|
TẬP SAN NGHIÊN CỨU PHẬT
HỌC PHÁP LUÂN
Số 3 - PL. 2551
[MỤC LỤC]
THE MOVEMENTS OF VIETNAMESE BUDDHISM AT
THE END OF THE TANG DYNASTY.
by TUE
SY
I. T’ANG’S POLICIES ON BUDDHISM
The movements that will be dealt with in the
following text imply both literal and figurative senses. Literally, they
are real mass movements, even if taken in political meanings. They were
started by Định Không (?-686), as recorded in the Thien uyen tap anh
禪苑集英文 (The Collection
of the Eminents from the Dhyana Garden – abbr. TUTA). Figuratively,
they are stages of developing the distinctive character of Vietnamese
Buddhism. When compared to Chinese Buddhism’s activities, they would
show us much more of a factor to come to a conclusion. For, especially
from the aspects of practice and realization, Zen Masters are recognized
to have eventually created a peculiar way, obviously different from the
Chinese.
Those movements
could have been carried out, only thanks to two factors. Firstly,
communication was opened wide among Asian countries under the Tang.
Secondly, measures taken by the Tang Emperors as to watch over
activities of Buddhist clerical community had had some direct or
indirect influence on activities of Buddhism in Vietnam. Owing to these
measures, since the Ly dynasties onwards, in Vietnam there existed a
regulation of monastic activities of which the most part has been taken
after the above-mentioned measures.
*
Let us now mention the first point, that is,
communication opened wide among Asian countries.
Up to the Tang epoch there existed at least three
roads for the relation between China and India, according to biographies
of pilgrim monks. The first was by land, passing through the Western
Regions of China, i.e., Central Asia. Monks from India to China or in
the opposite direction mostly followed this road. The goal is either
China or India. There existed, however, the longer journey’s. Jue-xian
覺賢 (Buddhabhadra),
translator of an Avatamsaka- sūtra (398-421), the essential of
Hua-yan School, is an example. On the West, he, from India passed over
the Pamir, but then went back and took the sea-route. He moored in
Giao-chi, and then, seemed to make use of the sea-route, to land on
China. Another example is Fa-xian法顯,
a pilgrim before Yuan-Zhang玄奘,
and very renowned. He set off on 399AD, following the Dun-huang route,
crossing the desert, and finally stopped in Afganistan. It took him six
years to reach Central India. He later took the sea route, passing by
the Lion Island (Simha-dvipa, Sri Lanka today), finally reached Qingdao
(Shandong today) by the year of the Fire Dragon, the second year of Yixi
Era (416 AC), under the Andi Dynasty of the Jin House晉安帝
Such journeys brought about a considerably large knowledge of geography
forming, what we can give the name as, “The Asian Buddhist World.”
The second journey was running from
Yunnan to India through Burma. About this route, Yijing’s Tang
Biographies of the Pilgrims to the West
大唐西域求法高僧傳, in the biography of
Huilun, records
a Chinese temple about 40 yi distant from Nalanda along the lower
reaches of the Ganga River built, according to tradition, by King
Sri-Gupta in dedication to Tang monks the number of which by then was
about 20. They had set off from Shuquan蜀川,
following the Yanghua route. A note in the book writes: “From Shuquan to
this temple (i.e., the Chinese) is about over 500 yi or post stations.”
About the activities in the Yunnan
Region, Zi zhi tong jian
資治通鑑 (The Universal Mirror for
Rulership) records, under the Dynasty of Tang Dezong, in the seventh
year of the Zhenyuan Era (791 AD), the King of Yunnan was appointed to
be the King of Nan-zhao.The same work records that, in the second year
of the same era (795 AD), Nan-zhao invaded Turfan, Tibet today. Later
activities show Nan-zhao was getting stronger and stronger in the course
of time. On the south, they had many times launched attacks against
An-nam, and the Tang had to repeatedly send relief troops to raise the
siege, but the intention would fail. Until, under the Dynasty of Tang
Xi-zong, the first year of the Qian-fu Era (874 AD), Gao-pian came to
decapitate the King of Nanzhao. Originally, Nanzhao belonged to the
White Thai clan who had settled down in the Yunnan Region.
The third route was by water, operating
mostly between the seventh and eighth centuries. Yi-jing’s
Pilgrimages to the West records the biographies of fifty-six monks
of which the great part followed the water route. We have seen from the
number Tran Van Giap quoted twelve persons who had stopped in Giao-chi.
The route consists of three starting points: 1) from Guang-zhou; 2) from
Annam; 3) from Qingdao. They regularly pulled in to He-ling (Java), Lion
Island, and then landed on India.
As the communication was opened wider,
foreigners who came to reside in the China of Tang Dynasties, compared
to other dynasties, are to be counted as the most abundant.
Nevertheless, the invasion of these ethnic clans caused much
apprehension that Zi zhi tong jian ascribes to the barbarization
of the Tang. That means traditional customs were rather imbued with the
colours of barbarous tribes.
There are three factors that made the
Tang Emperors show less racial discrimination than other dynasties. In
the first place, Empror Tai-zong太宗’s
mother is of Dou竇
family whose ancestors are considered belonging to the Hu clan. In the
second place is the“Hu soldiers” policy. Hu barbarians were to the most
part the bellicose ethnic. In the first years of his pioneering work,
Emperor Gao-zu of the Tang
唐高祖 owed much to their
assistance. Accordingly, as early as in the second year of the Wude Era
(619 AD) of Tang Gao zu, twos years after the foundation of the Tang, a
certain Hu was made General. Since then onwards up to the third year of
the Qianlong Era of the Song Dynasty (962 AD), during nearly over three
hundred years of the Tang, there had been seventy-two Hu barbarians
promoted to the rank of Genaral. On the other hand, from the year
Tian-bao (747 AD) up to Tang Zhao-zong
唐昭宗 (867 AD), passing by eleven
Emperors, the Tang had had 85 Hus appointed as Governors. In addition
from the first year of Wude (618) until the third year of Tianfu (903),
there had been twenty-three Hus appointed as Prime Minister.
The third factor is perhaps the most
humanistic. For the Tang dynasty is the period when the relationship
between China and India on the field of thought came up to a high level.
Had Buddhism succeeded not in developing a humanist attitude, it had not
for sure have room to operate in China. As a result, even before the
Tang, monks had motivated the humanist standpoint to justify the
presence of Buddhism. The Chronological Record of the Buddha and
Patriarchs
佛祖統紀,
book 54, recorded,
in the second year of Jian-de (572), Emperor Wudi of the Zhou周武帝cracked
down the policy of suppressing Buddhism. At that time, Dharma Master
Hui-yuan慧遠
led the monks’ resistance. The Emperor justified his policy with three
arguments, among which the second states that Buddhist scriptures are
foreign, deserved to be gotten rid of. Hui-yuan retorted that Kong-zi
孔子being of Lu魯
origin was, with regard to Qin and Jin, a foreigner too; accordingly his
teachings should have not been admitted. The Emperor replied, the
countries of Lu, Qin, and Jin, although being geographically different
from each other, were influenced with a single imperial civilisation, so
the admission is justifiable. Hui-yuan opposed, if being so, both China
and India share with each other the same Jambudvipa; that means both are
on the same earth. Naturally they would have got through the same
civilisation. It is impartial to second either of them. The
justification is obviously humanistic, differs not from Kong-zi ‘s point
of view in saying that, a man has lost his bow and another man has
fetched a bow, instead of saying a Chu citizen lost a bow and a another
Chu citizen fetched one. Later, Tang Wu-zong唐武宗,
in the fifth year of the Huichang Era (854) issued the order of
eliminating Buddhism, sending monks and nuns back to the worldly life.
Next year he passed away. Xuanzong
宣宗 succeeded the throne, revoked
the banning Buddhism order. The event is recorded by The Universal
Mirror of the Sakya leneage
釋氏通鑑
together with the eulogy of the Ancient History
古史
, to say in brief: “The idea of
destroying religion has not taken Qin Shuihuang’s as an example; only
because of listening to the heresy’ s instigation to reject foreign
religion. Besides, the religion introduced from India for more than a
thousand years has so far become part of the traditional customs deeply
rooted in the people’s mind. For all that, it is merely to make oneself
a laughing stock of average people by destroying holy images, throwing
scriptures into fire, starting a feud with worshipers. Tang Wuzong’s
policy cannot be considered wise.” As such, the humanistic argument has
become the sociological argument. The development of Buddhism so far is
to be said to have passed a very long distance. It is thanks to the
Buddhist viewpoint as a humanistic doctrine that Chinese Buddhism has
favorably exerted some influence on Vietnamese Buddhism, even to some
extend on the latter’ s establishment of activity. As a result, the
humanistic spirit of Buddhism has been spreading by means of the
extended communication. This spirit would be the impetus behind the
development of the self-determination consciousness.
Now let us deal with the second factor,
that is, the measures the Tang dynasties were cracking down on Buddhism.
