Paper Abstracts
Panel 2: Doctrine & Philosophy

Discussant: Peter Gregory (Smith College)
1) Imre Hamar (Eotvos Lorand University, HUNGARY), “The Concept of Nature-Origination in Chengguan’s Philosophy."

The term, nature-origination (xingqi 性起) can be traced back to the chapter Nature-origination of the Tathāgata of the sixty-fascicle Chinese translation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. This chapter, which had been circulated as an independent sūtra before the compilation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, is regarded as a precursor to the tathāgatagarbha theory since it states that every sentient being is endowed with tathāgatajñāna. In Huayan Buddhism it was Zhiyan who first used this term, in accordance with tathāgatagarbha, as manifestation of intrinsic enlightened nature. This kind of manifestation is quite different from the process of cultivation that is based on the teachings as its cause (yuanxiu 緣修). Fazang adopted Zhiyan’s scheme of xingqi and yuanxiu, but emphasized that these two phases of spiritual development cannot be separated. Under the influence of the Awakening of Faith, Chengguan gave the nature-origination a new meaning, explaining it on the ontological level. Thus he paved the way for his disciple, Zongmi, who synthetized nature-origination with dharmadhātu dependent origination. In this paper, I am going to investigate those passages in Chengguan’s commentary and sub-commentary on the Avataṃsaka-sūtra where this important Huayan concept is discussed in order to shed light on the transition from Fazang’s soteriological explanation to Zongmi’s ontological map.

2) Chuck Muller (Toyo Gakuen University, JAPAN), “A Comparision of Huiyuan's and Weonhyo's Approaches to the Problem of the Two Hindrances in the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith.”

Among the "three great commentaries" on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith [AMF] - those written by Huiyuan, Weonhyo, and Fazang - the least amount of scholarly attention has thus far been allotted to the first of the three. This is unfortunate, because it is a rich and insightful commentary, the arguments of which served as an important basis for much of what was written by the later two figures. My paper specifically examines the portion of the Huiyuan's commentary that deals with the problematic juxtaposition of the two hindrances as explained in the "orthodox" Yogācāra texts with the new explanation applied to them in the AMF. In other recent work I have examined in detail the distinctive manner in which Weonhyo handled this difficult juxtaposition of the hindrances from these two competing traditions. One thing that remains to be explored, however, is the degree to which Weonhyo depended upon Huiyuan's commentary (and especially Huiyuan's reliance on the Srimālā-sūtra,) to develop his own positions. In my presentation, I will focus on the relationship between the Weonhyo and Huiyuan commentaries at the juncture of the AMF that deals with the hindrances, and show precisely in which ways Weonhyo both was influenced by Huiyuan and departed from him.

3) Mario Poceski (University of Florida), "Baizhang’s Three Propositions and the Making of the Hongzhou School’s Soteriological Schemata.”

The paper explores the theme of spiritual progress, as formulated in the extant documents about Chan doctrine produced by the Hongzhou school洪州宗during the mid-Tang period. It focuses on the “three propositions” (sanju 三句) explicated in the record of Baizhang百丈 (749–814), Baizhang guanglu百丈廣錄, which constitute a model of progressive path of practice and realization. The soteriological scheme put forward by Baizhang implies sequential unfolding of increasingly subtle stages of insight, correlated to progressively deeper levels of detachment and transcendence. The three propositions represent an ingenious Chan model of practice, but they also point to parallels with other doctrinal traditions, especially the Sanlun三論 school, as evident in Jizang’s吉藏 (549–623) analysis of three phases in the dialectical ascent of the realization of the two truths. As such, they exemplify the Hongzhou school’s endeavors at formulating direct soteriological approaches—devoid of complex conceptual embellishments and warmhearted devotional sentiments— that purportedly highlight the transformative power of Chan practice and point to the expansive vision of awakening.

 4) Brook Ziporyn (Northwestern University), “Zhanran's Use of the Term Xinxing and its Implications for Tiantai Mind-Observation (guanxin) and Inherence-Observation (guanju)."

In this paper I will be examining Jingxi Zhanran’s (711-782) usage of the term xing (), usually translated as “the Nature,” especially as interpreted by Siming Zhili (960-1028), and its role in understanding the late Tiantai meditative practices known as mind-observation (guanxin) and inherence-observation (guanju).   I have in mind in particular Zhanran’s use of the compound terms xinxing (mind-nature, mind’s nature, mind and nature, mind/nature, nature-as-mind), foxing (Buddha-nature) and zhongsheng zhi xing (the nature of sentient beings). The term xinxing appears frequently in Zhanran’s works, and the apparent ambiguity of his usage of this compound served as one of the primary sources of the “Shanjia/Shanwai“ debates in the Northern Song dynasty, particular in regard to the understand of Buddhist praxis. The interpretation of this binome is particularly important to the contested question of how to understand mind-observation. The binome xinxing in Zhanran's phrase “All dharmas without exception are xinxing” can be interpreted in at least the five following ways: 1. Xinxing means “Mind-nature.” 2. Xinxing means “mind’s nature.” 3. Xinxing means “mind and the Nature.” 4. Xinxing means “mind/Nature.” 5. Xinxing means “the Nature-as-the-mind.” To unravel Zhanran’s usage of these terms, I will need to conduct a close analysis of certain key passages, with an eye to the various grammatical and semantic possibilities and the doctrinal premises and implications these divergent readings call forth. My conclusions concerning Zhanran’s and Zhili’s philosophy of mind and their implications concerning Buddhist praxis will range around certain nuances of this interpretation. At the same time, an analysis of the intricacies involved in the interpretation of this seemingly straightforward phrase can perhaps serve as a kind of reminder of the dangers of overhasty comprehension in handling texts of this kind.

Panel 3: Practice & Soteriology

Return to Panels Mainpage