The Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts in the Early Chan Tradition

The Theory of Mind Purification in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra

by Pei-Ying Lin

This essay focuses on the relatively understudied aspect of the doctrinal connections between the Fanwang jing (hereafter Brahmā’s Net Sūtra) and the Lengqie jing (hereafter Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra). In so doing, it aims to illuminate the doctrinal foundation of the concept of “formless precepts” (wuxiang jie 無相戒) before it achieved its canonical form in the Platform Sūtra. Building on scholarship by Ibuki, Groner, Muller, and Schlütter, among others,1 this essay investigates intellectual history and explores materials from outside the Chan school that provided a doctrinal foundation for formless precepts in the emerging Chan tradition. The process through which early Chan Buddhism came into being was in great part adaptation; it entailed elements from multiple origins coming

together to form a still-diverse whole. The research presented here deals with this dynamic as it played out in both doctrinal and historical contexts. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成, who conducted some of the earliest research on the origin of the formless precepts, argued that the origin of this concept was connected with the Avataṃsaka tradition.2 The notion of formless precepts, his work suggests, may not be exclusive to Chan Buddhism. Ishii’s study is significant

                                                             1 The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers’ suggestions and Susan Andrew’s editorial assistance. This essay builds on work collected in Readings of the Platform Sūtra. It is also greatly inspired by Paul Groner’s, Morten Schlütter’s, and Atsushi Ibuki’s papers presented at the Conference “Vinaya Texts and Transmission History: New Perspectives and Methods,” Hangzhou, China, August 21–22, 2013, sponsored by the Research Center for Buddhist Texts and Arts, School of Foreign Languages, Peking University. 2 Ishii 1997. In contrast, according to Lewis Lancaster, it is very likely that the idea of “formless precepts” originated in the Tiantai tradition but found a wider audience when it was adopted by the Chan school; cf. Lancaster 1990: 51–54. Muller has identified the extremely primitive form of three kinds of pure precepts based on the ten wholesome behaviors as mentioned for the first time in the Huayan jing 華嚴經 (Flower Garland Sūtra, Skt. Avataṃsaka Sūtra); see Muller 2012: 54.

192 Lin not only because it calls attention to this relationship, but also because it suggests the importance of consulting sources outside the Chan school to understand the early stages of Chan history. Taking my cue from his work, I will show that studying the Japanese bibliographies composed by monks of the early ninth century and, in particular, patterns of classification reveals doctrinal affinities between Chan and bodhisattva precepts, in other words, the relationship between the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in early Chan Buddhism. My discussion of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra will begin by placing the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra in the social and political context of the fifth and sixth centuries, a period when the bodhisattva ideal was being conceptualized and formulated in China.3 Second, I will address the text’s relationship to larger developments in Chinese history, especially the Chinese adaptation of bodhisattva precepts.4 Next I will examine of the evolution of the concept of mind precepts within Buddhist logic. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra functions as the doctrinal basis for simplified precepts. This characteristic of simplification is eventually linked to the formless precepts in the Platform Sūtra.

Precept Texts as a Literary Genre

First, it will be instructive to distinguish the texts of bodhisattva precepts from the manuals of precept conferral. Tadeusz Skorupski identifies two types of ritual texts for taking the vow of bodhisattva morality: (a) those that give an outline of the basic principles but include no concrete rules, and (b) those with concrete rules.5 The first type is represented by the Indian philosopher Candragomin (seventh century) and in the Chinese Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. As a different type of Buddhist literature, the concrete rules played an important role in the process of the ordination of a bodhisattva, which literally refers to every self-conscious Mahāyāna Buddhist. There are two systems of bodhisattva precepts: (a) the system of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, associated with the Pusa yingluobenye jing 菩薩瓔珞本 業経 (Sūtra on Original Acts that Serve as Necklaces for the Bodhisattvas, T.

3 Funayama Tōru also discusses this early stage of conceptualizing bodhisattvas versus Chinese “saints” during the fifth and sixth centuries in China; cf. Funayama 2011b: 15–33. 4 For the concept of bodhisattva precepts within Buddhist logic, see Muller 2012: 19–58, especially p. 55. For a survey of the introduction and early stage of Buddhist precepts in China, see Funayama 2011a: 205–240. 5 Skorupski 2001: 15–23.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 193 1485; hereafter Necklace Sūtra), which emphasizes the initiation of bodhicitta and the ten transgressions; and (b) the system of the Pusa dichi jing 菩 薩地持經 (Sūtra on the Spiritual States of the Bodhisattva, Skt. Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra, T. 1581), which is affiliated with the Yuqie shidi lun 瑜伽 師第論 (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice, Skt. Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, T. 1579), emphasizing the three clusters of pure precepts.6 The concept of bodhisattva precepts in China originated, therefore, from two strands during the fifth century, the first being the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, and the second being derived from the Yogācāra school.7 Meditation and gradual practice are highlighted in both traditions. Both scriptures are concerned not only with moral conduct but also with the supposed consciousness of the bodhisattva, and both put much emphasis on the diligent practice of meditation. However, the first fascicle of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, which relies on Vairocana Buddha as its sole authority (T. 1484, 24: 997c11–14) and expounds the ten stages of achievement in meditation, attracted much more attention from the aristocracy in southern China.8

The Social and Political Context of 5th and 6th Century China

The fifth and sixth centuries are an important period for the Chinese reworking of Mahāyāna doctrines in general and the precepts for the increasing number of laypeople in particular. It is relevant here that the spread of the bodhisattva precepts shows a concern for a strongly subjective, inwardlooking attitude that was not exclusive to Chan masters or other meditation masters such as Huisi. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra in particular, with the appearance of the commentaries by Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) and Fazang 法藏 (643– 712) in China and Taehyeon 太賢 (eighth century) in Silla, came to take the lion’s share of attention in China, especially in the south.9 Self-ordination is the most noticeable feature of the popular Brahmā’s Net Sūtra.10

6 Satō 1986: 347–60. Also see Zhiyi’s Pusa jieyi shu 菩薩戒義疏 (Commentary on the Meaning of Bodhisattva Precepts, T. 1811, 40: 568a). 7 A discussion of this is also provided in the introduction to Muller 2012: 3–59. 8 Funayama has made very clear that it is very likely that the two fascicles of the Fanwang jing were composed by different authors at different times, and the second scroll probably appeared first; cf. Funayama 2010: 1996. 9 There are more commentaries than those by Zhiyi and Fazang, and especially Taehyeon’s commentary had a profound influence in Korea and Japan; cf. Muller 2012: 34–38. 10 Self-ordination in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra (T. 1484, 24: 1006c) is translated and analyzed by Groner 2012: 141–42. Cf. also an affiliated text, the Necklace Sūtra.