Since having been introduced into China
till the Sui House, Buddhism had got it’s own rich literature. New
schools, fit for Chinese traditional spirit, started taking shape.
Gaozu of the Sui隋高祖
was a pious emperor. Just following the summarizing up of The
Universal Mirror of the Sakya Leneage釋氏通鑑 and
the General Commentaries on Longxing Chronology
隆興佛教編年通論
(book 9),
it is made known that under Sui Gaozu ‘s reign three ten thousand monks
and nuns had been given the full ordination; five thousand temples and
monasteries had been erected. By that time, there were twenty-four
translators of Buddhist Scriptures. Among these translators
Tì-ni-da-luu-chi毗尼多流支
(Vinitaruci) is recorded in by Universal Mirror. It
is recorded that, by the second year of Kai-huang, under the reign of
Sui Gaozu, in the first lunar month, the Emperor summoned Vinitaruci
(translated in Chinese as Mie-xi滅喜,
Extinguishing Joy), together with Dharmaprajña達摩般若,
to do translation. Next month, the second lunar month, Vinitaruci
finished his translation of Sūtra in The Elephant Head Monastery
象頭精舍經, and
Dharmaprajña his of Sūtra on The Variety of Karma rewards
業報差別經.
Sui Gaozu’s activities were not limited in China.
They were extended to the countries under Chinese Dominion such as Gaoli
(Korea today) and Vietnam. The fact is confirmed by TUTA through
Thong Bien’s quotation. According to Thong bien通辯
(_1134), Sui Gaozu once talked to Dharma Master Tantien曇天:
“I am thinking of the compassionate teachings of Lord Buddha yet I don’t
know what to do to repay. I think myself unworthy of reigning over the
people, so I have done my best to spread and support the Three Gems,
having all the holy relics collected to worship in the forty-nine
pagodas build up in the whole country, so that the world may have a
place to take refuge in. Besides 150 pagodas I want in addition to have
more built in Giao-chi交趾
(Jiaozhi) countries too… wishing sentient beings all to attain the
Enlightenment.” These words are not found in the biography of Tantien as
recorded in The Sequel to the Stories of Eminent Monks
續高僧傳 by Daoxuan稻宣.
Yet they are not at all unreliable. First of all, the chronological
histories of Buddhism in China such as The Universal Mirror to the
Sakya Lineage釋氏通鑑,
The General Record of the Buddha and Patriarchs through Generations佛祖曆代通載,…
all have this fact in their records. According to it, in the first year
of the Renshu Era (601), on the sixth lunar month, Emperor Sui Gaozu
issued an imperial edict stating that: “I pay homage to the
Enlightened One, the Infinitely Compassionate and Merciful Saviour of
sentient beings, the One who makes himself bridge and shore for humble
people. I have taken refuge in the Three Gems, promoting further the
Holy Teachings. By means of which I have, together with people from four
oceans, accumulated meritorious deeds as forever-good cause for
acquiring the wonderful fruit. It is recommendable to invite thirty
sramanas who are well versed in interpreting the essence of things,
capable of preaching the Law. Each would bring with two attendants and
an ex- office mandarin, a hundred and twenty jins of frankincense. They
would take various directions to carry relics to thirty prefectures to
build pagodas…” Compared to the quotation of Thong Bien in TUTA
as mentioned above, though some differences are found in term of
phraseology, yet both are the same in general. According to this, the
Emperor had pagodas for worshipping Buddha’ s relics built in thirty
prefectures. Each prefecture chose a sramana who was well versed in
Buddhist doctrine, capable of undertaking preachment. A sramana was
allowed to bring two attendants and an ex-office mandarin. The whole
text of the imperial edict is collected into Daoxuan道宣’s
A Large Collection of the Expansion of Light 廣弘明集
Included in this original text is found a list of thirty prefectures in
which Jiaozhou (Giao chau) is ranked as the 28th. Other
prefectures are to the most part recorded with the place where pagoda
was to be erected. Some others, Giao chau included, are not found
registered with it. But in a memory of Wangchao王邵
of the Sui Dynasty on The Marvels of Relics
舍利感應記,
also collected by Daoxuan, one can find the registration of the place
where the pagoda was built in Giao chau (Jiaozhou) is Thien chung禪眾寺. TUTA, however, has it located at Phap van
Temple法雲寺 (Fayun ji).
Phap van temple was situated at Long bien (Bac ninh province) where
Vinitaruci was dwelling during his staying in Vietnam to spread the
teaching of Thien (Zen). Thien chung temple, on the other hand, is the
one of Dich bang village, Thien duc prefecture, Bac ninh Province, which
is the native locality of Vạn Hạnh萬行
and Ly Cong Uan李公蘊.
Sui Gaozu was reigning for 24 years
(586-617). It took him ten early years to settle the remainder of the
territory still under the control of the Chen. Moreover, he had in the
South to conquer Giao chi (Jiaozhi), Chiem thanh (Champa). He
nevertheless devoted the great part of his activities to Buddhism
without cease. Even Luu Phuong劉方
(Luifang), appointed
as Generalissimo of the expedient forces to conquer the Champ between
603-605, was at the same time charged with conveying trunks of relics
for Giao chau to erect stupas to worship as mentioned above. Viet nam
though, being too remote, separated by boundaries, was counted among
thirty prefectures of the Sui , submitted to the direct control under
the Sui ‘s policy in all aspects. Being so, the measures that the Tang
later set to the ecclesiastical institution cannot be considered as
having no influence on Buddhism in Vietnam. However, the fact is that no
trace of such influence on the Vietnamese ecclesiology of this period
can be found in any available documents. It is until the dynasties of Ly
and Tran that the Vietnamese ecclesiastical institution began to take
shape after the Tang ‘s, not to say thoroughly. Though it is known to us
already that under Lê Đại Hành黎大行’s
reign, the ecclesiastic hierarchy was established, but it does not seem
so strict as later.
Generally speaking, during 38 years of the Sui,
though the span of time was short, there were left to the Tang several
aftermaths. The first to be mentioned is that Sui Gaozu’s policy of
supporting Buddhism, now turned out to be a menace for the Tang. A case
shown below is enough to evidence for. The case is recorded in The
Sangha History僧史略 and
The Universal Mirror of the Sakya Lineage釋氏通鑑
takes down again after it. The account has it that in the fourth year of
Kaihuang (548), Sui Gaozu treated Vinaya Master Lingzang
靈藏
so respectfully that he allowed the latter to get in the imperial palace
at will, to be highly regarded the same as the Emperor, to share with
him a seat, to go with him on the same imperial carriage. At the first
glance, this shows no particularity. However, had it been carried on,
monks would have become an element of defying the imperial orders,
looking light on the imperial law. They do not, of course, look light on
the imperial law in the same way brigands do, but it is because of their
philosophy of life that underrates social positions and fame. Different
in significance but likely in activity, therefore, charging it with
activities of disobeying the Royal Court, as justified by Fuyi, head of
historiographers of Tang Gaozu, is not totally unreasonable. The
advocacy “Sramanas are unbound to show respect to the nobility” is a
historical phenomenon of Chinese Buddhism. Let us note down some
instances recorded in the General Record of the Buddha and Patriarchs佛祖統紀
under the item “Excuse for not bowing down before Monarch and
Parents.”
Jin Chengdi晉成帝,
the sixth year of Xiankang (340), Premier Yubing庾氷
moved to compel sramanas to prostrate themselves before the nobles.
Nevertheless, Minister Hechong opposed it. The General Survey of
Longxing’ s Chronology
隆興編年通論
(Book 2)
gives an account of the matter in full details of both parts’
controversy. Particularly the part that advocated sramanas are bound to
prostrate themselves before the noble justified its standpoint in that
it is yet unknown if the Buddha exists, but sure enough Buddhism is a
foreign custom, for all the people in the country follow it, to the
extend that they change their form, alter their appearance, overlook the
traditional code. Their talent is not better than an ordinary man but
they dress up pretentiously with arrogance, consider themselves as equal
to the monarch. That cannot be permitted.
Under the reign of Jin Andi, in the first year of
theYuanxing Era, Premier Wanxuan桓玄(General
Commentary on Long xing Chronology隆興編年通論has
it as Wanyuan桓元)
moved to order sramanas to bow down before the noble. According to
Longxing, this Wanyuan resumed from Yubing, and he had it that even
Laozi老子 was ranked no
higher than a duke or a marquis. That the sramans were granted favor of
the Emperor yet they did not pay respect to him is unacceptable.
On account of this, Huiyuan慧遠
wrote the Essay on Sramanas’ being unbound to bow down before the
Noble 沙門不敬王者論,
composed of five chapters, for he saw this is the cause to corrupt
the quality of Buddhism.
Song Xiaowu宋孝武
(the year yet unknown, 454-464), stated sramanas were obliged to pay
homage to the Monarch, but his successor, the First Dethroned Emperor宋廢帝
(645), abolished it.
