The Reception of Lotus Sūtra Thought in China

Hiroshi Kan’no
INTRODUCTION

T

HE topic of this essay, “The Reception of Lotus Sūtra Thought in
China,” is a potentially vast one, which makes it necessary todelimit our field of concern. Tales of miraculous response speak ofnumerous worldly benefits to be gained from faith in the Lotus Sūtra;widespread devotion to Bodhisattva Guanyin was inspired by the 25th
chapter of the Lotus Sūtra (known, alternatively, as the GuanyinSūtra)—all of these are important developments associated with thereception of the Lotus Sūtra in China. However, in this essay, such topics will not be discussed. Instead, my concern is to investigate the way
in which doctrinal concepts central to the Lotus Sūtra were appropriatedin China. I would suggest that the core thought of the Lotus Sūtra may
be summarily grasped from three basic points of view: The first point is
the idea of the “one Buddha vehicle,” whereby all sentient beings are
considered equally to attain Buddhahood; The second point is the ideaof Buddha Íåkyamuni’s “age-old existence,” according to whichÍåkyamuni Buddha is conceived to have eternal existence and to function as the absolute savior of all sentient beings who dwell in the Sahåworld; The third point is the idea of the “bodhisattvas emerging fromthe earth,” who signify the upholders of the Lotus Sūtra in a world
where the Buddha is no longer present.1
The first of these three ideas, the idea of the “one Buddha vehicle,” isexpounded in the second “Expedient Means” chapter of the Lotus Sūtra.
To paraphrase the text, the chapter teaches that the Buddha appeared in
the Sahå world for one great purpose, which was to bring about theequal salvation of all sentient beings. This is the original way in which
the idea of the “one Buddha vehicle” was presented in the sutra. Thereare embedded within this notion two complementary motifs, one being
the idea that sentient beings may have equal access to Buddhahood and,the other, an emphasis on Íåkyamuni Buddha’s existence and role as asavior figure. Generally speaking, there is a strong tendency to overlook
106THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

107

the importance of the latter point of the Buddha’s salvific role in favorof emphasis on the foregoing idea of sentient beings’ equal attainmentof Buddhahood. Hence one must not be remiss in paying close attention
to the latter of these two points, namely, the salvific role of the Buddha.
The second concept, the “age-old existence of the Buddha,” isexpounded in the 16th “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” chapterof the Lotus Sūtra. The idea that Íåkyamuni’s life-span as a Buddha iseternal, and the related notion that his entry into nirvåˆa at the age of 80
was merely intended as an “expedient display of nirvåˆa” (the idea thatthe Buddha provisionally showed himself to enter final nirvåˆa merely
as an expedient measure to arouse a keen resolution on the part of sentient beings to seek the way), in fact teaches that the eternal Buddha
will appear to persons of deep faith. From the perspective of sentient
beings themselves, this is to grant the possibility that one may “see ormeet the Buddha.”
The third idea, that of the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth, isexpounded in the 10th “The Teacher of the Law” chapter and the 15th
“Emerging From the Earth” chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. The bodhisattvas emerging from the earth are powerful bodhisattvas who haverealized enlightenment in a past age, and who appear in the Sahå world
out of compassion for sentient beings. It seems plausible to me that thepersons responsible for compiling the Lotus Sūtra during its formative
period seized on the idea of the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth
for purposes of articulating their own self-image as devotees.
By limiting our subject to the Lotus Sūtra “in China,” I mean to saythat this essay will focus largely on commentaries on the Lotus Sūtrathat were representative in China. Translations of the Buddhist scriptures into Chinese began around the latter half of the second century,and this ultimately allowed Chinese to study Buddhist teachings in theirnative language. The Buddhist scriptures were traditionally divided into
three broad categories of sutra, vinaya, and treatise. However, as thestudy of Buddhism progressed, additional commentaries and exegeticalmaterials began to be composed for the newly translated sutras, vinaya
materials, and treatises. In China, as in India and other regions, thesutras were considered to be the most legitimate basis for investigating
the thought of the Buddha. Thus expository works on the sutras (i.e.,“sutra commentaries”) came to be composed with utmost fervor.
Altogether we count three complete translations of the text of the
Lotus Sūtra into Chinese: (1) the 10-fascicle Zheng fahua jing,translated in 286 A.D. by Dharmarak∑a (Fahu) of the Western Jin(born around 230; died age 78); (2) the seven- or eight-fascicle Miaofa

