Zen and San-Lun Mādhyamika Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundation of Zen Teachings and Practices

Hsueh-Li Cheng

doi:10.1017/S0034412500011495

Zen and San-Lun Mādhyamika Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundation of Zen Teachings and Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008

Hsueh-Li Cheng

Show author details

Hsueh-Li Cheng: Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Hawaii at Holo

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Zen Buddhism often appears to be ‘anti-intellectual’, ‘illogical’ and ‘trivial’. These apparent aspects of Zen have puzzled many students of Buddhism. Why is Zen so ‘irrational’? By what Buddhist doctrines, tenets or philosophies did Zen masters develop their unconventional and dramatic teachings and practices? The aim of this paper is to show that main San-lun Mādhyamika doctrines, such as Emptiness, the Middle Way, the Twofold Truth and the refutation of erroneous views as the illumination of right views, have been assimilated into Zen teachings and practices Mādhyamika philosophy seems to provide a major ‘theoretical’ foundation for as a ‘practical’; ‘anti-intellectual’, ‘irrational’, ‘unconventional’ and ‘dramatic’ religious movement.

Type: Articles
Information: Religious Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 343 - 363

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500011495 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 343 note 1} For the development of Mādhyamika Buddhism in India, see Murti, T. R. V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970), pp. 55–103.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} For the introduction of Mādhyamika Buddhism to China, see Robinson, Richard, Early Mādhyamika in India and China (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), pp. 71–173.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 3} The Chung-lun (Taishõ 1564 in vol. 30) was translated by Kumārajīvain A.D. 409 from, the now lost Mādhyamika-śāstra. The main verses were given by Nāgārjuna, and its commentary was provided by Pingala. This treatise does not exist in the Sanskrit original nor in the Tibetan translation. In his preface to the treatise, Seng-jui stated that the treatise has 500 verses, but in fact it has only 445 verses.

^{page 343 note 4} The Shih-erh-men-lun (Taishō 1568 in vol. 30) was also translated by Kumrārajīva in A.D. 408–9 from the now lost Dvādasa-dvāra-śāstra. Both main verses and commentary were given by Nāgārjuna. It has no Tibetan translation nor does it exist in the Sanskrit original.

^{page 343 note 5} The Pai-lun (Taishō 1569 in vol. 30) was translated by Kumārajīva in A.D. 404 from the Śataśāstra. Its main verses were given by Āryadeva and its commentary was given by Vasu.

^{page 344 note 1} It seems to me that Zen Buddhism has also been influenced by Confucianism, the T'ien-tai and the Hwa-yen Buddhism. However, the detailed discussion of this is beyond the scope of this paper. What I want to say in the paper is that the creation and development of Zen teachings and practices are much due to the Mādhyamika. For the possible impact of the T'ien-tai and the Hwayen teachings upon Zen, see Chung-yuan, Chang, Original Teachings of Ch'an Buddhism (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), pp. 230 and 270.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} See Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. pp. 4–5, 10 and 43. See also Dumoulin, Heinrich, A History of Zen Buddhism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1963), pp. 70, 81 and 117;Google ScholarChang, Garma C. C., The Practice of Zen (New York: Harper ' Row, 1970), pp. 171–4Google Scholar. Chang Chung-yuan wrote: ‘The real meaning of śūnyatā, or k'ung, is ontological. It is the absolute reality…’ Ibid. p. 43.

^{page 344 note 3} See Suzuki, D. T., An Introduction to Zen Buddhism (New York: Grove Press, 1964), pp. 58–65.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} The Buddacarita, Sanskrit text as ed. by Johnson, E. H. (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1935), pp. 140–2.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 345 note 3} This is the opening statement of the Middle Treatise.

^{page 345 note 4} See Takakusu, Junjiro, The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, ed. by Chan, Wing-tsit and Moore, Charles A. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1956), pp. 103–4.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 1} The Middle Treatise XIII. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 2} Ibid. XXIV. 18.

^{page 346 note 3} Ibid. XVIII. 7.

^{page 346 note 4} Ibid. XXIII. 8.

^{page 346 note 5} Ibid. xiv. 8; the Twelve Gate Treatise VIII.