Sui Yangdi隋煬帝,
the fifth year of the Daye Era (609), wanted that when Toist or Buddhist
monks had anything to report to the Emperor, they should prostrate
themselves. However, this order was not carried out. The Emperor
questioned, and then monk Mingshan明贍
gave answer that Buddhist clergymen observed Lord Buddha’s precepts so
it is inconvenient to them to prostrate themselves before laymen.
Tang Taizong, the fifth year of the
Jingguan Era, issued the edict to order monks and nuns to bow down
before their parents. Some years later, this order was revoked.
Tang Gaozong, the second year of the
Xianqing Era (657), issued the order to prohibit Buddhist monks and
Taoist priests to receive their parents and elders’ bowing down.
Tang Xuanzong issued Buddhist monks and
Taoist priests to pay homage to their parents. Later he revoked this.
The Universal Record of Lord Buddha
(book 52) gives in addition another matter: “Not to address himself as
subject-monk,” that means to say monks do not address themselves as
subject to the monarch. The account runs as following:
Qi Wudi齊武帝,
the second year of the Yingming Era (484), monk Senggong had an audience
with the Emperor. The former addressed himself “poor monk.” The Emperor
asked Wangjian王儉.
The latter replied, since the Qin and the Song onwards, most of monks
addressed themselves “poor monk.” Longxing
Chronology gives more in details. That year, an imperial made
sramanas Faxian法獻
and Xuanshang玄暢
Heads of Buddhist clergymen. The other day, they had an audience with
the Emperor, addressing themslves “poor monk,” and talking with the
latter while just sitting, not getting up from their seat. After having
consulted Wangjian, the Emperor accepted the behavior. His permission
became a usual practice.
As it is seen, the attitude that holds
monks, would not pay homage to the nobles, was not a mere incident but a
sensational affair in the history of Buddhism in China. In Vietnam, at
the latest until the Nguyen Dynasty, the above-mentioned case did not
take place. That means the clergy was by no means a community that went
against the Royal Court as a menace to the monarchy. Ly Cao-tong’s
attitude to order people to call him Buddha is but the pretentiousness
of a moment. On account of such a fit of pretentiousness he did not
hesitate to give monks and nuns en mass the sack. Being so, as
the Chinese monarchs considered the claim of sramanas’ of being unbound
to pay homage to the noble as a manifestation of defying the Royal
Court’s power, the act of sending monks and nuns back to the worldly
life was justified legal. It is reasonable to say that this is one of
the main causes that made Tang Gaozu, in the ninth year of the Wude Era,
to take provisional measures to disqualify monks and nuns.
The Universal Mirror
records
Tang Gaozu高祖, on the
fifth lunar month, in summer of the ninth year of the Wude Era,
histographer Fuyi傅奕
submitted a memorial to the Emperor moving an imperial ban against
Buddhism. His justification can be summarized as follows: 1. Buddhism
has its origin from the Western Regions. Its saying is vague, deceitful.
2. It urges people razing head, changing the clothing style to become
unfilial elements. 3. They are the gangs that shirk work, do harm to the
traditional morals and manners. Among these three reasons, the main one
implies that Buddhism approves of the approach to defying the Royal
Court. As the argument runs, the birth and death or longevity is
determined by the Heaven; the punishment or bestowing favor is decided
by the monarch; richness or poverty is the outcome of one’s own effort.
For all that, Buddhism assigns all these to Buddha, is it not usurping
the Creator’ s might? In fact, the Large Collection of Expansion of
Light 廣弘明集 (book 7)
records Fuyi warned of eleven dangerous factors from Buddhism. Among
which, three factors are of the most importance: 1.Buddhist monks by
nature held the attitude of defying the imperial power as it seen above;
2. Monks and nuns under the Tang at that time were numbered as many as
two million. They were in cahoots with “barbarous mind,” that is,
disloyalty. Is it not unworthy of taking precautions? 3. Building
temples and monasteries was but squandering people’s resources, bringing
forth damage to society. These three warnings were enough to arouse the
Emperor’ s suspicion about the community of Sangha; even though Chinese
Buddhist Sangha hardly had had any relation to political activities.
Charging them for all that with infidelity and seed of troubling seems
overcritical.
Fuyi so far had seven times submitted memorials to
the Emperor to move a ban against Buddhism. However, until then the
Emperor was still uncertain. The only person who agreed with Fuyi’s
standpoint was General Squire Zhangdaoyuan太僕卿張道源.
Xiaowu蕭瑀
denounced Daoyuan: Buddha is a Saint. Those who criticize a Saint
deserve to be punished. Yuan retorted that in the way of humanity nobody
could be looked up higher than one’s monarch and father, nevertheless
Buddha had disobeyed, run away from home and country. The average person
as he was was bold enough to defy the Emperor’ s power. At this point
Xiaowu dared not to oppose. On the other hand, as noted by The
Universal Mirror, the Emperor had in deed harbored hatred against
Buddhist monks and Taoist priests, on account of their shirking military
work. In addition they did not observe well the religious discipline;
and Buddhist temples as well as Taoist shrines were seen everywhere… On
the fifth lunar month, an imperial edict was issued to give the great
part of monks and nuns the sack, having in the capital only three
temples reserved, and one for each prefecture.
Needless to say, the expulsion as such was not a
good measure. Therefore, lots of regulations for the admission to the
monastic life were set up, though the Tang originally showed tolerance
towards religions. These regulations can be classed into two: conditions
for becoming a monk, and hierarchy in the monastic order.
Conditions for becoming a monk. Here are
four classes of monks as recorded in The General Record of the Buddha
and Patriarchs 佛祖統紀
(book 52). Not to mention the class of monks who were admitted by
way of an examination that had been the newly established regulation of
the Tang, the other class of monks had been regulated by precedent
dynasties.
a) Monk by
examination in the Scriptures. Tang Zhongzong唐中宗,
in the Jinglong Era (707), issuing the imperial edict for carrying out
the admission to become monk by way of examination. About the Era, works
like The Universal Mirror of the Sakya lineage
佛祖統紀,
A Historical survey in brief of the Sakya lineage
釋鑑稽古略,
etc., all record the first year of Shenlong Era (706), on the eighth
lunar month. These works give report that the Emperor issued an Edict to
order novices have to get through an examination of reading the
Scriptures before they would be admitted as monks. The regulation to
make a novice get through an examination to become a monk, began since
then.
Tang Suzong唐肅宗,
in the first year of the Qianyuan (758), conferred on laymen who had
recited over five hundred sheets of Scripture the title of ming jing
chu shen 明經出身,
that is, the monk who is admitted through an examination on his
understanding of the Holy Scriptures. The A Historical survey in
brief of the Sakya lineage釋鑑稽古略
records more in details: That year, the Emperor had a forum of preaching
Dharma held in the Forbidden Citadel, convening highly virtuous monks
from all over the country to form a jury to hear laymen reciting the
Holy Scriptures and qualify the monkhood. Also on this occasion those
who contributed a sum of money could be admitted to monkhood under the
title of being admitted through reciting the Holy Scriptures.
Tang Daizong唐代宗
(793-780), ordered an examination in Sūtras, Vinaya and Abhidharma to be
held for the admission to monkhood.
b) Monkhood by the special favor.
The class of monks who are granted by the Emperor’s special favor. This
has its precedent from the Sui.
c) Monkhood by Promotion. This
has its precedent from Tang Suzong. In the first year of the Qianyuan
Era (758), the Emperor had a forum held in the Forbidden Citadel by way
of permitting those who contribute a sum of money to become monk as
mentioned already above under the title of monkhood by reciting.
Therefore, there were three conditions
for monkhood. Either by knowledge, by money or by favor granted by
Emperor. It is seen right way the ulterior motive of the Tang’s Emperors
is to limit the status and ration of monkhood.
2. The Clerical Hierarchy,
classified into two categories: dignitary rank and clerical position.
a) Conferring title. Tang Taizong
conferred the title of senior courtier朝散大夫
on four monks.
- Tang Gaozong did the same.
- Empress Wuhou武后
conferred the title of Duke the Prefecture縣公
on nine monks.
- Tang Zhongzong conferred the tile on
monk Wanhui as the Duke of Dharma Cloud萬回法雲公.
- Tang Yuizong睿宗
posthumously conferred the title of the Duke of Yu虢國公
on the late Wanhui.
After his death, Dharma Master Fazang法藏法師,
third Patriarch of Huayan School, was posthumously conferred the title
of Protocol Minister
鴻臚卿.
- Tang Xuanzong玄宗,
Bodhiruci菩提流志
was posthumously conferred the title of Protocol Minister鴻臚卿.
- Tang Suzong肅宗
conferred on sramana Daoping道平
the title of Jinyu General
金吾大將軍 charged with operating an
expedition against Anlushan安祿山.
- Tang Dezong德宗
appointed sramana Yuanzhao圓照
as Protocol Minister for the Imperial Palace充內供奉鴻臚卿.
