park & London: Penn-

sylvania State University Press, 1977), pp. 56-62. For an English translation of the

section on the three natures in Fa-tsang's Treatise, see F. H. Cook, "Fa-tsang's

Treatise on the Five Doctrines: An Annotated Translation", Ph.D. diss., University of

Wisconsin, 1970, pp. 404-443. Among the numerous Japanese studies on this sub-

ject, the best ones are:

i. Nagao Gajin :Et~~A, "Haza no sansho setsu ni taisuru jakkan no gimon

i*~0):: : : ' ft~v;:.~-t ~ E=fO)~;€r.W', Essays in Celebration o f the Semicentennial o f

the Faculty o f Letters of Kyoto University (in Japanese) (Kyoto: 1956), pp. 183-205.

ii. Yamada Ryoken 11lE81t~, "Kegon sansho setsu no tachiba

*~::::.l1:.IDt(})ft~", Otani gakuh» *1:t~¥Ii, 35.4 (1956), pp. 27-39.

iii. --,' 'Kegon Hozo no sansho setsu ni tsuite *M:$~(1)::::. i1:~~;:."'?\, '-C", IBK,4.2 (1956), pp. 194-197.

37 See T, vol. 45, pp. 499a-501c.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

196 LlU MING-WOOD

with a discussion on a concept which by popular consent belongs to

a form of Buddhist teaching different from his own,38 if we do not

take into consideration the close historical and doctrinal ties which

existed between Hua-yen Buddhism and Yogacara Buddhism inChina. Indeed, the inordinate importance Fa-tsang attaches to the

three-nature concept demonstrates a point which I have observed

several times in my article on the p 'an-chiao ~ U ~ system of the

Hua-yen School: Despite Fa-tsang's repeated claim of supremacy

for his "round teaching", Hua-yen Buddhism has its theoretical

basis in the teaching of the old Yogacara tradition of the 'Ti-lun and

She-lun masters (i.e., the final teaching of the Mahayana), all of

whom believe in the presence of an intrinsically pure consciousness

in every sentient being. Beside the Treatise, there are two important

sources for the study of Fa-tsang's interpretation of the three

natures: his commentaries on the Ghanavyiiha-siitra and the

Doiidasamukha-siistra, entitled the Mi-yen-ching su a 1 M : t& ! if 1 t t and the

Shih-erh-men-lun su - - t - = r ' ~ 1 f 8 ~ . These two works are especially

useful in helping to fill in some of the gaps in Fa-tsang's not very

systematic presentation of the problem in the Treatise.39

To begin with, it should be noted that Fa-tsang is not consistent

in his designation of the three natures in the Treatise. Sometimes, he

follows Paramarthas translation of the MS, and calls "perfect

nature", "dependent nature" and "imaginary nature" "chen-shih

hsing DtJri1:" , "i-t'a hsing { t{ f tP.i1:" and "fen-pieh hsing % 1 1 1 1 1 1 : "

respectively. Yet, there are also occasions when he seems to prefer

Hsuan-tsangs rendering of the latter two, and speaks of them in

their better known names of "i-t'a-ch'i hsing { t { fmi l§M:" and

"pien-chi so-chili hsing ~~tFJT~11:" . 40 More interesting still is that inthe majority of cases when "perfect nature" is discussed in the

Treatise, it is referred to as "chen-ju J l § : , Z U : : I " "(tathata) or simply "chen

~", while very seldom is it mentioned by its standard Chinese

translation of "yiian-c.~ 'eng-shin hsing lilJ$t.~". Another fact

worth noticing is the peculiar order in which the three natures ap-

pear in the Treatise. As we have seen earlier, in the SS, the three

38 In Fa-tsangs p'an-chiao scheme, the SS and M S represent the elementary

teaching of the Mahayana, whereas the TCIC, the work of a T'i-lun master, would

belong to the final teaching of the Mahayana.

39 See HTC, voL 34, pp. 251d-252b & T, voL 42, pp. 215b-217b.

40 In the Mi-yen-ching su, Fa-tsang follows Paramartha's designation of the three

natures. In the Shih-erh-men-lun su, however, he adopts the translation of Hsuan-

tsang.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 197

natures are discussed in the order of "imaginary nature", "depen-

dent nature" and "perfect nature". The same is true of the TCIC.

The MS, on the other hand, begins with "dependent nature", and

then proceeds on to "imaginary nature" and "perfect nature".

These are the usual orders in which the three natures appear in

Yogiiciira texts of Indian origin. Fa-tsang, however, begins his ex-

position of the three natures with "perfect nature", and then goes

on to "dependent nature" and "imaginary nature". This indicates

that in Fa-tsang's version of the three-nature doctrine, "perfect

nature" replaces "dependent nature" and "imaginary nature" as

the focus of concern.

To facilitate discussion, we begin our analysis of Fa-tsang's doc-

trine of the three natures in the reverse order, and start with "ima-

ginary nature". Fa-tsang has given us two quite different explica-

tions of "imaginary nature". In the Mi-yen-ching su, Fa-tsang triesto define "imaginary nature" by examining the meaning of its two

different Chinese translations ''fen-p~'eh hsing" and "pien-chi so-chih

hsing", and places more emphasis on the function of imagining of

the false mind than on the nature of the objects imagined in his ac-

count:

First, "fen-pieh hsing" is also called "pien-chi so-chih hsing". It is called' 'fen-pieh

hsing" because the deliberation and calculation of the false mind do not correspond

to [the nature of] the objective world. It refers to the function [of imagining ofthe

false mind]. Furthermore, since this false mind discriminates and gets attached to

the objects which it is grasping at, it is given the appellation' 'pien-chi so-chih hsing" .

It is not the objects which the discriminating mind grasps at which is described as"pien-chi hsing". Rather, it is a name given in regard to the interaction of the func-

tion [of the false mind] with its objects."

In taking" imaginary nature" as "the function of imagining of the

false mind", Fa-tsang's understanding of "imaginary nature"

seems to differ considerably from that of the SS and MS, where

"imaginary nature" is used principally to refer to the nature of

what are imagined rather than to the act of imagining. Moreover,

since Fa-tsang continues to assert that the latter interpretation of

the term is "contrary to the truth", we cannot help but feel a little

astonished when we turn to the Treatise and the Shih-erh-men-lun su,

where "imaginary nature" is apparently regarded as a term

descriptive of the unreal nature of imagined entities. Thus, the

Treatise describes "imaginary nature" as "what is totally non-

41 HTC, vol. 34, p. 252a. 10-13.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

198 LIU MING-WQOD

existent, even though assuming the semblance of being in concur-

rence with our desires and attachments" .42 Furthermore, both texts

speak of the dual aspects of "imaginary nature": that things ima-

ginary in nature "appear to have being to commonsense, but arenon-existent in reality t i ! fJf; f~~". Thus, the Shih-erh-men-lun su com-

pares objects imaginary in nature to flowers in the sky, which look

real to those suffering from ailments in the eye, but are known as il-

lusory to the enlightened, even if they do appear before their "pure

eyes" .43 The Treatise uses the illustration of a tree stump which has

been mistaken for a demon. While the demon appears to be actual

to those who are deceived, it is in fact non-existent.t" Fa-tsang duly

reminds us that these two aspects of "appearing to have being

to commonsense" and "non-existent in reality" of imaginary

nature complement each other, for "to appear to have being to

commonsense" implies "non-existent in reality", and vice versa.