^{page 347 note 1} Many contemporary Mādhyamika scholars held this view. For example, Kern, H. stated tha Mādhyamika thought is ‘complete and pure nihilism’, Manual of Indian Philosophy (Strassburg: K. J. Trübner, 1896), p. 126.Google ScholarKeith, A. B. took the position that ‘In the Mādhyamika…the absolute truth is negativism or doctrine of vacuity’, and argued that, for Nāgārjuna, the universe is ‘absolute nothing’, Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), pp. 235 and 261.Google Scholar Recently Harsh Narain has reaffirmed this interpretation of the Mādhyamika: ‘[Mādhyamika philosophy] is absolute nihilism rather than a form of absolutism or Absolutistic monism’, ‘Sūnyavāda: a Reinterpretation’ in Philosophy East and West, XIII, 4 (January 1964), 311.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 2} The Middle Treatise XIV. 9; the Twelve Gate Treatise VIII.

^{page 348 note 1} See Murti, T. R. V., ‘Saṁvrti and Paramārtha in Mädhyamika and Advaita Vedānta’, The Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta, ed. by Sprung, Mervyn (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 9–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} See Mervyn Sprung, ‘The Mādhyamika Doctrine of Two Realities as a Metaphysic’, Ibid. pp. 40–53.

^{page 348 note 3} Scholars such as Radhakrishnan, S., Stcherbalsky, Th., Thomas, Edward J., Gard, R. A., Casey, P. F., Chatterjee, H. N. and Murti, T. R. V. hold this view. For example, Murti claimed that ‘There is no reason to single out the Mādhyamika as specially nihilistic. If anything, his is a very consistent form of absolutism.’ The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 234.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 4} The Middle Treatise XIII. 8 and XXII. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 5} Ibid. XIII. 8–9.

^{page 348 note 6} Chi-tsang, , The Meaning of the Twofold Truth; Taishō (1854), pp. 90–1.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 349 note 2} Chi-tsang, , The Profound Meaning of Three Treatises; Taishō (1852).Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 350 note 1} The Middle Treatise XXIV. 10; the Twelve Gate Treatise VIII.

^{page 350 note 2} Chi-tsang, , The Meaning of the Twofold Truth, pp. 79c and 81c.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 1} Ibid. pp. 78c, 81 and 82; the Middle Treatise, XVIII. 8.

^{page 351 note 2} Ibid. pp. 95 and 97.

^{page 351 note 3} Ibid. pp. 88c, 94, 107, 108, 109 and 114b.

^{page 351 note 4} Ibid. pp. 83a, 107c and 114.

^{page 351 note 5} Ibid. pp. 104b and 107a.

^{page 351 note 6} Chi-tsang, , The Profound Meaning of Three Treatises.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 1} Ibid. p. 6.

^{page 352 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 352 note 3} See Takakusu, Junjiro, op. cit. p. 159Google Scholar; see also Suzuki, D. T., Zen Buddhism (New York; Doubleday, 1956), ed. by Barrett, William, p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 1} Sūtra Spoken by the Sixth Patriarch on the High Seat of the Treasure of the Law (also called The Sūtra of Hui-neng), trans. from the Chinese into English by Wong Mou-lan (Hong Kong: H. K. Buddhist Distributor Press), p. 18.

^{page 353 note 2} Dumoulin, Heinrich, The Development of Chinese Zen (New York: The First Zen Institute of America Inc. 1953), trans. from the German with additional notes and appendices by Sasaki, Ruth Fuller, pp. 10, 53–5.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} Suzuki, D. T., op. cit. p. 57.Google Scholar See also Heinrich Dumoulin, Ibid. pp. 11, 55 and 57.

^{page 354 note 1} Chang, Garma C. C., op. cit. p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 2} Huang-po said, ‘If you can only rid yourselves of conceptual thought, you will have accomplished everything. But if you students of the way do not rid yourselves of conceptual thought in a flash, even though you strive for aeon after aeon, you will never accomplish it.’ Blofeld, John, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po (New York: Grove Press, 1958), p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 3} Bary, Wm. Theodore de, The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan (New York: Modern Library, 1969), p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 4} Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. pp. 230–1.

