D. HESHANG MOHEYAN 和尚摩訶衍 The Sudden/Gradual Debate

IN CONSTUCTION from this text

Heshang Moheyan was a late 8th century Chan monk associated with the East Mountain Model and famous for representing Chan vs. Indian Buddhism in a debate that is supposed to have set the course of Tibetan Buddhism.

Whilst the East Mountain Teachings (pejoratively known as the "Northern School" Chan) were in decline, having been attacked by Heze Shenhui (a student of Dajian Huineng) as a supposed "gradual enlightenment" teaching, Moheyan traveled to Dunhuang, which at the time belonged to the Tibetan Empire, in 781 or 787 CE.

For Moheyan, this was a new opportunity for the spread of Chan.

After teaching in the area of Dunhuang, Moheyan was invited by King Trisong Detsen of Tibet to settle at Samye Monastery, then the center of emerging Tibetan Buddhism. Moheyan promulgated a variety of Chan and disseminated teachings from Samye, where he attracted a considerable number of followers.

However, in 793 Trisong Detsen resolved that Moheyan did not hold the true Dharma.

Following intense protests from Moheyan’s supporters, Trisong Detsen proposed to settle the matter by sponsoring a debate: The most famous of these debates has become known as the "Council of Lhasa," although it may have taken place at Samye, a considerable distance from Lhasa.

For the famed Council of Lhasa, an Indian monk named Kamalaśila was invited to represent Indian Dharma gradual thesis, while Moheyan represented the East Mountain Sudden Chan thesis and Chinese Buddhism.

Most Tibetan sources state that the debate was decided in Kamalasila’s favour (though many Chinese sources claim Moheyan won)[4] and Moheyan was required to leave the country and that all sudden-enlightenment texts were gathered and destroyed by royal decree. This was a pivotal event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism, which would afterward continue to follow the late Indian model with only minor influence from China..

Moheyan’s teachings were a mixture of the 'East Mountain Teachings' {Chinese: tung-shan fa-men; given the appellation of "Northern School" Chan by Shenhui (670-762)} associated with Shenxiu and Baotang Chan.

Broughton (1983) identifies the Chinese and Tibetan nomenclature of Moheyan's teachings and identifies them principally with the East Mountain Teachings.

THE ALL-AT-ONCE GATE

Moheyan's teaching in Tibet as the famed proponent of the all-at-once gate can be summarized as "gazing-at-mind" ([Chinese:] k'an-hsin, and "no examining," pu-kuan, or "no-thought no-examining," pu-ssu pu-kuan.

"Gazing-at-mind" is an original East Mountain Dharma Gate teaching.

As will become clear, Poa-t'ang and the Northern Ch'an dovetail in the Tibetan sources. Moheyan's teaching seems typical of late Northern Chan. It should be noted that Moheyan arrived on the central Tibetan scene somewhat late in comparison to the Chan transmissions from Szechwan.[6]

Most of what is known of Moheyan’s teaching comes from fragments of writings in Chinese and Tibetan found in the Mogao caves at Dunhuang, Gansu, China. The manuscript is a collection of nine Chan texts, commencing with the teachings of Moheyan.[8]

Moheyan taught in the tradition of the “sudden enlightenment” and was affiliated with the East Mountain Teachings.

The dichotomy of the "gradual north and sudden south" is a historical construction, as both Northern and Southern Schools contained 'gradualist teachings' (Chinese: tun-men) and 'sudden teachings' (Chinese: chien-men) and practices. Moheyan held that all thought (thinking and ideation) prevented enlightenment: “Not thinking, not pondering, non-examination, non-apprehension of an object---this is the immediate access [to liberation]."

He also believed that carrying out good or evil acts leads to transmigration rather than liberation as these acts “lead to heaven or hell.” [10]

An important aspect of Moheyan’s teaching was that if all thought, good or bad, obscures enlightenment, then all actions must be based on the simplest principles of conduct. To achieve proper conduct, all conceptions, without exception should be seen as false: “If one sees conceptions as no conception, one sees the Tathāgata."

To rid oneself of all conceptions, one must practice meditation, trance, and contemplating the mind: “To turn the light [of the mind] towards the mind’s source, that is contemplating the mind… One does not reflect on or observe whether thoughts are in movement or not, whether they are pure or not, whether they are empty or not.”

