集古今佛道論衡 4.5

4.5

In the fourth month of the third year of the Xianqing reign period (658 CE), an imperial decree was issued summoning seven monks and seven Daoist priests to enter the palace and debate doctrines. At that time, Dharma Master Huiyin established the doctrine of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha). Dharma Master Shentai established the doctrine of the nine objects of knowledge to be abandoned (parijñeyāḥ). The Daoist priests Huang Ze, Li Rong, Huang Shou, and others took turns debating doctrines. However, because they recognized neither the terms nor their essences, they were as bewildered as if adrift upon an ocean of dreams. Although there was an exchange of arguments, they were stranded and reached no conclusion. Next, an imperial decree was issued dispatching the Daoist priests to establish a proposition. Li Rong established the proposition that 'the Dao generates the myriad things.' The monk Huili of the Great Cien Temple mounted the debate seat. First, he stated: 'The spiritual achievements and sage virtues of the Emperor and Empress have caused the distant barbarians to submit to their transforming influence, and the realm is peaceful and purified. How could they merely outshine Xuan[yuan] and [Fu]xi? They also encompass the Zhou and the Han,' and so forth. Furthermore, he extolled with reverence the Buddhist transformation that delivers the common people; the text is lengthy and not recorded here. Then he asked Rong, saying: 'You, Sir, say that the Dao generates the myriad things. We do not know whether this Dao possesses consciousness or lacks consciousness?' Rong replied, saying: 'The Daoist scriptures state: "Man models himself after Earth; Earth models itself after Heaven; Heaven models itself after the Dao." Since it is the model for Heaven and Earth, how could it be said to lack consciousness?' [Huili] objected, saying: 'Just now you stated that the Dao is the mother of the myriad things. Now I infer that the myriad things do not arise from the Dao. Why is this? If the Dao were made to possess consciousness, it would generate only good. For what reason does it also generate evil? Based on this rising and falling of good and evil being generated all together in a jumble, it must lack consciousness. If you do not yet understand, please let me broaden the analogies: As for among the rulers of men, at the time the cosmos opened, why did it not generate earlier today's Sage Lord to nurture the black-haired people as children and bestow upon them glory and joy? Instead, it first gave birth to the likes of Gonggong, Chiyou, Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, who were cruel to the multitude of beings and cast them into misery. Among ministers of state, why did it not generate only the likes of Ji, Xie, Kui, and Long, but also generated the cohorts of Feilian, Elai, Jin Shang, and Wang Mang, who flattered their rulers and brought peril and chaos to their states? Among the feathered race, why did it not generate only auspicious birds like the luan and phoenix, but also generated wicked birds like the owl and vulture? Among the furred beasts, why did it not generate only fine steeds like the qiji and liuma, but also generated jackals, wolves, porcupines, and hedgehogs? Among trees and plants, why did it not generate only pines, cypresses, catalpas, cinnamons, huicao, suncao, orchids, and chrysanthemums, but also generated soft pines, scrub oaks, tree-of-heaven, brambles, cockleburs, mugwort, and caltrops? Since it indiscriminately generates the myriad things without eliminating evil, then the Dao lacks consciousness and cannot generate things. How can it be said that Heaven and Earth take it as their model, and that it is the ultimate origin of the myriad things? According to the teaching of our Tathāgata, the Great Sage, which exhausts principle and plumbs nature, Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things are induced by the karmic force of sentient beings. Those with abundant wholesome karma have lapis lazuli for ground, gold dividing the paths, jasper branches shading the roads, and jade leaves hanging in the sky; sweet dew satisfies them as food, and gossamer robes serve as their seats. Those with abundant unwholesome karma have sand and soil for earth, gravel and tiles for thoroughfares, barnyard millet to stave off hunger, and hemp garments covering their bodies; they walk through mud and lodge in the rain, harvest in frost and weed in summer heat, toiling day and night to serve the public office. All this is produced by one's own karma; no one else brings it about. You, Sir, in the foolishness of your mind do not recognize this, and wildly say that the Dao generates them. In truth, the Dao does not generate them. How deeply pitiable! When Li Rong met this challenge, he was stunned and did not know how to reply. Huili then seized the opportunity to mock him, and Rong also kept his mouth shut in silence. Thereupon, he slunk down from his seat in embarrassment. Next, the Daoist priest Huang Shou mounted the seat and established the nominal meaning of Laozi. Dharma Master Huiyin was about to adjust his countenance and contend with him, but Huili, considering that in the essence of debate and refutation, praising and blaming come first, and fearing that refuting the name of the Dao might cause some offense, immediately memorialized: 'Huang Shou belongs to the yellow-caps, yet he does not know taboos. Like a fox in the city walls or a rat at the altar, he relies on them in vain. The state has inherited from afar the line of dragon-like virtue; Your Majesty is indeed the descendant of Li, the Old Lord. How could one, in the presence of someone's descendant, publicly debate the personal name of his ancestor? As for the text of the five thousand characters, it contains many noble doctrines; yet he cannot set them forth, and speaks instead of the Sage's personal name. If his offense is weighed according to penal law, Huang Shou deserves more than death!' Upon this, an imperial decree was received, saying: 'Let him establish another proposition instead.' Shou's vigor was thereby crushed; sweating profusely, he lost his composure. Although there were verbal exchanges, their sequence