IN CONSTRUCTION
佛 圖 澄 Fotucheng (2) also taught Dao an
僧肇 Sengzhao 373–414 (1)
道恒 Daoheng 346–417
慧嚴 Huiyan
僧嵩 Sengsong
智觀 Zhiguan (Chih-kuan) 502-557 (2)
僧朗 Senglang 410-510 (3) *
法朗 Falang (Fa-Lang) 507-581 (5)
吉藏 Jizang (Chi-tsang) 549 623 (6)
智觀 Zhiguan (Chih-kuan) 502-557
智凯 Zhikai (Chih-Kai ) 533-610
The Substantialistic Nondual Metaphysics of Emptiness
This is the base of the Chan contemplations of the Emptiness of Emptiness
The roots of San-lun, 論宗, School of the Three Treatises:
Shatika-shastra: (Bǎilùn 百論)
"Treatise on the Hundred Songs" by Aryadeva, 170-270, the fifteenth patriarch in the Indian lineage of Zen: The main attempt is to refute various philosophical theories opposed to Buddhism in order to show the real meaning of Mahayana.
Madhyamaka-karika: (Zhōnglùn 中論)
"Memorial Verses on the Middle Teaching" by Nagarjuna: It has twenty-seven short chapters (400 verses). The main attempt is to refute the Hinayana teaching and also to analyze non-Buddhist teachings.
Dvadashadvara-shastra: (Shí'èrménlùn 十二門論)
"Treatise of the Twelve Gates" by Nagarjuna: The main attempt is to refute the Hinayana teaching and other non-Buddhist teachings.
Kumārajīva (koomärjiv) 鳩 摩羅什 (344~413 or 350~409)
More than 100 translations are attributed to Kumarajiva. Of these only about 24 can be authenticated, but they include some of the most important titles in the Chinese Buddhist canon.
Kumārajīva is estimated to have had 3,000 disciples.
From such a large list of Dharma heirs, who shall we choose as exceptional and inspired?
Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 343–413
Sengzhao 僧肇, 373–414
Daorong 道融, 372–445
Sengqi 僧契
Sengqian 僧遷,
Faqin 法欽
Huibing 慧斌
Daoheng 道恒, 346–417
Tanying 曇影
Daosheng 道生, 355–434
Huiyan 慧嚴
Huiguan 慧觀
Sengrui 僧睿
Sengyan 慧嚴, 363–443
Tanwu cheng 曇無成
Sengdao 僧導, 362–457 established the Chengshi True Perfection faction
Sengsong 僧嵩, (北魏僧) set up the new Three Treatise Model
Sengyuan 僧淵, 414–481
Fadu 法度 , 437–500
Senglang 僧朗 410-510 (3)
Sengguan (4)
Falang (507-581)
Jizang 吉藏, 549–623 (6)
Senghuai, Huiling, Zhiji, were also students and dharma heirs
After Kumārajīva’s death, Sengzhao (僧肇) and Daorong (道 融) remained in the north. Sengqi (僧 契) who also remained in the north became the first Sangha Head (僧主) when Yaoxing the ruler started the Oofficial Sangha (僧官) system.
The other disciples Sengqian (僧遷), Faqin (法 欽)) and Huibing (慧 斌) all held official titles (悅眾、僧錄、僧錄 respectively).
Other famous disciples were Daoheng (道恆), Tanying (曇影).
Daosheng (道 生), Huiyan (慧嚴), Huiguan (慧觀), Sengrui (僧叡) went south. Hence, Mahāyana Buddhism spread throughout the Chinese territories.
For example, Sengdao (僧 導) went south and established the Chengshi School (成實派), while Sengsong (僧嵩) was instrumental in the setup of the New Three Treatises Model (新三論).
The main object of the San-lun model is to shatter delusion and reveal reality. To do this, the school emphasizes a thorough understanding of emptiness and conditionality. The teachings of emptiness spoken of here do not deny the existence of the phenomenal world, only that all phenomena are empty of self nature. This is the base of all future Contemplations of Emptiness
When most people hear the word emptiness, they think of nothingness. To them, emptiness and existence are as different as night and day, and they preclude each other.
The teachings of San-lun dispel such mistaken notions.
道 生 Dào shēng (Tao Sheng) 355 425
Dao sheng was born around 360 C.E. at P'eng-ch'eng (now Kiu-chuan) in a family named Wei. Although little is known of his early life, his later biographers agree that he was intellectually curious, graced with a remarkable capacity for understanding, and "divinely intelligent". His voracious appetite for learning was equalled by a discerning open-mindedness which impelled him to seek truth wherever it might be found. While still a youth, he met the monk Chu Fa-t'ai, a devoted disciple of Tao-an, who had been sent to spread buddhavachana far and wide. Tao-sheng, won over by his instruction, became a monk and disciple under him. Showing the same thirst for knowledge as a monk that he had shown as a young scholar, he became a renowned Teacher by the time he was fully ordained.