108

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

lianhua jing
, translated in 406 by Kumåraj¥va of the Yao-Qin(dates variously given as 344–413 and 350–409); and (3) theseven-fascicle Tianpin miaofa lianhua jing
, translated
jointly by Jñånagupta (523–605) and Dharmagupta (d. 619) in 601A.D.
The Tianpin miaofa lianhua jing is basically an emended edition ofKumåraj¥va’s translation.
The Chinese text of the Zheng fahua jing is difficult to understand.
However, the real focus of Buddhist learning during this period was theprajñå teachings, and it is probably this latter factor, more than the
text’s intelligibility, that accounts for the relative failure of the Lotus
Sūtra to arouse the attention of the Buddhist world at that time. Nevertheless, we should not forget the lectures on the sutra given by Zhu
Daoqianduring the period of the Eastern Jin. In contrast to thesituation of the Zheng fahua jing, the Miaofa lianhua jing ultimately
basked in the footlights of its age, capturing the faith and scholarlyinterests of many people. The majority of the exegetical treatises that
we shall introduce shortly were composed with the Kumåraj¥va text as
their referent. The Tianpin miaofa lianhua jing is a work that was
designed to emend perceived lacunae in Kumåraj¥va’s Miaofa lianhua
jing. But in the long run, it is the original Kumåraj¥va text that people
continued to study and recite. In the most current version of the Lotus
Sūtra, various materials have been introduced that did not appear in theoriginal Kumåraj¥va translation, such as the “Devadatta” chapter.
When we turn our attention to extant Chinese exegetical literature on
the Lotus Sūtra, the oldest surviving commentary is the Miaofa lianhua
jing shuof Zhu Daosheng (ca. 355–434). Daosheng
was a disciple of Kumåraj¥va. However he was a person who, on thestrength of his theories of sudden enlightenment and the icchantika’s
attainment of Buddhahood, was also prized for his independent insights
into Buddhist doctrine. Daosheng himself relates that he wrote his commentary on the basis of notes that he had taken down fromKumåraj¥va’s lectures on the Lotus Sūtra.
With the exception of fragments from various Lotus Sūtra commentaries discovered at Dunhuang, the next oldest commentary after
Daosheng’s Miaofa lianhua jing shu is the Fahua yiji
by Fayun(467–529) of Guangzhai
Monastery.2 The Fahua yiji is arecord of Fayun’s discourses on the Lotus Sūtra as recorded by his disciples. Along with Zhizang(458–522) of KaishanMonasteryand Sengmin(467–527) of Zhuangyan
Monastery, Fayun was
personally revered as one of the three great masters of the Liang
Dynasty. Fayun’s studies of the Lotus Sūtra occupied foremost place inTHE RECEPTION IN CHINA

109

the North-South Dynasties Period prior to the advent of Jizang(549–623) and Zhiyi(538–598). While Jizang and Zhiyi themselves recognized this fact and were deeply influenced by Fayun’s workon the Lotus Sūtra, Jizang and Zhiyi went on to construct their own
views of the Lotus Sūtra which entailed rather severe criticism of
Fayun’s position that the Lotus Sūtra was inferior in status to the
Nirvān.a Sūtra.
Among the works ascribed to Zhiyi we have the Fahua xuanyi,3 which is a synthetic exposition of doctrines from the Lotus Sūtraorganized according to five aspects of ‘profound meaning’ (xuanyi). The five aspects include: (1) the significance of the sutra’s title(ming ), (2) the doctrinal substance or foundation (ti ) of the sutra,(3) the specific thematic or doctrinal thrust (zong ) of the sutra, (4) thesalvific function (yong ) of the sutra, and (5) the respective place thatthe sutra’s teachings hold within comprehensive (and extra-textual) systems of doctrinal classification (panjiao). There is also the interlinear commentary to the text of the Lotus Sūtra known as the Fahua
wenju(Passages and Lines of the Lotus Sūtra). However, neither of these two works was actually compiled by Zhiyi himself. They
were taken down from Zhiyi’s lectures by his disciple Zhang’an Guanding(561–632), who later reworked them into their final form.
Zhiyi is by no means an advocate of “Lotus absolutism,” but he definitely did establish a system of doctrinal classification that centeredsquarely on the Lotus Sūtra.4
In addition to Zhiyi, we also have various works on the Lotus Sūtraby Jizang, the great systematizer of the Three Treatises (sanlun)
school (The school derives its name from its emphasis on the “threetreatises” of the Zhonglun
and Shi’er men lunofNågårjuna and the Bailunof his disciple Óryadeva). He was themost prolific author of commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra, which include
the Fahua xuanlun,5 Fahua yishu, Fahua youyi
6, and Fahua tonglüe.7 Jizang compiled his commentaries on
the Lotus Sūtra with the idea that the different Mahåyåna sutras areequal in their common aspiration to reveal the ultimate truth of Buddhism.
Finally, there is the Fahua xuanzan
of Master Ji(632–682) from Ci’en
Monastery. As a master of the Faxiang
school, Ji explains the Lotus Sūtra from a standpoint where the threevehicles are regarded as real and the one vehicle is regarded as expedient. It is a perspective that differs completely from previous commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra, in which the three vehicles are deemed expe-