- Tang Xizong僖宗
conferred the title on Sramana Miaoximg沙門妙行
for his merit of reciting the Scriptures誦經見佛大士.
b) Clerical Hierarchy. Ranks of
clerical hierarchy had been stipulated since the Dynasty of Jin Andi晉安帝
(397-418). At that time Sengqi僧[契-大+石]
was made Sangha Administrator
國僧正 and Faqin法欽
Sangha Recorder
僧錄. Chen Wendi
陳文帝 (560-566) promoted Monk
Baoxiong寶瓊
to be the Sangha Leader
大僧統. Since the Tang there began
the precedent of conferring the title of National Master on Zen Masters
and offering them the posthumous name.
Besides, since Tang Xuanzong onwards, by
the fifth year of the Tianbao Era (746), there began the precedent of
charging the Minister of Protocol and Ceremony祠部
which undertook the matters of ceremony and religion with responsibility
of taking the census of clerical population. On
this matter, a note from the Chronology of the Patriarchal Unity
宗統編年 criticizes:
”Since then there began the regulation of issuing the monkhood
identification card by the Ministry of Ceremonies. But limiting the
number of Sangha is not to understand the Buddha’s Teaching.” According
to this notation, the Imperial Court ‘s issuing monkhood ID is but
aiming at setting a limit to the population and activities of the
clerical community.
General speaking, we see by and by the
Tang cracked down lots of measures on activities of Buddhism.
Because of the communication was further
open, Buddhism gradually exerted its influence on social behavior,
altering by and by Chinese morals and manners, the measures as such were
in need. They were bought forth not because of some discrimination of
race and religion, but carried out because the sovereigns ‘smelt’
something menacing. As a result, the history of Buddhism in China
witnessed four suppressions of which one took place under the Tang by
Wuzong, by the year of 848. The main cause for it remains that Buddhism
had squandered a majority of national resources and human forces. About
hundred years later, Emperor of the Post-Zhou re-operated another dread
elimination with the same purpose of satisfying the conditions the then
war required.
Comparing those mentioned above to the
measures cracked down by the Vietnamese sovereigns through the dynasties
of Ly and Tran, one could figure out the development of Buddhism in
Vietnam. Under these two dynasties Buddhism was honored to the level of
the so-called national religion, nonetheless its undergoing the Tang’s
measures is by no means without ulterior motives.
Now then, the measures that had been
carried out under Ly and Tran are preferable to be summed up in the
following, based on The General Mirror of the History of Vietnam by
the Imperial Order
欽定越史通鑑綱目.
1.
Conditions for
admission to the Monkhood.
In the fifth year of the Thuan-thien Era
(1020), the Emperor had a ceremony of admitting the monkhood held at the
Van-tue temple萬歲寺.
In the eighth year of the Dai-khanh Era
(1321), a nation-wide examination for monkhood was organized. Contents
of exam were questions from the Diamond sūtras.
In the ninth year of the Quang-thai Era
(1395) an examination was held for telling the authentic monks from the
disguised ones . Those who were under fifty had had to get through this
exam before his monkhood was admitted.
In the second year of the Thuan thien
Era (1429), an examination for monkhood was organized. The Royal Court
ordered every monk all over the country had to attend the exam at the
locality he belonged. If qualified, he would be offered with a
certificate identifying his monkhood.
2. The Grades of Monkhood.
In the second year of the Thai-binh Era
(971), Emperor Dinh-tien granted Sangha Leader Ngo Chan Luu僧統吳真流
the title of Khuông Việt Thái Sư
匡越太師, that means the Great Master
who helps Vietnam. At the same time Truong Ma Ni張摩尼
was appointed as the Sangha Administrator僧正 .
(This title had been established since Tang Wenzong唐文宗
(827-840) of China, consisting of the Administrator of the Left Rank and
of the Right Rank; undertaking the role of advisor to the Emperor about
the matters that concern to Buddhism and other religions). The
History of Sangha in Brief
僧史略 has
it that the title of the Sangha Administrator has as its origin the
dispute on the grades at the Court between Buddhism and Taoism. If being
so, under the reign of Dinh丁
in our country, Buddhism and Taoism had had some equal influence on the
Court.
In the fourth year of the Quang huu Era
(1088), Kho Dau was bestowed with the title of the National Master.
In the fourth year of the Thien chuong
bao tu (1136), monk Minh Khong明空
was bestowed with the title of the National Master.
Just seen, until the Dinh Buddhism in
Vietnam started its system of organization. The fact shows that it is
until then onwards that Buddhism began really exerting influence on the
Court. Formally, during the times of the Chinese procrastinating
dependence, every institution of activity of people from all walks of
life had been certainly taking after the Chinese regulation. If,
however, the record of TUTA is taken into notice, through Thong
Bien’ s quotation about the story of Tantien and Sui Gaozu as mentioned
above, Buddhism in Vietnam yet far had been developed towards a
direction of its own bearing no immediate influence from China.
Moreover, according to this, the Chinese sovereigns, if of them some
were pious, but had the role of assistants to the conditions of
development that had already existed. Anyhow, one cannot deny to some
extent the increasing influence of China. If in the earlier days Khang
Tang Hoi康僧會
set foot on China only after his
having finished the Buddhist studies from Vietnam and was the first
sramana who amazed people by his presence as recorded in the Stories
of Eminent Monks
高僧傳.
However, it is seen later, under the Tang mostly Vietnamese had taken
their Buddhist studies in China before they set off for their pilgrimage
to India, taking Dai Thua Dang大乘燈
for instance. On the contrary, also under the Tang, Vietnamese monks had
aptly got the admirations from the Chinese. Yijing, in his Tang
Biographies of Pilgrim Monks to the West for studying the Dharma
大唐西域求法高僧傳,
shows his high esteem for the
Vietnamese monks who were studying in India. Take for another instance
poet, Jiadao賈島,
a contemporary of Hanyu翰愈.
The former who had once been monk composed an inspiring poem dedicated
to a Vietnamese monk with the words showing his high esteem, describing
the unconventional behavior of a Buddhist from Vietnam.
As it is seen, the development of
Buddhism in Vietnam has been going along with the progress of thought
and learning in this country. They are the definitely indispensable
elements to the consciousness of self-sovereign of a nation. The stages
of development of Vietnamese Thien (Zen) school prove this. In the
following we will deal with two branches of it in Vietnam existing
before the Ly Dynasty, and their influence on the growing of Buddhism in
Vietnam in the later dynasties.
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIRST TWO THIEN SECTS OF VIETNAM
After the Sui Buddhism in China was
distinctively divided into two tendencies. The first is the doctrinal
tendency absorbed in studying and thinking. The second is of
contemplating devoted to practice and realization. The division was
repeated by Thanh Bien as to outline the development of Buddhism in
Vietnam. Thanh Bien’s idea should be taken as fact. In the field of
study and thinking Buddhism retained the less changed pattern of Indian
tradition of philosophy. If there existed some variety, it was due to
the natural endowments of the way of thinking. In the field of
practicing and realizing, however, alterations are to be found in the
concept of liberation among traditions. The ultimate end of Buddhism is
liberation. However, each tradition aims at liberation from various
directions. On account of these directions the end of liberation is
recognized likely different among traditions. This idea is as well
mentioned in Thanh Bien’s quotation. Accordingly, Empress Mother Phu
Thanh Cam Linh Nhan符聖感靈仁
asked the difference of the Buddha from the Patriarchs. Buddha is a
personification of liberation in the tradition of Indian Buddhism. In
China, Buddha is a personification of liberation too, but in here He is
an ideal personification. It is the Patriarch who personifies the
liberation.
To say so, means to say that Buddhism
has undergone some alterations in practice in each tradition. The
essential condition for this alteration is the particularity in the way
of living of the people in that tradition.
The study of Vietnamese Buddhism cannot
merely rely on the way of learning to display its characteristics. The
particularity of Indian Buddhism is dhyana or meditation. The one
of Chinese Buddhism is also dhyana or chan. It is as well
dhyana or Thien in Vietnam. Studying and thinking are
simply the explanation and description of the experience realized by
means of dhyana. Therefore as it is seen when the tendency of the
phenomenology (Dharmalaksana- school) is developed in China, here exists
at the same time a method of realization particular to this tendency,
although it has not been expanded as an actual practice.
Being considered as
such, then methodology of Thien or Zen should be taken in a broader
sense that implies not only particularly the Zen School but the other
schools as well. The most suitable word for it according to the Buddhist
study in China is the School of Contemplation, as exactly as addressed
by Thong Bien. The doctrinal school did not develop at large in Vietnam.
On the contrary, just since the Sui Dynasty the contemplative school had
established a distinctive system of transmission. It began with
Ty-ni-da-luu-chi (Vinitaruci). Towards the end of the Tang, Vô Ngôn
Thông set up another branch of Thien or Zen school. Each of both has its
own tendency. They formed two movements of Vietnamese Buddhism before
the Ly.
1.
The Branch of
Ty-ni-da-luu-chi
TUTA has it :
“Thiền Master Tì-ni-đa-lưu-chi毘尼多流支,
the Southern Indian, is of the Brahmin class. In his childhood, he,
cherishing the will of being freed from the ordinary life, had been
travelling all over the West India in hope of finding out the Buddha’s
Seal of Mind. However, because of the favorable conditions for the True
Dharma having been unripe yet, he was carrying the staff towards the
Southeast. Under the reign of Chen Xuandi陳宣帝,
the sixth year of the Taijian Era (574), he came to set foot on Zhangan長安
of China. In the meantime, Zhou Wudi周武帝
was promulgating the policy of eliminating Buddhism, he put up his mind
to get to Jianye建鄴.
Now then Sengcan僧粲,
the third Patriarch of Chinese Zen school on account of seeking asylum
carried with the mantle and alms bowl and hid himself in the Sikong司空
mountains. The Master went up there, met the Patriarch, finding in whom
the uncommon behavior which aroused in him the admiration. He
straightway folded his hands towards the Patriarch, standing on the very
spot. As he did the same thrice, the Patriarch just sat closing his eyes
without a word. After one or two second of reflecting, the Master
suddenly found himself enlightened, as if he had just acquired
something, then immediately he prostrated himself before Patriarch three
times. The latter did nothing but just nodding thrice. The Master
proceeded forward three steps and then backward three steps, saying:
“Previously, I have had something unsettled in my mind. Now that thanks
to your kindness, may I be allowed to attend on you.” The Patriarch
said: “You should as soon as possible go and do your association with
people in the South. Don’t stay here longer.” He took leave and set foot
on the way. Planting his Zen staff at the Chế chỉ (Zhizhi) temple制旨寺
of Guang zhou, over a span of six year, he finished translating lots of
sūtras, of The Elephant Head sūtra,
and The Sūtra on the Variety of the Retributions of Karma報業差別經. Until
the second year of the Dai tuong Era (580) of the Zhou Dynasty, he came
to Vietnam, and resided at this temple. There again he finished another
translation, Dharani-sūtra. One
day, he called Pháp Hiền法賢,
his advanced disciple, and told the latter: “Nobody can counterfeit the
Buddhas’ Seal of Mind. It is as round as the immensely large space,
neither redundant nor deficient, neither going nor coming, neither
obtained nor lost, neither identical nor different, neither eternal nor
breaking-off, originally appearing from nowhere and disappearing to
nowhere, neither detached nor non-detached. Only in relation to delusive
conditions it is endowed with a false name. Therefore, Buddhas in the
three periods of time had realized the same. Patriarchs through
generations had realized the same. Moreover, I myself have realized the
same. The same you do and the same all beings, sentient or non-sentient,
do. Moreover, my Patriarch, Sengcan, has sealed on me that very mind,
and told me to without delay go and do association in the South, being
unfavorable to remain there by him longer. For years until the day I
came to meet you, the prediction has been indeed justified. Take up
yourself rather well. The time I have to take leave is coming.” Having
finished his admonishing, he passed away with hands folded. After having
performed the cremation, Pháp Hiền collected his multicolored relics to
store in a stupa. It is in the fourteen year of Sui Khaihuang (594).
Emperor Thái tông of the Ly李太宗
composed a eulogy in reminiscence of him. The poem goes as follows:
Since having
come to the South,
You have been
known as to have
so far long
practiced the dhyana.
You must have
awakened the faith in the Buddha
And that must
have to the far remote
agreed with
the origin of the Mind-only.
Brightly
bright is the moon of Lanka;
Fragrantly
fragrant is the lotus of Wisdom.
When do I
come to meet you
So that we
may have a talk about the mystery of mystery.
The biography extracted above as
recorded in the TUTA is the most detailed of those that are
available to us at present. In this biography, however, are left some
problems concerning the date, when compared to what is recorded in
historical documents of Chinese Buddhism.
Probably the first account of Vinitaruci
is to be found in FeiChangfang費長房’s
Record of the Three Gems through Dynasties歷代三寶記, book
15, compiled under the Sui by the seventeenth year of Kaihuang (597),
i.e., four years after Vinitarucuci’s death.
Record of the Three Gems
is a bibliography of Buddhist Scriptures
translated into Chinese since beginning until the reign Sui Gaozu.
Three years earlier before the Changfang’s Record , i.e., by
the fourteenth year of Kaihuang, there appeared already another
biography named Fajing’s Biography法經錄
the original name of which is Biography of all the sūtras眾經目錄. In
the latter no mention about Vinitaruci is made.
Concerning the biography of Vinitaruci,
Changfang’s Biography gives
the report as follows: “Tripitaka Master Vinitaruci, from Wuzhang烏場
(Udhyana), North Inadia, having
learned that our Emperor had reflourished the Three Gems, so he taking
not care about the long distance carried along with the staff to come to
the country. Having arrived, he was supported by the Emperor to carry
out his translations of the Sūtras. Right away at the Daxingshan temple大興善寺
he started his work. Imperial Attendant Lydaobao給事李道寶,
and Tanpi曇皮
who is Prajnaruci般若流支’s
son, both took on interpretation. Faxuan法纂
of Daxingchan temple took the role of noting down, and correcting
syntax, verifying the meanings as well. Mean-while, sramana Anzong wrote
the Preface.”
The Sūtras translated by Vinitaruci are
recorded as:
1) The Elephant Head Monastery Sūtra, one
scroll, finished by the second year of Kaihuang (590). This is the
second translation of the same original sūtra as The Gaya Peak Sūtra. Both
are of the same contents; different from each other only in name.
2) The Mahāyānavaipulyadhāraṇisūtra,
one scroll, finished by the second year of Kaihuang.
The old biographies of Chinese Buddhism of later
date seems merely copying the original text from Changfang’s Record
nearly without any alteration worth mentioning. To say in brief,
take Daoxuan’ s Great Tang’s Buddhist Biography大唐內典錄
for instance, which written in the first year of Linde (664) under the
Tang, likely copies the whole original text without making any skip. Up
to the eighteenth year of Kaiyuan Era (730), Sramana Zhisheng智昇 wrote the Kaiyuan’s Record of Buddhism開元釋教錄
yet no more detail is informed. Only in its notation there is
mentioned the place of translation that will be dealt with later.
For the moment, let us look for Vinitaruci’s native
home. Our TUTA reports that Vinitaruci is originally from South
India., whereas Changfang’s Record has it from Udhyana, North
India. Udhyana was a small kingdom Xuanchuang had dropped in, and his
Pilgrimage for the West transliterated it as Wu-zhang-na烏仗那.
The note at the end of book 2 of the Pilgrimage for the West
makes it known that there are many other transliterations of the word,
such as Wu-chang烏場,
Wu-cha烏茶, of
the North India. The same book gives report on its people that they were
very timid, yet deceitful, anxious to learn but without taking pain,
magic was their specialty… They worshipped the Buddha, the Dharma,
having faith in Mahāyāna… moral was transparent yet well versed in
incantation of magic. Of Vinayas, there existed five Schools: a) Vianaya
of Dharmagupta, 2) of Mahisasaka, 3) Kaśyapa, 4) Sarvāstivada, 5)
Mahāsaṅgika.
The date of translation, the TUTA as we have
seen has it uncertain that it is six years before the second year of
Zhou’s Daxiang Era, i.e., in the interval of 574 and 580, whereas
Changfang’ s Record gives out not only the year but even the month,
that is, in the second year of Kaihuang (590), in the second and seventh
lunar months.
Concerning the translations, the TUTA shows
lots of mistakes. The Variety of the karma retributions according
to Changfang’s Record is a translation of Dharmaprajña. As we are
told, in the same year, the second of Kaihuang, Dharmaprajña was
summoned by Sui Gaozu to do translations at the Daxingshan temple,
altogether with Vinitaruci. Dharmaprajña finished his translation of
The Variety of The Karma Retributions in the third lunar month. On
the other hand, according to Changfang’s Record, Dharmaprajña was
well-versed not only in Sanskrit but as well in Chinese, accordingly
when doing his translations he did not need the mediation of an
interpreter and transcriptor as in the case of Vinitaruci. The fact
shows that probably no sooner than his having just arrived in China he
was rightway called up to do translations, and therefore he was granted
no good chance to brush up his Chinese, that means not to travel as much
over China as the Collection states.