In about 397 Dao-sheng made his way to Lu-shan, where he met Hui-yuan and settled down to study. Hui-yuan introduced him to Sanghadeva, an Indian monk who had made the arduous overland journey to Ch'ang-an, moved on to Lo-yang and then came to reside in Lu-shan.
Taking Sanghadeva as his Teacher, Dao-sheng undertook a rigorous study of the Sarvastivadin version of the philosophical Abhidharma literature, a task which occupied his attention for six or seven years.
In about 405 he travelled to Ch'ang-an and was received by Kumarajiva into his inner circle of disciples, where he made substantial contributions to the translation of the Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra and the Lotus Sutra. Dao-sheng became a vital link between Kumarajiva and Hui-yuan, and when he returned to Lu-shan in 408, he gave Hui-yuan a copy of Seng-chao's brilliant short treatise, Prajna Has No Knowing.
While in Chien-k'ang, Dao-sheng discovered Fa Hsien's translation of the Maha Parinirvana Sutra, the last teaching of Buddha on earth. Fa Hsien had brought the book from India in 414 and his translation appeared in 418.
Although the text was immediately popular amongst the monks, it was also controversial. For Chinese Buddhists, the conception of nirvana – in which the candle of selfhood, and therefore of suffering, is blown out – was drawn from Prajnaparamita scriptures.
There nirvana is linked to shunyata, the Void, and ultimate enlightenment is conceived as a kind of absolute emptiness. Despite the injunction to see "the voidness of the seeming full, the fullness of the seeming void", nirvana was thought of as the extinction of the very sense of self.
The Maha Parinirvana Sutra, however, referred to the eternality of the Tathagata's dharmakaya and spoke of the pure joy of nirvana – thereby implying some kind of conscious nirvana. Since the Sutra purported to be Buddha's words it was revered, but the conception of self it implied seemed to verge on heresy.
Dao-sheng had already contemplated nirvana long and deeply, and when he read the Sutra the meaning seemed perfectly clear: nirvana is an utterly transcendental condition beyond any state of conditioned consciousness. The self is not destroyed by being extinguished, but is transcended through a supreme universalization which merges with infinitude.
Conditionality is snuffed out so completely that pure consciousness alone remains, abiding in pristine joy beyond being and non-being. Dao-sheng became one of the Sutra ~ chief supporters, seeking to share its message for the rest of his life.
Nonetheless, Fa Hsien's translation presented a disturbing problem.
As Dao-sheng studied the Sutra, he found that it treated icchantikas, those who live for the gratification of desires, as a special class of human being, in that they do not have the Buddha- nature.
Since it is the germ of bodhichitta which eventually flowers into enlightenment, this assertion, if true, denies icchantikas the possibility of liberation from the bonds of conditioned existence.
Dao-sheng entered into a deep meditation upon the spiritual and philosophical principles enunciated in the Sutra and came to the conclusion that Fa Hsien's translation was accurate, but that the copy of the text he had obtained in India was defective.
His announcement of this view startled his fellow monks. Pushed to support his stance in the face of a revered text stating a contrary view, he propounded his view that scriptures employed symbols to express ideas.
Once the ideas were understood, the symbols could be forgotten. His insistence that all beings have the Buddha-nature was rooted in the ideas of the Maha Parinirvana Sutra as well as other texts, and he felt compelled to reject that portion of the scripture which seemed to violate its own principles.
The boldness of Dao-sheng's viewpoint shocked many of his companions in the Sangha, and a number of monks branded him a heretic, demanding he be expelled from the Order. He faced them squarely in debate and explained his thinking.
Then he swore, "If what I say is contrary to the meaning of the Sutra, may this present body of mine be covered with sores, but if it is not contrary to its truth, may I sit in the Teacher's chair when I pass from life."
Despite the discomfort this caused, his profound conviction of the possibility of universal enlightenment gave him the strength and courage to endure the storm which raged around him.
Dao Sheng was unanimously rebuked, whereupon he left Chien-k'ang for the peaceful solitude of Lu-shan, arriving there around 430.
But Dharmakshema and Fa Hsien had found another manuscript of the text and promptly translated it. The text appeared containing sections absent from the previous version.
The twenty-third chapter of Dharmakṣema's version contained passages declaring that Buddha-nature was indeed universal, and that even icchantikas possessed it and could thus reach the goal.
Dao-sheng eventually avidly read the translation and discovered it taught that Tathagatas are eternal, pure and joyous but do not enter nirvana until all sentient beings achieve enlightenment.