194 Lin The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra was probably compiled in China sometime between 440 and 480 CE, several decades after the translation of the full Vinayas of the Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsamghika schools during the early fifth century.11 Around this time Dharmakṣema (385–433) and Gunavarman (367–431) translated several texts on the bodhisattva precepts, so Chinese interest in the precepts was at its peak. On the other hand, increasing ideological friction between Buddhism and Confucianism was a matter of concern to Chinese monks like Huiyuan 慧遠 (334–416). Buddhist customs, such as celibacy and shaving the head, were criticized for being contrary to Confucian filial piety. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra may have been compiled with the hope of mitigating the conflict.12 Part of the forty-eight minor precepts prohibited Buddhists from obtaining the trust of the rulers by means of Buddhism, and the relationship between the government and the Buddhist order was clearly a matter of concern. Just like Huiyuan’s stance in his Shamen bujing wangzhe lun 沙門不敬王者論 (On Why Monks Do Not Bow Down Before Kings, 404 CE), the

Brahmā’s Net Sūtra insisted on the autonomy of the Buddhist order. Even if later commentators may have reinterpreted the text in dramatically different ways for their own ends, the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra reflected church-state relations in the fifth century. To complicate matters further, the sixth century then saw a new relationship between the order and the laity, caused by the notorious corruption in the monasteries of northern China and the craving for merit accumulation in southern China. This led to despair over the clergy, and reform was called for. Accordingly, there were attempts to produce new interpretations of the legitimacy of transmission, and self-ordination was one of them, devised to fit into the specific circumstances of the sixth century. On the one hand, as the establishment and reemphasis of the bodhisattva precepts began in the sixth century in China, the increasing numbers of laypeople, coupled with simplified Buddhist rules, brought about friction over issues concerning monasticism, including those on reestablishing the ordination ceremony.13 On the other hand, we see that the bodhisattva precepts rituals that Zhiyi performed for the Sui emperors were influential in tightening the relationship between Buddhism and the ruling class.14 In this regard, it is quite clear that                 

                                             11 For the background to the compilation of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, see Groner 1990: 253–56. 12 For an example of the mention of filial piety, see T. 1484, 24: 1004a–b. 13 For a detailed historical survey of bodhisattva precepts during the sixth century, see Funayama 1995; Janousch 1999. 14 Zhiyi’s services for aristocrats and rulers encouraged the idea of “Bodhisattva-monks” (pusa seng 菩薩僧), which forms a separate category in the history of Buddhism, Da Song sengshi

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 195 adaptations of existing views of the precepts were needed due to the changing social environment.

Chan Buddhism and Bodhisattva Precepts: Textual Affinities

I am by no means the first to identify the connections between Chan Buddhism and bodhisattva precepts. Before Ibuki Asushi’s important work, Paul Magnin, in his study of the Tiantai patriarch Huisi’s 慧思 (514–577) influence on Tiantai and Chan circles, observed that there is a strong doctrinal connection between (a) Daoxin’s 道信 (580–651) Pusajiefa 菩薩戒法 (Manual of Rules of Bodhisattva Precepts, hereafter Manual), (b) Jingjue’s 淨覺 (683–ca. 750) Lengqie shiziji 楞伽師資記 (Chronicle of the Sources of the Laṅkā Masters), and (c) Dasheng wusheng fangbian men 大乘無生方便門 (Gateway to the Mahāyāna Skillful Means for Nonbirth,

hereafter Gateway).15 These texts represent several strands of thought, such as the bodhisattva precepts and the “Northern Chan” school, and they all played important roles in the development of Chan thought. The association between them suggests interesting and complex textual affinities between early Chan Buddhism and the bodhisattva precepts. In fact, textual affinities of this kind can be found in a range of early Chan sources, such as the Lidai fabao ji, 歷 代法寶記 (Record of the Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations, ca. 776) and the Guanxin lun 觀心論 (Treatise on Observing the Mind).16 Magnin’s insight provides a good starting point for investigating the doctrinal affiliation between Hongren’s teaching and the bodhisattva precepts. It may not be apparent at first glance, but these were certainly related to the thought of the bodhisattva precepts. Scholars have come to agree that the Manual attributed to Daoxin in particular, which is unfortunately no longer available to us, seems to be the source of the shared model of the precept-conferral ceremony followed by these diverse groups.17 The Dongshan school during the seventh and eighth centuries, for example, inherited the alleged Daoxin’s teachings and had

lue 大宋僧史略, by Zanning 贊寧 (919–1001) (T. 2126, 54: 252c–253a). The controversial idea regarding the Bodhisattva-monks subsequently faded away; cf. Chen 2002. 15 Magnin 1979: 117–28. Cf. Ibuki 2007; 2010. Also see Tanaka 1969. 16 The relationships between these texts and Hongren and Daoxin’s doctrinal teachings have been thoroughly studied by Ibuki. He pointed out that Hongren and Daoxin’s community strongly emphasized bodhisattva precepts; cf. Ibuki 2007 and 2012. 17 Yanagida 1967: 186. Also see Chappell 1983: 90.

196 Lin roots that are strongly linked to the bodhisattva precepts.18 It is also known that in the early stage of Chan Buddhism, a variety of groups employed the ordination ceremony derived from the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra.19 Another text is the Gateway, which was attributed to Shenxiu 神秀 (606– 706) for its “Northern Chan” characteristics. While Shenxiu’s authorship is doubtful, at least it seems to reflect ideas that are associated with the Dongshan school led by Shenxiu and Puji 普寂 (651–739).20 This text is important in the doctrinal context. First, the doctrinal evolution underwent a transformation from the Gateway to the Dunhuang manuscript of the Platform Sūtra.21 Second, the Tantric monk Śubhakarasiṃha (Ch. Shan Wuwei 善無 畏, 637–735) composed his Wuwei sanzang chanyao 無畏三藏禪要 (Essentials of Meditation) by making additions and revisions to the Gateway.22 From these two strands of development, it is clear that some key concepts

regarding the mind theory prevalent in the Northern Chan school pervaded the eighthcentury teachings concerning meditation and precepts.23 In light of these sources for the connection between Chan and precepts, this essay attempts to bring in more evidence, including Japanese bibliographies and other contemporaneous texts. Among the bibliographies available, Ennin’s 圓仁 (794–864) are quite well organized and structured, and most important, they include a greater number of Chan scriptures. Ennin produced several bibliographies with noticeably different contents. The earliest one, compiled in 838 CE, is the Nittō guhō mokuroku 入唐求法目錄 (The Catalogue of Entering Tang in Search of the Dharma), which records the scriptures he acquired in Yangzhou 揚州.24 In this catalogue, the following texts are grouped together:25  

                                                            18 For Daoxin in the Dongshan School and bodhisattva precepts contexts see Ibuki 2007. 19 Tanaka 1983: 465; McRae 1987: 259–260n4. 20 The Dasheng wusheng fangbianmen is also called Dasheng wufangbian 大乘五方便 (“Five skillful means of Mahāyāna”). (T. 2834, 85: 1273a–1278b). For the evolution of this text and its association with the bodhisattva precepts in the Dongshan tradition, see (Ibuki 2012). English translations and discussions of the material can be found in McRae 1986: 171–74; Adamek 2007: 199; and Faure 1997: 106–18. 21 Satō 1986: 391–94. 22 The Essentials of Meditation (T. 917, 18: 942b–946a) was written by Śubhākarasiṃha and Jingxian 敬賢 between 716 and 735 CE in Chang’an. For a concise introduction to these texts see Ōno 1954: 431–35. For an analysis of its contents, see Lin 2017: 169–94. 23 The next section of this essay returns to a discussion of the bodhisattva precepts. 24 Jap. Nihonkoku Shōwa gonen nittō guhō mokuroku 日本國承和五年入唐求法目錄, Ch. Ribenguo Chenghe wunian rutang qiufa mulu (“The catalogue of entering Tang in search of the dharma, the fifth year of the Shōwa era of the Country of Japan”), T. 2165, 55: 1074a–1076b. 25 T. 2165, 55: 1075b14–16.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 197 1. Shou pusajie wen 受菩薩戒文 (Scripture of the Bodhisattva Precepts Conferral Ceremony) 2. Zuishangsheng foxing ge 最上乘佛性歌 (Songs of the Highest Vehicle Buddha-Nature) 3. Dasheng lengqie zhengzong jue 大乘楞伽正宗決 (Determining the Orthodox Meaning of the Mahāyāna Laṅkāvatāra) This shows that for Ennin, first, the bodhisattva precepts are affiliated with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and, second, these scriptures are related because of their shared connection with doctrines of Buddha-nature, or rather, the “substance of precepts” (jieti 戒體), in the early Chan context. Other