While Moheyan took a radical approach to the achievement of enlightenment (and defended it vigorously), his position was weakened when questioned by, and entering into debate with, those people who could not meditate, who could not “turn the light of the mind towards the mind’s source.” He conceded that practices such as the “perfection of morality”, studying the sutras and teachings of the masters and cultivating meritorious actions were appropriate. These types of actions were seen as part of the “gradualist” school and Moheyan held that these were only necessary for those of "dim" facility and “dull” propensity. Those of “sharp” and "keen" facility and propensity do not need these practices as they have “direct” access to the truth through meditation. This concession to the “gradualists” (that not everyone can achieve the highest state of meditation) left Moheyan open to attack on the basis of a dualistic approach to practice. To overcome these inconsistencies in his thesis, Moheyan claimed that when one gave up all conceptions, an automatic, all-at-once attainment of virtue resulted. He taught that there was an “internal” practice to liberate the self (‘prajñā’ or wisdom) and an “external” practice to liberate others (‘upaya’, or expedient means). These were seen as two independent practices, a concession to human psychology and scriptural tradition.

The teachings of Moheyan and other Chan masters were unified with the Kham Dzogchen lineages {this may or may not be congruent with the Kahma (Tibetan: bka' ma) lineages through the Kunkhyen (Tibetan for "omniscient"), Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo.[13]

In the texts of Chinese Chan Buddhism we can find many passages where "cessation or denial of thinking" is preached. For example, by the passages in the Ratification of True Principles (ïá×â̽), we can understand that Moheyan, who is considered to have participated in the well-known Samye debate held at the end of the eighth century in Tibet, taught that one can attain Buddhahood merely by abandoning "samjnaa." In fact, in the Ratification of True Principles it is stated as follows:

"If one becomes separated from false "samjnaa"(ØÍßÌ) without giving rise to false mind, the true nature, originally existent, and the omniscience [of the Buddha] will be naturally manifested [to him]."(7)

Moheyan's rejection of "samjnaa" was based on the following two passages of the Diamond Sutra:

 [A] Some people, if they become separated from "marks"(ßÓ), are called Buddhas.

[ìÆìéôîð³ßÓ, öÎÙ£ð³ÝÖ]

(Taisho, 8,750b)

[B] All "marks"(ßÓ) are false.

[Ûíá¶êóßÓ, ËËãÀúÈØÍ]

(Taisho,8,749a)

Here the original Sanskrit for "mark" in passage [A] is "samjnaa," while that for "mark" in Passage [B] is "laksana." However, because Moheyan, when he quoted these two passages in the Ratification of True Principles, altered "mark"(ßÓ) into "samjnaa"(ßÌ), he was able to mark the passages the scriptural basis for his theory of "separation from samjnaa."(8)

Here we must remember the fact that "nimitta"(ßÓ, mark) was held to be the object of "samjnaa"(ßÌ) in the Northern Abhidharma treatises.(9) So we have good reasons to consider that the Chinese words "hsiang"(ßÓ) and "hsiang"(ßÌ) are sometimes interchangeable in the texts of Chinese Buddhism in general. Thus, although Moheyan was wrong in understanding the original meaning or the Sanskrit meaning of Passage [B], his interpretation of "separation from samjnaa" was quite consistent concerning the Chinese translations of the two passages in question.

As to Moheyan's understanding of "samjnaa," it must be noted that all "samjnaa" are, according to him, totally false without exception. In other words, he did not accept the difference between true "samjnaa" and false "samjnaa." This theory seems to contradict with our common sense ideas, because we ordinarily think that there are two kinds of judgement, i.e. wrong judgement and right judgement. But Moheyan thought otherwise. Every judgement or every thought is wrong without exception, according to him.(10) So for him "thinking" or "samjnaa" was something like "original evil," as is known from the following passage:

¡¡

[Question] What is the defect of "samjnaa"?

[Answer] The defect of "samjnaa" is that it covers the omniscience which sentient beings (sattva) possess originally and makes them reborn in the three evil destinations so that they have everlasting transmigrations.(11)

¡¡

It seems noteworthy that Mo-ho-yen rejected, as something like "original evil," not only "samjnaa"(ßÌ) but also "kuan" (κ) in the Ratification of True Principles. So he was famous for his advocation of "pu-kuan" (ÝÕκ).(12) Then, what was the meaning of "kuan," which he rejected so vigorously? His theory of "pu-kuan" also was based on a passage of a sutra. It was the following passage from Kumaarajiiva's translation of the Vimalakitrinirdesa-sutra:

¡¡

[C] "pu-kuan" (ÝÕκ) is enlightenment (bodhi) [ÝÕκãÀÜÌð«], because it is separated from "yüan"(æÞ) [i.e. aalambana-pratyaya].

"pu-hsing (ÝÕú¼) is enlightenment, because it is "Wu-i-nien"(ÙíåãÒ·).