Further, he read that all beings, including icchantikas, have the Buddha-nature and are potentially capable of entering nirvana.
Dao Sheng's detractors in the capital were humbled, suddenly impressed at his prescience.
From this moment on, Buddha nature become one of the foundational tenets of virtually all forms of East Asian Buddhism.
This vindication was not a personal victory for Tao-sheng but proof of the insight and consistency of the dharma and the penetrating power of meditation.
The Buddhist community revered Tao-sheng as a noble example of wisdom and clarity of consciousness and he spent his last years as an honoured Teacher.
Sometime in 434 he ascended the Teacher's throne at Lu-shan and delivered a brilliant discourse on the sutras. When he finished, the monk's staff slipped from his hand and, remaining upright, he abandoned his body, fulfilling the oath taken before the monks who once thought him a heretic.
02-557
In the period following Kumārajāva (350-409) and Seng-chao (373-414), two elements characterize the San-lun Buddhist group centered on Mt. She near the ancient city of Chin-ling (Nanking)
One was the the exclusive study of the primary San-lun texts and the secondary Prajñāpāramitā literature. But there was increasing emphasis
on contemplative practice which not strong in the "old theories of Kuan-chung.
It was occasioned by the fact that the San-lun or "She-ling" sao+̇ was split by internal dissension during the tenure of Chih-kuan Seng-ch'üan which was concerned with clarifying distinctions between San-lun doctrine and the theories of the Prajnapramita.
僧肇 Sengzhao (Seng Chao) 373-414
His leading disciple, Seng Zhao 僧肇 (384-414), further popularizedMadhyamaka thought by packaging it in anexquisite adoption of the literary style ofLaozi 老子 and Zhuangzi 莊子, both ofwhom were extremely popular amongst literati at that time. he was born into an impoverished family which lived near Ch'ang-an. Although his poverty forced him into employment offering neither prestige nor financial gain, he was fortunate to become a copyist, reproducing Chinese texts with his elegant calligraphic hand. His exceptional natural intelligence allowed him to absorb the classics he copied, and even as a youth the breadth of his reading and the depth of his understanding were recognized by others. He was drawn to the Taoist scriptures and especially to their hsuan hsueh, 'dark learning', arcane interpretations of the more mysterious parts of the Tao Te Ching and the writings of Chuang-tzu.
Many Taoists, confronted by the erosion of the social order and the uncertainties of almost ceaseless warfare amongst unstable alliances, sought to give new meaning to the concept of freedom in thought and action. Named tzu-jan, naturalness or spontaneity, this ideal was expounded by analogy with Nature, in which everything happens without anything being done by some obvious directing agency. The awareness that Nature was inherently intelligent in its activities led Taoist thinkers to meditate upon the mystery behind it, wu, essential non-being. Their concern with pen-t'i, the transcendental reality (pen) and its phenomenal manifestations (t'i), formed a natural bridge to the Buddhist distinction between paramarthasatya, absolute truth, and samvrittisatya, relative truth.
Seng-chao immersed himself in hsuan hsueh and absorbed its most profound doctrines, but he felt that somehow he had not penetrated to the core of understanding. When he happened to read the Vimalakirti Sutra, he experienced the thrill of finding new levels of insight, and immediately became a follower of buddhavachana, the word of Buddha, and donned the robes of a monk. Even as a young man, he was already famous in Ch'ang-an for his knowledge of Buddhist and Chinese texts, his brilliance as a thinker and expositor of their meanings, and for his mastery of the art of public debate. Admired by many, envied by some, he found only limited ways to deepen his understanding.
Tao-an had died; the Buddhist community struggled to continue his work, and Kumarajiva, who had accepted Tao-an's invitation to come to Ch'ang-an, was held under virtual house arrest in Ku-tsang. Seng-chao yearned to study under him and, after waiting while one diplomatic effort after another failed to gain Kumarajiva's release, he decided to make the dangerous journey to Ku-tsang to join him.
Since Kumarajiva had a paucity of resources at his disposal in Ku-tsang, Seng-chao was not able to undertake a full course of studies, but he readily assimilated his Teacher's standpoint and dialectical method. When Kumarajiva eventually entered Ch'ang-an in 401, Seng-chao was with him, and though he was the youngest member of the circle of monks who formed the translation school, he was appointed Kumarajiva's special assistant by the ruler Yao Hsing. In addition to overseeing many of the details involved in translating lengthy and abstruse texts, Seng-chao also wrote prefaces to a number of them. He found time to compose a series of brilliant treatises on concepts and topics fundamental to Madhyamika thought, and these works became the foundation for the later Three Treatise school.