catalogues by Ennin reflect the same conceptions.26 Ennin’s understanding is consistent with that of contemporary Chinese Buddhists. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra are often paired in biographies of Buddhist monks written by the Tang literati.27 At least two examples can be found from the Tang period. The first is Wang Jin’s 王縉 epitaph for Nayang Huzhoung (南陽慧忠, 675–775), the Dongjing Dajing’ai si Dazheng chanshi bei 東京大敬愛寺大證禪師碑, where he described Huizhong as follows: “Beholding the Brahmā’s acts and processing the mind of the Laṅkāvatāra, [he] has integrated [these two teachings] internally for a long time.”28 The second is Li Hua’s 李華 (715–766) inscription for the stupa of Meditation Master Yue 越, titled Gu Zhongyue chanshi taji 故中岳越禪師塔記,

where he described Yue as “relying on the Brahmā’s Net’s mind-sphere to return to one’s original source, and implementing the method in the Laṅkāvatāra to illuminate his true nature.”29 Because doctrinal classification in early Chan Buddhism evolved over time, it is not surprising that scriptures from a variety of traditions were assumed to be related to one another in the centuries before Ennin. For example, according to Jingjue’s Chronicle of the Sources of the Laṅkā Masters, Guṇabhadra (394–468), one of the translators of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, was the first patriarch of the Laṅkā tradition, and Bodhidharma was the second. Guṇabhadra, like Bodhidharma, was regarded as having supernatural powers,  

26 References to the Shou pusajie wen can be found in the following sections of Ennin’s bibliographies: T. 2165, 55: 1104b18; T. 2165, 55: 1075b14; T. 2166, 55: 1077c14; and T. 2167, 55: 1086c5. All these entries demonstrate the doctrinal affinity between bodhisattva precepts and Chan texts on Buddha-nature. 27 Atsushi Ibuki also noted that these two scriptures were the representative scriptures of the Eastern Mountain school (Dongshan famen 東山法門) at the “Vinaya Texts and Transmission History” conference. 28 梵衲之行、楞伽之心、密契久矣, Quan Tang wen 全唐文, [hereafter QTW] 370. 29 以梵網心地、還其本源。楞伽法門、照彼眞性, QTW 316.

198 Lin the result of constant meditation practice. According to Jingjue, both Indian masters taught meditation and precepts concurrently, promoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the bodhisattva precepts side by side. It is clear that Jingjue regarded the Laṅkāvatāra tradition and the bodhisattva precepts as inseparable. Among other texts in the same doctrinal affinities, such as the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith which picked up the idea concerning mind and illusion in the Laṅkāvatāra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra was highlighted by the Tang literati in biographies, poems, and other works, possibly because it was the earliest of these scriptures. These textual affinities show that the concept of “purified mind” prevailed during the development of Chan Buddhism in China. As the following part of this essay will discuss, the purification of the mind was the cardinal concept that connects the bodhisattva precepts, and, on this basis, the pair of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra are complementary in the early Chan tradition.30

The Doctrinal Context: Purification of the Mind Purification of the Mind for Precept Conferral

According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, for a practitioner, the purification of the outflow comes from recognizing an objective world that is of the mind itself. It corresponds to the sūtra’s emphasis on a purified mind and a deep understanding of emptiness, which leads to the elimination of illusions: 如來淨除一切衆生自心現流。亦復如是。漸淨非頓。 […] 如來爲離自心現習 氣過患衆生。亦復如是。頓爲顯示不思議智最勝境界。譬如藏識頓分別知自 心現及身安立受用境界。彼諸依佛亦復如是。 (T. 670, 16: 486a6–14). Mahāmati, the purification by the Tathagata of all beings, is gradual and not instantaneous […] Mahāmati, the Tathagata, by making all beings discard the habit-energy that issues from the erroneous views they entertain in regard to an external world that is of the Mind, instantaneously reveals to all beings the realm of unthinkable knowledge that belongs to Buddhahood. It is like the Ālayavijñāna making instantaneously a world of body, property, and abode, which is what is seen of the Mind itself.31 In the earlier stage, we can see that in the procedure of the conferral of bodhisattva precepts, meditation and precepts were two sides of the same coin.

30 Ibuki 2010. 31 Adapted from Suzuki’s translation; cf. Suzuki 1932: 50.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 199 According to the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, in advance of the precept-conferral ritual, repentance and meditation are two important requirements for receiving the bodhisattva precepts.32 As one of the earliest examples, in the fifth century, Daojin 道進 (also known as Fajin 法進) once expressed his desire to receive the bodhisattva precepts from Dharmakṣema.33 In response, Dharmakṣema instructed him that deep repentance and diligent meditation must be completed before receiving the bodhisattva precepts, so as to remove all karmic obstructions.34 In other words, for the transmission of bodhisattva precepts, meditation is a compulsory preparatory step for achieving purification of the mind. This means that the bodhisattva precepts and meditational practice were always inseparable parts of the process of achieving purification of the mind. This concept is inherited by the Northern Chan text, the Gateway, which was composed of elements relating to repentance, pure precepts, and Buddha-nature. It explains the bodhisattva precepts thus:

汝等懺悔、三業清淨、如淨瑠璃、内外明徹、堪受淨戒。菩薩戒是持心戒、以 佛性爲戒性。 (T. 2834, 85: 1273b25–28). 35 After your repentance, the three deeds are purified, just like a crystal, its inner and outer sphere clear and transparent. Only then are you eligible to receive pure precepts. [To uphold] bodhisattva precepts is to uphold mind-precepts and to regard Buddha-nature as the precept-nature. This explains the importance of purity as a preparatory requirement for receiving the pure precepts—purity gained via repentance. Moreover, the procedure of precept conferral is informative for understanding the ninth

32 Kuo 1994: 57–58. 33 In the fifth century, Chinese Buddhists were interested in the concept of Buddha-nature. In order to resolve disagreements over the concept of Buddha-nature, Dharmakṣema was asked to translate one of the editions of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Ch. Niepan jing 涅槃經, T. 374) to reassure Chinese Buddhists of their understanding’s orthodoxy (T. 2059, 50: 336c.) 34 This story of Daojin and Dharmakṣema is the earliest record of the appearance of bodhisattva precept conferral in China, cf. Funayama 1995: 6–20. Kuo 1994: 36, has provided a detailed survey of classifications of Buddhist repentance in Daoxuan’s system, as well as in Huisi’s (75–78) and in Zhiyi’s (61–62). The necessity of confession is expressed in a number of Mahāyāna texts, notably the Sūtra of Golden Light; cf. Emmerick 1970: 8–17, and T. 663, 16: 336b10–339a6. Nobuyoshi Yamabe also demonstrates a link between repentance and visionary experience. The visionary experience was also important in connection with meditational experience and Buddha-name chanting practice. Here one sees how in practice Pure Land, Chan, and Vinaya could be interwoven with one another; cf. Yamabe 2005: 20. 35 See also the second Wufangbian edition in Suzuki 1968: 168.

200 Lin century perception of the bodhisattva precepts. It consists of eight parts in this text:36 1. Recitation of four bodhisattva vows; 2. A request that the Buddhas be preceptors and witnesses; 3. Three refuges; 4. Questions about the five capabilities; 5. Recitation of one’s name and performance of repentance; 6. Encouragement to hold the precepts of the mind; 7. Meditation; 8. A ritualized sermon on the perfection of wisdom. Steps 5, 6, and 7 are particularly important here because together they ritualized the principle being proclaimed in the preceding quotation above. The material is consistent with the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. In this process of precept conferral, repentance and meditation together purify and prepare the practitioners for receiving the precepts of the mind. The process is completed by the guidance of the perfection of wisdom. As the conferral procedure became more and more simplified in later Chan texts, the latest being the Platform Sūtra, the cardinal meaning remained constant.37

Purification of the Mind in the Three Clusters of Pure Precepts

The emergence into prominence of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the bodhisattva precepts must be considered part of the early development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in China. In keeping with the Chinese tradition of making doctrinal classifications, the Chinese master Zhiyi designed a sophisticated hierarchy that positions the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra as the last sermon by the Buddha. This was a response to the inconsistencies within Buddhist teachings and the dispute over the status of and relations among the “vehicles.” During Zhiyi’s time, Mahāyāna precepts provoked a great deal of debate, whereas the so-called Hīnayāna Vinaya alone did not have many advocates.38 The earliest Mahāyāna texts, quickly available in Chinese versions, already displayed a dialectical relationship with Hīnayāna schools such as the Sarvāstivāda. The bodhisattva path was almost universally accepted as the highest approach to enlightenment, and Chinese Buddhists accepted that, as they read                                                              36 T. 2834; translation based on Groner 2012: 145–146. 37 Comparison of ordinations with a focus on the Platform Sūtra is also found in Groner 2012. 38 For a full collection of scriptures concerning Buddhist precepts and Vinayas see Ōno 1954.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 201 in the Lotus Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the śrāvakas and the pratyekabuddhas, unlike the bodhisattvas, have insufficient faculties to understand the Buddha’s teachings fully. At the same time, the significance of the Hīnayāna traditions imported into the country with the other teachings needed to be addressed. How was their status to be understood? In resolving the conflicting ideas about various “vehicles,” Zhiyi maintains that a Mahāyāna monk can observe Hīnayāna precepts with a Mahāyāna mind. The Hīnayāna Vinaya had been devised for the purpose of leading people to Buddhahood, and it would potentially reveal that final goal, so there was no conflict between the Vinaya and a Mahāyāna goal. The debate on Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna precepts thus led to a conceptual change: the Vinaya, in combination with bodhisattva vows, could be transformed into Mahāyāna precepts.39 This explanation was called kaihui 開 会 (disclosing and harmonizing).40 Mingkuang 明曠 (late eighth century) highlighted the bodhisattvas in his Tiantai pusa jie shu 天台菩薩戒疏

(Commentary to the Tiantai Bodhisattva Precepts); according to Mingkuang, Zhiyi differentiated Zhiyi differentiated the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna precepts and further advocated the bodhisattva precepts as found in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra (T. 1812, 40: 580c–584a). The Mahāyāna adoption of the Hīnayāna precepts was an effective option since it simultaneously supported the bodhisattva precepts. The incorporation of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna precepts is best illustrated in the classification system called the “three clusters of pure precepts” (Ch. Sanju jingjie, Jap. Sanju jōkai 三聚淨戒), which include (1) the prevention of evil

(shelüyi 攝律 儀), (2) the promotion of good (sheshanfa 攝善法), and (3) the salvation of sentient beings (shezhongsheng 攝眾生).41 Among the three clusters, the prevention of evil may be identified with Hīnayāna Vinaya and the promotion of good as a Mahāyāna precept. Regarding the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, it is traditionally held that the ten grave transgressions are equivalent to the acts that the restraining precepts, the prevention of evil, condemn, and the forty-eight minor precepts fall in the remaining categories of the promotion of good and the salvation of sentient beings.42 The three clusters of pure precepts are tightly connected with the emphasis on a purified mind. This can be best explained in terms of Esoteric       

39 Hirakawa 1997. 40 Groner 1984: 199. 41 Explanations can be found in the Chinese Yogācāra scriptures: Bodhisattvabhūmi, T. 1581, 30: 910b–c; Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, T. 1579, 30: 511a. 42 A detailed analysis is found in Muller 2012: 52–55.

202 Lin Buddhist doctrines, in which the idea of a purified mind as the goal similarly makes meditation and precept conferral inseparable in practice.43 It shows that purification of the mind is the ultimate goal of observing the precepts. These three clusters of pure precepts soon became the foundation for precepts in Esoteric Buddhism, as illustrated in an important Esoteric Master Śubhākarasiṃha’s work. According to his Essentials of Meditation, the most important thing for receiving bodhisattva precepts is to give rise to and maintain the “mind of enlightenment” 菩提心 (bodhicitta). It states: 夫欲入大乘法者、先須發無上菩提心、受大菩薩戒。身器清淨、然後受法。 (T. 917, 18: 942c6–7). For those who wish to enter the Dharma of Great Vehicle, they must first give rise to the supreme “mind of enlightenment” and receive the bodhisattava precepts. Only after the body vessel is purified can they receive the Dharma. After receiving the bodhisattva precepts, one should continue to practice meditation and samādhi. With the same rationale, the Esoteric text translated by Amoghavajra, Zuishang shengjiao shoufa puti xinjie chanhui wen 最上乘 教受發菩提心戒懺悔文 (Text for the Highest Vehicle Initiation of Bodhisattva Mind Precept and Repentance, T. 915, 18: 940b–941b), is also devoted to explaining how one gives rise to the mind of enlightenment (fa putixin 發 菩提心, Skt. bodhicittotpāda, T. 915, 18: 941b14), acts out repentance, and then receives the precepts. Repentance of previous sins is essential for purifying one’s mind in this regard. These examples show that the practices of meditation and repentance and the precepts are all held to be necessary in the process of the purification of the mind. The emphasis on mind and purification finds close parallels in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the peaceful state of a practitioner is determined by a “nonthinking” mind.44 In other words, the doctrinal implications for the purification of the mind linked up meditation and precepts. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra explains the Six Perfections as the following:

波羅蜜有三種分別、謂世間、出世間、出世間上上。大慧。世間波羅蜜者、我 我所攝受計著、攝受二邊。爲種種受生處、樂色聲香味觸故、滿足檀波羅蜜、 戒忍精進禪定智慧亦如是。 […] 出世間上上波羅蜜者、覺自心現妄想量攝受 及自心二故、不生妄想。於諸趣攝受非分、自心色相不計著。 ( T. 670.16.512b26–c5).                                                              43 Lin 2017. 44 “No delusions arise, being content and joyful, and the secular matters are forever pacified” (妄想不生、安隱快樂、世事永息。) (T. 670, 16: 507b9–11).

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 203 The Blessed One replied: Mahāmati, there are three kinds of Pāramitās. What are the three? They are the worldly, the superworldly, and the highest superworldly. Of these, the worldly Pāramitās [are practiced thus]: Adhering tenaciously to the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it and holding fast to dualism, those who are desirous for this world of form, etc., will practice the Pāramitā of charity in order to obtain the various realms of existence. In the same way, [the ignorant will practice] the Pāramitās of morality, patience, energy, meditation (dhyāna), and wisdom (prajñā). […] As to the highest superworldly Pāramitās, that is, perceiving that there is nothing in the world but what is only seen of the Mind itself, on account of discrimination, and understanding that duality is of the Mind itself, they see that discrimination ceases to function; and, that seizing and holding are

nonexistent; and, free from all thoughts of attachment to individual objects which are of the Mind itself.45 It continues by stating that the perfection of morality is validated by a certain state of mind in which no discrimination would arise: 初中後夜精勤方便。隨順修行方便。妄想不生。是毘梨耶波羅蜜。 (T. 670,16: 512c8–10). One should seek to perfect skillful means day and night diligently and practice them according to whatever circumstances one encounters. There is no rising of discrimination; this is the Pāramitā of morality. Therefore, according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, among the Six Perfections, the perfection of keeping the precepts must be realized through well-controlled consciousness and a deep understanding of emptiness. In other words, according to this sūtra, the precepts are built on the elimination of illusions. This follows the statement in the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Ch. Chengshi lun 成 實論, T. 1646, 32: 290a19–b10), which was

introduced into China in an early stage of the Mahāyāna-Hīnayāna debate. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra explains three kinds of svabhāva (self-nature) as follows: 菩薩摩訶薩當善三自性。云何三自性。謂妄想自性、縁起自性、成自性。 […] 云何成自性。謂離名相事相妄想。聖智所得及自覺聖智趣所行境界。是名成 自性如來藏心。 (T. 670, 16: 487c4–15).46 Let the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva be well acquainted with the three kinds of Svabhāva. What are the three? They are (1) false discrimination, (2) knowledge of relativity, and (3) perfect knowledge. […] Now, what is perfect knowledge? It is realized when one casts aside the discriminating notions of form, name, reality, and character; it is the inner realisation by noble wisdom. This perfect knowledge, Mahāmati, is the essence of the Tathāgata-garbha.

                                                             45 Adapted from Suzuki’s translation 1932: 205. 46 Adapted from Suzuki’s translation 1932: 135–36.

204 Lin The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, in its origin a “dharma gate for the mind-sphere,”47 is in this sense complementary to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra maintains that “the nature of the precepts for all sentient beings is fundamentally pure” (是一切眾生戒本源自性清淨。 T. 1484, 24: 1003c28). Its Mahāyāna characteristics lie in its claim that any sentient being in possession of a mind could achieve Buddha’s attainment right away upon receiving the Mahāyāna precepts: 一切有心者、皆應攝佛戒、眾生受佛戒、即入諸佛位 (T. 1484, 24:1004a19f.). Whoever has a mind should be governed by Buddhist precepts. At once when the sentient being receives the Buddhist precepts, he attains Buddha-status. Furthermore, the Brahmā’s Net’s precepts are very convenient for all practitioners

because the purest precepts can be conferred simply through comprehending the words of dharma masters.48 The same idea is taken up by the Necklace Sutra. It suggests that the bodhisattva precepts are imperishable after their conferral ceremony (T. 1485, 24: 1021b2; b22). These are the doctrinal foundation of the concept of self-ordination that thrived in later periods. The inward-looking tendency concerning Mahāyāna precept conferral was incorporated into the

discussions of the relationship between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra first proposes its “nonvehicle” and “one-vehicle” theory within the context of that dispute (T. 670, 16: 497). It corresponds to the universalism of the “oneness” and “one-vehicle” in the Lotus Sūtra, a concept that was popular in China (if not India) from the outset.49 Unsurprisingly, the term “supreme vehicle” (zuishang sheng 最上乘) often occurs conjointly with the term “single mind” in Chinese writings. The “supreme vehicle” refers to the Mahāyāna bodhisattva’s path, with Prajñā associations, which explains the frequent appearance of this term in passages in the literature of the mid-Tang concerning the doctrines of Prajñā, Chan, and Esoteric Buddhism.50 At a doctrinal level the “supreme vehicle” then developed along the following interpretive lines:

47 Literally, “the dharma gate for mind-sphere addressed by Vairocana Buddha of my original lotus-womb world” 我本源蓮花藏世界盧舍那佛所說心地法門 (T. 1484, 24: 1003c5). 48 但解法師語、盡受得戒、皆名第一清淨者。 (T. 1484, 24: 1004b10). 49 Nattier 2003: 88. 50 For example, it appears in Dasheng lichu liu polomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 (T. 261, 8: 898a), Dunwu rudao yaomen lun 頓悟入道要門論（X. 1223, 63: 18ab), Luizu dashi fabao tanjing 六祖大師法寶壇經 (T. 2008, 48：350c), and Zhu dasheng ru lengqie jing 注大乘入 楞伽經 (T. 1791, 39: 453c). It is also found in Tang literati’s writings; see Li Hua’s epitaph, Gu Zuoxi dashi bei 故左溪大師碑 (QTW 320), and Bai Juyi’s 白居易 (772–846) Xijing Xingshansi chuan fatang beiming 西京興善寺傳法堂碑銘 (QTW 678).

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 205 1. The Esoteric tradition regards the bodhisattva approach as the highest and hence an initiation ritual. The conferment of bodhisattva precepts is mandatory. 2. According to the Laṅkāvatāra, the “supreme vehicle” is dedicated to the realization of the “perfect realization of own-nature” (Ch. [Yuan] chengshi zixing [[[圓]]]成實自性). 3. In the later “Southern Chan” context the “supreme vehicle” refers to sudden enlightenment as a realization of prajñā, and it implies that someone who takes the supreme-vehicle approach will eventually become enlightened in an intuitive leap. None of these disparate approaches challenge any fundamental presumption of the bodhisattva approach. The simultaneous occurrence of the “supreme vehicle” and the “single mind” strengthens the “one-practice samādhi” as a form of meditation, just as propagated in the ninth century by Zongmi 宗密 (784–841). It seems that the “supreme vehicle” does not have a fixed definition, and its occurrence, as Yanagida noticed, demonstrates the encounter between Chan and Esoteric Buddhism.51 At this point, the doctrinal connection between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra illustrates an inward-looking tendency that dominated the principle for “mind” and the “formless” precepts. This thread of perception continued to develop in various forms, among which Chan Buddhism became a distinct tradition. The preceding analysis has illustrated the way in which several notions come together in the texts; the following section will explore how this fusion provided a doctrinal foundation for the synthesis of Chan ideology and bodhisattva precepts, which eventually coalesced into the concrete notion of the formless precepts.

Evolution of Purification of the Mind

From Mind Precepts to the Formless Precepts in the Platform Sūtra

Now that I have introduced the context of the bodhisattva precept tradition in China and its relationship to meditation, I turn my attention to the texts related to the Platform Sūtra. Because other scholars have researched the contents of the related texts, I will focus on the scripture’s social functions. What one sees in Chan Buddhism in the eighth century is an increase in the importance of the Platform Sūtra and a simultaneous decline in the

51 Yanagida 1967: 466, 470n16.

206 Lin importance of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. I will accentuate the doctrinal continuity between these and argue that the main reason for this shift is not doctrinal; instead, it arose out of social and political concerns. There are three important Chan texts in which the conferral ritual for bodhisattva precepts constitutes a focal point: 1. The Gateway (T. 2834). 2. The Dunhuang manuscript Nanyang heshang dunjiao jietuo chanmen zhiliaoxing tanyu 南陽和上頓教解脫禪門直了性壇語 (Platform Dialogue on the Sudden Teachings and the Chan Branch’s Direct Realisation of the Essence by Monk Nanyang Shenhui), hereafter Platform Dialogue.52 3. The Dunhuang manuscript Nazong dunjiao zuishang dasheng mohe pore poluomi jing 南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅密經 (The Highest Mahāyāna Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra of the Southern School’s Sudden Teachings, T. 2007, cf. T. 2008), hereafter Platform Sūtra.53 Several scholars have compared these three texts and produced some

very nuanced analyses of their relationships from a doctrinal standpoint.54 Here I will call attention to the tendency toward simplification as an evolutionary process and show how their underlying discourse is actually a reworking of the bodhisattva precepts through the theme of the approach to the attainment of pure mind as consistent with the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. In doctrine, Shenhui’s Platform Dialogue is similar to the Gateway, which is representative of the Northern Chan teachings. The purpose of the Gateway was to suggest a new method for the conferral rituals of bodhisattva precepts, and this reform of precepts continued to be a key theme in Shenhui’s writings.55 This similarity may seem ironic to some Chan followers because Shenhui is known to have severely criticized the Northern Chan school. However, it is understandable if his criticism is seen as an attempt to reform the precepts. There was a reformation movement during the seventh and eighth centuries, and Shenhui was not the sole actor in this movement.