110

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

dient and the one vehicle is regarded as real.
No matter how you look at it, these individuals represent some of themost illustrious figures of Chinese Buddhist history; and all of themgrappled with study of the Lotus Sūtra, to which they brought a diversity of religious and scholastic concerns. From the eighth century
onward, sub-commentaries on the commentaries mentioned above cameto be compiled.
Relying largely on Chinese commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra, thisessay will look into the question of how the three core ideas of the
Lotus Sūtra were received in China.
THE IDEA OF THE “ONE BUDDHA VEHICLE” IN CHINA
The “One Buddha Vehicle” as a Foundational Rubric for “Doctrinal
Classification” (panjiao)
The practice of “doctrinal classification” is considered to be one of themost distinctive features of Chinese Buddhism. One of the central
attractions of the Lotus Sūtra for Chinese lay in the Lotus Sūtra’s role asa scriptural foundation for this practice of doctrinal classification. The
introduction of Buddhism to China is thought to have occurred aroundthe first century of the Common Era, with the translation of Buddhist
scriptures beginning sometime during the second half of the second
century. By this time some 500 or 600 years had already passed since
the death of the Buddha. Over the course of these centuries, Indian
Buddhism divided into various schools. Mahåyåna Buddhism also
arose; and along with it, there appeared an attitude of stern opposition
to Nikåya Buddhism (or to a part of them). This enormous diversity of
Buddhist thought was unsystematically introduced to China throughtranslation of works into Chinese, leaving Chinese followers without
any knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances of its historical development in India. By accepting this diversity of Mahåyåna and H¥nayåna
scriptures as the direct words of the Buddha, it was inevitable that Chinese Buddhists would be thrown into considerable confusion.
For example, Lushan Huiyuan(334–416) was perhaps theforemost figure in Chinese Buddhist circles of his day. Yet contrary to
our expectations, when we examine the collection of letters exchanged
between Kumåraj¥va and Lushan Huiyuan (the Dasheng dayi zhang), we are surprised to find out that even he did not have a clear
understanding of the distinction between Mahåyåna and H¥nayåna. As
the study of Buddhism began to flourish, efforts were undertaken to sortTHE RECEPTION IN CHINA

111

out the pedagogical system by which the Buddha was presumed to havepreached the Dharma over the course of his career, which mainly
amounted to providing a semblance of cohesion to the contradictoryideas found in the scriptures. This development marked the birth ofwhat we call “doctrinal classification” (panjiao).
The practice of doctrinal classification came to flourish during thefifth century, just after the period when translation of the most important Mahåyåna scriptures had been completed. By way of example, wemight introduce the five-period classificatory scheme of Huiguan,afigure who was especially prominent in the southern regions during theNorth-South Dynasties Period. (Huiguan’s dates are uncertain, but hewas a disciple of Kumåraj¥va, and his brief Fahua zongyao xu
still survives.)
To begin with, Huiguan distinguishes the two categories of the sudden teaching and gradual teaching as the most elemental division in the
Buddha’s teachings. The former (the “sudden teaching”) corresponds to[the preaching of] the Avatam. saka Sūtra. The latter (“gradual teaching”)
is conceived as a progressive exposition of the Dharma that spans theperiod from the Buddha’s first sermon at Deer Park to his final entry
into nirvåˆa and advances gradually from shallow to profound. The
gradual program is divided accordingly into five sub-categories or phases of teaching. They comprise: (1) the teaching that expounds the threevehicles individually or separately, which corresponds to the H¥nayåna
doctrines found in works such as the Āgama sutras, (2) the teachingwherein the three vehicles are expounded conjointly or in common,
which corresponds to the Dapin banruo
or Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, (3) the evangelical teaching, which represents theVimalakı̄rti and Brahmaparip®cchā sutras, (4) the teaching that reverts
to commonality or sameness, which corresponds to the Lotus Sūtra, and(5) the teaching of eternal abiding, which corresponds to the Nirvān.aSūtra.
There are several distinctive features to Huiguan’s classification
scheme: One is the elevated status that it gives to the Avatam. saka Sūtraas the sudden teaching. Another is its organization of the Buddha’s
preaching in terms of the extended temporal framework of his career, sothat the Buddha’s different expositions of the Dharma are understood toprogress sequentially from shallow teaching to profound teaching.
Finally there is the fact that Huiguan’s system itself achieves theoretical
integration on the basis of this foundational principle of a progression
from shallow teaching to profound teaching.
Within this progressive program of the gradual teaching, the Nirvān.a

112

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

Sūtra occupies the highest place (as the fifth of the five teachings). Consequently, the Lotus Sūtra is relegated to a position that is lower in status than both the Avatam. saka Sūtra and the Nirvān.a Sūtra. Then again,
when one looks closely at Huiguan’s gradual teaching, one can easily
see how his first, second and forth gradual teachings were conceived on
the basis of the idea of the “expediency of the three vehicles and thereality of the one vehicle,” as expounded in the second “Expedient
Means” chapter of the Lotus Sūtra.
The Lotus Sūtra itself represents the Buddha’s preaching career as aprogression from the three vehicles to the one vehicle; and as such, we
can see how Chinese practitioners of doctrinal classification (such as
Huiguan) gave form to their classificatory systems by consulting theLotus Sūtra. Because the Chinese exegetes on the Lotus Sūtra did not
succeed in organizing the instructional content of the Buddha’s career
sufficiently by relying solely on the progression from the three vehicles
to the one vehicle, as a result of that they sought to develop even moredetailed arrangements by making use of such parables as the tale of the
prodigal son preached in the fourth “Belief and Understanding” chapterof the Lotus Sūtra.
This five-period scheme of doctrinal classification placed the Lotus
Sūtra in a position lower than that of the two Avatam. saka and Nirvān.asutras, and for this reason it was severely criticized by the likes of
Jizang and Zhiyi. However, one could say that, even for Zhiyi and
Jizang, the abiding tendency to look to the Lotus Sūtra as a generative
foundation for doctrinal classification in itself remained unchanged.
In summation, the Lotus Sūtra’s concept of the one Buddha vehicle—
the first of our three core concepts—was appropriated in China as afoundational rubric for the formative development of Chinese Buddhist
doctrinal classification. In so far as the attention given to the second andthird core concepts of the Lotus Sūtra was never comparable to it inscope, one could also argue that this first of three concepts was the primary point of concern for Chinese Buddhists.
The Three Vehicles as Expedient, the One Vehicle as Real (“Elaborating the Three Vehicles to Reveal the One”), and the Distinctive Interpretation of the Lotus SËtra Found in the Faxiang () School
We have noted that Buddhists in China seized upon the Lotus Sūtra’s
concept of the one vehicle as a foundational rubric for their practice ofdoctrinal classification. In point of fact, they assimilated ideas from theLotus Sūtra in ways that were consistent with the original idea of the
Lotus Sūtra, so that a formulation such as “the three vehicles as expedi-

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

113

ent and the one vehicle as real,” which in the specialized terminology ofChinese exegetical discourse becomes “elaborating the three to reveal
the one” (kaisan xianyi), was specifically appropriated as oneof the elemental concepts of the Lotus Sūtra. But be that as it may, theFahua xuanzan of master Ji from Ci’en Monastery interprets the idea of
the “one Buddha vehicle” from a perspective that is polar opposite to
the explanations of both the Lotus Sūtra and previous exegetes. Ji’s perspective is that of the Faxiang School, which held that sentient beings
could be divided into five basic categories according to their salvificnatures or dispositions (zhongxing). They include: (1) individuals
endowed with the fully determined disposition of a ßråvaka, (2) individuals endowed with the fully determined disposition of a pratyekabuddha, (3) individuals endowed with the fully determined disposition of abodhisattva, (4) beings whose salvific disposition is yet to be formed ordetermined and (5) beings who are deprived of salvific disposition altogether. Among these five, beings of the first, second and fifth disposition cannot attain Buddhahood. According to Ji, the Lotus Sūtrapreached the idea that “the three vehicles are expedient and the one
vehicle is real” merely in order to direct beings of undetermined disposition (category 4) away from the path of the ßråvaka and pratyekabuddha and toward the path of the bodhisattva. This is because the defining
position for Ji presumed “the three vehicles to be real and the one vehicle to be expedient.” Such an interpretation of the Lotus Sūtra is actuallydifferent from the intentional meaning of the Lotus Sūtra at the time
when it was compiled. However, problems of this sort continued torecur, and in Japan it was picked up in the form of a controversy
between SaichØ
(767–822) and Tokuitsu(d.u.) over the “expediency and reality of the three and the one.”
Zhiyi’s “Three Benefits” of “Sowing, Maturing and Reaping”
As we have indicated, the idea of the one vehicle not only contains animplicit emphasis on sentient beings having equal access to Buddhahood, but also places an emphasis on the role of the Buddha as a saviorof sentient beings. This issue, in turn, intersects with certain discrepancies that occur between the Lotus Sūtra and the Nirvān.a Sūtra regarding
the attainment of Buddhahood. For example, the Mahåyåna Nirvān.aSūtra asserts that “all sentient beings are endowed with ‘Buddha-nature’(foxing),” or an inherent disposition to Buddhahood. The basis for
sentient beings’ attainment of Buddhahood is posited on the basis that
this Buddha-nature is intrinsically present in all sentient beings. However, the Lotus Sūtra took shape before the Nirvān.a Sūtra. When the

114

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

Lotus Sūtra professes that all sentient beings will attain Buddhahood, it
develops this idea from the position that “Íåkyamuni Buddha, in orderto enable all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, beneficently
appeared in this sahå world. That, in itself, was the World Honored
One’s sole, great purpose.” Thus it combines universal attainment of
Buddhahood with a profound religious bond that exists between the
Buddha and sentient beings themselves.
As for the interpretation of the “one Buddha vehicle,” the importanceof the Buddha’s existence concerning the salvation of sentient beings
did not draw much attention in China. However, in thinking through histheories on the attainment of Buddahood, Zhiyi was attracted to thisidea as a point of inspiration and gave it expression in his views on thethree benefits of “sowing the seed, maturing [the seed], and reaping the
fruit.” Specifically speaking, the “benefit of sowing the seed” refers to
the process through which the Buddha forges the initial karmic connections—the first religious bonds—with sentient beings; the “benefit ofmaturation” refers to the process of maturing the salvific capacities ofsentient beings; and the “benefit of reaping the fruit” correlates to theact of bringing about their final liberation and realization of Buddhahood.8 Zhiyi took the story of the Buddha Excellence of Great Penetrating Wisdom in the seventh “The Parable of the Phantom City” chapter
to be an illustration of the idea that the salvific process has a beginningand an end. Accordingly, he conceived the idea that the Buddha actively
provides sentient beings with the three benefits of “sowing the seed,maturing the seed, and reaping the fruit” of Buddhahood.
The Question of Whether the Lotus Sūtra Expounds or Does Not
Expound the Notion of Buddha-nature
The Mahåyåna version of the Nirvåˆa SËtra was compiled in India
sometime during the fourth century of the Common Era. As its core
concept, the sutra teaches that the fundamental essence of the Buddha is
the Dharma-body (dharmakāya). In addition to the idea that this Dharma-body abides eternally, it also advocates that every living entity is
intrinsically endowed with the nature of or disposition to Buddhahood(i.e., “Buddha-nature,” foxing). At the risk of oversimplification, it
simultaneously holds that the Buddha’s body or being is eternal and thatthe Buddha’s nature is universal.
One will notice right away that, on this point, the Nirvān.a Sūtraclosely resembles the ideas of the one vehicle and the age-old existenceof the Buddha that are so central to the Lotus Sūtra. The concept of the
one vehicle implies that all sentient beings are equally capable of attain-

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

115

ing Buddhahood, while the age-old existence of the Buddha suggeststhat the Buddha is ever-abiding. However, as presented in the Lotus
Sūtra proper, the one Buddha vehicle establishes the possibility of sentient beings’ attainment of Buddhahood by positing the existence of areligious bond between the Buddha and sentient beings that persistsfrom the distant past. Hence its idea of the age-old existence of the
Buddha entails a particular historical emphasis which construes this
eternal Buddhahood as precisely a Buddha in history. As the product ofa long and gradual process of formation, the Nirvān.a Sūtra eventuallylaid a foundation for sentient beings’ attainment of Buddhahood bydeveloping the purely interiorized principle of intrinsic Buddha-nature.
Furthermore, incipient teachings on the eternity of the Buddha-bodyunderwent increasing theorization, until it alone prevailed as a concept
in the abstract.
Despite these parallels, the conviction was widespread during theNorth-South Dynasties Period that notions of intrinsic Buddha-natureand the eternity of the Buddha as they appeared in the Nirvān.a Sūtrawere not expounded in the Lotus Sūtra.9 To illuminate this point, let us
introduce some of the criticisms that Jingying Huiyuan(523–592) made of received speculations regarding the Lotus Sūtra’s failure
to expound the Buddha-nature. Tradition holds that Huiyuan compiled acommentary on the Lotus Sūtra in seven fascicles. However, the work
no longer exists. Thus we will turn to the brief critique of Liu Qiu’s
doctrinal classification that Huiyuan provides in his Dasheng yizhang, in which Huiyuan took up the question of Buddha-nature andthe Lotus Sūtra:If you say that the Lotus Sūtra is [doctrinally] less profound than the
Nirvān.a Sūtra because it does not yet expound the idea of Buddhanature, then such a theory is not correct. There is a point in the Nirvān.aSūtra where, in effect, it says, “Buddha-nature is, in itself, the one vehicle.” Why should we necessarily say that the exposition of the one
vehicle in the Lotus Sūtra is not to be equated with the Buddha-nature?
Moreover, when, in the Lotus Sūtra, Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging
encounters members of the fourfold assembly, he announces in a loudvoice: “It is possible that you will become a Buddha, so I will not makelight of you.” It is because he knows that sentient beings possess the
Buddha-nature that he declares, “You will all become Buddhas.” Thisshows that identification [of the one vehicle] with the Buddha-nature ispresent [in the text]. (T 44. 466a–b)

There are two aspects to the method of critique that Huiyuan adopts

116

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

here. His first approach is to cite the passage from the northern versionof the Nirvān.a Sūtra that reads, “Buddha-nature is an alternative namefor the one vehicle.” (Bodhisattva Lion’s Roar Chapter, fascicle 27, T
12. 524c.) This he uses as a proof-text for establishing identification
between the Buddha-nature and the one vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. The
second approach is to find a rationale for Never-Disparaging’s practiceof reverence in the idea that sentient beings are worthy of respect
because they possess Buddha-nature and are destined for future attainment of Buddhahood.10
Jizang and Zhiyi go to even greater lengths to provide proof of thenotion that the Lotus Sūtra preaches the idea of Buddha-nature. However, we will spare further discussion of this point here.11
THE IDEA OF THE “AGE-OLD EXISTENCE OF THE BUDDHA” IN CHINA
As for the “long-enduring or age-old existence of the Buddha,” the second of our three core concepts from the Lotus Sūtra, was relatively
insignificant in China. This situation is closely related to the historicalinfluence of the five-period classification that we introduced above, inwhich the preaching of the Nirvān.a Sūtra was equated with the fifthperiod doctrine of the Buddha’s eternal abiding, and the Nirvān.a Sūtraitself was affirmed as the sutra that revealed the true eternity of the Buddha.
In China, the Lotus and Nirvān.a sutras circulated within one and thesame arena, and it was considered best to study the eternity of the Buddha on the basis of the Nirvān.a Sūtra. Consequently, with the single
exception of Zhiyi, one could say that the Lotus Sūtra’s unique vision of
the historical Buddha as super-historical or eternal Buddha was not wellunderstood. And yet, severe criticism was later directed to representations of the Lotus Sūtra in the five-period scheme, especially the ideathat the Buddha described in the Lotus Sūtra has an impermanent existence.
To begin with, when we look back to the era before the five-periodclassification took shape we find that disciples (especially Sengrui)
immediate to the circle of Kumåraj¥va (the Lotus Sūtra’s translator)
understood the representation of the Buddha in the 16th “The Life Spanof Thus Come One” chapter to be something that symbolized an eternaland limitless life span. As they saw it, the use of hyperbolic similes toexpress vast stretches of time (such as, “eons equivalent to motes ofdust contained in five hundred thousands of tens of thousands of millions of nayutas of asam
. kheyas of trichiliocosm world-realms”) made itTHE RECEPTION IN CHINA

117

possible to strongly impress the idea of the Buddha’s eternity on its
audience. Similes of this sort were accordingly explained as attempts toconvey the eternity of past and future. Thus the existence of the Buddha
was understood to be substantially limitless, both in terms of past andfuture.
Be that as it may, Fayun offered an interpretation from the perspective of the five-period scheme that was polar opposite to this idea.
According to Fayun’s Fahua yiji,12 representations of the Buddha’s life
span in scriptures prior to the Lotus Sūtra assign it a duration of either
80 years (as in the more familiar biographies of the Buddha) or seven
hundred asam
. kheyas kalpas (as in the Śūram. gamasamādhi Sūtra). By
contrast, the duration of the Buddha’s life put forth in the Lotus Sūtra isconsiderably longer than in these other works. This excessive length isattributed to the idea that the Buddha simply used his supernatural powers to extend his life span in order to save sentient beings. Therefore,
the representation of the Buddha’s life span found in the Lotus Sūtra isstill considered by Fayun to be nothing more than a relative sense of
duration. Fayun illustrated his point with the following simile: A post of
five zhang (one zhang equals to about ten feet) is covered over withdirt, so that two zhang of that post is concealed beneath the surface. The
three zhang of that post that stand exposed correspond to the life spanof 700 asam
. kheya kalpas. But when the dirt is removed and the additional two zhang of base of that post is revealed, the length of the pillar
adds up to five zhang, and that length corresponds to the life span of the
Buddha as revealed in the Lotus Sūtra. Thus the difference between earlier and later representations of the life span of the Buddha is no morethan the difference between three zhang and five zhang—it remains
purely a matter of relative measure. If we look at this situation from theperspective of the eternity of the Buddha as taught in the Nirvān.a Sūtra,we can only conclude that, in the Lotus Sūtra, the existence of the Buddha is still presented as impermanent.
Huiyuan of Jingying Monastery has the following to say about theeternity of the Buddha in relation to the Lotus SËtra’s representation of
the Buddha as impermanent:
It is suggested [in the Lotus Sūtra] that the life span of the Buddha
extends into the past for eons that exceed in number the sands of theGanges River, and that it will extend into the future for twice the lengthof its past duration. If one posits that this does not yet illumine the ideaof the Buddha as eternally abiding, then such a theory is not correct.
One must realize that, in the case [of the Lotus Sūtra], it is the manifes-

118

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

tation body (yingshen) seen by the bodhisattvas emerging from theearth that is under discussion. The idea of enduring in the past for eonsthat exceed the number of sands in the Ganges, and enduring into the
future for twice that length, does not actually concern the reality body(zhenshen). If we were to take the reality body into consideration,
its existence would ultimately be inexhaustible. How do we know that
the Lotus Sūtra is referring to the manifestation body and not to thereality body? The Lotus Sūtra says, “I have preached the teachings andinstructed the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth since I became
enlightened.” And it says, “I ever dwell on Vulture Peak and in otherlocations, where I am seen by gods and humans.” It is absolutely clearthat it is speaking of the manifestation body here. Why does the manifestation body endure for twice as long in the future as it does in the
past? It is because the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth—thebeings who, in fact, are the object of the Buddha’s instruction—will all
attain Buddhahood within a future age that is twice the length of the
Buddha’s past life-span, and at that point their dependence on the Buddha’s instruction will come to an end. The Buddha will thereupon
extinguish his manifestation body and revert to his reality body. Hence
his duration into the future will come to twice the length of his past life
span. However, there is ultimately no end to the Buddha’s salvificactivity [of the reality body]. (T 44. 466b)

Basically, Huiyuan derived the passage that reads, “its duration overthe past exceeds the number of sands in the Ganges River; its future
duration will be twice the life span of the past,” from “The Life Span ofThus Come One” chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. The line “its duration overthe past exceeds the number of sands in the Ganges River” is drawn
from the line, “Since I attained Buddhahood, it has already been morethan hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of millions of nayutasof asam. kheya eons,” which appears in the Lotus Sūtra right after thesimile of eons as numerous as the atoms of dust contained in five hundred thousands of tens of thousands of millions of nayutas ofasam. kheya of worlds (T 9. 42b). The passage referring to “a future
duration that is twice that of the life span of the past” comes from theline in the Lotus Sūtra that states, “The span of life that I have experienced since I first completed the bodhisattva path is still not exhausted,
and will yet be double in length the foregoing life span.” (T 9. 42c)
Persons who advocated the impermanence of the Buddha, such as
Fayun, often quoted this passage to prove their theories. However,according to Huiyuan’s interpretation of this passage, the form of theTHE RECEPTION IN CHINA