The Mi-yen-ching su says the following of "dependent nature":

As for" dependent nature (i- ta h sin g )' " it is also called "the nature of originating

from conditions ( y ii an -ch 'i h s ing Ud~gtE)"or "the nature of coming into existence

depending on others (i-t'a ch 'ih sin g ) " . All these terms convey the sense equally well

without distortion.t"

So far, this definition of "dependent nature" does not seem to dif-

fer from the orthodox understanding of the term. In the Treatise and

the Shih-erh-men-lun su, "dependent nature", like "imaginary

nature", is also said to consist of two aspects, this time,

j( semblances of existence" fbtJf;f", and "without self-nature"~ft.". Thus, Fa-tsangstates:

Even though ••semblances of existence" appear because of the coming together

of conditons, these "semblances of existence" are definitely "without self-

nature", for all things originating from conditions are "without self-nature" .46

It is therefore not difficult to understand how Fa-tsang can main-

tain that these dual aspects of dependent nature are "one unity",

for as given in the above quotation, they explain rather than con-

tradict each other. In the words of Fa-tsang:

Ifobjects are not •'without self-nature", they are not dependent on conditions;

and since they are not dependent on conditions, they would not be [mere]

.. 2 T, vol. 45, p. 499b. 25-26.

43 T, vol. 42, p. 217a.

«T, vol. 45, p. 49gb-c.

4!; HTe, vol, 34, p. 252a. lS-b.l.

46 Treatise, T, vol. 45, p. 499b. 12-14.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 199

"semblances of existence". If "semblances of existence" are formed, they must

arise from various conditions; and since they arise from various conditions, they

must be "without self-nature". Thus, objects are "semblances of existence"

because they are "without self-nature", and objects are "without self-nature"

because they are [mere] "semblances of existence" .47

It is in his explanation of "perfect nature" that Fa-tsang deviates

most apparently from the SS and MS, and his agreement with the

opinion of Hui-yiian, the Ti-Iun master, the most apparent. In all

three sources, Fa-tsang treats, "perfect nature" as a synonym of

the tathdgatagarbha and the tathatd. Moreover, the terms

"tathagatagarbha" and" tathatd' are spoken of in aUthree texts in the

language of the TCCHL, so that it is beyond doubt that by "perfect

nature", Fa-tsang means something more than the transformed

understanding of the enlightened as is the case with the SS and the

MS. For example, in the Treatise, Fa-tsang depicts "perfect nature"

as follows:

Take the case of perfect nature. Even though it gives rise to [phenomena] impure

and pure in response to conditions, it never loses its pure essence; and it is just

because it never loses its pure essence that it can respond to conditions and give rise

to [phenomena] impure and pure. It is just like a bright mirror reflecting both the

impure and the pure. Even though it reflects both the impure and the pure. its

bright nature is never lost; and it isjust because its bright nature is never lost that it

can reflect both impure and pure [phenomena'[.w

Thus, by "perfect nature", Fa-tsang has in mind the pure mind

which every sentient being is endowed with and which gives rise to

myriad phenomena when coming under the influence of ignorance.

As for the dual aspects of "perfect nature", i.e., its

"changelessness ~~" and its "responding to conditions I\.ii~",the Treatise continues to explain:

By its reflecting the impure and the pure, we know that the mirror is bright; and

by the brightness of the mirror, we know that it can reflect both the impure and the

pure. So the two aspects [of "being bright" and "reflecting the impure and the

pure"] are one in essence .... It should be understood that the same is true of the

tathatd. Not only does it give rise to [phenomena] impure and pure without chang-

ing its pure nature, it is exactly in its [faculty] to give rise to [phenomena] impure

and pure that its pure nature is manifested. Not only does it reveal its pure nature

without [annihilating] phenomena impure and pure, it is exactly in its being pure

in nature that it can give rise to [phenomena] impure and pure. So the two aspects

of "changelessness" and "responding to conditions" [of perfect nature] take in

each other completely, and there is one single essence, not twO.49

47 Ibid., p. 499b. 14-17. Also refer to Shih-erh-men-lun su, T, vol. 42, pp.

215c-216a.

48 T, vol. 45, p. 499a. 29-b.4.

49 Ibid., p. 499b. 4-12.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

200 LIU MING-WOOD

This is, of course, none other than the teaching of the one mind in

two aspects of the TCCHL, "changelessness" referring to the

mind's absolute aspect, whereas "responding to conditions" in-

dicating the mind's phenomenal aspect.Fa-tsang is not the first to talk of the dual aspects of the three

natures, for the Trisuabhiioanirdeia, attributed to Nagarjuna or

Vasubandhu, contains similar ideas.>? However, since the

'Trisuabhiioanirdesa has not been translated into Chinese, it is im-

possible to determine whether Fa-tsang has been influenced by it or

not. One reason why Fa-tsang analyses each of the three natures in-

to two aspects is that he believes that the establishing of the dual

characters of the three natures is an important step towards the

demonstration of their unity. Another reason is that the long-

standing conflict between the Yogacarins and the Madhyamikas

came to a head in India around the time of Fa-tsang, and one of themost debated issues between the two groups was the doctrine of the

three natures. Fa-tsangwas obviously aware of the controversy, but

he insisted that when correctly understood, one would see no ir-

reconcilable differences between the positions of the two in the mat-

ter. 51 In showing that each of the three natures comprises two

diverse aspects, Fa-tsang is probably attempting to prove that the

truth of the middle, a central principle of Madhyamika Buddhism,

is actually embodied in the three-nature doctrine, a doctrine com-

monly taken as peculiar to Yogacara Buddhism. 52

III. THE UNITY OF THE THREE NATURES

A feature which emerges with our exegesis of Fa-tsang's thesis of

the dual aspects of the three natures is that Fa-tsang's version of the

three-nature doctrine almost coincides completely with that of Hui-

yuan. Both apply ideas proper to "the final teaching of the

Mahayana" to their analyses of the concept of the three natures,

and in their hands, the three-nature doctrine has been turned into

50 The Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the text is still extant and it has been

translated into French by L. de La Vallee Poussin under the title "La petit traite

de Vasubaridhu-Nagarjuna sur les trois natures", Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 2(1932-1933), pp. 147-161. Refer especially to slokas 10-22.

51 See section IV below.

52 In the Shih-erh-men-lun su, the three natures are introduced to explain the idea

of "the middle path as embodied in [the principle of] the two truths" (erh-ti

chung-tao =lriifcpji) which Fa-tsang maintains to be the central theme of the

Dviidafamukha-fiistra of Nagarjuna,

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 201

an expression of an understanding of reality similar to that of the

TCCHL. In both versions, "perfect nature" indicates what the

TCCHL calls the noumenal aspect of the pure mind, whereas

"dependent nature" and "imaginary nature", its phenomenalaspect. Thus, it is not surprising that Fa-tsang has included in his

examination of the three natures a demonstration of their unity, for

has he not repeatedly lauded "the final teaching of the Mahayana"

as "the teaching of the perfect harmony of the two aspects of the

noumenal and the phenomenal"? 53

1. In the simple way given in the SS, there is a sense in which the

three natures can be said to be one, for the three natures do not

represent three separate substances, but only indicate the spiritual

progress of a follower of the Buddha from his former involvement in

false discriminations to his realization of the conditioned nature of

all forms of existence. The MS speaks of the relation of the threenatures as "neither different nor identical":

Again, are these three natures different or identical? It should be said that they

are neither different nor identical. Dependent nature is "dependent" in one sense,

"imaginary" in another sense, and "perfect" in the third sense.

In what sense is dependent nature "dependent"? In so far as it depends on the

impregnated seeds [in the storehouse-consciousness] for its arising.

In what sense is it "imaginary' '? In so far as it is the object of imagination, and

is the material on which imagination works.

In what sense is it "perfect"? In so far as it absolutely does not exist in the man-

ner in which it is imagined.s!

The three natures are not identical, because the ideas (dependent

nature) of the enlightened (perfect nature) and of the non-

enlightened (imaginary nature) are not of the same moral species.

However, they can also be described as not different, for "perfect

nature" arises as a consequence of the correct perception of the

"imaginary" as "imaginary", as the result of which the ideation-

only character of all beings (dependent nature) also becomes ap-

parent. Hui-yiian's TCIC also comprises a section on the relation of

the three natures, in which the three natures, as in the MS, are also

described as "neither different nor identical". But as it differs from

the MS in its interpretations ofthe three natures, the reason it gives

for the three natures' being "neither different nor identical"naturally are not the same:

53 Consult the discussion on the final teaching of the Mahayana in section 3 of

my article, op. cit.

5+ T, vol. 31, p. 13gb. 24-c.2. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 110.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

202 LIU MING-WOOD

These three [natures) are neither identical with nor different from each other. If

we consider the derivative as separated from the origin, we can say that they are

not identical .... [For) the false seen as false is imaginary nature, the real seen from

the perspective of the false is dependent nature, and the real seen as real is perfect

nature. [On the other hand,] if we consider the origin as encompassing thederivative, we can say that [the three natures] are not different. Why is it so? For

the tathiigatagaTbha is perfect nature, which is the ground [of all beings]. What

evolves together with [perfect nature] when the latter comes under the influence of

bad habits and is born in [the abode of] ignorance is called dependent nature.

Besides perfect nature, there is nothing which [dependent nature] can depend on.

The erroneous attachment to the changing aspect of dependent nature is called im-

aginary nature. Besides dependent nature, there is nothing which [imaginary

nature] can imagine on. ss

Since the tathiigatagarbha, i.e., perfect nature, is entirely pure,

whereas its derivatives, i.e., dependent nature and imaginary

nature, are entangled in falsehood, they are not identical. Never-

theless, since the derivatives (dependent nature and imaginary

nature) have their metaphysical basis in the tathagatagarbha (perfect

nature) and there would be no derivatives without the existence of

the pure origin, the three natures can also be said to be not dif-

ferent. Thus, judging solely from the fact that "dependent nature"

and "imaginary nature" are ontologically dependent on "perfect

nature", there seems to be some grounds for maintaining that the

three natures are one.

2. Fa-tsang's proof of the unity of the three natures follows the

same line of reasoning as that of H'ui-yuan , but it is far more in-

tricate and requires much more detailed analysis.

Two expositions of unity of the three natures can be extracted

from the section on the three natures in the Treatise. The first one is

found at the beginning of the section, and is related to the idea of

the dual characters of the three natures:

Due to the three meanings of "changelessness" of perfect nature, "without self-

nature" of dependent nature and "non-existent in reality" of imaginary nature,

the three natures are one and not different from each other. That is what is meant

by "without destroying the derivatives, the origin is ever present". So the

[Vimalakfrti-niTdesa-sutTa says, "Since sentient beings are one with nirviirza. there is

no more entering into nirudna. " Similarly, due to the three meanings of "respond-

ing to conditions" of perfect nature, "semblances of existence" of dependent

nature, and "appearing to have being to commonsense" of imaginary nature, the

three natures are also not different. That is what is meant by "without disturbing

the origin, the derivatives always [come into being]". So the [Pu-tseng pu-chien] siitra

55 T, vol. 44, p. 529a. 7-14.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 203

1J'*:if'~~ says, "When the dharmakiiya [ofthe Buddha] transmigrates in the five

paths.P" it is called sentient beings." [Moreover,] since the second three meanings

of the three natures and the first three meaning are not of the same category, [it is

said that] the true [source] embraces the false derivatives, and the false

[derivatives] penetrate the true source. Thus, [the true] essence and [the false]

phenomena perfectly interfuse, and do not impede or obstruct each other.s?

This exposition of unity of the three natures proceeds in two steps.

The first step asserts the unity of each of the dual aspects of one

nature with each of the dual aspects of the other two natures:

Table 1

Argumentfor the Uniry of the Three Natures

A B

Dependent Nature:

Imaginary Nature:

changlessness

without self-nature

responding to conditions

semblances of existence

Perfect Nature:

non-existent in reality appearing to have being to com-

monsense

All the items under category A are said to be the same, and so are

all the items under category B. In the second step, Fa-tsang goes

on to declare that although category A and category B are dif-

ferent, they nevertheless "perfectly interfuse" each other. In this

manner, Fa-tsang arrives at the conclusion that the three natures

are one.

The weakness of this exposition is all too apparent. When Fa-

tsang declares that category A and category B "perfectly

interfuse' ,, he is no doubt thinking of the oneness of the two aspects

of each of the three natures, his proof of which we have already set

out in the previous section. Yet, even if we grant that his argument

in this respect is valid,58 Fa-tsang has yet to give us his reason for

taking the first step, i.e., how it can be said that all items under

each of the two categories are the same, and that he has not done.

Thus, this exposition is incomplete. Taken in the proper perspec-

tive, this exposition is primarily a declaration of general principle,

56 The five paths are the five different forms of rebirth, namely, as god, as man,

as animal, as hungry ghost and as being in hell.

57 T, vol. 45, p. 499a. 15-23.

58 As we shall see, the argument for the oneness of the two aspects of perfect

nature is not so.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

204 LIU MING-WOOD

which, if acceptable at all, is acceptable on grounds which are not

yet fully stated at this point of the Treatise. For a clearer picture of

the unity of the three natures, we have to turn to the second exposi-

tion, which is found at the end of the section.3. The second exposition of the unity ofthe three natures consists

almost entirely of quotations from the MS and the

Mahdyiinasamgraha-bhasya of Vasubandhu. It commences with the

proclamation: "The three natures are one. Take anyone of them

and all the others are included in it. For the true and the false

mutually interfuse, and their natures do not impede each other" .59

This is then followed by a quotation from Paramartha 's version of

the MS: "Just as it is written in the Brahmapariprccha-siitrd: [Ques-

tion:] Bhagavat, what do you have in mind when you say that the

Tathagata neither sees samsdra nor niroiina? [Answer:] Based on the

fact that 'dependent nature' comprises [both] 'imaginary nature'

and 'perfect nature', [it is said that] samsdra and niroiina are not dif-

ferent. Why? For 'dependent nature' with the one part of it which is

imaginary, constitutes samsiira; and with the other part of it which is

perfect, constitutes niroiina" .60 Fa-tsang then continues to give his

interpretation of this passage by citing Vasubandhu's comments on

it as found in the Mahdydnasamgraha-bhdsya translated by Pararriar-

tha:

Dependent nature is not samsara, for this nature with its perfect aspect constitutes

niruana. This nature is [also] not nirudna. Why? For this nature with its imaginary

aspect constitutes samsiira. Thus, we cannot say definitely which one of the twoaspects [of dependent nature is the dependent nature itself]. If we ean see that one

aspect [of dependent nature] is not different in essence from its other aspect, [we

can understand why the Buddha declares that the Tathagata] sees neither samsdra

nor nirviifla.61

Fa-tsang goes on to quote another passage from theMS, which is on

the three categories of dharmas, i.e., those which are soiled, those

which are pure, and those which comprise both aspects:

In the MahiiyiiniibhidhaTTTUl-sutra,the Buddha declares that dharmas fall under three

categories, i.e., those which are soiled, those which are pure, and those which com-

prise both impure and pure aspects. Why does he say so? For the imaginary nature

in dependent nature is soiled, and the perfect nature in dependent nature is pure.As for dependent nature, it consists of both pure and impure aspects.s-

59 T, vol. 45, p. 50le. 6-7.

60 Ibid., p. SOle. 7-12.

61 Ibid., p. SOle. 12-16.

62 Ibid., p. SOle. 17-21.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 205

This quotation is again followed by a citation from the

Paramartha's version of the MahayanasaT f l g raha -bhOJya :

According to what is said in the Mahiiyiiniibhidharma-sutra, imaginary nature has

as its nature [the aspect of] defilement, while perfect nature has as its nature the

aspect of purity. Since dependent nature comprises both aspects, it has the twonatures (i.e., imaginary nature and perfect nature) as its nature. So [the

Mahayiiniibhidharmo.-sutra] says that dharmas are of three types: those which are de-

filed, those which are pure, and those which comprise both types.63

Then Fa-tsang concludes this exposition with a declaration of the

truth of the unity of the three natures, this time in his own words:

The above discussion again brings out that the true [source] embraces the false

derivatives in perfect accord, and the false [derivatives] penetrate the true source

without disturbing it. Thus, the true and the false permeate each other, and these

two aspects mutually interfuse and include each other completelywithout obstruc-

tion.64-

What is most striking about this second exposition is that its

characterization of the three natures is quite different from that

found in the first part and used in the first exposition. While Fa-

tsang still maintains that "dependent nature" has two aspects, the

two aspects are no longer set forth as "without self-nature" and

"semblances of existence". They are "perfect nature" and "im-

aginary nature", which Fa-tsang, following the suggestion of the

passages from the MS and the Mahayanasarr tgraha-bha~ya , now

regards to be two parts of "dependent nature". More interesting

still, references to the dual characters of "perfect nature" and "im-aginary nature" vanish completely from the picture. Rather,

"perfect nature" is portrayed here as the cause of nirviirta and being

completely pure, and "imaginary nature" is represented as the

cause of samsiira and being totally impure.

As for the reason given for the thesis of the unity of the three

natures, judged solely from the comments cited above, Fa-tsang

seems to have done little more than reproducing the words of the

cited passages from the MS and the MahayanasaT f l g raha -bha~ya :

"Dependent nature", "perfect nature" and "imaginary nature"

are one, for the pure "perfect nature" and the impure "imaginary

nature" are two parts of "dependent nature", which comprises both

pure and impure aspects. Presented in such a literal fashion, this

explanation sounds very vague, and we are left very much on our

63 Ibid., p. 50le. 21-25.

64 - Ibid., p. 50lc. 26-28.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

206 LlU MING-WOOD

own to surmise what further significance Fa-tsang would want us to

read into this sketchy framework.t" That is, however, not very hard

to do, for we have ample indications from the Mi-yen-ching su and

the discussion of the dual aspects of the three natures above what

Fa-tsang has in consideration by the pure' 'perfect nature" , the im-

pure "imaginary nature", and the partly pure and partly impure

, 'dependent nature".

Since Fa-tsang often identifies "perfect nature" with the

tathagatagarbha or the taihatii, the' 'perfect nature" which is totally

pure can be taken to be the tathiigatagarbha or the tathatii. As for how

"imaginary nature" which is impure and "dependent nature"

which is both pure and impure are to be understood, a passage in

the Mi-yen-ching su offers some valuable clues:

Since [dharmo.s dependent in nature] come into existence depending on [the ac-tivities of] imaginary nature, they are described as "dependent in nature". It is

because in [the teaching of] the Mahayana, all dharmas are considered as products

of the mind, and as products of the mind, all dharmas do not exist apart from the

mind and have the mind as their basis. If there is no false mind [working] in the

realm of s am s iir a, [d ha rm a s) "dependent in nature" would not arise by themselves.

Thus, in various siitras, [we find] it stated that the twelve links of dependent

origination are "dependent in nature". Since the twelve links of dependent

origination begin with ignorance, we know that dependent nature depends on

something which is discriminating. 66

This paragraph gives a peculiar twist to the meaning of dependent

nature. In most of Fa-tsang's discussions of the three natures,"dependent nature" is defined either very generally as "dependent

on conditions" or more specifically as "dependent on the mind" .

Here, however, the condition on which ' 'dependent nature' ,

depends is given very specifically as the "false mind" or "ig-

norance". If we remember that Fa-tsang has also equated "im-

aginary nature" with the "false mind" in the immediately

preceding paragraph in the Mi-yen-ching SU,67 it is not surprising that

65 The meaning of these passages as found in the MS and the Mahdy i i na samgraha -

bh~ya is quite obvious. When Asanga quotes the Brahmapariprcchi i -s i i t ra and main-

tains that dependent nature comprises both perfect nature and imaginary nature,

he is trying to tell us that perfect nature and imaginary nature are two states of be-

ing of dependent nature, the former indicates the state of enlightenment, while the

latter, the state of non-enlightenment. Which state a person is in depends of course

on his level of his spiritual attainment.

66 HTC, vol. 34, p. 252b. 1-5.

67 See n. 41 above.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 207

Fa-tsang would corne to conclude that "dependent nature" is

called dependent because it depends on "imaginary nature".

When "perfect nature", "imaginary nature" and "dependent

nature" are understood respectively as thetathiigatagarbha,

the falsemind, and dharmas corning into existence as a consequence of the

activities of the false mind, and when it is also perceived that Fa-

tsang refers to the false mind as "ignorance" in the Mi-yen-ching su,

a picture gradually comes together in our mind. For has not the

TCCHL taught that "ignorance" (imaginary nature in the present

case), like the wind of agitation, disturbs the calmness of the ocean

which is the tathatd (perfect nature in the present case) and rouses

up waves, i.e., phenomena (dependent nature in the present case)?

As for the unity of the three natures, has not the TCCHL argued

that ignorance (imaginary nature) does not exist apart from

enlightenment (perfect nature) and so cannot be destroyed and yetalso cannot not be destroyed? Moreover, has not the TCCHL also

declared that the mind of each sentient being has two aspects, i.e.,

the absolute and the phenomenal, and so "perfect nature" (the

tathiigatagarbha, or the absolute aspect) and "dependent nature"

(dharmas resulting from the interaction between the tathiigatagarbha

and ignorance [imaginary nature], or the phenomenal aspect), be-

ing two aspects of the same entity, can also be regarded as one uni-

ty? Thus, a whole train of statements can be brought in from the

TCCHL to develop an argument for the unity of the three natures,

with perfect nature (tathagatagarbha) understood as pure, "im-

aginary nature" (ignorance) understood as impure, and "depen-dent nature" (phenomenal existences) understood as both pure and

impure, just as described in the passages cited from the MS and the

MahiiyiinasaTflgraha- bhdsya. 68

The problem iswhether Fa-tsang actually has such ideas in mind

when he quotes from the MS and the MahayiinasaTflgrahabhi¥ya.

Several reasons can be given to support attributing this argument of

the oneness of the three natures to Fa-tsang:

i. Fa-tsang's thought, as we have said, is strongly influenced by

the TCCHL and its tathiigatagarbha doctrine, and he quotes several

times from the TCCHL in the section on the three natures in theTreatise.

68 For discussion on the relation between the ta th iigatagarbha, phenomena and ig-

norance as given in the TCCHL, refer to section I above.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

208 LlU MING-WOOD

ii. Fa-tsang refers to "perfect nature" throughout the Treat ise as

the tathiigatagarbha or tathatd. Moreover, he also openly identifies

"imaginary nature" with ignorance and "dependent nature" with

dhar m as arising from the activities of ignorance in the Mi-yen-chings u o

iii. Equating "perfect nature", "dependent nature" and "im-

aginary nature" with the tathiigatagarbha, the phenomenal world,

and ignorance respectively fits perfectly the characterizations of the

three natures in the quotations from the MS and the

Mahiiyiinasa' f!Lgraha-bhii~ya: "perfect nature" being completely pure,

"imaginary nature" being totally impure, and "dependent

nature" being partly pure and partly impure.

iv. Fa-tsang's account of the two aspects of "perfect nature"

shows definitely that he has in mind the TCCHL and its thesis ofthe

two aspects of the one mind when he is composing the section on the

three natures in the Treat ise .

v. Perhaps the most conclusive proof is found in Fa-tsang's reply

to the question as to how he can assert that the aspect of

"semblances of existence" of dependent nature and the aspect of

"without self-nature" of imaginary nature are the same in the

Treat ise:

... Secondly, it is due to the fact that without imaginary nature, [the aspect of]

"semblances of existence" [of dependent nature 1 would not arise. It should beunderstood that the same is true of [the aspect of] "responding to conditions" [of

perfect nature]. For without imaginary nature, there would be no "responding toconditions" .69

While this answer is presented as part of the first exposition of the

unity of the three natures, it in fact points towards the second ex-

position, for "imaginary nature" is mentioned here not just as the

nature of illusory objects, but also as the cause of the coming into

existence of "dependent nature" and the condition to which perfect

nature" responds. In short, it is the second exposition succinctly

stated.

Ifwe have not erred in attributing this argument to Fa-tsang, Fa-

tsang is actually endorsing the TCCHL's position that the

tathiigatagarbha, the phenomenal world, and ignorance are one when

he argues for the unity of the three natures. The next question to

ask is how far the TCCHL has succeeded in justifying this claim.

69 T, vol. 45, p. 499a. 25-27.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 209

4. Fa-tsang of course has no second thought on this issue. Thus,

in his system ofp'an-chiao, he criticizes Yogacara Buddhism, which

he calls "the elementary teaching of the Mahayana", for its one-

sided emphasis on the phenomenal, and sees the excellency of "the

final teaching of the Mahayana", of which the TCCHL is the most

worthy representative, in its having established the oneness of the

noumenal and the phenomenal:

When the holy [scriptures] assert that the tathatii is immutable, they mean by

"eternal" the fact that the tathatii does not lose its self-essence even when it

responds to conditions and gives rise to beings of all forms. Since the tathata is the

eternal not separated from the non-eternal, it is known as "the inconceivable eter-

nal". [In describing the tathatii as "eternal" ,] they do not have in mind immutable

in the ordinary sense of the term, which does not give rise to dharmas . Thus, when

the Srimiiladevisi1J!haniida-siitra calls [the tathatii] "the non-defiled which is yet

defiled", it refers to the fact that it gives rise to all forms of dharmas in response to

conditions. [When it calls the tathatii1 "the defiled which is yet non-defiled", it

refers to the fact that it never loses its self-nature while responding to conditions.

Due to the first aspect [of the tathatii], we have the [realm of] mundane truths. Due

to the second aspect [of the tathatii], we have the [realm of] absolute truth re-

established. Since the absolute and the mundane are only two aspects [of the

tathatii] and are not two independent entities, they interfuse without obstruction,

and discriminations of all forms are abandoned. 70

But the question which needs to be asked is why the noumenal (the

tathatii or tathiigatagarbha), which is perfectly pure, should "interfuse

with" and "be not separate from" the phenomenal", which con-

tains impure elements? In other words, given its assumption that all

sentient beings are originally pure in nature, has the TCCHL of-

fered us an explanation of the source of defilements by which the

non-defiled and the defiled can be said to be essentially one?

Since the TCCHL uses the simile of the ocean and the wind to ex-

plain the arising of the phenomenal from the nournenal ,"! Bud-

dhists who endorse a vision of reality similar to that of the TCCHL

usually resort to the simile in attempting to answer the aforesaid

query. Thus, they would say that the mind (the noumenal) is like

the ocean, and its purity, the wet nature of the ocean. Ignorance,

like the wind, blows on the water and stirs up waves, i.e., impure

phenomena. But just as motion is not an essential property of

water, impure phenomena are also not an essential part of themind. Moreover, even when stirred, the purity of the mind, like the

wet nature of the ocean, remains undestroyed; and once the wind of

70 T rea tise, T , vol. 45, p. 485a. 11-19.

71 See n. 23 above.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

210 LIU MING-WOOD

ignorance ceases, the waves of impure phenomena will also disap-

pear, and the mind will be its own pure self once more.

It is easy to see that in the above argument, a new factor other

than the noumenal and the phenomenal has been introduced into

the picture, i.e., ignorance. It is ignorance which, like the wind,

works on the mind which is the ocean, and arouses waves, which

are the impure pheriornena.?" While the introduction of the concept

"ignorance" does help us to envisage how impure phenomena can

originate from the noumenal which is pure, it is of no helpwhatever

in demonstrating that they are in essence inseparable. On the con-

trary, it brings out even more clearly that the noumenal can exist

apart from the phenomenal; for with the cessation of ignorance,

phenomena will cease to arise, but the absolute aspect of the mind

(the tathiigatagarbha) will continue to exist.J" The phenomenal would

be an essential aspect of the mind only if ignorance, the necessarycondition of its arising, is intrinsic to the mind. That the TCCHL is

aware of this point is shown in its constant emphasizing that not on-

ly the noumenal and the phemomenal are one, but the same is true

of the noumenal and ignorance. For example, we find in the

TCCHL such remarks as "Ignorance does not exist apart from

enlightenment" ,74 - and "Each of the two aspects [of the mind] em-

braces all forms of existence (and so ignorance)". 75 But the ques-

tion formerly applied to the relation between the noumenal and the

phenomenal can now be asked of the relation between the

noumenal and ignorance: Ifthe noumenal is perfectly pure, how

can it have "ignorance", the condition of the arising of all im-purities, as its intrinsic property? Serious as the problem is, the

TCCHL has offered us no clue whatsoever for its solution.

72 The falling back on the concept of ignorance to explain the origin of im-

purities is quite natural within the context of Buddhism, for ignorance, as is well-

known, is one of the twelve links of dependent origination; and being ignorant of

such central Buddhist tenets as the four noble truths, the five skandhas, the eightfold

noble paths, etc., has always been considered by Buddhists as the main cause of

man's remaining in samsiira.

73 The TCCHL states explicitly that ignorance has an end, but the pure mind

does not have an end:

Again the defiled principle (dharma), from the beginningless beginning, con-tinues perpetually to permeate until it perishes with the attainment of Bud-

dhahood. But the permeation of the pure principle has no interruption and no end.

(T, vol. 32, p. 579a. 8-10. Y. S. Hakeda trans., p. 64).

74 T, vol. 30, p. 576c, 10. Y. S. Hakeda, transl., p. 41.

75 T, vol. 32, p. 576a. 6-7. Y. S. Hakeda, trans., p. 31.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 211

Thus, we have to conclude that the question whether or not the

TCCHL has succeeded in showing that the tathiigatagarbha, the

phenomenal world, and ignorance are essentially one has to be

replied in the negative. With this is also refuted Fa-tsang's second

argument for the unity of the three natures, for, as we have seen,

Fa-tsang bases his second proof of the unity of the three natures on

the contention that the TCCHL and the final teaching of the

Mahayana it represents have constructed a system of thought in

which the difference between the noumenal and the phenomenal

has been reconciled. It should be noted that this failure to establish

the unity of the three natures brings to light a fundamental

weakness in Fa-tsang's entire philosophical enterprise, i.e., his

endeavour to formulate a form of teaching most fully exemplifying

the Buddhist ideal of the round. As we have seen in our article on

Fa-tsang'sP'an-chiao system, Fa-tsang's "round teaching" is drawn

up on the premise that the final teaching of the Mahayana has

established the truth of "the non-obstruction of the noumenal and

the phenomenal", while his round teaching introduces further

refinement in founding the truth of "the non-obstruction of

elements of the phenomenal with each other". In other words, the

final teaching of the Mahayana provides the general ontological

framework in which Fa-tsang develops his round teaching. And if

the soundness of the framework is suspected, the validity of the

superstructure would also become open to doubt.

IV. CRITICISMS OF THE YOGACARA VERSION OF THE THREE-NATURE

DOCTRINE: THE POSITIONS OF MADHYAMIKA BUDDHISM AND

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM COMPARED

To sum up, the following comments can be made on the section

on the three natures in the Treatise:

i. This section consists of two parts, the first part is chiefly on the

dual aspects of the three natures, while the 'second part is mainly

concerned with establishing the unity of the three natures. The

descriptions of the three natures found in these two parts, with the

exception of "perfect nature", do not exactly correspond.

ii. The detailed discussion on the dual aspects of the three

natures is given by Fa-tsang most probably with the intention of

showing that the long-standing disagreement between the

Madhyamikas and the Yogacarins on the subject of the three

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

212 LIU MING-WOOD

natures is unreal, and that when correctly interpreted, the three-

nature doctrine, traditionally closely allied to Yogacara Buddhism,

can be used to illustrate the Madhyamika principle of the middle.

iii. Fa-tsang has given two expositions of the unity of the three

natures in this section. The first exposition, related to the dual

characters of the three natures and based on one set of meaning of

the three natures, is largely incomplete. The second exposition,

which is based on another set of descriptions of the three natures,

does not work either, for the ontology of the TCCHL, on which it

is based, cannot support the contention that the noumenal (perfect

nature), the phenomenal (dependent nature), and ignorance (im-

aginary nature) are in essence one.

iv. This section, which opens the final division of the Treatise

which is devoted to the elucidation of the round teaching, has sur-

prisingly little to do with the principle of "one in all and all in one"which characterizes this form of thinking. Both the discussions on

the dual aspects of "perfect nature" and the unity of the three

natures are basically attempts to establish the truth of the two

aspects of the one mind and their identity - a truth which is taught

in the TCCHL and so in Fa-tsang's own opinion would belong

more to the final teaching of the Mahayana. This is yet another in-

dication as to how closely Fa-tsang's round teaching is related to the

final teaching of the Mahayana, i.e., the old Yogacara tradition.

Before we close our discussion of the doctrine of the three

natures, it is worthwhile to spend a little time on Fa-tsang's

criticism of the Yogacara version of the three-nature doctrine, and

to compare his criticism with the one given by the Madhyamikas.

As we have pointed out, in the very simple form in which the doc-

trine appeared in the SS, there was hardly anything in it that the

Madhyamikas need to object to. Itwas only when the doctrine was

taken up in later Yogacara texts to explain the Yogacara teaching of

ideation-only and as a consequence each of the three natures was

assigned a particular place in the overall metaphysical scheme of

Yogacara Buddhism that the doctrine became a natural target of at-tack to the Madhyamikas, Thus, the disagreement between the

Yogacarins and the Madhyamikas on the question of the three

natures reflects more fundamental differences, and affords us a

glimpse into some ofthe root issues which have kept these two tradi-

tions apart for so many centuries.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 213

Madhyamika criticism of the Yogacara doctrine of the three

natures is well docurnented.?" The heart of the matter can be

brought out by a brief survey of the doctrine of the three meanings

of "without self-nature" (nil;.svabhiiva) in the Ch 'eng wei-shih tun

Jil<;Pl~~ of Hsuan-tsang (660-664), a doctrine which from the

time of the SSonward has always been expounded together with the

doctrine of the three natures."? After giving an analysis of the three

natures essentially similar to that of the MS, the Ch 'eng wei-shih lun

continues to point out that the epithet "without self-nature" can be

applied equally to all the three natures, only that with regard to

each nature, the term takes on a different meaning. When used to

describe' 'imaginary nature", "without self-nature" indicates that

objects imagined (such as permanent selves) are "both in essence and

appearance absolutely non-existent, like flowers in the sky". 78 When

used in connection with "dependent nature", it tells us that thingsin general are without self-nature in respect to their origination,

because they owe their being to "various conditions." However,

the Ch Jeng wei-shih lun also reminds us that things" are not absolute-

ly without self-nature", for even though they are reducible to

various causes and conditions and do not enjoy independent ex-

istence, the causes and conditions on which they are based are not

76 Madhyamika criticism of the three-nature doctrine of the Yogacarins can be

found in chapter 5 of the Madhyamakahrdaya-Iiistra and chapter 25 of the

Prajnapradfpa-miiLamadhyamaka-vritti by Bhavaviveka, which survive today in their

Tibetan translations and have been rendered into Japanese by Yamaguchi Susumu

IlII:l ~ and Yasui Kosai ~*(~ in their Bukkyii ni okeru mu to u to no tairon

- M l i & t c : t o t 1 " G 1 :i . t. • . t . O)tt~ and Chiikan shiso no kenkyu 1:j: l1l l ,1j! I ,~O)iFf~ respec-

tively. The final section of Yasui' s work entitled "Chiikan shiso no yuga yuishiki

shiso to no taiketsu I f !U.~,~. t . J j ( t 1 J o l l f t ~ . ~ ~ C O)WfJc" gives a very lucid and

perceptive treatment of the subject. Also consult: Yasui Kosai, "Nitai-setsu to

sansho-setsu =~~=:: i1:IDt", Otani gakuho, 33.1 (1953), pp. 19-40. r>77 The Ch' eng wei-shih lun is a commentary on Vasubandhu' s Trirpfikiivijiiapti-

karika compiled by Hsiian-tsang and based primarily on the interpretation of the

Trirpfikavijnapti-kiirika by Dharmapala, one of the so-called "ten great sastra-

masters': in Yogacara Buddhism. The compilation of the Ch'eng wei-shih fun laid

the ground for the formation of the Fa-hsiang School 7$;;.f§*, which, in its being

developed later than the brand of Yogacarism practised by the She-lun and Ti-lunmasters, is often named "the new Yogacara tradition". Generally speaking, its

teaching is truer to the Indian form of Yogacarism than that of the old Yogacara

tradition. There are two Western translations of the text, one by La Vallee Poussin

and the other by Wei Tat $i¥.

78 T, vol. 31, p. 48a. 10-11. Wei Tat, trans., Ch'eng wei-shih tun (Hong Kong:

1973), p. 657.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

214 LlU MING-WOOD

non-existent. 79 That is understandable, for the storehouse-

consciousness, from which all ideas originate, is considered as a real

entity in Yogacara metaphysics. As for the meaning of "without

self-nature" in relation to "perfect nature" , the Ch 'eng wei-shih lunsays:

The highest truth (perfect nature) is far removed from the first nature of mere-

imagination, in which things are believed to be real dtmans and real dharmas,

Therefore, we conventionally allege that it is non-existent, but it is not wholly

without self-nature. Just as great space, although it envelops and penetrates all

forms, is revealed by the absence of self-nature of forms, [so the highest truth is

revealed by the voidness of attachments to iitmans and dharmas, and in this respect

may be described as having no nature of its own.] 80

Thus, when it is said that "perfect nature" is "without

self-nature", the statement is made in consideration of what the

term "self-nature" implies when it is used in connection with ob-jects imaginary in nature. The belief that objects of imagination

have self-nature is generally linked to implicit clingings to such

dualities as "existence and non-existence", "identity and dif-

ference", "inclusiveness and exclusiveness", etc. To indicate that

such dualities are not applicable to "perfect nature", we say that

"perfect nature" is "without self-nature". However, this does not

entail that "perfect nature" cannot have a special nature of its own

in another sense. "Perfect nature", as we have seen, stands for in

Yogacarism the state of mind of the enlightened, in which objects

are revealed as they actually are: ideation only. Since all associa-

tions with "the first nature of mere-imagination" cease when this

state of mind is attained "perfect nature" can be described as

"without self-nature". Yet, in this new state of existence, the mind

is an actual entity endowed with all sorts of excellent qualities, and

in that sense, "perfect nature" can also be described as having self-

nature."!