About the place of translation, Changfang’s
Record has it at the Daxingshan temple. According to The Ancient
Record in Brief
釋氏稽古略 (book 2),
by the year 582 AD (the fourteenth year of Taijian of the Chen陳大建,
the twenty-first year of Tianbao of the Liang後梁天保,
the second year of Kaihuang of the Sui), the sixth lunar month, Sui
Gaozu had at the Capitol Changan the Daxing Citadel built up, had the
Daxing Hall and Daxingshan temple erected. Accordingly, Kaiyuan’s
Record of Buddhism shows its disbelief of the place where Vinitaruci
and Dharmaprajña performed their translations and which Changfang’ s
Record situates at the Daxingshan temple. For both did translations
about the earlier spring of the second year of Kaihuang, whereas the
temple until the sixth lunar month came to get the imperial edict for
construction. If the translation was not been carried out at the
Daxingshan temple, sure enough it was at some other temple situated at
Chang an, the Capitol of the Sui, because the work of translation was
organized by the Emperor himself. For all that, had the translation
workshop been held at the Chế chỉ temple in Guangzhou as reported by The
Collection of Eminent Monks, much would be left in uncertainty.
There remains another fact. TUTA has it that
Vinitaruci translated the Sūtras on Dharani at the Pháp vân, of
Longbien city (Bacninh Province), under the Chu (Zhou Dynasty), by the
second year of Daxiang (581), that is, before Sui Gaozu would be made
emperor and one year before the Kaihung Era. The place as well as the
time, therefore, were far remote from what stated in Changfang’s
Record.
Out of these facts that contradict each other, we
are likely bound to believe Changfang’s record better if we
choose to resolute Changfang’s record’s Vinitaruci and TUTA’s
are identical. Both are of the same person. That does not matter. For
few are different in the date and place of the translation, otherwise
the most part of the work is identical. It may happen that the author of
TUTA gleaned information about Vinitaruci from hearsay that of
course has its own value but in another sense is too groundless to
verify. In this aspect of hearsay it is very difficult for us to make a
search into the historicity of the problematic meeting of Sengcan and
Vinitaruci.
Although we are encountering the problems of
historicity that presently seem unresolved, but the Thien (Zen) branch
of Vinitaruci has been transmitted, believed and practiced, accordingly
this actuality has made him a personage so actual that it goes beyond
any dispute in term of the so-called historical facts. The only mistake
the TUTA is supposed to have committed is that it does not
strictly follow the method of history taken in the ordinary sense, but
to the Thien (Zen) school ‘s point of view, the work has got a very
precise conception of the pedigree of transmission of the Thien school .
Take for example the Vinitaruci’s transmission in which the second
generation is Pháp Hiền, only a person; in the third generation, there
are three, one of which is unrecorded and left vacant by TUTA.
Only one figure from the fourth generation is mentioned in succession:
Master Thanh Biện清辨. Then in
procession the fifth, sixth and seventh generations are left vacant. In
the eighth generation, of the three persons two are left vacant. Three
of the nine generations are all left vacant…
I.Vinitaruci
|
II.Pháp Hiền
|
III.Unknown
|
IV.Thanh Biện
|
V.Unknown
|
VI.Unknown
|
VII.Unknown
|
VIII. 1. Định Không. 2… 3….
It is seen, when compared to the Chinese
Transmission of the Lamp, from the fourth Patriarch Daoxin backward
the transmission was carried on by only a person. But since then onward
there began appearing sub-streams running along with the main stream of
the transmission. And it is since then onward that the vacancies in a
generation are paid some attention, although the transmission was kept
continuous. Because of such bifurcation, the orthodoxy of the Thien
(Zen) school is often urged to be as certain as possible regarding the
Masters after the fourth Patriarch, but not before.
The conception of continuous transmission, just as
a lamp is shining only as long as its flame is not extinguished, is the
crucial point of Chinese Zen School. This conception, on one hand,
coincides with Chinese mentality of preservation of the ancient. On the
other hand, for the fact that the significance of transmitting the seal
of mind cannot be transmitted by means of letters, the guidance of a
clear-sighted teacher is extremely important. On both sides, the
conception of transmission or transmitting the lamp of Zen school
is a combination of the Chinese tradition and the Indian signification
of liberation. Vietnamese Thien School inherited this conception of
transmission, the trace of which is conspicuous in the presentation of
TUTA. In addition to it, is the particularity in the way of
living of its people, Thien school of Vietnam has initiated its own
special practice. The combination of these two factors will be seen
later.
Because the objectivity of history is not held high
esteem to Thien or Zen school, the ambiguity divulged in TUTA
does not matter. What was written in the latter, however, as regards the
continuous transmission of Vinitaruci’s branch of Thien (Zen), proves
its unique way of persistence. First, we should search for Vinitaruci’s
thought. Some conjecture is but categorical to the search. But depending
on a few of given factors in his biography, then comparing to the
development of Vinitaruci’s Thien sect, in a way of conjecturing, we are
in hope of obtaining a reliable ground to look into the persistence of
this Thien sect.
To begin with, we deal at first with Vinitaruci
native home. If we believe much more of what is given out in
Changfang’s Record than TUTA, it would be better to recognize
him as a native of North India, in Wuzhang or Wuzhangna (Skt. Udhyana).
The mentality of its people and the customs of the country, as recorded
by Xuanzhang’ s The Tang’s Pilgrimage to the West, in term of way
of thinking, was to the most part inclining towards Mahāyāna. The
institution of Sangha’s living was founded on the five traditions of
monastic code. Xuangzhang and Vinitaruci were separated from each other
around a half century, changes if any, therefore, were not too much
different from what is written in The Pilgrimage to the West.
Accordingly, Vinitaruci has somehow early in his native home been
acquainted with Mahāyāna. And if he has been ordained, his monastic life
sort of observed the discipline of Early Buddhism.
The tendency of Mahāyāna is conspicuous in his two
translations. Nonetheless should both these translations be considered
as representatives of his thought? Because it is unknown to us whether
they were brought with him from India. Or someone else brought them to
the Sui Court, and his work was only translating them. In the
chronological table of Changfang’s Record is a fact to be
noticeable. It was in the winter of the first year of Kaihung Era (581),
the delegation of Zhizhou came back home from the Western Regions,
carrying along with Brahmanist Scriptures consisting of 260 volume. The
Emperor had the whole carried to the Capital and translated into
Chinese. Perhaps out of which the original texts of Vinitaruci’s
translations could be found.
Although the exact origin of these two translations
is left unsettled, at present it is better to review in here their
contents for the purpose of completing what till now remains conjectural
to us, and drawing out a conclusion on how far Vinitaruci’s thought of
Thien would have been influenced to some extend by them.
a)
Sūtras in the Elephant-head Monastery.
The sūtras were first translated by Kumarajiva, somehow in the Era of
Huangshui, 401-409, having as its title The Sūtra on Manjusri’s
Questions about Bodhi. The
various names according to Changfang’s Record are: Sūtras on
Bodhi, Sūtras on the practice of Bodhi, Sūtras on the Peak
Gaya. In
the interval of 508-535, Bodhiruci菩提流支
gave another translation under the title as The Sūtras on the Peak
Gaya. Vinitaruci’s
is the third. The fourth, around 639-724, under the reign of Tang, is
another translation of Bodhiruci菩提流志
titled as Mahāyāna Sūtras on the Peak Gaya. All
these translations are edited in the Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo
(Taisho in brief), vol.XIV, numbers 464-467. Looking into the numbers of
re-translations, we would see the Sūtra holds an important position in
the Mahāyāna Buddhism. It is classified into the group of
Vaipulya-literature, which means the extension of the deepest doctrine
Buddha had ever taught. Sūtras belonging to this category are lying
between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The Gaya (i.e., Elephant)
mountains is the place where Buddha realized the ultimate goal of
enlightenment. In its introduction the Sūtra makes it known that the
time of its delivering was no longer after Sakya-Muni ‘s Enlightenment.
The number of bhikṣu who were in attendance was a round, thousand
people. Now, then Buddha stated the meanings of Bodhi, i.e.,
enlightenment, saying that “The bodhi is found in nowhere. It is neither
of the past, nor the present, nor the future. All the Dharmas are śūnya
(empty, void). Though there is a language for it, but it is merely
nominal, unreal. It is the non-created dharma, which is empty, signless,
desireless. It is neither being nor non-being. It is unmanifestable,
unspeakable, unhearable…” By the way, Mañjuśri asked the Buddha: “If
Bodhi is signless, where to dwell as to accomplish it?” Buddha taught:
“The Bodhisattva who dwells in the non-dwell is dwelling in Bodhi.
Dwelling in non-attachment is dwelling in Bodhi. Dwelling in the
Voidness is dwelling in Bodhi. Dwelling in the Dharma of non-being is
dwelling in Bodhi.” In going on, the son of god Pure Flame by name asked
about the dharmas the Bodhisattva would realize, and Bodhisattva
Mañjuśri exposed the development of the spiritual realization, from the
beginning with practicing good deeds up to awakening the great mind of
loving-kindness and compassion, following the twofold path that composes
of Skillful means and Wisdom.
b)
The Mahāyāna sūtras on dhāranani.