When he finished writing Prajna Has No Knowing, he showed his manuscript to Kumarajiva, who praised it as a perfect reflection of his own understanding. He sent a copy with Tao-sheng on one of his frequent visits to Mount Lu, where it was seen by Liu I-mm, a highly honoured lay recluse, who said, "I did not suspect that there might be a Ho Yen [a great third-century Taoist] amongst the Buddhist monks as well." Liu I-mm passed the treatise to Hui-yuan, who was so struck by its insights that he insisted the whole community at Mount Lu study it.
Seng-chao's other essays were also well received, and when Kumarajiva died in 413, Seng-chao was asked to write his obituary. Shortly after the passing of Kumarajiva, Seng-chao composed Nirvana Is Nameless, and Yao Hsing commissioned copies for the use of his royal household. Seng-chao died in 414, not long after his Teacher, leaving behind the largest and most influential collection of early Chinese Madhyamika writings which survive.
After Liu I-min read Prajna Has No Knowing, he wrote to Seng-chao, asking a number of questions about his method of analysis and understanding. Seng-chao revealed something of his conception of dialectical method – and his affinity for the method of Nagarjuna – in his reply:
To say that prajna is non-existent is to say that it is not affirmed as existent, but does not mean that it is affirmed as non-existent. To say that it is not non-existent is to say that it is not affirmed as non-existent, but does not mean that it is affirmed as not non-existent. It is not existent and not not existent. It is not non-existent and is not not non-existent.
Besides employing a double dilemma (or tetralemma) in respect to concepts like prajna, he indicated the importance of logical quantification.
In Prajna Has No Knowing, Seng-chao held that a fundamental tenet of the Prajnaparamita scriptures is the absence of any ontological characteristics in prajna, wisdom and insight. Yet even though there is nothing that prajna knows or sees, there is a kind of knowing without characteristics, or intuition without knowing. Drawing from his intimate familiarity with the Tao Te Ching, Seng-chao depicted this transcendental insight in terms of a mind devoid of knowledge.
When consciousness is emptied of knowledge based on discernible characteristics, it can be filled with insight. In the paradoxical language Seng-chao sometimes preferred, the Sage can be said to know all and know nothing. In part this means that cognition of particulars masks the possibility of universal cognition or all-knowing (sarvajnata). It also means that the empty mind of the Sage is not mindlessness as ordinarily understood, but rather the mirror of utterly transcendental Reality, shunyata, the Void.
If prajna is knowledge without knowing, mirroring the inscrutable, then the mind of the Sage can recognize phenomena and respond to them but it cannot be said to do so with deliberation, intention or motive. Phenomena arise within the Void, but the 'empty' mind assumes a standpoint beyond them, and no attribute appropriate to a mind identified with phenomena can be assigned to it. Just as universal cognition is knowledge outside of events and their defining and adventitious characteristics, so pure mind is beyond the world even whilst seeming to participate in it. This is why Buddha could use innumerable suitable means to aid others in their myriad paths towards Enlightenment. Abiding beyond all means, he could employ what would be useful to that end.
If supreme knowledge is to be characterized, one would have to say with Seng-chao, "Though real, it is not existent; though empty it is not non-existent." Quoting from the Tao Te Ching, he added: "If you wish to say that it exists, it is formless and nameless." In the language of The Voice of the Silence, prajna is that condition in which one realizes "the voidness of the seeming full, the fullness of the seeming void". Since prajna is insight devoid of characteristics, it is void even whilst exercising insight. It is omnipresent, but no search for characteristics or qualities will reveal it. Thus, Seng-chao quoted from a sacred text, "without moving from perfect Enlightenment, the Tathagata establishes all dharmas, elements of existence". This knowing without knowing is knowing spontaneously and manifests as acting spontaneously. "What more can one know? What more can one do?"
Having set forth the doctrine he wished to convey, Seng-chao then stated nine objections and answered them, explaining that the use of paradoxical language is necessary when discussing prajna, for language cannot convey absolute Reality but can only suggest it. For example, prajna is said to have no knowing because it knows paramarthasatya, which is not an object of knowledge but rather the transcendental precondition without which there could be no objects of knowledge. Similarly, there is no distinction between the quiescence and activity of prajna, for its quiescence is its activity. The inherent limits of language are commensurate with the limits of philosophical understanding: dialectic brings the mind to its highest and clearest level of understanding and shows that true insight can be achieved only in a transcending act of realization, for which the most rigorous thought and meditation prepare the mind. "Even though language cannot express such realization, nothing save language can communicate it. Thus the Sage always speaks and never speaks."
