Why is the ekayana theory so important for the East Asian Yogacara studies?
by Shigeki Moro
1. Introduction
In the Faxiang / Hosso ^ffi school, one of the East Asian transmissions of Yogacara, the single-vehicle (ekayana) theory has occupied an important position although it was not the central topic in Indian tradition. This is due not only to their (and other East Asian Buddhists') religious interest in being Buddha , but also to their controversy with other Chinese Buddhist philosophers, especially the believers of Mahaparinivana-sutra and the Huayan school. Originally the controversy arose from the theories of five natures and of three vehicles preached in the Yogacara texts brought by Xuanzang (602-664). Since these theories had taught categorization of all sentient beings into five or three types according to their innate capacities for the Buddhahood, the schools which believe the Buddhahood of all sentient beings, such as the Huayan school, began to criticize it. They
targeted not only the theory of five natures but also the three-period teaching classification of the Faxiang / Hosso school. Therefore the theories of five natures, three vehicles and a single vehicle were discussed in the context of the three-period teaching classification. Needless to say, each theory had its own structure, and all of them have related complexly to each other. Based on the criticisms, however, the interpretations of these theories had been too simplified.
In this paper, I would like to consider the misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Faxiang / Hosso school before examining the confusion between the single- / three-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification.
2. Misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Faxiang / Hosso School
Traditionally, the single-vehicle theory of the Faxiang / Hosso school has been summarized as follows: [the teaching of] the three vehicles is true, however [that of] the single vehicle is expedient ®). Therefore this school has been regarded as an opposite of the single-vehicle believers represented by the Tiantai / Tendai school. However, Dacheng-JT (632-682), the founder of the Faxiang / Hosso school, argues that the single-vehicle teaching of Srimata-sutra is true in a chapter of his Dacheng-fayuan-y'lin-zhang A^A%##^:
The single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of the Lotus sutra depends only on [the single-vehicle teaching as] entrance. As the nature and function [of the Lotus sutra] are limited, it is regarded as an expedient teaching. The single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of Srimata-sutra, because of its entire inclusion of [the single-vehicle teaching as] generator and entrance, is true. Since the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of the Lotus sutra is based only on the existence of the [[[Buddha]]] nature, it is expedient. Since the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of Srimata-sutra is based also on the lack of the [[[Buddha]]] nature, it is true. As the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of the Lotus sutra preaches only on the undetermined nature, it is expedient. Since the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of Srimata-sutra states also about the predetermined nature, it is true.
In this chapter named Zhucheng-yitin (the forest of theories on various vehicles), Dacheng-JT surely regards the single-vehicle teaching of the Lotus sutra as an expedient teaching. However we must draw attention to the statements in which Dacheng-JT thinks more highly of Srimata-sutra, since they have been ignored until recently. In (1), Dacheng-JT considers the single-vehicle teaching of Srimata-sutra as the truth, since it preaches it as both generator HAi and entrance »A. According to the commentary on this chapter named Houon-gikyo written by Zenju AA (724-797), an eminent scholar monk of the Hosso school in the Nara period, these terms were based on the following paragraphs of Srimata-sutra (T. 72, 172c):
...all the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened and all the mundane and supramundane virtuous natures are distributed by the Great Vehicle. For example, the four great streams from Lake Anavatapta. In the same way, all the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened and all the mundane and supramundane virtuous natures issue from the Great Vehicle. (Wayman [1974], p. 78-79)
.the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened ones are included in the Great Vehicle. Lord, ‘Great Vehicle' is an expression for Buddha Vehicle. In that way, the three vehicles are counted one vehicle (ekayana). (ibid., p. 92)
As Yoshimura [1999] pointed out, the single-vehicle had the same meaning as the great vehicle in the Faxiang / Hosso school. Concerning these terms (generator and entrance), moreover, Dacheng-JT's commentary of Srimala-sutra (Shengman-jing shuji KOSffisB) which was recorded by his pupil Yiling A states as follows:
There are two theories: First, since the wisdoms for all the predetermined natures are generated from the great vehicle, it should be named ‘the great vehicle as generator-' If those who have the undetermined nature or the nature predetermined for bodhisattva finally return to the great vehicle, it should be named ‘the great vehicle as entrance-' Secondly, there are two interpretations of the undetermined nature: If [those who have the undetermined nature] started with the small [[[vehicle]]] and ended in the small [[[vehicle]]], [what they were taught] should be called [the great vehicle as] generator- Thus it should be called the great vehicle- If [those who have the undetermined nature started with the small vehicle but] at last converted to the great vehicle, it should be called [the great vehicle as] entrance- Thus it should be called the great vehicle¬
According to (4), the teaching of entrance was preached only for those who had nature predetermined for bodhisattvas (A^Sffi) and those who converted the small vehicle into the great vehicle (the undetermined nature)- Quotation (4) also writes that the teaching of generator was for those who had either the predetermined nature or the undetermined nature of the small vehicle- However, it is reasonable to think that all four vehicles (K^) or five natures (Aft) are generated from the great vehicle, based on (2) and the parable of
four burdens in Srimala-sutra (T. 12, 218a-b. Wayman and Wayman [1974], p. 71-72). In addition, as Suguro [1972] pointed out, this parable has been traditionally considered as an evidence of the truth of four- (or three-) vehicle teaching by the Faxiang / Hosso school. Taking the different aspects of the single-vehicle teaching into consideration, however, there is no contrast between the truth of the four- (or three-) vehicle teaching and that of the single-vehicle teaching, since the former is true in the context of generator and the latter is true in the aspect of entrance . Consequently, it should be clear that Dacheng-JT claimed the truth in single-vehicle, although his content of ‘truth' is different from that of single-vehicle believers.
In traditional interpretation, Dacheng-JT regarded the single vehicle teaching of Snmala-sutra as an expedient (e.g. Suguro [1972], p. 367 and Matsumoto [1989], p. 299), depending on the following part:
(5) - (T 12, 221a. See Wayman [1974], p. 94)
If Tathagata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the great vehicle, not the two-vehicle. (my translation) However, according to Zhucheng-y'lin quoted below , he did not interpret it like that:
Srimata-sutra says: “If Tathagata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the single-vehicle, not the two-vehicle.” This teaching demonstrates that if the entrance of the two-vehicle into the great vehicle was taught as the single-vehicle, it must have been a teaching which was following the audience.
[Srimala-sutra says:] “If Tathagata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the single-vehicle, not the two-vehicle.” Therefore it is the expedient teaching to unify the two vehicles and lead them into the single vehicle.
Paying attention to the word A (entrance) underlined in (6) and (7), it is clear that the expedient single-vehicle teaching preached in Srimata-sutra should be limited to the meaning of entrance. Thus the single-vehicle as generator is still true. Likewise, Zenju interprets (7) as follows:
Quoting the sentences of Srimala-sutra, it is proved that the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] of the Lotus sutra is an expedient gate. (T. 71, 172b)
Consequently, this structure mentioned above can be expressed as the following figure:
nature predetermined for sravaka nature predetermined
the undetermined nature...
i. who ends in the small vehicle
ii. converted the small vehicle into the great vehicle
nature lacking capacity for the enlightenment
3. Confusion between the single-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification
Criticism from the Huayan School in China
Why has the single-vehicle theory of the Faxiang / Hosso school been misunderstood? In my understanding, it was caused by the confusion of the single-vehicle theory with the three-period teaching classification. For example, Zongmi AA (780-841), who was a scholar monk in Tang China, criticized the three period-teaching classification as follows:
(9) Based on the view of the Faxiang theory, the single-vehicle [[[teaching]]] would be expedient and the three-vehicle [[[teaching]]] would be true. In the teaching of the three-period teaching classification in Samdhinirmocana, in the first period, [it was preached that] no one could attain [the enlightenment]; in the second period, [it was preached that] everyone could attain [the enlightenment]. Thus neither the excesses nor lack [of the enlightenment] had the complete revelation of meaning. In the third period, [it was preached that] those who had the [[[Buddha]]] nature could attain [the enlightenment] and those who didn't have the [[[Buddha]]] nature could not. Therefore it had the complete revelation of meaning. (Z. 1-14-2-114c)
Originally, the three-period teaching classification of the Faxiang / Hosso school was a doctrinal separation of Buddhist teachings based on Samdhinirmocana-sutra. It consists of three periods: the teaching of existence as the first period, the teaching of emptiness (sunyata) as the second period and the teaching of the Middle way as the third period. According to Huizhao •jg (649-714), regarded as the head disciple of Dacheng-JT in Japanese tradition, the term ‘period' (^) should be interpreted not only as a sequence of time (WM but also as a sort of contents O®) (T. 43, 660c). In principle, the teaching of existence means the small vehicle teaching established in Four Agama sutras and the Abhidharma texts. The teaching of emptiness is connected with the Prajnaparamita sutras and the doctrine of Madhyamika, especially Bhaviveka. The teaching of the Middle way is the sublation of the first and second teachings, which is explained in the Yogacara sutras represented by Samdhinirmocana-sutra and the works of the Yogacara masters such as Asanga and
Vasubandhu. Zongmi confused the three-period teaching classification with the single- / three-vehicle theory. In other words, he interpreted the classification with the single-vehicle opposing to the three-vehicle. As I mentioned above, the single-vehicle as generator and the three-vehicle are not inconsistent. We can trace back such a confusion to Fazang (643-712), who was an ancestor of the Huayan school. According to him, there were debates between STlabhadra MM and Jnanaprabha in India. STla
bhadra, a scholar monk of Yogacara, espoused the three-period teaching classification based on Samdhinirmocana-sutra. Jnanaprabha, in contrast, posited his view of the three-period teaching classification (consisted of the first teaching of the four noble truths, the second teaching of the great vehicle of Dharma-character and the last teaching of the great vehicle of No-characteristics Mil
M^), based on unknown Dacheng-miaozhi-jJng The tradition was in turn based on the statement of Divakara quoted in Dacheng-qixinlun-yiji by Fazang . It is
important that Fazang also interpreted Jnanaprabha's classification as the development from the small vehicle to the single-vehicle. He writes:
35, 112a) First, taking the capacities into consideration, the first period included only the capacities of the people on the two vehicles. The second period included the capacities for both the great and small vehicles, since the theory of the second period stuck to the impossibility of the Buddhahood for a part of the two vehicles. The third period included only [the capacity for] bodhisattvas training both suddenly and gradually, since all people on the two vehicles must obtain none other than the Buddhahood. Secondly, from the point of view of Buddha's sermons, the first [period] consisted of the small vehicle, the next [period] included all the three vehicles and the last [period had] the single-vehicle only.
Although Fazang does not mention the relationship between STlabhadra's classification and the three-vehicle theory, it would be easy to suppose that Fazang wrote this paragraph bearing the relationship between the three period classification of the Faxiang school and its three vehicle theory in mind. In order to criticize the Faxiang theories in which the authenticity was guaranteed under the newest teaching classification of Samdhinirmocana, the opposites had to cite the Indian tradition to support their single-vehicle theories.
Controversy with the Sanron School in Japan
With this as a background, I now turn to an account of the controversy between the Hosso school and the Sanron school (the Japanese form of Indian Madhyamika tradition based on Chinese translations of the three treatise: Madhyamaka-sastra / Zhong-un p«, Dvadasanikaya-sastra / Shiermen-lun and
Sata-sastra / Bai-lun Hm) during the Nara and early Heian period . One of the subjects of this controversy was the anumana to demonstrate sunyata in Bhaviveka Dacheng-zhangzhen-lun In the
context of this controversy, the same way as STlabhadra and Jnanaprabha, the confrontation between non-existence and existence was often confused with the opposition of single vehicle teaching to three vehicle teaching. For example, Shuhoushi (the dharma master called ‘Shu'), who was a scholar monk of the Hosso sect in the early Heian period and is speculated to be Ninshu , wrote a small text named Shochin-ryo-do (A guide for the inference of Dacheng-zhangzhen-lun). It concluded as follows:
Bhaviveka's opinion was transferred [into China] by Xuanzang. Why can masters of other [schools] butt in? (...) The person who transferred Bhaviveka's doctrine [into China] was Xuanzang. Xuanzang taught [Bhaviveka's doctrine] to Master [Dacheng-]JT and made him independent. After Xuanzang, no one has ventured to visit India for Bhaviveka's doctrine. Therefore all Sanron masters have been taught by Master JT. Whose doctrine are your teachings based on in order to criticize your master at this time? Dazhidu-lun, Zhdng-un and Shiermen-lun, these three treatises were written by Nagarjuna. Both Bai-lun and Guanbai-lun (Catuhsataka) were written by Aryadeva. Three treatises except Guanbai-lun translated by Xuanzang were translated by KumarajTva during HongshT era of Houqin dynasty. KumarajTva didn't set up the theory of the possession of the Buddha nature by all [[[sentient beings]]]. Whose doctrine do the Sanron masters at this time rely on in order to establish the theory of the possession of the Buddha nature?
As Hirai [1978] pointed out, the Buddha nature was the hidden subject of Shochin-ryo-do.
In addition, Saicho (766/767-822) and Tokuitsu @— (8c-9c), who contended severely with each other for the truth of the Lotus sutra in the early Heian period, also regarded the confrontation between non-existence and existence as the opposite of the single-vehicle and three-vehicle. In Saicho's Ketsu-gonjitsu-ron iAHMsm, Bhaviveka is regarded as a believer of the single vehicle:
Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, Bodhisattva Saramati, Disputant Bhaviveka and Disputant Jnanaprabha preached the inner-enlightenment of the single-vehicle.
Tokuitsu considers Lingrun as a person of the Sanron school in his lost Hossd-rydgi-td
H quoted by Genshin
Tokuitsu's Hossd-rydgi-td says: “Lingrun was a person of the Sanron school.”
Lingrun was a scholar monk who argued the existence of Buddha nature against Xuanzang . However, he did not belong to the Sanron school. Since Saicho and his disciples have been the main current in Japan, this misunderstanding began with Fazang and established in Japan is spreading now.
Sudden and Gradual
Some modern scholars have misunderstanding over the three-period teaching classification as follows, because of their prejudice: (14)
(Iwata [1996]. See also Harada [1998]) ...The Faxiang / Hosso school cannot belong to a group which admits the theory of ‘all sentient beings possess the Buddha nature' like the Lotus sutra, Mahaparinirvana-sutra and Prajnaparamita-sutra. Therefore (...) it would be reasonable to think that the Lotus sutra or Mahaparinirvana-sutra, which preach the theory such as the single-vehicle or the Buddha nature, cannot be accepted as a part of the three-period teaching classification. By reading the texts of the Faxiang / Hosso school carefully, however, it becomes clear that the third period includes not only the Yogacara texts but also the single-vehicle sutras, such as the Lotus sutra, Mahaparinivana-sutra or Srimaia-sutra. Dacheng-JT's commentary on Vimalakirti-sutra (ShudwugduchengjTng-shu states as follows:
In [[[sutras]] of] the third [period], the attachments to both existence and emptiness were refused. These were Avatamsaka- Samdhinirmocana-, Mahaparinivana- SaddharmapundarTka-, Lankavatara- Hduyan and Srimala- or so. (T. 38, 999a) Thinking over these sutras, they divided into the sudden teachings and the gradual teachings. Dacheng-JT says:
From long ago, the great masters established [the classification of] the sudden and gradual teachings. For bodhisattvas who had the great root and stem, sutras such as Avatamsaka-, Lankavatara-, Mahabheri-, Mahamegha- and Srimala- were preached. Since the Two Truths were entirely preached in their sermons, they should be called the sudden [[[teaching]]]. Since their great [[[vehicle]] teachings] didn't [occur] from the small [[[vehicle]]], they should be called the sudden [[[teaching]]]. (...) The teachings of Agama sutras, the emptiness of Vimalakirti-, Visesacintin-and the Large [[[Prajnaparamita-sutra]]], the single-vehicle of the Lotus [sufra] and the eternal Buddha nature of Mahaparinivana- were gradual. They embraced the three vehicles. Since their great [[[vehicle]] teachings] occur from the small [[[vehicle]]], they should be called the gradual [[[teaching]]].
Based on the principle and the availabilities [of sentient beings], [if someone] gradually enters the way [to the Buddhahood], the great [[[vehicle]]] occurs from the small [[[vehicle]]]. Therefore the three period teachings are located in a sequence of time. For example, the consciousness-only [[[teaching]]] preached in Samdhinirmocana-sutra [belongs to the third period]. If entering the way [to the Buddhahood] is not gradual, the great [[[vehicle]]] doesn't [occur] from the small [[[vehicle]]]. Therefore the three period teachings aren't located in a sequence of time. In general, the mind-only [[[teaching]]] preached in Avatamsaka[-sutra] immediately after [[[Sakyamuni's]]] Enlightenment [belongs to the third period instead of the first].
Comparing these paragraphs with (4), it is clear that the three-period teaching classification belongs to the category of the great (or single) vehicle as entrance. In other words, the sudden teachings of the three period teachings were preached for people with nature predetermined for bodhisattva, the gradual teachings were for people with undetermined nature who had converted the small vehicle into the great vehicle, and there is no teaching in the three-period teaching classification for people with nature predetermined for the small vehicle and without the capacity for any enlightenments. The relationship between the five natures and the three-period teaching classification can be illustrated as follows:
1. nature predetermined for
5. nature lacking capacity for the enlightenment
4. Conclusion
Misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Faxiang / Hosso school has been caused by the intentional confusion between the single-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification which ignored the single-vehicle as generator. Moreover, based on this misunderstanding, we could not correctly interpret other theories of the Faxiang / Hosso school about emptiness, such as the three-nature doctrine, since the three-period teaching classification has an important role in understanding of emptiness. Works Cited
Fukaura, Seibun [1954]. Yuishiki-gaku kenkyu Vol. 1. Nagata-bunshodo.
Fuse, Kougaku [1942] Nehan-shu no kenkyu Tokyo: Sobunkaku. Reprinted by Kokusho
kankou kai, Tokyo in 1973.
Harada, Nobuyuki [1998]. “Hosso-kyogaku to Konjaku-monogatari-shu
.”
Ritsumeikan Bungaku 552.
Hirai, Shunei [1976]. Chugoku han’nya shiso-shi kenkyu: Kichizo to Sanron-gakuha
Tokyo: Shunju-sha.
Hirai, Shunei [1978]. “Heian-shoki ni okeru Sanron Hosso kakuchiku wo meguru sho-mondai
Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Kenkyu kiyo
37.
Hirosawa, Takayuki [1999]. “Kongen yori nagarederu mono Gendai Mikkyo
Iwata, Taijö [1996]. “Hossö-kyögaku to bungaku: Kotoni Konjaku-monogatari ni kanshite
Tokyo: Shinten-sha.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1985]. “DaibucchOkyO no shingi ronsö to nanto rokushO no dökö Komazawa-shigaku 33.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1987]. “Enryaku-sOroku Kaimyö-den no shiryö-teki tokushitsu
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1990]. “Sanron Hossö tairitsu no shigen to sono haikei: Shöben no Shochin-ron juyö wo megutte Hirai,
Shunei eds., Sanron kyOgaku no kenkyu Tokyo: ShunjO-sha.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1991]. “KO u ronsö no Nihon-teki tenkai
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1994]. “Daianji Sanron-gaku no tokushitsu: Döji, Keishun, Kaimyö wo chOshin to shite Kodaishi-ronsO.
Matsumoto, Shirö [1982]. “Yuishiki-ha no ichijö-shisö ni tsuite >JR O— ® S ® o u T ”.
Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Ronshu 13.
Matsumoto, Shirö [1989]. “ShOman-gyO no ichijö-shisö ni tsuite ffifS©“^OM't”. Engi to ku Tokyo: Daizö-shuppan.
Moro, Shigeki [1998]. “Hossö-shO no ‘ihijö-höben-setsu' saikö T —pf-[A
Reexamination of the single-vehicle theory of the Fa-hsiang School]”. IBK 93 (47-1).
Moro, Shigeki [1999]. “Jiun HossO-ZuinO no fukugen to kaishaku [The
Original form and the Purpose of the HossO-Zuinci]". 35.
Moro, Shigeki [2002]. “Chikö's Criticism of the Hossö Sect, and Wonhyo's Influence”. IBK 100 (50-2).
Öta, KyOki [1973]. “Nihon yuishiki kenkyO: KOgyö no ichizuke ”.
Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Ronshu 31.
Öta, KyOki [1979]. “Nihon yuishiki kenkyO: Ta-kyögaku tono kakawari
9”. IBK55 (28-1).
Suguro, Shinjö [1972]. “Kiki no Hokke-gensan ni okeru Hokekyö kaishaku
ÄÄ”. Yukio Sakamoto eds., HokekyO no chugoku-teki tenkai OM©$BllWS. Kyoto: Heirakuji-shoten.
Tokiwa, Daijö [1930]. BusshO no kenkyu Heigo-shuppan.
Yoshimura, Makoto [1999]. “Genjö no daijö kan to santenbörin setsu
[[[Xuanzang's]] View of mahäyäna and the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma].” TOyO no ShisO to ShukyO 16.
Yoshizu, Yoshihide [1997]. “Hossö-shü to iu namae no saikentou [The
Reexamination of the Sect Name ‘Hossoshu'].” Bukkyö shisö bunkashi ronsö
®. Kyoto: Nagata-bunshö-dö.
Yüki, Reimon [1962]. Yuishiki-gaku Tenseki-shi I'iyPWtM'h. Tokyo: Daizö-shuppan.
Wayman, Alex and Hideko Wayman [1974]. The Lion's Roar of Queen Snmälä. Columbia University Press.
T. Taishö shinshu daizökyö
Z Taiwan reprinted version of Dainihon zokuzökyö
DZ. Dengyö daishizenshu SÄ.kililij-'fti
IBK. Indogaku bukkyögaku