It is the second translation of the kind. The first by Dharmarakṣa竺法護 was carried out in
the interval 266-315, under the title The Sūtra on Helping the
extended studies. Both
are edited in the Taisho, vol., IX. No 274-275, classified
in the group of Sadharmapuṇḍarīka. The contents are of the same
category with the Sūtras on Immeasurable Meanings that introduces
into the doctrine of Sadharmapuṇḍarīka in which Buddha decided to
deliver the teaching of the Only-way (Ekayāna). The place of preaching:
Rajagṛha, the Capital of Magadha Kingdom, on the Vaulture mountains, the
same place as Shadharma’s. The time of preaching: the years
before Buddha’s passing away. That is, before the time of preaching
Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. It is the period of Saddharma. In this
period, Buddha makes a synthesis to assign all his previous various
teachings into the only one. This ultimate teaching surpasses that of
Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva, going beyond both Hīnayāna
and Mahāyāna. It is named as Dhārani, not because of any mystic
meanings, but because it embraces all the teachings of Buddha without
impartial to any one particularly. Not only recognizing Mahāyāna and
other yānas as orthodox, it criticizes even those who esteems high this
one and disregards others. Buddha said, once upon a very remote time
when he was a bhikṣu Dharma by name, he then practiced the dharma
altogether with another bhikṣu namely Suddhajīva. The latter developed
the practice of dhāraṇi, without disregarding any other practice. At
that time, bhikṣu Dharma practiced and preached the śūnyatā, impartial
to śūnyatā. As a result, he criticized bhikṣu Suddhajīva, blaming the
latter as carrying out the frivolous heretic teaching. Consequently, as
he reached the Buddhahood he should emerge in this ugly world. Meanwhile
bhikṣu Suddhajīva accomplished his Buddhahood in the Pure Land. After
having praised the practice of Dhāraṇi, Buddha preached four aspects of
this method of practicing. They are four aspects of equality: equality
of Boddhisattva towards every sentient being; equality among dharmas;
equality towards Bodhi; equality in preaching. So the Sūtra contains in
it an embracing synthesis, recognizing the variety of views of various
tendencies as equal to each other; recognizing the variety of practice
that of Pure Land included. It implies the true meanings of the term
dhāraṇi.
As designated in the title, the present sūtra
belongs to the Vaipulya literature. This literature is a link between
the genuine Mahāyāna and the developed Hīnayāna.
The contents of two translations issued by
Vinitaruci do, if not straightforwardly, make it known to us indirectly
about his Mahāyāna tendency, and accordingly the particularity of his
Thien or Zen spirit.
To some extent, as the way of thinking is concern,
Vinitaruci’s Thien sect reveals two major points: the one is the sunyata
and undwelling from Prajnaparamita’s system of thought; the other
is the synthetical tendency of Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Both in him,
however, do not partially incline to either Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna. Due to
this characteristic, the way of practicing in Vinitaruci’s Thien sect is
eager to open wide its gate to the introduction of the popular faith
intermingled with mysticism. This mixed popular faith tends to accept
rather than reject, though not in a way of somewhat synthesis. As a
result, Vinitaruci’s Thien on account of its popularity was easily
making its way to the mass movements. Thiền Master Vạn Hạnh is a
successful figure emerging from these religious social movements.
2. The branch of Vô Ngôn Thông
As regards the story of Vô Ngôn Thông,
TUTA records:
“Of the Tien du僊遊
prefecture (Bac ninh Province), Phu dong扶董
village, Kiến sơ temple建初寺,
family Trịnh鄭,
Vô Ngôn Thông無言通
was, in his youth, firstly fond of studying Confucianism and negligent
in his domestic affairs, later absorbed in studying Buddhism in Song lam
(Chuanglin) temple雙林寺 at Quảng châu (Guangzhou). His personality
was profoundly calm, talking less but remembering a lot, easily thinking
through any matters. For that reason he was called Vô Ngôn Thông by the
contemporary. That means “understanding without a word.” This name is
recorded in the Transmission of the Lamp with a slight
alteration: Bất Ngữ Thông不語通,
with the same meaning.
“One day, as he was just going out after a
religious service, some Thien monk came to pay a visit and asked:
“- What did you bow down before?
“ - I bowed down before the Buddha. He replied.
“The guest pointed to the Buddha image and asked:
“ - What’s that?
“He was unable to offer an answer. That night,
neatly dressed, he approached the guest monk. And having paid homage to
the latter, he asked:
“ - I haven’t grasped as yet the meanings of what
you had uttered.
“ - Since you have left home till now, how many
rainy seasons did pass? Asked the guest.
“ - Ten rainy seasons. He replied.
“ - Does that mean you have really left home?
“Instantly he fell into bewilderment.
“ - If you don’t understand it, what’s the use of
it? The guest monk gave out a remark. He then made the Master accompany
him to present themselves to Mazu馬祖.
As he reached Jianxi江西,
Mazu had already passed away. So they went to Baizhang Huaihai百丈懷海.
At the moment they arrived, a monk asked Baizhang:
“- What is the method of abrupt enlightenment?
“- Had the ground of mind become empty, the sun of
wisdom would naturally shine. Replied Baizhang.
“The Master was awakened at these words. He later
went back Guangzhou, resided Hean temple和安寺.
“- Are you a Thiền Master?” He was asked by
someone.
“- I have never learned anything like Thien.”
“For a moment, he called the man again. The monk
responded ‘Yes!’ The Master pointed to the bolt. The man did not reply.
“Zen Master Yangshan仰山
when being still a mere novice was once asked by him:
“- Lo, Ji (i.e., Huiji慧寂,
religious nickname of Yangshan)! Bring the bed to here for me.
“Huiji brought it to him. The Master then ordered:
“- Put it back where it was as before.
“Huiji carried out the injunction. He then asked
again:
“- What is there in the opposite side?
“ - Nothing. Was the reply.
“ - What is there in this side?
“ - Nothing.
“- Lo, Ji! So called he again.
“- Yes! was his reply.
“- Go away! Thus he instructed.
“By the fifteenth year of Yuanhe Era (810) of the
Tang, he arrived at this temple (Kiến sơ temple), settled down his Thien
(zen) staff there. Besides taking meals, he enjoyed nothing but the
taste of meditation. Whenever he sat down, he always faced the wall,
without a word. Nobody knew a thing about him for years. Only a monk in
the temple whose religious name was Cảm Thành感誠
witnessed the scene and showed him the most respect, waiting on him.
Gradually the latter in the silence came to knock open the door into the
wonderful secret, getting through the essentials. One day, without being
ill, after taking a bath and changing clothes, he sent for Cảm Thành and
told the latter:
“- Once upon that time when my Patriarch Nam Nhac
Hoai Nhuong南嶽懷讓
(Nanyue Huairang) was passing away, he left the saying that all the
dharmas are brought forth from the mind. If the mind is brought forth
nowhere, dharmas will get no dwelling. If the ground of mind is gained,
the dwelling is unobstructed. If you don’t meet the noble man, don’t be
rash to divulge it.
“After having finished saying thus, he folded hands
and passed away. Carm Thafnh held cremation, gathered relics, and
erected a stupa to worship on the Tien du mountains.”
The story cited above contains lots of fact that
are supposed to be extracted from The Transmission of the Lamp,
(book 9), in the anecdote of Zen Master Tong (Thông thiền sư),
successor of Baizhang Huaihai. In this record no mention is made to the
conditions under which Vô Ngôn Thông was enlightened. The condition
related by Thien uyen tap anh is found in another anecdote from
the story of Baizhang Huaihai in The Transmission of the Lamp
(boo 6).
A certain monk asked Baizhang what is the method of abrupt enlightenment
of Hināyāna.
To this Baizhang replied:
“You must at first exhaust all conditions, stop
everything. Don’t keep in mind, think of all dharmas, the good and the
bad, the worldly and the outworldly. Set free, give up your mind and
body so that they would get along at ease. Your mind should be similar
to wood and stone. There is nothing in it to discriminate. Had the
ground of mind have been vacant, the sun of wisdom would shine in a
natural way. Just as clouds are dispersed and the sun appears.”
Finally, the original of Nanyue Huairang’s saying
Vô Ngôn Thông quoted to Cảm Thành is found in the story of Huairang as
recorded by The Transmission of the Lamp, book 5.
No anecdote of the history of Zen in China is found
to record more details than the Transmission of the Lamp
concerning the story of Vô Ngôn Thông. Due to this missing, nothing is
learned towards the end of his life. Therefore, the date he came to
Vietnam as reported by TUTA cannot be ascertained. Only the
Collection of Finger and the Moon gives out in addition a statement
to the end of the story. Nonetheless not only no new details are added,
it contains lots of skipping and errors in transcription. In a way of
reading one may be lead to the idea that Vô Ngôn Thông eventually died
of being poisoned. The information is of course groundless, and
meaningless. The Collection of Finger and the Moon指月錄
means simply, and exactly, to say that in the pedigree of Vô Ngôn Thông
no orthodox transmission is recognized, but there is only an unorthodox
transmission to Yangshan. Probably Yangshan was ordained as novice under
Vô Ngôn Thông but later he was enlightened under Weishan Lingyou溈山靈祐
and then he founded the Zen branch known as Weiyang sect溈仰宗. His sect is not found having successor in
Vietnam.