A few years later Seng-chao returned to the relationship between language and reality, in part because he found that monks and disciples frequently misunderstood the notion of shunyata. In Voidness of the Non-Absolute he identified three critical misconceptions. First of all, some believe that shunyata is the negation of images of external objects and that such negation voids the mind of all limited conceptions. This view is correct in that total quiescence of consciousness is the necessary condition for realization of shunyata, but it implicitly clings to the belief that things are real whether the mind entertains them or not. Secondly, others believe that form is shunyata because form does not create itself and therefore is made by the Void. True, forms are not self made, but this view wrongly suggests that shunyata itself has some inherent nature out of which forms are created. Thirdly, still others incline to the belief that shunyata is a kind of primordial non-existence out of which all that exists arises – as if what exists could somehow be reduced to shunyata. This is like saying that what exists is non-existing and what does not exist is also non-existing, and therefore non-existence (shunyata) is the matrix of everything. These three misconceptions rest upon a misunderstanding of the nature and limits of language.
Seng-chao argued that while it is acceptable to call things 'things', one cannot call names 'things', for things are not names and do not correspond to actualities. Names are not things and do not correspond to true concepts. Even though one may say that names correspond to things, one slips into a double ontological error in assuming that such a view means that true concepts correspond to actualities. Once this error is recognized and removed, one can see that paramarthasatya is a name and cannot be called a thing, nor can it be said – because paramarthasatya is absolute – that this name corresponds to a thing.
Thus language cannot speak of paramarthasatya as an object, though one can talk about it in an attenuated way. Things constitute a problem for the understanding because they exist in some respects and do not exist in others. What exists does not coincide with paramarthasatya or shunyata, and what does not exist is not merely the negation of images. So even though 'existing' and 'non-existing' differ in respect to name, they are identical in reference. Things are like phantoms, men who exist but not as actual men.
Because a thing has no actuality that corresponds to a name, one cannot aver that a thing is real. Since a name cannot produce a real thing, names are not real. In simpler language, there is no correspondence between names and things that can bear the weight of reality assigned to it in ordinary speech. For Seng-chao, this understanding of the relation between things and names is not simply a discovery about language or a realization of the elusive nature of things, but is a fundamental insight into the mysterious being of the Sage.
The Sage is one in consciousness with the shunyata of things and does not merely impose some adventitious concept of voidness on them. This means that he is identical with all dharmas, or ultimate constituents of existence, and is their support. The Sage is immanent in all things, one with their nature, as indescribable by language as they are. One could truly know a Sage only by becoming one. Thus the problem of adequately understanding the Sage is identical with that of adequately understanding reality.
The last of Seng-chao's great essays addressed the problem of change from a philosophical standpoint. Like Nagarjuna, he used the dialectical method to show the contradictions implicit in ordinary thinking, but in addition he shifted back and forth between the standpoints of paramarthasatya and samvrittisatya to show that much philosophical misunderstanding arises from the inability to consistently keep to one perspective. In Things Do Not Shift, Seng-chao noted that people ordinarily think that change signals movement through time. Nonetheless, the sutras teach that dharmas do not move.
佛 圖 澄 Fotucheng
僧 朗 Senglang (Seng-lang) 410-510?
Senglang was an Eastern Liao person, and he came through the passes (of
He sought refuge from the tumult in Taishan (太山) in 351. He had more than a hundred disciples during this period of seclusion. One of his disciples was Sengrui (僧叡). While in Taishan, he tamed tigers. Senglang passed away at age 85.
the Yangtze) during the Song dynasty. At that time, the Three Treatises teachings transmitted by Kumarajiva and Sengzhao flourished in the north at Changan for a generation, and after Senglang had deeply entered his study, he came south around 480 AD. Subsequently, he entered Qixia Temple at Sheshan, and became a student of Fotucheng (佛圖澄).and after him continued on as the "Dharma Heir" at Qixia Temple, and for that reason he stayed at Qixia Mountain in Sheshan promoting the Three Treatises, and he caused the Three Treatises School to be greatly transmitted throughout the south. Senglang has been touted as the third Patriarch of the Three Treatises School in China.
Because Senglang’s debate recieved the approval of the Emperor Liang Wu Di, he sent ten people such as Senghuai, Huiling, Zhiji, and Sengquan to Sheshan, to study and learn the Three Treatises School’s cardinal principles of righteousness from Senglang, who was the high master of Sheshan
Among these it was only Sengquan who met the demands of this Dharma, and continued the main teachings of Senglang.
There were four great disciples in Sengquan’s Sangha who were called “the four friends of Lord Quan.” They were called “Clarity in Four Sentences,” “Realized Debate,” “Valour in Documents,” and “Proclaim Attained Meaning.”
After this, the study of the Three Treatises went from the mountain Sangha of Qixia to the great metropolis of Nanjing, establishing the basis of the propagation and transmission of the Three Treatises School in south China. Three Treatises gradually was propagated, until there is the saying “according to what is held in Sheling (the Qixia area).”
Of those who were able to hold the lineage of the mountain-dwelling Master Sengquan, only one person, Falang, was designated as the Fifth Patriarch of the Three Treatises School in China.
Falang (Fa-lang) (507-81)
There were many talented people in Falang’s Sangha, and they were called “the 25 Wise Men of Lang’s Sangha,” reaching to Siquan in the west, as far as Wuyue in the south (not clear, probably Vietnam), and reaching to Hebei in the north. There were numerous followers of Falang,
吉藏 Jizang (Chi-tsang) 549-623
Jizang attempted to synthesize Madhyamakan emptiness with the Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha thought gaining prominence at his time, continued the main teachings of the Three Treatises lineage, and in the foolish times of lineage was dubiously honored as the Sixth Patriarch of the Three Treatises School in China.
He also brought innovative new ideas into the model, which analysed the traditional ‘Two Truths’ of Indian Madhyamaka thought into three levels.
Where there was in the original idea the Worldly Truth of Being countered by the Absolute Truth of non-being or emptiness, Jizang took two further steps.
A Worldly Truths could affirm either being or non-being, but the next level of Absolute Truth denied both being and non-being as they are artificial human constructs and could neither affirm them or deny them.
Thus, the Two Truths constantly led the believer into ever-greater depths of realization in a dynamic process that might have rivalled that of the T'ien-t'ai system.
There were many students in Jicang’s Sangha, but there were five outstanding ones, who were called “The Five Heroes of Zng’s Sangha.” They not only transmitted the Three Treatises School throughout China, but to distant overseas countries, and making the crossing eastward to Japan. However, in the end the San-lun model, in and of itself , slowly lost ground to Tiantai Ideas
Jizang was born in Jinling (modern Nanjing). Although his father had emigrated from Parthia, he was educated in the Chinese manner. He was quite precocious in spiritual matters, and became a monk at age seven.[1] When he was young, he studied with Falang (法朗) at the Xinghuang Temple (興皇寺) in Nanjing, and studied the three Madhyamaka treatises (The Treatise on the Middle Way, The Treatise on the Twelve Gates, and The One-Hundred-Verse Treatise) which had been translated by Kumarajiva more than a century before, and it is with these texts that he is most often identified. He became the head monk at Xinghuang Temple upon Falang's death in 581. At age 42, he began travelling through China giving lectures, and ultimately settled at Jiaxing Temple, in modern Shaoxing (紹興), Zhejiang province.
In 597, Yang Kuang, later Emperor Yang, the second son of Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty, ordered four new temples in the capital Chang'an, and invited Jizang to be in charge of one of them, called Huiri Temple (彗日寺). Jizang accepted, despite the fame of Yang's harshness. Zhiyi, a respected figure of the Tiantai school, had accepted to become monk at another one of the new temples, and Jizang sought to visit him, but unfortunately he died before Jizang was able to meet him.[2] He was, however, able to correspond with him regarding the Lotus Sutra.[3] Later he moved to another new temple, Riyan Temple (日嚴寺). When the Sui Dynasty was succeeded by the Tang Dynasty in 617, he gained the respect and support of the new emperor, Gaozu as well, and became head abbot of four temples.
Between ages 57 and 68, he sought to make more copies of the Lotus Sutra so that more people could be familiar with it. He produced 2,000 copies of the sutra. He also made copies of some of his own commentaries.[2][3]
Jizang was a prodigious writer, producing close to 50 books in his lifetime.[2] He specialized in commentaries on the three treatises as well as texts from other Buddhist traditions, such as the Lotus and Nirvana sutras.[3] His students included Ekan, Korean by nationality, who brought the Three Treatise School to Japan.
Zhongguanlun shu (中觀論疏; "Commentary on the Madhyamika shastra")
Erdi zhang (二諦章"Essay on the Two Levels of Discourse")
Bailun shu (百論疏; "Commentary on the Shata Shastra")
Shi er men lun shu (十二門論疏; "Commentary on the Twelve Gate Treatise)
Sanlun xuanyi (三論玄義; "Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises")
Erdi yi (二諦意"Meaning of the Two Levels of Discourse")
Dasheng xuanlun (大乘玄論; "Treatise on the Mystery of the Mahayana")
Kumārajīva (koomärjiv) 鳩 摩羅什 (344~413 )
His Life as Scholar and Translator
It would be incorrect to plunge into the life of Kamarajiva, his work and teachings without understanding the favourable conditions which led him upon that path.
Kumārajīva was born in Kucha(龜 茲) between 344 and 350. His father was Kumarayana, and his mother Jivaka, who was the youngest sister of king Kushana of that central Asian kingdom.