(Taisho,14,542b)

¡¡

Moheyan quoted the phrase "pu-kuan is enlightenment" in the Ratification of True Principles.(13) But because the original Sanskrit text of the sutra is not available, it is very difficult to ascertain the original Sanskrit words for "kuan" (κ) of "pu-kuan" and for "i-nien" (åãÒ·) of "wu-i-nien" in Passage [C].(14) However, according to Hsüan-tsang's translation(15) and Tibetan translation,(16) it seems certain that the original Sanskrit for "i-nien" is "manasikaara," while that for "kuan" seems "samaaropa," according to Tibetan translation, because the Tibetan word corresponding to "i-nien" is "sgro btags pa."(17) But my opinion at present is that we cannot deny the possibility that the original Sanskrit for "kuan" was also "manasikaara," because it seems improbable that Kumaarajiiva translated "samaaropa" by the word "kuan."(18)

Anyway, I think we can assume that Moheyan meant, by advocation "pu-kuan," the rejection of "manasikaara." In fact, it might be an indirect evidence that Kamalasila's opponent in the third Bhaavanaakrama, who is generally considered to be Moheyan, advocated "amanasikaara" and "asmrti" there.

Thus, it seems evident that not only "samjnaa" but also "manasikaara" was rejected as "original evil" by Moheyan. Then what is the meaning of "manasikaara"? It is needless to say that this term has been quite important from the beginning of Buddhist tradition, because it is stated in the "Mahaavagga" chapter of the Vinaya that the Buddha did "manasikaara"(manasaakaasi) on Dependent-arising (pratiityasamutpaada) in regular and reverse orders at the first portion of the night of his enlightenment.(19) So if we can rely on this scriptural statement concerning the Buddha's enlightenment, we may conclude that the Buddha's enlightenment was nothing other than "manasikaara" of Dependent-arising. It goes without saying that we cannot accept the scriptural statement in question as expressing literally the historical facts. But at least we can understand that the compilers of the "Mahaavagga" chapter of the Vinaya seem to have been of the intention to express the interpretation that the Buddha's enlightenment lied in "manasikaara" of Dependent-arising.

Anyway, at least we can say that "manasikaara" has been an important technical term from the beginning of Buddhist tradition. However, the Abhidharma definition of "manasikaara" as "cetasa aabhoga" (directing mind [to objects])(20) seems insufficient. In Japanese Buddhist studies, "manasikaara" is generally translated by Chinese word "tso-i"(íÂëò), and sometimes translated by English word "attention." But I cannot approve these translations. As to the Chinese word "ts-i," although it is well-known for being used by Hsüan-tsang for translating the term "manasikaara," it is just a word-for-word translation of "manasikaara," and besides is not the sole Chinese translation of the term. The following is a list of examles of Chinese translations by diffrent translators for "manasikaara"(21):

Among the examples shown above, "ssu-wei"(ÞÖêî) seems to be the most appropriate for translating "manasikaara," because I think "manasikaara" primarily means "thinking," like "samjnaa." If we consider that the meaning of "manasikaara" is merely "attention," we cannot exactly understand the meanings of Moheyan's denial of "manasikaara" and Kamalasila's vindication of "manasikaara." Thus we can reach the conclusion that Moheyan advocated "separation from thinking," and rejected "samjnaa" and "manasikaara" as the terms meaning "thinking."

It is quite noteworthy that Moheyan's denial of "samjnaa" and "manasikaara" was evidently under the influence of Shen-hui ãêüå (684-78)(22), the famous advocator of the so-called "Southern School." He quoted, in his Platform Speech Ó¦åÞ, Passage[A] of the Diamond sutra(23) and the underlined parts (ÝÕκãÀÜÌð«Ùíåãҷͺ) of Passage[C] of the Vimalakiirti-sutra.(24) Moreover, he stated in the Platform Speech as follows:

¡¡

The mere "pu-tso-i"(ÜôíÂëò, amanasikaara), without mind rising, is the true "we-nien"(ÙíÒ·). --- All sentient beings are originally markless (wu-hsiang, ÙíßÓ). All marks (ßÓ) are false minds (ØÍãý).