Another history of Zen titled as The Store of
the Universal Light大光明藏
written by Baotan寶曇under
the Tong Dynasty.
Besides the story of Vô Ngôn Thông, the work pronounces an a eulogy on
Vô Ngôn Thông to the end of the latter’s story. The eulogy runs: “The
ancients, from men of sharp intelligence and high wisdom to the
simpleton, all are alike in general. Their ways of searching for the
Truth do not seem to match each other, but their practical use is the
same. Take for instance Buyutong (Bất Ngữ Thông不語通)
onwards, up to The Masters like Daan, they themselves went out from
Baizhang’s furnace, being forged into unalloyed gold without a bit of
ore. But that merely aims at meeting with conditions in an instant. One
should inspect their energy as they are set antagonistic towards each
other, as the sharp and the blunt touch each other. Who other than
brothers dare to have a touch in a rash?”
In this way, in China Zen Master Thong or Tong was
not identified as Vô Ngôn Thông. But only Buyutong or Bất Ngữ Thông was
recognized. Then, since when did the name Vô Ngôn Thông appear? In our
present conditions no searching for it could easily be carried out.
The fact he from Guangzhou came to Vietnam can be
inferred from another instance. It is the case of Jizang吉藏,
founder of Sanron school三論宗.
According to Biographies of Eminent Monks, in his youth Jizang
very often frequented the regions of Jiao and Guang, i.e., Jiaozhou
(Giao chau) and Guangzhou. A conclusion can be drawn from this account
is that under the reign of Tang Jiaozhou or Guangzhou to some extent
were the ground of intellectual activities. Therefore, that Vô Ngôn
Thông in the first place resided at the Hean temple of Guang zhou and
later then arrived at Vietnam is believable.
When comparing the story of Vô Ngôn Thông to
Vinitaruci’s we find out a similarity. Both came to Vietnam before
Chinese Zen school started branching off. Chinese Zen after Sengcan,
since the fourth Patriarch Daoxin道信
onwards, was divided into two lines. The main line was flowing down to
Huangren弘忍
then to Huineng慧能.
The second was down to Farung法融
in the name of Niutou Zen牛頭禪.
Niutou is the name of a mountain where Farung resided. This second line,
according to Transmission of the Lamp, was handed down to six
generations. Bodhidharma also has by-successors, of which three are
mentioned.
The second Patriarch, Huike慧可,
besides Sengcan considered as principal successor, have also seventeen
others. Concerning Sengcan’s, The Transmission of the Lamp dealt
with Daoxin as the only principal successor. Little is known about in
what occasion the transmission to Vinitaruci was carried out.
From Nanyue Huairang onwards, the transmission was
going on down to Mazu, and then to Baizhang; from Baizhng downwards to
Weishan Lingyou; from Lingyou down to Yangshan Huiji and by the latter
the Weiyang Zen sect was founded. Another line from Baizhang was carried
down to Linji Yixuan臨濟義玄,
and since then the Linji (Rinzai) sect was founded.
That Vô Ngôn Thông as we were told is Baizhang’s
successor in the pedigree of Chinese Zen is credible. But that
Vinitaruci himself belongs to this lineage as well remains uncertain.
For much is left to further research, and what is recorded in TUTA
seems to be gleaned from hearsay, though not necessarily groundless,
that we would like to take it for pseudograph. Anyway, if we believe
TUTA has its own justified intention when it puts both two founders
of Thien or Zen school in Vietnam into a position somewhat loose against
the China soil that is very often considered to be its origin. The
intention is clear enough as to represent a lineage in this country
independent of China. But the transmission of the seal of mind is
similar to the continuation of a lamp, therefore the tradition of Zen
does not allow to place them outside the continuous transmission from
Lord Buddha and the first Patriarch Kaśypa downwards. If Thien or Zen is
to be taken in a broader sense that refers it to the tendency of
meditation, apart the other tendency devoted in studying the doctrine,
then, TUTA’s effort of legitimizing the Vietnamese lineage of Zen
transmission is willingly accepted.
In our historical research into Vinitaruci, we know
though incompletly some outline on his natural endowments, altogether
with other details in his living, his native home as well as what he had
realized in the field of thought. As regards his counterpart, Vô Ngôn
Thông, in the pedigree of Chinese Zen, is counted among the disciples of
Huairang. This lineage later brought forth the Linji sect, well known in
the history of Chinese Zen for its literature works. Scions of Vô Ngôn
Thông were carrying with them something of the like. The most part of
them hold a high esteemed position in the history of Vietnamese
literature. The figures very often mentioned among them are Viên Chiếu,
Thông Biện, Cứu Chỉ, Ngộ Ấn, Mãn Giác, and many others. In contrast to
this, in the lineage of Vinitaruci emerged the monks of mysticist
tendency blended with magical belief that to some extent held a
significance in the movements of populace.
Consequently, though being in short and vulnerable
to dubiousness, the givens we have got from the founders before the Ly
have offered us a rather embracing sight into both branches of Thien
(Zen). Their truthfulness is reliable.
III. ACTIVITIES OF THIỀN MASTERS
Based on what was recorded by TUTA, from
beginning downwards to Vạn Hạnh generation, we can have a list of the
successors of two sects as follows:
Vinitaruci branch. This branch diffused
since the Sui up to the end of the Tang. Because of the long course of
four centuries, successors in this branch was rather large. Among them,
however, only nine are related in TUTA.
Tì-ni-đa-lưu-chi (Vinitaruci, ? 594)
Pháp Hiền ( - 626)
Thanh Biện ( - 686)
La Quý (- 936)
Pháp Thuận
(915 – 991)
Ma Ha ( - 1029)
Thiền Ông ( - 979)
Vạn Hạnh
( - 1025)
Vô Ngôn Thông branch. Because of its being
found only until the 11th century, the list of successors in
this branch is comparatively short.
- Cảm Thành ( - 860)
- Thiện Hội
( - 900)
- Vân Phong ( - 956)
- Khuông Việt (- 1011)
Of the successors belonging either sect listed
above, as regards their activities, three from the Vinitaruci’s and one
from the Vô Ngôn Thông’s are deserved to be studied. As regards Vạn
Hạnh, a special study should be carried out.
Now, to begin with, let’s read into TUTA to
have a look at the monks we are interested in.
The Story of Thiền/Zen Master Định Không定空（730-808）
Thiền Master Định Không, of Chúng thiện temple眾善寺,
Dịch bảng village驛牓鄉,
Thien duc天德 prefecture, was born in Cổ chau古洲,
into a family of Nguyễn阮,
a rich powerful descendant. He was good at telling the destiny of the
world. His deeds were all in conformity with regulations. Villagers
respected him and addressed him as Elder. In his old age, he studied
Buddhism in the Long tuyền龍泉congregation
at Nam dương南陽.
On hearing the preaching, he grasped the essentials. Henceforth, he
inclined toward the teaching of Sakya.
In the Era of Jingyuan (784-805) of the Tang, he
had Qùynh lâm temple瓊林寺
built in the native village. As starting to lay the foundation, the
workers unexpectedly exhumed an incense burner and ten inverted bells.
He had them brought to water to wash. One of them sank to the bottom. He
deciphered: “Ten items (十
口) refers to the character cổ
古 (ancient).
Sinking down to the water (水去)
refers to the character pháp法.
Earth is the ground on which we live. Everything are brought forth from
the earth.” On account of this event, he proposed to change the name of
the village as Cổ pháp. Its former name was Diên uẩn延蘊.
He then composed a stanza:
地 呈 法 器
一 品 精 銅
致 佛 法 以 興 隆
立鄉 名 古 法
Earth presents the Dharma
instruments.
An artifact is made of refined
copper.
In order to develop the Teaching of
Buddha,
The village is given the name Cổ
pháp.
He then uttered some divinations:
To the door of Buddha
appear ten copper bells;
King Lý Hưng has got success in
three artifacts.
An item was sinking down to the
ground;
Henceforth the village has been
renamed as Cổ pháp.
Cock was singing to the crescent
moon. It is later the omen for the development of Buddhism.
On the deathbed, he gave the last instruction to
his disciple Thông Thiện通善,
saying:
“I was anxious to have enlarged the village, only I
have had a fear that in the interval of time a disaster will take place.
(Later, in fact, Cao Biền高駢
of the Tang came and incanted some suppression against the country).
After my passing away, you must protect well this Dharma. If you meet a
person of the Đinh丁
family, then hand it over to him. In doing so, you are supposed to
successfully carry out my will.”
On these words he took leave forever, at the age of
79. It is in the third year of Yuanhe Era (808) of the Tang. Thông Thiện
built up a stupa to the west of Lục tổ temple六祖寺
wherein he inscribed Định Không’s last will.
The Story of Thiền Master La Quy
羅貴(852-936)
Elder La Quy, of the Song lâm temple |