                                                            52 Suzuki 1968: 308–9; Libenthal 1953: 139–41; Yang 1996: 4–14. 53 The subtitle of this scripture is Liuzu Huineng dashi yu Shaozhou Dafansi shifa tanjing yijuan jianshou wuxiangjie 六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇經一卷兼受無相戒，弘法弟子法 海集記 (“The sixth patriarch Huineng’s dharma-giving platform sutra in one fascicle, including the conferral of formless precepts”). The title informs us that the ceremony was bound up with its theory of the formless precepts. Relevant passages with annotation can be found in Nakagawa 1976: 55–88, especially 87. 54 For comparisons of these texts, see Satō 1986: 391–98; Groner 1990: 245. A comparative chart of these ordination rituals appears in Tanaka 1983: 464–65. Also see the more recent article by Groner 2012. 55 Also see Yanagida 1985: 364.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 207 Another activist, for example, was Huineng’s disciple Yinzong 印宗 (627– 713) in the Jiangnan area. The fact that Daoxuan’s 道宣 (596–667) Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing 關中創立戒壇圖經 (Illustrated Scripture on the Precepts Platform Established in Guanzhong, T. 1892) attracted increasing numbers of readers also reflected the growing attention to the ordination platform.56 Shenhui’s attack on the Northern Chan and his promotion of the Platform Sūtra took place during a time when individuals seeking to establish ordination platforms vied with one another all over China. The Platform Sūtra in particular may be regarded as reflecting the need to set some rules for the expanding number of Huineng’s followers.57 In this respect, the writers of these three texts probably all had the same purpose, which was devising an ordination ritual during a period in which religious communities

increasingly sought to meet the needs of the laity. Despite Shenhui’s attempt to separate the Platform Sūtra from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the fundamental thesis regarding the bodhisattva precepts remains and goes back to its roots in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra in China.58 Particularly important is the idea of the “diamond precious precepts” (jin’gang baojie 金剛寶戒) in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, which constitutes a doctrinal base for the justification of self-ordination, that is, ordination solely by one’s own vows. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra states,

説我本盧舍那佛心地中、初發心中常所誦一戒光明金剛寶戒。是一切佛本源、 一切菩薩本源、佛性種子。一切衆生皆有佛性。一切意識色心、是情是心、皆 入佛性戒中。 (T. 1484, 24:1003c). It is said that amid Vairocana Buddha’s mind-sphere, the aroused mind frequently recited a single precept, the illuminating diamond precious precepts. This [the diamond precious precepts] is the origin of all Buddhas, and of all bodhisattvas, as well as the seed of Buddha-nature. All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. All consciousness, outer-appearance, and mind, be it passion or mind, fall within the realm of Buddha-nature precept. This set of precepts is doctrinally identical to the idea of “formless precepts of the sphere of mind” (wuxiang xindi jie 無相心地戒), which are incorporated into Chan Buddhism (e.g., Jingde chuandeng lü 景德傳燈錄, T. 2076, 51: 235b10–236b13).

56 McRae 2005. 57 Chappell 1983: 90; Groner 1990: 246. 58 Yanagida 1985: 212–224. Judging from Shenhui’s stance toward the mind-precepts, Yanagida concludes that the idea of the bodhisattva precepts in the Platform Dialogue follows the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, while it also partly came from the Shou lengyan jing 首棱嚴 經 (Śūraṅgama Sūtra).

208 Lin Again, because the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra’s claim that “the nature of the precepts for all sentient beings is fundamentally pure” (T. 1484, 24: 1003c28), as mentioned earlier, an adamantine and unshakable Buddha-nature has played an essential role in the doctrinal foundation of the precepts in both Chan and Esoteric Buddhism. It was at the same time connected with the theory of the “supreme vehicle.” Take the meditation master Yongjia Xuanjue 永嘉玄覺 (665–713), for example. His famous work Caoxi chanshi foxing ge 曹溪禪師佛性歌 (Meditation Master Caoxi’s Song of Buddha-Nature) was also called the Zuishangsheng foxing ge 最上乘佛性歌 (Song of Supreme-Vehicle Buddha-Nature) and the Caoxi chanshi zhengdaoge 曹溪禪 師證道歌 (Song of Meditation Master Caoxi’s Attainment of Buddhahood). These

titles were derived from the concept of the “original Buddha-nature” (benyuan foxing 本源佛性) in relation to the “precepts of the sphere of mind” (xindi jie 心地戒) in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. This evidence shows that various groups of Buddhists attempted to rework the precepts, and that the precepts of the Platform Sūtra were produced within a tradition of the “precepts for the mind.” However, the Platform Sūtra differs from the other two insofar as it explicitly mentions and emphasizes the “formless precepts” (T. 2008, 48: 346b22, 347a11). This emphasis reflected one side of the debate set off by Shenhui when he opposed the idea of “guarding the mind” on a gradual basis, which he then identified with the Northern School as a substantiation of the competition between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Platform Sūtra. This competition supports a transformation from the idea of “mind precepts” (through “guarding the mind”) toward the “formless precepts.” From the opening statement of the Platform Sūtra, it is clear that the setting was designed for a lay audience, although monks could also be present. The quality of being formless, like the idea in the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, enabled an easier precept conferral, so that Huineng could confer bodhisattva precepts on a large

audience numbering a hundred or more. Not surprisingly, like the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, the Platform Sūtra goes on to claim that ever since the Platform Sūtra’s transcription, the text alone can represent Patriarch Huineng and grant the formless precepts. The text says, “Whoever is able to encounter the Platform Sūtra, it will be just as if he receives the [[[precepts]]] from me in person” (得遇壇經者、如見吾親授。 T. 2007, 48: 343c13). In both an institutional and practical sense, this radically reimagines the ordination ritual. The Platform Sūtra reveals a new social relation between the clergy and the mundane world. This shift shows the tendency towards the simplification of Buddhism in China, where it served as a useful ideology for the political

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 209 leadership. Scholars have noticed the soteriological strategy of the Platform Sūtra. As Chappell’s comparative study of the “formless repentance” concludes, there were no distinctive Chan qualities to define the bodhisattva’s virtues in the Platform Sūtra, which rather represents a lower stage of practice for ordinary people.59 In other words, the Platform Sūtra represented a simplified version, mainly for the increasing number of lay followers.60 Having turned their attention to lay patrons instead of a small number of elite members, the clergy needed a new format for the precepts that was better suited to a wider audience. Paul Groner’s study of the ordination ceremony of the Platform Sūtra sheds light on the continuing process of

simplification of ordination ceremonies and precepts in medieval China.61 Similarly, the Gateway shows an attempt to control an expanding order.62 This text, Daoxin’s Manual of the Rules of Bodhisattva Precepts Conferral, and the Platform Sūtra were shaped by practical social concerns. On the basis of current understandings of the ideology of the compilers of the texts in question, one can see that the victory of the Platform Sūtra in superseding other Northern Chan texts was at least partially an outcome of its contemporaneous political environment. The Tang rulers were adept at manipulating religious sources for their

political ends.63 One particularly important ruler who worked in this way was Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (685– 762, r. 712–756), who was known for his forceful religious policy and his strong inclination toward Daoism.64 When the rebellion of Empress Wei was suppressed, Xuanzong’s rise to power ushered in a new phase for Buddhists. During the Kaiyuan era (713–741), as prosperity grew steadily, Shenhui emerged as the seventh Chan patriarch.65 Shenhui’s success depended largely on Emperor Xuanzong’s preferences. Xuanzong’s restriction of translation activities had created an unfavorable environment for scholar monks who specialized in exegetical studies of Sanskrit scriptures. His hostile attitude  

59 Chappell 1990. 60 Groner 2012: 143–47. 61 Groner 1990. 62 Yanagida 1985: 364. 63 This is evident particularly in their use of rituals to fortify a state ideology, such as Gaozong and Empress Wu’s worship at Mt. Tai; cf. Lei 2009. For Emperor Gaozong and the ritual at Mt. Tai, see Barrett 1996: 29–30. 64 For Xuanzong’s policies towards Buddhism, see Weinstein 1987: 51–57; Tonami 1982. 65 For the development of Shenhui’s group in relation to Xuanzong’s rule, see (Yanagida 1985: 174). For the religious events that led to a change in the attitude toward the Erru sixing lun 二入四行論 (Treatise on Two Entries and Four Practices) and the Vajrasamādhi Sūtra, see Yanagida 1985: 114.