Kumarayana's own history is interesting and noble, for he was from a line of prime ministers of a kingdom in Kashmir. He was expected to become prime minister after his father, but he renounced his hereditary claim and became a Buddhist monk.
Eventually, he set out along the silk route, which threaded its way across the mighty Pamirs and into the Takla Makan Desert and Central Asia. Following the northern route, he came in time to the devoutly Buddhist kingdom of Kucha on the northern rim of the great Tarim River basin.
The Kuchan king welcomed the traveler warmly and with great confidence made him a trusted adviser. Soon he was elevated to National Teacher, 国师 guóshī (kuo-shih), which entailed political and cultural duties as well as those which the Dharma required.
Although Kumarayana was a monk, Jivaka, the king’s younger sister, had a grace, wit and a will fully matched by an exceptional intelligence. It was said that her comprehension of written texts was rapid and that she had only to hear something once to repeat it from memory.
She had rejected all eligible suitors but when she meeting Kumarayana she expressed the desire to become his wife. The king was delighted and insisted that Kumarayana accept the proposal. Even though he was a monk, he bowed to the wishes of his monarch.
Kumarajiva then was born around 344, and when Kamarijiva had reached six Jivaka received permission from her husband to become a Buddhist nun.
Kumarajiva had already learnt the vast literature of the Abhidharma by heart, understood it and had already integrated himself into the Dharma community.
When he was nine years old, mother and son undertook the arduous journey to India, eventually reaching Kashmiri known to the Chinese as Chi-pin.
Bandhudatta, a renowned Buddhist teacher and cousin of the king, instructed Kumarajiva in the agamas (the nikayas of the Theravadin tradition). During the next two years Kumarajiva mastered these texts and was honoured by the king.
In addition to learning the scriptures and treatises of the Sarvastivadin school, Kumarajiva seized the opportunity to study medicine, astronomy and astrology, exegetical and hermeneutical methods of exposition, logic and the applied sciences.
By the time Kumarajiva was twelve, he and his mother set out on the journey back to Kucha.
Passing through Yueh-chih, Kumarajiva and his mother came to the Buddhist Kingdom of Kashgarand settled there for a year he completed his studies of the Abhidharma psychological texts revered by the Sarvastivadins.
Showing wide interests in the Dharma and an eager and inventive mind he concentrated intently on Vedic literature and studied the most important systems of chanting the Vedas, withenphasis upon understanding the power of sound to affect the receptivity of consciousness to transcendental truths.
While living in Kashgar, Kumarajiva met Sutyasoma, a prince of Yarkend (So-ch’e), who had renounced his royal inheritance and gone to Kashgar for spiritual instruction, and he was a revered teacher when he took Kumarajiva under his guidance.
As a follower of Sarvastivadin doctrines, Kumarajiva had learned and held that the ultimate constituents of existence (dharmas) are real, whereas empirical phenomena, which arise out of the momentary confluence of those dharmas were unreal.
Now he was faced with a different idea.
Sutyasoma taught the Mahayana view that all dharmas are themselves unreal; ontologically, dharmas are like empty space and assume distinct existence only in their momentary, ever-changing combinations. This was an essentil component to his future teachings and contemplations.
Legend tells us that Kumarajiva felt a tremendous sense of release and emancipation, declaring, "I did not know what gold is and had previously taken brass for something wonderful."
He learnt the doctrines of the Madhyamika schools, memorized treatises by Nagarjuna and Aryadeva and rapidly assimilated Mahayana teachings.
He insisted that Bandhudatta, his first teacher in India, come to Kashgar and eventually Bandhudatta was won over to mahayana thought.
They stayed just for a year and then moved on to return to their home.
There, within the year he was made a full monk in the Sangha and spent much of his time teaching others.
He continued working quietly with conviction with Madyamika, the central focus of his life work.
He became well-known throughout Central Asia and his fame had even spread to China.
Meanwhile in China In the year 379 Fujian, Fu Chien, (苻 堅) conquered the city of zhixiang (智翔) and brought Daoan (道安) to his capital at Changan (長安). There Daoan established his famous centre for the translation of Buddhist scriptures and texts, with the full support of Fujian
in 382, three years after Dao’an (道安) had entered the service of Fujian a series of famous letters was exchanged with a disciple of Dao'an (道安), Hui Yuan, 慧遠, (344-416), who had mastered most of the Buddhist theory and practice known in China.
Dao’an recommended Kumārajīva to Fujian, and when Fujian sent troops led by Lüguang, Li Kuang (呂 光) to invade Kushana and other kingdoms he was ordered to bring Kumārajīva back upon his return.
The mission was accomplished and Kucha fell to Luguang and Kumarajiva set out with the conquering general. It was 383. and the situation rapidly changed Dao-an died in 385 and six months later the Yao family had attacked and conquered Changan and killed Fujian.