79 T, vol. 31, p. 48a. 11-13. Wei Tat, trans., ibid.

80 T, vol. 31, p. 48a. 13-16. Wei Tat, trans., ibid.

81 Also refer to the section on the three natures and the two modes of existence in

the Ch 'eng tuei-shiti lun, where perfect nature is described as having "real

existence". (T, vol. 31, p. 47c. Wei Tat, trans., p. 651) As for dependent nature,while conceding that objects of such nature are "mere designation" in the sense

that they are only complexes of conditions, Hsiian-tsang continues:

But the mind, mental states and forms are born of causes; it is therefore said of

them that they have real existence. Ifno real dharmas exist, dharmas of designation will

not exist either, because there can only be [dharmas of] designation in relation to a

reality which is the cause thereof." (T, vol. 31, p. 47c. 11-12. Wei Tat, trans., p.

651).

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 215

Thus, in the opinion of the Ch 'eng wei-shih lun, objects imaginary

in nature are non-existent both in appearance and substance. Ob-

jects dependent in nature are non -existent in appearance only, for

they ongmate from an actual entity, i.e., the storehouse-

consciousness and its ideas, is real. The same is true of "perfect

nature", which is "without self-nature" in the conventional sense,

but is the ultimate truth in the real sense. This view of the Ch 'eng

wei-shih lun is shared by theMS which openly declares that "depen-

dent nature" is not totally non-existent, and is representative of the

yogacara position in general. 82 When this is understood, it is not

difficult to discern what objection the Madhyamikas could see in

the doctrine. True to the aversion to metaphysical speculation in-

herent in their tradition, the Madhyarnikas insist that "perfect

nature" and "dependent nature" should be considered as empty in

the same way "imaginary nature" is considered as empty, and theycensure the Yogacarins for drawing a distinction between "emp-

tiness" and "the derivative" on the one hand, and "being" and

"the origin" on the other hand, while maintaining the non-reality

of "imaginary nature" and the reality of "dependent nature" and

,'perfect nature". 83 The Yogacarins counter by accusing the

Madhyamikas of the fallacy of Nihilism in suggesting that all three

82 Since Yogacara texts generally take as their point ofdeparture sentient beings

in their non-enlightened state, they often portray dependent nature as "impure"

and "illusory". The MS, for example, compares dependent nature to "a magical

appearance, a mirage, a dream, a reflection, an image, an echo, reflection of the

moon on the water," etc. (T, vol. 31, p. 140b. 3-4. Etienne Lamotte, trans., p.120)However, such descriptions of dependent nature does not carry the implica-

tion that with the annihilation of erroneous discriminations (imaginary nature), the

root consciousness (dependent nature) will disappear and no more ideas will arise.

That would be the fallacy of Nihilism shunned by all Mahayanists alike. Instead,

the MS calls the transformed consciousness of the enlightened (perfect nature),

"the non-defiled consciousness", which would continue to evolve ideas spon-

taneously to fulfil its mission of universal deliverance. Furthermore, the MS insists

that despite its constant association with the imaginary, dependent nature is not a

complete nonentity:

Again, if it does not exist as it appears, why is dependent nature not totally non-

existent? Because without it, "perfect nature" also would not exist. [Because]

without it, nothing would come into being. Ifdependent nature and perfect nature

do not exist, there would be no pure and impure [dharmas]. Since we have pure andimpure [dhannas], it is false that all are non-existent. (T, vol, 31, p. 140a.22-27.

Etienne Lamotte, trans., p. 120).

83 Read the account given of the debate between Hsuan-tsang and Simharasmi

on the perfect nature and dependent nature in Hui-li . r r . Ta- T'ang Ta-te 'ii-en-ssuSan-tsang Fa-shih chuan *r,g:*~~~.:::.ilU*lili{', T, vol. 50, p. 244b-c.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

216 LIU MING-WOOD

natures are empty, and defend themselves by asserting that their

doctrine of the three natures has the aspect of "emptiness" and

"derivative" in its conception of the non-reality of "imaginary

nature" , and the aspect of "being" and "origin" in its conceptionof the reality of "perfect nature" and "dependent nature".

We have to concede that there is some substance in the

Madhyamikas ' complaint. It is hard to imagine how the Yogacarins

can ward off the Madhyamika criticism that to consider "depen-

dent nature" and "perfect nature" as real and "imaginary

nature" as unreal amounts to harbouring a essential distinction

between "emptiness" and "derivative" on the one hand, and "be-

ing" and "origin" on the other hand. The defence outlined at the

end of the preceding paragraph does not work, for the crux of the

matter rests not upon whether or not the three natures as a group

comprise elements of both sides, but rather upon whether or not the

two sides are related in the doctrine in such a way that they form an

organic whole, so that it can truly be said that there is no essential

distinction between them. So long as the relation between the store-

house-consciousness and objects originating from it is given as a

relation of cause and effect as is the case with the MS and the Ch 'eng

wei-shih lun, this criticism would always remain an embarrassing

problem to the Yogacarins. As for the Yogacarins ' counter-charge

of Nihilism, the Madhyamikas can reply that when they maintain

that "perfect nature" and "dependent nature" should be considered

as "empty" as "imaginary nature", they mean only to refute theYogacara belief in the reality of' 'perfect nature" and' 'dependent

nature' '. They are not offering an alternative interpretation of the

three natures based on an ontology other than the ideation-only on-

tology of the Yogacarins. If they are coerced into giving a more

viable interpretation of the meaning of the three natures, they can

cite the one of the SS, or they may simply observe: "We do not have

any theory on the three natures. They are concepts in your on-

tology, whereas we, as Madhyamikas , do not harbour any specific

ontology. ' ,

This brief appraisal of course can hardly do justice to the complex

nature of the dispute, which is a worthy subject for another research

project. Nevertheless, we hope that it has brought out that the

dispute is not just a dispute over the proper understanding of the

meaning of the three natures. It involves much broader issues, and

reflects two very different appraoches to metaphysics in Mahayana

Buddhism: First, the "reductive approach", as exemplified by the

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 217

Yogacarins, who try to reduce all forms of existence to one fun-

damental reality (the storehouse-consciousness) with the intention

of showing that they are not worthy objects of pursuit; and second-

ly, the "bracketing-off approach", as exemplified by the

Madhyamikas, who "bracket-off" metaphysical speculation of all

kinds as expedient devices, and hold that the transcending of world-

ly cares does not necessarily entails commitment to a particular

theory of their origin.

Fa-tsang is obviously aware of the heated debates raging around

this subject in Indian Buddhist circles, for he mentions them both in

the Treatise and the Shih-erh-men-lun suo8+ Unfortunately, he is totally

oblivious of what actually is at stake. Thus, in the Treatise, he states

that he sees no irreconcilable difference in the positions of the two

parties on the subject, which, in his own words, "do not contradict

but rather complement each other" .85 This is how he explains the

Madhyamika idea of the emptiness of dependent nature:

During the period ofthe decay ofthe Law, the facultyofsentient beings gradual-

ly degenerates; and when they hear that dependent nature exists, they do not

understand that it is a [special] formof existencenot different fromemptiness, and

grasp at it as existence in the ordinary sense. Thus, masters likeBhavaviveka [try

to] undermine their belief in the reality of dependent nature, until they see it as

empty. [They assert that] onlywhen the absolute emptiness of dependent nature is

apprehended would the peculiar meaning of existence with respect to dependent

nature be known.s"

As we have seen, when the Madhyamikas declare that "dependent

nature" is empty, they do not have the criticism of the ordinary

people's belief in the reality of conditioned objects in mind. They

are trying to refute the Yogacarins ' belief that while things depen-

dent on causes and conditions are unreal, the causes and conditions

giving rise to things are not unreal. In short, they are trying to

refute the realistic assumption underlying the Yogacara teaching of

ideation-only. Fa-tsang understands the Yogacara view of the reali-

ty of "dependent nature" in the following manner:

Again, when sentient beings hear that dependent nature is absolutely empty,

they cannot comprehend that it is a [particular] form of emptiness not different

from existence, and grasp at it as emptiness in the ordinary sense. Thus, masters

like Dharrnapala refute their [misconceived] notion of emptiness, and retain the

idea of illusorybeing. [They maintain that] onlywhen [the concept of]illusoryex-

8 + Consult T, vol. 45, p. 501a-b & T, vol. 42, p. 215-a-b respectively.

85 T, vol. 45, p. SOla. 15-16.

86 Ibid., p. SOla. 16-20.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

218 LIU MlNG-WOOD

istence is established would the non-duality of emptiness and being be understood.

For the negation of all beings is not the true emptiness. Thus, in order to establish

the true emptiness, they reject [the conventional understanding of) ernptiness.:"

As has been shown, when the Yogacarins declare that "dependentnature" is real, they are thinking of the storehouse-consciousness

and its ideas, which provide the material for the formation of condi-

tioned objects. When "existence" is used to refer to the actual ex-

istence of the origin of all conditioned objects, i.e., the storehouse-

consciousness and its ideas, the term means much more than "il-

lusory being" , and to read the Madhyamika idea of "tentative ex-

istence" into the Yogacara characterization of" dependent nature"

as something real only obscures what is actually at issue.

It is also enlightening to see where Fa-tsang locates the weakness

of the Yogacara conception of the three natures, which has

prompted him to offer a new interpretation of his own. When it is

asked how he can maintain that the tathatii (perfect nature) has the

aspect of "responding to conditions" when all holy scriptures

describe it as immutable and eternal, Fa-tsang responds:

When the holy [scriptures] describe the tathata as "immutable", [they mean

that] when the tathatii, in response to conditions, forms [phenomena] pure and im-

pure, itnever loses its self-essence, even though it forever gives rise to [phenomena]

pure and impure. Since the tathato. isthe eternal which is not different from the non-

eternal, it is known as the' 'inconceivable eternal". [In describing the taihata as irn-

mutable,] they do not have in mind "immutable" in the ordinary sense of the

term, which does not give rise to dharmas. Ifone thinks that the tathatd is described

as immutable because it does not give rise to dharmas, this is an erroneous view, andone has missed the real meaning of the "true eternal". For the true eternal is the

eternal which is not different from the non-eternal. Since the eternal which is not

different from the non-eternal is above all discriminations, it is given the name of

the true eternal". 8B

If we remember that Fa-tsang in his p'an-chiao has criticized

Yogacarism for the rigid line it draws between the tathatii and the

storehouse-consciousness, it is clear that the phrase "erroneous

view" in the above quotation has a definite referent, i.e., the

Yogacara conception of the tathatii as "immutable and not giving

rise to dharmas" .89 Thus, we can see that even though both the

Madhyamikas and Fa-tsang have discerned serious shortcomings in

the Yogacara doctrine of the three natures, they are miles apart

87 Ibid., p. 501a. 21-26.

88 Ibid., p. 500a. 20-27.

89 Refer to T, vol. 45, p. 484c.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

HUA-YEN BUDDHISM 219

with regard to where the shortcoming exactly lies. To the

Madhyamikas, what is objectionable in the Yogacara version of the

three-nature doctrine is the general ontological framework within

which the doctrine is understood. Fa-tsang, on the other hand, does

not share the Madhyamikas ' misgivings regarding metaphysical

speculation. Rather, his dissatisfaction is directed at the Yogacara

conception of the tathatd ("perfect nature" in Fa-tsang's version of

the three natures), which, in Fa-tsang's opinion, has only the aspect

of "changelessness" but not the aspect of "responding to condi-

tions" .

Two observations should be made on Fa-tsang's criticism:

i. Fa-tsang maintains that his conception of the tathatd (perfect

nature) is superior to that of the Yogacarins, for unlike the

Yogacarins who separate the eternal from the non-eternal, thetathatd which he teaches is "the eternal which is not different from

the non-eternal". In other words, it embraces both aspects of

, 'changelessness" and" responding to conditions". However, even

if we grant that, we may still ask whether the unity of the eternal

(noumenal) and the non-eternal (phenomenal) in Fa-tsang's notion

of the tathatd is a necessary unity basic to the nature of the tathatii, or

merely a contingent unity which can be removed in theory without

affecting the identity of the two sides in question. As we have seen

at the end of the last section, so long as the tathatii is considered as

absolutely pure, so that ignorance, the immediate cause of the aris-

ing of phenomena, cannot be said to be intrinsic to its nature, its

non-eternal aspect is only the outcome of its contingent association

with a factor foreign to its essence, and as such, is not necessary to

its being. To borrow the simile of the ocean and the wind of the

TCCHL, it is true that so long as the wind of ignorance is blowing,

waves (the non-eternal, phenomena) will appear on the surface of

the ocean (the eternal, the noumenal). However, once the wind

calms down, the waves (the non-eternal, phenomena) will cease to

arise. Nevertheless, the ocean (the eternal, the noumenal) is still the

same ocean even without its former undulating appearance.

ii. We have seen that the Madhyarnikas criticize the Yogacarinsfor making a distinction between the origin and the derivative in

taking' 'perfect nature" and' 'dependent nature" as real and' 'im-

aginary nature" as unreal. The same charge can be brought

against Fa-tsang's thesis of the dual aspects of "perfect nature".

And if this criticism has proved embarrassing to the Yogacarins, it

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers

5/13/2018 The Three-Nature Doctrine and Its Interpretation in Huayen Buddhism - slidepdf....

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-nature-doctrine-and-its-interpretation-in-huayen

220 LIU MING-WOOD

is even more pernicious in the case of Fa-tsang. Since the

Yogacarins consider the "origin' , (storehouse-consciousness) as

partly pure and partly impure, the condition for the arising of the

"derivative" (phenomena) can still be located in the origin itself. In

maintaining that the tathatd is perfectly pure and' 'never loses its

self-essense"', it is difficult to conceive how Fa-tsang can justify his

claim that the "changeless" aspect of perfect nature (which is

perfectly pure) is one with its aspect of ' 'responding to conditions"

(which brings forth all forms of impurities) and both are equally

essential to the nature of the tathatii, they are' 'one single essence,

not two. "90

University of Hong Kong

90 Refer to n. 49 above.

Copyright (c) 2003ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Brill Academic Publishers