210 Lin toward Indian monks had caused a significant decrease in the number of translations from Sanskrit originals.66 Xuanzong’s religious policy—born of an ambivalence towards foreign monks and Buddhism in general—seems to have encouraged a sense of confidence among Chinese Buddhists of the eighth century who came to see themselves as legitimate practitioners of their traditions.67 However, despite his strict policy toward Buddhism, Xuanzong was particularly interested in some Buddhist sutras. These included the Jingang pore jing 金剛般若經 (Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, hereafter Diamond Sūtra) and the Renwang po’re jing 仁王般若經 (Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra for Humane Kings).68 The Prajñā texts enjoyed imperial patronage during the eighth century, a situation that explains, at least in part, the growing popularity of sudden enlightenment theory and the related tendency toward simplifying practices in this period. It is understandable that

Xuanzong paid special attention to these scriptures, particularly the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra for Humane Kings, because, as the title suggests, it provided him with something of a template for political leadership. The promotion of the perfection of wisdom coincided with Shenhui’s campaign to elevate the Diamond Sūtra, which is doctrinally closer to Mādhyamaka than is the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Naturally, the emperor’s attitude fortified the tendency in contemporary circles to replace the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra with the Diamond Sūtra. As a result, Buddhist discourse in ninth-century China moved in a direction that matched Xuanzong’s preferences. Although imperial patronage of the Diamond Sūtra, the Prajñā texts, and the theory of sudden enlightenment was a determining factor in the competition between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Platform Sūtra, arguments explaining this competition are preserved in the three bodhisattva precept-conferral documents just discussed. Overall, these texts regarding the bodhisattva precept-conferral ceremony indicate a movement toward formless practice. This tendency toward simplification was

66 Palumbo (undated). 67 Esoteric monks, such as Śubhākarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi (671–741), were exceptions to Xuanzong’s policy for foreign monks; cf. Weinstein 1987: 54–57. 68 Xuanzong ordered the distribution of his commentaries on the Xiao jing 孝經 (Classic of Filial Piety), the Daode jing 道德經, and the Diamond Sūtra during the Kaiyuan era (713– 41 CE). This act of choosing and standardizing representative texts of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, respectively, was to demonstrate his equal patronage of the three religions; cf. Tonami 1982: 642. Meanwhile, Xuanzong ordered Amoghavajra (705–74) to translate and lecture on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra for Humane Kings; see Amoghavajra’s biography in Yuanzhao’s 圓照 (fl. 792) Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目錄, T. 2157, 55: 885b. For a study of this scripture and its influence in China, see Orzech 1998.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 211 formulated as a unique religious ideology reflecting the political concerns of Buddhist monks in China.

Concluding Remarks

In an attempt to discover the doctrinal and textual affiliation between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, the first part of this essay examined Mahāyāna precepts in general and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra in particular. I surveyed Chinese perceptions of the bodhisattva precepts, which were formulated during the fifth century. The fifth century is an important period for the Chinese reworking of Mahāyāna doctrines in general and the precepts for the growing lay community in particular. The spread of the bodhisattva precepts in southern China indicates the importance of the social environment for understanding doctrinal developments. To make the Buddhist clergy fit well into a society with an increasing number of Buddhist followers, the discourse of the simplification of

precepts for the laity grew hand in hand with one emphasizing the precepts for the mind. This concern for a strongly subjective, inward-looking attitude was not exclusive to Chan masters. Rather, it was and is shared among a wide range of Chinese Buddhists. It had a far-reaching influence on the emerging Chan Buddhism and worked to support the idea of formless practices. The Brahmā’s Net Sūtra functions as the doctrinal basis for the simplified precepts in China. After this, I looked into the doctrinal positions that connected the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra: mind precepts and inward-looking practice. According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, a pure mind is validated by non-transgression of the precepts; it also states that the perfection of keeping the precepts must be realized

through well-controlled consciousness and a deep understanding of emptiness. In other words, according to this sūtra, the bodhisattva precepts are built on the elimination of illusions. This strand of thought corresponds to the central message of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. The inward-looking tendency concerning Mahāyāna precept conferral was incorporated into the discussions of the relationship between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra first proposes its “nonvehicle” and “onevehicle” theory within the context of the disputation. Unsurprisingly, the term “supreme vehicle” often occurs conjointly with the term “single mind,” which frequently appears in passages in the literature of the mid-Tang. Taken together, this research discusses the mind precepts before the emergence of the concept of the “formless precepts” in doctrinal and historical contexts. The history I examined in the first half of this essay

212 Lin illustrates how several concepts came together in Mahāyāna scriptures concerning Buddhist precepts. The second half of the essay explores how texts affiliated with the Platform Sūtra illustrate the process of adaptation through which compositions change over time. It argues that the purification of the mind was the cardinal concept that connected the bodhisattva precepts, and on this basis, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra are complementary in the early Chan tradition. The doctrinal connection between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra illustrates an inward-looking tendency that dominated the principle for “mind” and the “formless” precepts. The analysis here illustrates the way in which several notions come together in the texts, and how this fusion provided a doctrinal foundation for the synthesis of Chan ideology and bodhisattva precepts, which eventually coalesced into the concrete notion of the formless precepts. Scholars have examined how the ordination ceremony came to take the format seen in the Platform Sūtra, but this essay focuses on the earlier

conceptions of this practice and its doctrinal underpinnings. I discuss the emergence of the concept of the formless precepts in the context of the ordination platform movement in seventh- and eighth-century China. Seen as part of a continuous precept movement, the history I examined in the first half of this essay accounts for the increasing importance of the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra and explains how its major components came together in precept conferral. In the second half of the essay I showed that the texts affiliated with the Platform Sūtra can be fruitfully understood in terms of adaptation, the process through which communities reworked existing interpretations of the bodhisattva precepts. I argue that the fundamental ideas of the formless precepts evolved from a tendency toward inward-looking practice, supported by theories of mind precepts. This study, taken as a whole, provided a background against which to understand and reassess the significance of the doctrine of mind purification in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra and, moreover, to enhance our knowledge of emerging Chan Buddhism.

References

Adamek, Wendi L. (2007). The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and Its Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press. Barrett, T. H. (1996). Taoism under the T'ang: Religion and Empire during the Golden Age of Chinese History. London: Wellsweep.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 213

Chappell, David W. (1983). “The Teachings of the Fourth Ch’an Patriarch Tao-hsin (580–651).” Early Ch'an in China and Tibet, edited by Lewis Lancaster and Whalen Lai. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 89–129. ——— (1990). “Formless Repentance in Comparative Perspective.” Fo Kuang Shan Report of International Conference on Ch’an Buddhism. Gaoxiong: Foguangshan Press, 251–267. Chen, Jinhua (2002). “Pusaseng (Bodhisattva-Monks): A Peculiar Monastic Institution at the Turn of the Northern Zhou (557–581) and Sui Dynasties (581–618).” Journal of Chinese Religions 30, 1–22. Emmerick, R. E. (1970). The Sūtra of Golden Light: Being a Translation of the Suvarnabhāsottamasūtra. London: Luzac. Faure, Bernard (1997). The Will to Orthodoxy: A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism.