was disordered. As they attacked and argued with each other, it finally approached nightfall. Seeing candles being brought in, the monks arose to take their leave. The Emperor said: 'Observing the debate of doctrines between the two schools just now, their fundamental tenets were not very clear.' Huili thereupon memorialized: 'That the fundamental tenets of the debates between the two schools just now were not clear is truly as the Sage's decree has said. Why is this? When the assembly of monks established a proposition, the Daoist priests did not know its origin. Being ashamed to remain silent, they ended up babbling disorderly words. For instance, when a monk established the doctrine of the five aggregates (skandha), Huang Ze objected using the term "shades" (yin). Now, "shade" takes covering as its primary meaning, whereas "aggregate" takes accumulation as its definition. Just as form has eleven kinds of accumulation under the name of "form", consciousness has eight kinds of accumulation under a single name. Gathering them together under an overarching category is called the doctrine of "aggregates". If he objects using the term "shades", the doctrinal principle is completely contrary. Furthermore, when Shentai established the doctrine of the nine objects of knowledge to be abandoned, the Daoist priests had never heard this term in all their lives; although mounting the debate seat, they did not know where to pose a question. Having no way to cover their shame, they recklessly spoke other words. This can truly be called wishing to go to Nan-Yue while holding the reins toward the Northern Dark; though the horse's hooves travel through the northern regions, they are ultimately not steps toward Yue. Li Rong's reckless talk was also like this. For this reason, the fundamental tenets were unclear, sullying the imperial hearing; the fault lies with the Daoist priests. However, the cardinal tenet of the Buddha-Dharma takes dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) as its meaning. Therefore, a treatise says: "There has never been a single phenomenon that does not arise from causes and conditions." For example, for an eye to see a pillar in the hall, five conditions must be fulfilled: first, the conscious mind is not disturbed; second, the visual faculty is undamaged; third, it relies upon light; fourth, the objective sphere is present before it; fifth, there is no obstruction in between. Only when these conditions are completely fulfilled can the pillar be seen. If the sun's light has already set and the dragon candles are not yet lit, even if there are vermilion pillars, by what means could they be seen? Furthermore, when rice seeds or grain seeds encounter water, soil, and human labor during the warm spring months, they can sprout. If stored in a jar during the summer or cast upon the ground in winter, they will ultimately never sprout because conditions are lacking. Human beings are also like this: internally, karma and delusion serve as the cause, and externally, father and mother serve as conditions; only then can a body be born. If father and mother are parted, it can never be born. Birds, fish, and the myriad creatures are all like this: they arise from causes and conditions. Therefore, a sūtra says: "Deeply entering dependent origination, one cuts off all heterodox views, so that neither the extreme of existence nor of non-existence leaves any remaining trace." Through the Buddha's wisdom, one plumbs the true mark of phenomena; for this reason, the Buddha is called the Incomparably Awakened One, the Teacher of Gods and Humans. The cohorts of outsiders are not like this: the net of heresy entirely covers their minds, and an inverted needle pricks their eyes. Some say that phenomena arise naturally (ziran)—this is the doctrine of Laozi and Zhuangzi in this land. Some say that phenomena arise from Īśvara, arise from Viṣṇu, or arise from primordial matter (prakṛti); some say there is no cause (ahetuka); some say it is past deeds (kṛta). These are all the tenets of heterodox paths in the Western Regions. None of them knows the root of phenomena, nor do they recognize causes and conditions; indulging their whims, they utter reckless words that deceive and mislead the ignorant worldly folk, causing gods and humans to be confused by their false pretenses.' Huili also spoke to the Emperor about the doctrine of the three natures (trisvabhāva): first, the nature of conceptual fabrication (parikalpita-svabhāva); second, the nature of dependence on others (paratantra-svabhāva); third, the nature of absolute consummation (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). 'What is established by outsiders is subsumed under the nature of conceptual fabrication; like flowers in the sky, it has never truly existed.' His detailed exposition of the three natures was voluminous and is not recorded in full. From Huili's arrival at the seat, the time of a meal passed; the monks and Daoist priests, together with the attendant ministers and officials, stood in two rows listening. As it had grown late in the night, they ceased speaking and took their leave. The Emperor said: 'Farewell.' Each returned to their lodgings. After a short while, an imperial messenger arrived and announced: 'Tell the masters that your doctrine of causes and conditions was excellent! Why did you not debate it earlier?' At that time, from the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang on down, all rejoiced. This was truly a case of crushing high banners without laboring temple strategies, and taking strongholds without relying on military might, witnessed on this very day! At that time, because the Daoist priests did not understand the doctrines of aggregates, shades, objects of knowledge to be abandoned, and so forth, none satisfied the Emperor's mind. After the assembly dispersed, according to the Palace Attendant Wang Junde, an imperial decree was issued saying: 'Why do the Daoist priests not study Buddhist scriptures?' From this, the superiority and inferiority in learning and the proficiency or obstruction in debate between the followers of the Buddha and Li [Laozi] were truly recorded as above; the contrast between poverty and wealth is plain for all to see.