^{page 355 note 1} See Cheng, Hsueh-li, ‘The Problem of God in Buddhism’, The Theosophist, XCVIII, 9 (June 1977), 98–108.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} Ibid. pp. 102–5; see also Cheng, Hsueh-li, ‘Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God’, Religious Studies, XII June (1976), 207–16.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 3} Suzuki, D. T., An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 4} ‘What is the Buddha?’ ‘A stick of dry dung.’ Chang, Garma C. C., op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 5} ‘Who is the Buddha?’ ‘Three pounds of flax.’ Ibid. p. 71.

^{page 355 note 6} Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. p. 143.

^{page 356 note 1} The claim that all things are empty here means that all views are unintelligible.

^{page 356 note 2} The Sūtra of Hui-neng, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 3} Ibid. p. 45.

^{page 357 note 1} Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. pp. 7 and 24.

^{page 357 note 2} Bary, Wm. Th. de, The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan (New York: Modern Library, 1969), p. 232.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 3} See Dumoulin, , op. cit. pp. 12 and 60.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 4} For more examples see Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. pp. 271–3.

^{page 358 note 1} Hui-neng is said to have claimed that he was illiterate; see The Sūtra of Hui-neng.

^{page 358 note 2} Ibid. p. 33.

^{page 360 note 1} See Ching-te-ch'uan-teng-lu (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp); Taishō 2076 in vol. 30. See also Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. pp. 189–90.

^{page 360 note 2} The Twelve Gate Treatise.

^{page 360 note 3} Ibid. IV.

^{page 360 note 4} Dumoulin, Heinrich, op. cit. pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 5} The Sūtra of Hui-neng, p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 361 note 1} Chang Chung-yuan, Ibid. p. 139.

^{page 361 note 2} Ibid. p. 197.

^{page 361 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 361 note 4} The Twelve Gate Treatise x.Google Scholar

^{page 361 note 5} Suzuki, D. T., op. cit. p. 61.Google Scholar See also Dumoulin, Heinrich, A History of Zen Buddhism, p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 1} The Sūtra of Hui-neng, p. 26.

^{page 362 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 362 note 3} Ibid. pp. 6, 12 and 38.

^{page 362 note 4} Hui-neng said, ‘Learned audience, to what are meditation and wisdom analogous? They are analogous to a lamp and its light. With the lamp, there is light. Without it, it would be dark. The lamp is the quintessence of the light and the light is the expression of the lamp. In name they are two things, but in substance they are the same. It is the same case with meditation and wisdom.’ Ibid. pp. 16–167.

^{page 363 note 1} Ibid. p. 35. A monk, Ma-tsu, used to sit cross-legged all day meditating. His master, Nan-yueh Huai jang (A.D. 677–744), saw him and asked:

‘What seekest thou here thus sitting cross-legged?’

‘My desire is to become a Buddha.’

Thereupon the master took up a piece of brick and began to polish it hard on the stone near by.

‘What workest thou on so, my master?’ asked Ma-tsu.

‘I am trying to turn this into a mirror.’

‘No amount of polishing will make a mirror of the brick, sir.’

‘If so, no amount of sitting cross-legged as thou doest will make of thee a Buddha,’ said the master.

‘What shall I have to do then?’

‘It is like driving a cart; when it moveth not, wilt thou whip the cart or the ox?’ Ma-tsu made no answer.

The master continued: ‘Wilt thou practise this sitting cross-legged in order to attain dhyāna or to attain Buddhahood? If it is dhyāna, dhyāna does not consist in sitting or lying; if it is Buddhahood, the Buddha has no fixed forms. As he has no abiding place anywhere, no one can take hold of him, nor can he be let go. If thou seekest Buddhahood by thus sitting cross-legged, thou murderest him. So long as thou freest thyself not from sitting so, thou never comest to the truth.’ D. T. Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, pp. 89–90.

Article contents

Zen and San-Lun Mādhyamika Thought: Exploring the Theoretical Foundation of Zen Teachings and Practices

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests