Doctrinal Debate in Tang-dynasty
Vinaya Commentaries:
The Substance of the Precepts in the Works of Fali, Daoxuan, and Huaisu
Thomas N
EWHALLIntroduction
According to traditional doxography, three schools (zong 宗) of Vinaya exegesis arose in the early Tang, represented by three scholar-monks and their commentaries on the
Four-part Vinaya (Sifen lü 四分律).1) These three monks were Fali 法礪 (569–635) of the
Xiang-bu School 相部宗, Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) of the Nanshan School 南山宗, and Huaisu 懷 素 (634–707), of the Dongta School 東塔宗.
While these three are not the only Vinaya exegetes who were active during this period, they are thought to be particularly influential, and are known to have developed competing interpretations of the Vinaya and other doctrinal points, including the concept of jieti 戒體, typically translated as either the essence of the precepts or as the substance of the pcepts. This substance is the dharma that was thought to be gained by someone upon re-ceiving the precepts (shoujie 受戒) in a properly performed ordination ceremony, and was also thought to help one act in accordance to the rules that they had pledged to follow.
In this paper, I will outline some of the differences in the interpretation of this concept between the three above-mentioned exegetes in their respective commentaries, and the main points of debate among them. Though this topic has already been dealt with to a cer-tain extent in Sakaino Kōyō s 境野黄洋 Shina bukkyōshi kōwa 支那仏教史講話,2) this paper
finds that these three scholars similarly criticize an interpretation based on the Chengshi
lun, traditionally used by interpreters of the Four-part Vinaya.
The created and uncreated Precepts in Fali s
Sifenlü shu
The oldest of these three above-mentioned scholars is Fali. In his Sifenlü shu, 四分律疏 ( Commentary on the Four-part Vinaya ) he discusses the concept of the substance of the
precepts in a section titled bian shou ti 辯受體 ( Analyzing the substance that is re-ceived ). In his discussion, he seems to be mainly drawing on the a text known as the
Sap-oduo pini piposha 婆多毘尼毘婆沙 (*Sarvāstivāda vinaya vibhāṣā), a treatise on Vinaya
attributed to the Sarvāstivādins, called here by its abbreviated name, the Duo lun 多論:
第二，定二戒體．先依多論，並是色法為體．(X41, p. 536b2)
Second: defining the substance of the two types of precepts. First, based on the Duo lun 多論, both [types of precepts] have [physical] form dharmas as their substance.
This short passage is essentially the heading for one subsection of this larger chapter, while the two types of precepts referred to are the created precepts (zuojie 作戒, or often sim-ply zuo 作) and the uncreated precepts (wuzuo jie 無作戒, or often simsim-ply wuzuo 無作).
Without going into great detail, the various ways in which these two types of precepts (or more accurately, two types of dharmas created in the ceremony for taking the precepts) are categorized and explained, how they are generated through the ritual actions of an ordi-nation ceremony, how they persist after the ceremony, and how they continue to help one maintain the precepts, form the core of the debate about the substance of the precepts.
Here, Fali is asserting that the these two types of (dharmas of receiving the) precepts are dharmas of [physical] form (se 色; rūpa), the traditional position of the Sarvāstivāda school, found in texts like the aforementioned Duo lun 多論.
Daoxuan s Two Theories of the Substance of the Precepts
In contrast, in his Jiemo shu 羯磨疏 ( Commentary on Karman ) Daoxuan appears to criti-cize Fali s position, before presenting his own theory on the matter:
河北魏部，雖依法數正解四分，偏廣多宗．(X41, p. 254b7)
In the districts of Wei and Hebei ( North of the [Yellow] River ), although they base the number of precepts on the correct interpretation of the Four-part [Vinaya], they are mistaken in that they disseminate the [principles of the] Sarvāstivāda school.
Daoxuan s criticism here seems to be aimed at Fali because not only is Fali s explanation of the substance of the precepts based on the Sarvāstivada school, as seen above, the temple that he lived at, Riguang temple 日光寺 was located in Xiang County 相州 which was in the area North of the [Yellow] River (Hebei 河北), which Daoxuan had visited only a few years before writing this treatise.3)
used by exegetes of the Four-part Vinaya, that is, the interpretation found in the Chapter on the uncreated (wuzuo pin 無作品) of Harivarman s Chengshi lun 成實論. This text in-terprets the uncreated precepts as a dharma that is one of the conditioned forces dissoci-ated from thought (xin buxiangyin xing fa 心不相應行法; *citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) and
is thus neither [physical] form nor mind (feise feixin 非色非心). This stands in contrast to the Sarvāstivāda position of the substance of the precepts as a dharma of [physical] form or rūpa, called avijñapti rūpa or uninformative [physical] form in works like Vasuband-hu s Abhidharma kośa. This interpretation can be found in several earlier Chinese works on the Vinaya, including Daoxuan s own Sifen lü xingshi chao 四分律行事鈔 ( Commentary on Conduct and Procedure in the Four-part Vinaya ),4) and is typically seen as the traditional
position of interpreters of the Four-part Vinaya, so Daoxuan regards Fali to be deviating from this tradition.
However, Daoxuan s own position in the Jiemo shu breaks with this tradition by propos-ing an alternate theory of the substance of the precepts that draws on Yōgacāra thought. His theory of the substance of the precepts as seeds (sometimes termed zhongzi jieti 種子 戒體) expounded in this work, is clearly a response perceived problems in pre-existing the-ories of the substance of the precepts. However, many other scholiasts, like Huaisu in his
Kaizong ji, or Ji 基 (Kuiji 窺基; 632–682) in his Biao wubiao se zhang 表無表色章5) (
Es-say on Vijñapti and Avijñapti Rūpa ), continued to debate this concept throughout the Tang.
Huaisu s Position in the
Kaizong ji
Huaisu s discussion of the substance of the precepts in his Sifenlü kaizong ji 四分律開宗記 ( Notes on Setting out the Principle of the Four-part Vinaya ) is mainly found in the chap-ter entitled shou jie jiandu 受戒犍度 ( [Discussion of] the skandhaka on taking the pre-cepts ). The subsection chu ti 出體 ( on the production of the substance [of the prepre-cepts] ) begins with the following overview:
然今案佛滅後，二十部宗，此文即當二戒，並以法密部，攝古來傳律．諸人不尋分部，所以言依成
實宗者，理不然也．但以法密宗義，弘在西方，此出先來盛傳說一切有部．故今解釋並依說一切有
部，明今此色法為體．(X42, p. 487c21)
While it is thought that after the death of the Buddha, there were twenty schools, in regard to the two types of precepts as found in this text, they are both based on the Dharmaguptaka school (fami
bu 法密部), contained within the Vinaya transmitted of old. Many people do not inquire about the [other] schools, and therefore say that [the Four-part Vinaya] is based on the principle of the
Chengshi [lun], but this reasoning is incorrect. Although the principle of the Dharmaguptaka
School has been spread throughout the western lands, here, the Sarvāstivāda was the first to arrive and be disseminated. Because of this, I will now interpret both [types of precepts] based on the Sarvāstivādins, clarifying that substance [of the precepts] is a dharma of form.
Here, Huaisu criticizes the traditional interpretation of the two types of precepts based on the Chengshi lun and expresses his preference for a Sarvāstivāda interpretation of the sub-stance of the two types of precepts as being dharmas of [physical] form. Immediately fol-lowing this passage, it becomes clear that this interpretation is more specifically drawn from the Abhidharma kośa. In addition to having the translator of this text, Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) as his preceptor, and possibly having studied the text with him, Huaisu is also known as the author of a commentary on the Kośa, though this is no longer extant, so it would seem natural that the account in the Kośa is what he takes to be the authoritative ac-count of this issue.
Because his criticism of the Chengshi lun seems to be more general, it is uncertain whether this is aimed specifically at Daoxuan or not, and whether he thinks the Kośa gives a superior interpretation to other Sarvāstivāda works such as the *Sarvāstivāda vinaya vibhaṣa (the duolun) used by Fali. While Huaisu s biography in the Song gaoseng zhuan 宋
高僧傳 ( Biographies of Eminent Monks from the Song Dynasty ) mentions sixteen faults (shiliu shi 十六失)6) which he criticizes in this work, these are not clear from the text
itself, and in many ways Huaisu s work appears to be quite similar to Fali s, rather than crit-ical of it, both in structure and in that they both seem to prefer a Sarvāstivāda interpreta-tion of the substance of the precepts.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have seen that Fali s interpretation of the substance of the precepts seems to deviate from the tradition of interpreters of the Four-part Vinaya who use the the-ory found in the Chengshi lun, instead using the thethe-ory that the substance of the precepts is a dharma of [physical] form derived from the Sarvāstivādin Duo lun. Daoxuan, while bas-ing his theory on the Chengshi lun in his Xbas-ingshi chao, later develops his own Yōgacāra based theory in the Jiemo shu, also breaking with tradition. Finally, Huaisu, while
seeming-ly taking a critical stance to his predecessors, also seems to following Fali to a certain ex-tent, albeit basing his interpretation on the Abhidharma kośa while criticizing the Chengshi
lun. While each of these texts offers a great deal more nuanced discussion than could be
dealt with here, the tendency among these scholars to re-interpret the substance of the precepts in the Four-part Vinaya without the Chengshi lun may have be related to Jizang s 吉藏 (549–623) rejection of the Chengshi lun as Hīnayāna in his Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義, composed around this same time period, a possibility that will have to be explored in an-other more thorough study of these disparate and difficalt works.
Notes
1) See, for example Satō 1994, 258–264. 2) Sakaino 1929, 764–772.
3) See the afterword of the Sifen lü jiebenshu 四分律戒本疏 (X40, p. 175a3–4). 4) See Ch. 14: Suijie shixiang pian 隨戒釋相 (T40, p. 52b3–27).
5) Found in the Fayuan yilin zhang 法苑義林章 (T45, p. 299a12). 6) Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (T50, p. 792c10–16).
Bibliography
Moro Shigeki 師茂樹. 2003. Sōbu risshū no gyōjō, shisō to sono nihon e no eikyō: Shibun risso shokushū giki ni mieru busshin ron o chūshin ni 相部律宗定賓の行状・思想とその日本への影響： 『四分律疏飾宗義記』に見える仏身論を中心に．Kairitsu Bunka 戒律文化 2: 95–112.
Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. 1929. Shina bukkyōshi kōwa 支那仏教史講話, gekan 下巻．Tokyo: Kyōritsusha. Satō Tatsugen 佐藤達玄, trans. 1994. Risshū kōyō: gendai goyaku 律宗綱要：現代語訳．Tokyo: Daizō
Shuppan.
―――. 1993. Shibun risshū no keisei to tenkai 四分律宗の形成と展開．In Kairitsu no sekai 戒律の世 界, ed. Mori Shōji 森章司, 511–529. Tokyo: Keisuisha.
Key words The substance of the precepts (jieti 戒體), Vinaya School (Lü zong 律宗), Daoxuan 道宣, Fali法礪, Huaisu 懷素