If mind becomes markless (ÙíßÓ), it is immediately the Buddha's mind.(25)

¡¡

We must remember here the interchangeability of "hsiang"(ßÓ) and "hsiang"(ßÌ) in Chinese Buddhist texts. In other words, the word "hsiang"(ßÓ) used in the passage above must be interpreted as "hsiang"(ßÌ) which means "samjnaa." According to this interpretation, it is quite clear that Shen-hui's message in the passage above is totally based on Passage [A] and Passage [B] of the Diamond Sutra, because "all marks are false minds" (ÐÑåëßÓíº,Ü´ãÀØÍãý) in the passage above is merely a modification of Passage [B] (Ûíá¶êóßÓ,ËËãÀúÈØÍ), and because "if mind becomes markless, it is immediately the Buddha's mind" there is simply an alter ation of Passage [A] (ìÆìéôîð³ßÓ. öÎÙ£ð³ÝÖ).(26)

Thus it is clear that Shenhui, like Moheyan, denied "samjnaa" and asserted that one can attain Buddhahood only by abandoning "samjnaa," based on Passages [A] and [B] of the Diamond Sutra. Moreover, Shenhui also stated, in the passage above quoted, the denial of "manasikaara," i.e. "amanasikaara," by the word "pu-tso-i"(ÜôíÂëò). But it shoud be noted that the word "wu-nien"(ÙíÒ·) used there also means "amanasikaara," because it seems improbable that Shenhui was not aware that there had been some cases where the term "manasikaara" was translated by Chinese word "nien" (Ò·). Therefore, we may conclude that, for Shenhui, the terms "pu-tso-i" (ÜôíÂëò) and "wu-nien" (ÙíÒ·) are synonymous, both meaning "amanasikaara."

SHEN HUI

To sum up, Shenhui's theory of "no thinking" was expressed by three words, i.e. "wu-hsiang" (ÙíßÓ) meaning "a-samjnaa," and "pu-tso-i" (ÜôíÂëò) and "wu-nien" (ÙíÒ·) both meaning "amanasikaara." This theory of "no thinking" was, needless to say, representing Shenhui's central position, because he stated in the Platform Speech that he erected "wu-nien" as his central thesis (í¡ÙíÒ·êÓðó).(27)

The influence of Shenhui's theory of "no thinking" is to be found almost everywhere in Chan texts later than Shenhui. We have already seen an example in the Ratification of True Principles. But Moheyan, because he belonged to the so-called "Northern School," did not use the term "wu-nien."(28) The direct influence can be found in the Li-tai fa-pao-chiÕöÓÛÛöÜÄÑÀ(774). According to the text, Wu-chuÙíñ¬ (714-774) stated as follows:

¡¡

If [one becomes] "wu-nien," he will see the Buddha.

If [one is] "yu-nien" (êóÒ·), he will transmigrate.(29)

¡¡

Moreover, in the text, Wu-chu is described as the person who have "exclusively stopped thinking".(30) It goes without saying that Shenhui's influence was found in the Platform Sutra ë»ðÓÓ¦Ìè(Yampolsky ed.), according to which it is stated by Huineng´Òö(638-713) as follows:

¡¡

This teaching has established "wu-nien" as its thesis [Ø¡ÙíÒ·êÓðó].(31)

(p.7.11.7-8)

¡¡

, stated in his earliest work Fukan-zazen-gi ÜÅÏèñ¦àÉëð (1227), as follows:

¡¡

Suspend the functions of "citta," "manas" and "vijnaana."

Stop the conceptions of "nien" (Ò·), "hsiang" (ßÌ) and "kuan" (κ).(32)

[ïÎãýëòãÛñýê¡ï®, ò­Ò·ßÌκñýö´Õá]

¡¡

Here the terms "nien" and "kuan" must be interpreted as the translations of "manasikaara," while the word "hsiang" is to be construed as that of "samjnaa." It is clear that Dogen meant here the cessation of all mental function, especially "cessation of thinking."

Thus it is now clearly known that Zen thought, from the pre-Buddhist stage to Dogen, has rejected "thinking" as something like "original evil" and has advocated "cessation of thinking." But why was "thinking" rejected so ardently? My opinion is the following. It is undeniable that the essence of Zen thought lies in its idea of "concentration," or "cittasya eka-agrataa"(one-pointedness of mind),(33) to use the Abhidharma definition of "samadhi." It is quite noteworthy that the word "eka"(one) is used here. The term seems to indicate that the idea of "concentration" cannot be established without conceiving the existence of something one (eka). In other words, the theory of "concentraion," or Zen thought, presupposes the existence of something which is ontologically one (eka) and equal (sama) without distinction (nirvikalpa). In this sense, it is also to be noted that the word "sama"(34) (equal) is found in both terms "samaadhi" and "samaapatti."

Thus, to state rather extremely, it seems evident that Zen thought is possible only when it is based on monism. And this is why Zen thought has been inseparably connected with aatman theory. Then why is "thinking" rejected in monism? It is because both "thinking" and "language," which makes "thinking" possible, have the function of dichotomizing or differentiating objects. Thus, roughly speaking, "thinking" and "language" are antagonistic to monism. Zen thought, based on monism, denies "thinking" and "language."