Indian disciplinary rules and their early Chinese adepts: a buddhist reality.

• Author: Heirman, Ann
• Position: Report

This study focuses on the various attitudes of Chinese Buddhist masters toward the introduction of Indian disciplinary rules in a Chinese reality, more particularly in the Chinese society of the fifth to the eighth centuries, a period that saw the full development of Chinese monastic discipline (vinaya) and that continues till today to be the basic reference point for this subject. Many influential vinaya masters date from this period, but two stand out prominently. The first is Daoxuan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (596-667), founder of what came to be called the Nanshan luzong [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or "vinaya school of Nanshan." This school promoted the vinaya rules, and in particular the Dharmaguptakavinaya, seen as the tradition on which the first Chinese ordinations were based. As abbot of the Ximing [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] monastery near the capital Chang'an, Daoxuan wrote several influential vinaya commentaries, and actively promoted Buddhism at the imperial court. (1) The second notable vinaya master in this period is Yijing [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (635-713), who apart from the many other works he produced, is known as the translator of the Mulasarvastivadavinaya, and as the author of a detailed report on Indian monasteries, the Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], or "Account of Buddhism Sent from the South Seas," T.2125. (2)

The present article aims at improving our understanding of the position of these vinaya masters toward the practical implementation of vinaya rules into Chinese monastic life. How far can rules attributed to the Buddha, or rules considered to be the core of the ordination transmission, be applied in a pragmatic way? Or, from a different angle, how absolute or fundamental are these rules? In order to throw some light on these questions, we shall start with an overview of the vinaya background of Chinese monasteries and the reactions to it by Daoxuan and Yijing. In the second section of this study, we focus on the crucial term, lue jiao, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or "abridged teaching," a concept that allows an actualization of many rules. Finally, the different attitudes of the masters toward the implementation of vinaya rules will be discussed. As we shall see, the same masters adopt very different attitudes when confronted with the reality of the Chinese context in which Buddhist monasteries function. A strict interpretation of discipline is not always as strict as first announced. On the other hand, pragmatism clearly has its limits.

1. VINAYA BACKGROUND OF THE CHINESE MONASTERIES

   In the first centuries of Chinese Buddhism, monasteries had to function without a Chinese translation of a full vinaya text. This deficiency prompted the monk Faxian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to undertake in 399 a trip from Chang'an to India. In his travel account he explains that his main purpose was to obtain an original version of the vinaya. (3) When he finally sailed back to China, he had obtained copies of the Mahisasaka- and Mahasamghikavinayas, as well as extracts of the Sarvastivadavinaya. In the meantime, however, other full vinayas had already reached China via the northern land routes, and it is in the north that full vinayas were translated for the first time into Chinese: (4) the Shisong lu[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (T.1435), Sarvastivadavinaya, translated between 404 and 409 by Punyatrata/Punyatara, (5) Kumarajiva, and Dhramaruci, and revised by Vimalaksa, (6) and a few years later, the Sifen lu[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (T.1428), Dharmaguptakavinaya, (7) translated by Buddhayasas and Zhu Fonian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] between 410 and 412. A bit later, vinaya translations were produced also in the southern part of China, namely in Jiankang, the capital of the Liu-Song dynasty. There, Buddhabhadra and Faxian translated the Mohesengqi lu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (T. 1425), Mahasamghikavinaya, (8) between 416 and 418. It is also in Jiankang that a fourth vinaya was translated: the Mishasai bu hexi wufen lu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (T. 1421), Mahisasakavinaya, translated, according to the Gaoseng zhuan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], (9) by Buddhajiva, Zhisheng [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], Daosheng [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] and Huiyan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in 423 or 424. Much later, at the beginning of the eighth century, the monk Yijing translated into Chinese large parts of the Mulasarvastivadavinaya (Genbenshuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] T. 1442-1451), as well as other vinaya texts belonging to the same school. (10) Around the same time, however, the Dharmaguptakavinaya was imposed by imperial decree as the only valid vinaya in China, a process strongly stimulated by Daoxuan. (11) The Dharmaguptakavinaya consequently became the reference point for monastic discipline in China, and all ordinations since then have been based on its guidelines. (12)

   From the beginning, Chinese monasteries struggled with vinaya rules, and attempts were made to act as correctly as possible in accordance with the rules. "Correct" in the first place means linked to the Indian vinaya traditions. (13) However, when near the start of the fifth century as many as four full vinayas were translated into Chinese, discussions developed on the sometimes contradictory guidelines contained in these texts. In addition, awareness arose that, if strictly interpreted, vinaya traditions mutually exclude each other. (14) On the other hand, early Chinese monasteries seem not to have taken into account this mutual exclusion. Although all vinayas state that a legal procedure has to be carried out by a harmonious samgha (samagrasamgha), (15) implying unity in the recitation of the pratimoksa (list of precepts) at the posadha (16) ceremony, (17) attendance of all monks (bhiksus) and nuns (bhiksunis) who are present in the legal district (sima), (18) and a sufficient number of monks or nuns to perform a legally valid act, the early Chinese monasteries probably used several vinayas at the same time. (19) This situation gradually changed when Daoxuan started to write his commentaries. In his Xu Gaoseng Zhuan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or Further Biographies of Eminent Monks, he complains that the precepts that monks receive at their ordination and the precepts that they later follow, do not tally with each other (T.2060: 620b6, cl-2). He consequently argues that one should take only one vinaya as a reference point, specifically that of the Dharmaguptaka School, which, according to Daoxuan, lies at the basis of the first ordination introduced in China (620c2-3). (20) This does not imply, however, that only this vinaya should be studied. As is obvious in all of Daoxuan's commentaries, he had extensively studied all vinaya texts. Here he emphasizes that the Dharmaguptakavinaya is the fundamental vinaya text, but that, if needed, others may be consulted. (21)

   This situation did not please the monk Yijing, who was anxious about the actual state of disciplinary rules in China. (22) According to Yijing, many misinterpretations had been handed down, and it was becoming difficult even to understand the vinaya because so many Chinese commentators had tampered with it. (23) He also points out that vinayas should not be intermingled. (24) Consequently, Yijing opined that the only solution was to return to the original vinaya rules, which according to him were to be found in India. (25) Hence he decided to travel to the land of the Buddha. As is well known, he recorded his experiences in his Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan. In India, Yijing was confronted mainly with the Mulasarvastivadavinaya, but also with some practices not strictly in accord with any vinayas previously known to him. (26) This latter fact complicates the picture. For the vinaya masters in China now have three different angles from which to approach disciplinary matters. First, there is the position as defended by Daoxuan, with the Dharmaguptakavinaya as the basis, supplemented by other vinayas. Second, there is the viewpoint of Yijing, who underlines the importance of a new, unspoiled, and pure vinaya. Third, there is the detailed description by Yijing of all kinds of practices followed in Indian monasteries.

   As noted already, the introduction of a new vinaya as defended by Yijing was not successful. (27) Instead, the Dharmaguptakavinaya was imposed as the standard for China near the beginning of the eighth century, following Daoxuan's viewpoint. This did not stop further discussion on vinaya, though. Disciplinary matters of the monastic community were reinterpreted each time a new situation presented itself. This problem was partially solved by the introduction of two new sets of rules, apart from the basic vinaya traditions: first, the so-called bodhisattva rules, and second, the qing gui [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or "pure rules." The bodhisattva rules, intended to provide the Chinese Buddhist community with Mahayana moral guidelines, had seen a growing popularity in the fifth century. The most influential text was the Fanwang jing [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (T.1484), or Brahma's Net Sutra, which in the second of its two fascicles contains a set of fifty-eight precepts. (28) The Fanwang jing was seen as a Mahayana supplement, a guideline for lay people as well as for monks and nuns on their way to enlightenment. It was also introduced in the ordination ceremony. Still, in China even today the ordination based on the traditional Hlnayana vinaya texts always comes first. (29) The "pure rules," on the other hand, started to develop in the eighth century, particularly among Chan monks. These aim at the practical organization of the monasteries. The oldest extant code is the Chan yuan qing gui [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or Pure Rules for the Chan Monastery, compiled in 1103...