The new dynasty preserved Dao-an’s translation centre, encouraging Buddhist studies and looked forward to welcoming Kumarajiva to the capital, but when Lüguang heard of the conquest of Changan (長安), he halted, declared himself independent, and set up a state known as Later Liang, with its centre at Guzang. Although Lüguang was not a Buddhist he recognized the political value of Kumarajiva.He kept Kamarijiva under house arrest for sixteen years, while also retaining him now as a military adviser.
During this time the rulers of Changan (長 安) aggitated for his release but without success, Kumarajiva thoroughly mastered the Chinese language.
In 401, Yaoxing, governor of the dynasty Jin, who succeeded former Qin’s (前秦) Fujian (苻 堅) as ruler of the new dynasty at Changan (長 安). He had full confidence in the work of Buddhist counselors. He grew weary of fruitless negotiations with Lüguang and his armies attacked and rescued Kamarajiva and in 402 he was welcomed into Changan.
Yaoxing, gave him the title Teacher of the Nation and from then Kamirajiva stayed in the capital Changan (長安), the modern Xi'an, where Kamarajiva taught and translated Buddhist scriptures into Chin.
Within six days of taking up residence in his new home, he accepted the suggestion of a monk named Sengrui, later one of his chief disciples, and began to translate a text on meditation, the 坐 禪三昧經. The Sutra on Zuochan and Samadhi.
From 401 he was at the court in the capital.
Whilst buddhavachana, the word of Buddha, was transmitted to China by brilliant monks and teachers well before Bodhidharma, and several hundred sutras had been translated into Chinese, translators were forced to use terms from Taoism and Confucianism, which unfortunately sometimes caused misunderstanding.
Kumarijiva generated new criteria.
Under the auspices of the ruler, with assistants Kamarajiva and his translators produced numerous important works, such as the Lotus Sūtra , the Vimalakīrti Sūtra , and the Diamond Sūtra , which quickly became popular classics.
His most important contribution, however, was the introduction and understanding the emptiness philosophy of Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka thought, which in China came to be called the Three Treatise Model (三論 Sanlun).
After these three Madhyamaka texts, among others, he translated: The Madhyamaka-kārikās , the Twelve Gate Treatise , and Āryadeva's One Hundred Verse Treatise .
He combined a universal yet unbiased appreciation of truth wherever he found it, a tolerance in hearing diverse points of view and a dedication to his self-chosen task.
Yaoxing was so impressed with Kumarajiva’s abilities that he insisted that Kumarajiva move out of the monastic community into a private house staffed by female attendants, in the belief that the offspring of Kumarajiva and carefully selected young talented women would be as brilliant as their father.
He complied with Yao Hsing’s orders but was concerned about the effect his actions might have on the monastic community.
He likened himself to a lotus growing out of the mud and enjoined the monks to attend to the lotus and ignore the mud.
Knowing nothing about the regression to the mean in genetics, the children of his experiment were disappointing.
It is said that Kamarijiva was not a Dharma teacher but a Dharma scholar, but we can attest from his history that such a conclusion would be incorrect for his interest was the application of theory to practice..
The correspondence with Huiyuan
Kumarajiva’s influence was not limited to the so-called barbarous kingdoms of northern China.
In 378 Huiyuan, one of Daoan’s chief disciples, had gone south and made his abode in a monastic community at Lu-shan, a mountain famous amongst Taoists, Confucians and Buddhists for its majesty and mystery. Within a few years, he became the informal leader of the Southern Chinese Buddhist community. Shortly after Kumarajiva’s arrival in Changan in 402, Hui-yuan wrote to him and encouraged him to continue the work of Dao-an.
A year later, hearing that Kumarajiva might return to Kucha, he wrote again, strongly urging him to remain in China. During the next few years the two monks exchanged letters on philosophical and monastic subjects, and eighteen of these exchanges survive.
Huiyuan enquired about many issues, but he was most interested in gaining a clear understanding of the dharmakaya, the highest vehicle of a Buddha.
Kumarajiva distinguished between dharmakaya, the ultimate body of Buddha, and dharmadhatujakaya, the invisible body consciously evolved by a Bodhisattva to serve humanity in the world even after physical death.
Thereby he showed how that which is ultimately real is reflected in subtle material form through one-pointed and universal consciousness.
In these letters answering questions posed by a serious disciple of buddhadharma, one can glimpse something of Kumarajiva’s own profound insight and understanding. In general, he preferred to remain hidden behind the lustre of his translations and refrained from writing treatises setting out his own views.
He rapidly reorganized the centre so that new translations could be made even while the accomplishments of the previous generation could be reviewed and revised. Within the next few years he translated almost fifty works in about three hundred volumes.