Translated into English by Phyllis Brooks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Funayama, Tōru 船山徹 (1995). “Rokuchō jidai ni okeru bosatsu-kai no juyō katei: Rūsō, Nanseiki wo chūshin ni” 六朝時代における菩薩戒の受容過程—劉宋．南 齊期を中心に. Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 67, 1–135. ——— (1996). “Gikyō Bonmōkyō seiritsu no shomondai” 疑経『梵網経』成立の諸問 題. Bukkyō shigaku kenkyū 佛教史学研究 39/1, 54–78. ——— (2010). “Bonmōkyō shohon no ni keitō” 梵網經諸本の二系統 [The editions of the Fanwang jing: On the existence of two textual lineages]. Tōhō gakuhō 東 方學報 85, 179–211. ———.(2011). “Buddhist Theories of Bodhisattva Practice as Adopted by Daoists.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 20, 15–33. ——— (2011). “Daijō kai—Indo kara Chūgoku he” 大乗戒 ―― インドから中国へ. Daijō bukkyō no jissen 大乗仏教の実践,

edited by Fumihiko Sueki 末木文美士 et al. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 205–240. Groner, Paul (1984). Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School. Seoul: Po Chin Chai. ——— (1990). "The Fan-wang ching and Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen’s Futsū jubosatsukai kōshaku." Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert Buswell. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 251–290. ——— (1990). “The Ordination Ritual in the Platform Sūtra within the Context of the East Asian Buddhist Vinaya Tradition.” Fo Kuang Shan Report of International Conference on Ch’an Buddhism. Gaoxiong: Foguangshan press, 220–250. ——— (2012). “Ordination and Precepts in the Platform Sūtra.” Readings of the Platform Sūtra, edited by Morten Schlütter and Stephen Teiser. New York: Columbia University Press, 134–160.

214 Lin Hirakawa, Akira 平川彰 (1997). “Chigi ni okeru shōmonkai to bosatsukai” 智顗にお ける聲聞戒と菩薩戒. Tendai daishi kenkyū天台大師研究, edited by Tendai Daishi kenkyū henshū iinkai 天台大師研究編集委員会. Tokyo: Tendai gakkai, 1–26. Ibuki, Atsushi 伊吹 敦 (2007). “Tōzan hōmon to Ryōgashū no seiritsu” 「東山法門」 と「楞伽宗」の成立. Tōyōgaku kenkyū 東洋学研究 44, 335–360. ——— (2010). “Hokuzenshū ni okeru zenritsu icchi shisō no keisei” 北宗禪におけ る禪律一致思想の形成. Tōyōgaku kenkyū 東洋学研究 47, 362–378. ——— (2012). “Daijō gohōben no seiritsu to tenkai” 「大乗五方便」の成立と展開」. Tōyō daigaku bungakubu kiyō 東洋大学文学部紀要 65 (Indo tetsugaku hen イン ド哲学科篇 37), 1–62. Ishii, Kōsei 石井公成 (1997). “Musōkai no genryū” 無相戒の源流 [The sources of the formless precept]. Komazawa daigaku zen kenkyūjo nenpō 駒沢大学禅研究所 年報 8, 125–134. Janousch, Andreas (1999). “The Emperor as Bodhisattva: The Bodhisattva Ordination and Ritual Assemblies of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty.” State and Court Ritual in China, edited by Joseph P. McDermott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 112–149. Kuo, Li-ying (1994).

Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du Ve au Xe siècle. Paris: EFEO. Lancaster, Lewis (1990). “The Terminology of the Platform Sūtra in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Fo Kuang Shan Report of International Conference on Ch’an Buddhism. Gaoxiong: Foguangshan Press, 51–54. Lei Wen 雷 聞 (2009). Jiaomiao zhiwai: Sui Tang guojia jisi yu zongjiao 郊廟之外— 隋唐國家祭祀與宗教. Beijing: Shenghuo, dushu, xinzhi sanlian shudian. Libenthal, Walter (1953). “The Sermon of Shen-hui.” Asia Major new series 3/2, 132–155. Lin, Pei-Ying (2017). "A Comparative Approach to Śubhākarasiṃha’s (637–735) Essentials of Meditation: Meditation and Precepts in Eighth-Century China." Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism, edited by Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar. Leiden: Brill, 169–208. Magnin, Paul (1979). La vie et l'œuvre de Huisi (515–577): Les origines de la secte bouddhique chinoise du Tiantai. Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient. McRae, John (1986). The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. ——— (1987). “Shen-hui and the Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment.” Sudden and Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought, edited by Peter N. Gregory. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 227–278. ——— (2005). “Daoxuan's Vision of Jetavana: The Ordination Platform Movement in Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya, edited by William M. Bodiford. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 68–100.

Doctrinal Evolution of Formless Precepts 215 Muller, A. Charles (2012). Exposition of the Sutra of Brahmā’s Net. Seoul: Compilation Committee of Korean Buddhist Thought, Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism (The Collected Works of Korean Buddhism XI). Nakagawa Taka 中川孝 (1976). Zen no goroku 4: Rokuzo dankyō 禅の語録 4 ―― 六祖壇経. Tokyo: Tsukuma shobō. Nattier, Jan (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 (1954). Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha. Orzech, Charles D. (1998). Politics and Transcendent Wisdom: The Scripture for Humane Kings in the Creation of Chinese Buddhism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Palumbo, Antonello (undated). “Sending the Alien Monks Back to the

Marchlands: A Forgotten Nationalisation of Buddhism in Tang China.” Unpublished manuscript. Satō Tatsugen 佐藤逹玄 (1986). Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru kairitsu no kenkyū 中国仏 教における戒律の研究. Tōkyō: Mokujisha. Skorupski, Tadeusz (2001). The Buddhist Forum. Vol. 6. Tring: Institute of Buddhist Studies. Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro (1932). The Lankavatara Sutra: A Mahayana Text. Translated for the First Time from 
 the Original Sanskrit. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ——— (1968). Zen shisōshi kenkyū 禪思想史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten (Suzuki Daisetsu zenshū 鈴木大拙全集 3). Tanaka, Ryōshō 田中良昭 (1969). “Bonmōkyō to kairitsu—

jubosatsukaigi wo chūshin toshite” 初期禅宗と戒律 ―― 受菩薩戒儀を中心として. Shūgaku kenkyū 宗学研究 11, 31–36. ——— (1983). Tonkō Zenshū bunken no kenkyū 敦煌禅宗文献の研究. Tōkyō: Daitō Shuppansha. Tonami, Mamoru 礪波護 (1982). “Tō chūki no Bukkyō to kokka” 唐中期の佛教と国 家. Chūgoku chūsei no shūkyō to bunka 中國中世の宗教と文化, edited by Fukunaga Mitsuji 福永光司. Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo, 589–651. Weinstein, Stanley (1987). Buddhism under the T'ang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yamabe, Nobuyoshi (2005). “Visionary Repentance and Visionary Ordination in the Brahma Net Sūtra.” Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya, edited by William M. Bodiford. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 17–39. Yanagida, Seizan 柳田聖山 (1967). Shoki zenshū shisho no kenkyū 初期禅宗史書の 研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan (reprint 2000) (Yanagida Seizan shū 柳田聖山集 6).

——— (1985). "Goroku no rekishi: Zen bunken no seiritsushiteki kenkyū” 語録の歷 史: 禅文献 の成立史的研究. Tōhō gakuhō 東方学報 57, 211–663 (Reprinted as Zen bunken no kenkyū 禅文献の研究. Yanagida Seizan shū 2. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1999). Yang Zengwen 楊增文 (ed. 1996). Shenhui heshang chanhua lu 神會和尚禪話錄. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.