119

Buddha expounded here is a manifestation body intended to serve thepurpose of instructing the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth. If
those bodhisattvas from the earth succeed in attaining Buddhahood in
the distant future, that manifestation body will have fulfilled its function. Hence it stands to reason that it also would come to an end. By
contrast, the reality body is considered to be unconditionally eternal;
but in fact, Huiyuan does not say a word about where the idea of thereality body might be illumined in the Lotus Sūtra. In this respect hediffers from Jizang and Zhiyi, who construct all manner of painstaking
explanations around such passages as “twice again the number of eonsthat came before” in an effort to promote the idea of the eternity of the
Buddha. Jizang and Zhiyi both try to prove, with even more detail than
Huiyuan, that the Lotus Sūtra taught a doctrine of the eternity of the
Buddha. However, we will not delve into this subject any further at thispoint.13
THE CHINESE RECEPTION OF THE “BODHISATTVAS EMERGINGFROM THE EARTH”
The persons who will receive, uphold and spread the Lotus Sūtra after
the Buddha enters. nirvān.a are the so-called “bodhisattvas emerging
from the earth.” However, in China we do not find evidence of individuals who actively propagated faith in the Lotus Sūtra with the subjective
identification that they themselves were the bodhisattvas emerging fromthe earth.14 A concept of fervent faith and strict refutation of erroneous
thought does appear in the Fahuajing anlexing yi
ofNanyue Huisi(515–577), but nowhere do we find these ideas
explicated in direct reference to the bodhisattvas emerging from theearth.
In my opinion, the most vital and dramatic expression of the Lotus
Sūtra’s doctrine of the one Buddha vehicle is to be found in the veneration practice of the Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging. The added fact thatthe master Xinxing(540–594) of Three Stages Teaching (Sanjie
jiao) incorporated the veneration practice of Bodhisattva NeverDisparaging directly into his own practice is profoundly interesting,indeed. On this point, Teruma Nishimoto observes:
What stands out in Three Stages Teaching as a particularly unique formof practice is the generic worship of human beings undertaken in imitation of the Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging’s religious practice as
described in the Lotus Sūtra This is a concrete expression, in the form

120

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

of religious practice, of the concept of universal veneration (pujing) that represents the pillar of the thought of Three Stages Teaching.
As a single thread that knit together the Buddhists of the North-South
Dynasties Period, the Lotus Sūtra was accorded very high status. But
propagation of the idea that people should actually practice the sort ofgeneric veneration demonstrated by Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging
occurs only with Xinxing. When compared with the disciplines of otherpractitioners, this approach stands out as a signature feature of the practice of Three Stages Teaching. Moreover, it constitutes a highly significant practice for the fact that it derives directly from the core thought of
their doctrine.15

The idea of “universal veneration” is something that involves a basic“recognition of evil” (ren’e) in the form of a stern critique of one’s
own evil tendencies, which is a concept unilaterally central to the doctrine of Three Stages Teaching. At the same time it requires that one
revere all persons other than oneself as “good.” In contrast to the position of Jingying Huiyuan, Zhiyi and Jizang, who looked to the veneration practice of Bodhisattva Never-Disparaging as justification for theclaim that Buddha-nature is taught in the Lotus Sūtra, Xinxing actively
singles it out as a paradigm for his own faith and practice, and this fact
is an extraordinarily interesting point. Be that as it may, in Three Stages
Teaching this practice still bears no direct relationship to a subjective
identification with the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth.
CONCLUSION
Under the classificatory rubric of “elaborating the three and revealing
the one,” the idea of the “one vehicle” (the first of the core concepts of
the Lotus Sūtra was assimilated as a signature feature of a Chinese Buddhist tradition that itself took shape through the practice of doctrinalclassification. At the same time, as a foundation for sentient beings’
attainment of Buddhahood, this concept of the “one Buddha vehicle”
became closely intertwined with the intense controversy over whether
the notion of “Buddha-nature” expounded in the Nirvān.a Sūtra is also
expounded in the Lotus Sūtra. Moreover, emphasis of the role of the
Buddha’s existence in the salvation of sentient beings was taken up in
the form of Zhiyi’s three benefits of “sowing the seed, maturing theseed and reaping the fruit.” Concealed in the shadow of the Nirvān.aSūtra, the second core concept concerning the “age-old existence of the
Buddha” was not regarded as particularly significant. Never theless, theTHE RECEPTION IN CHINA

121

question of whether the age-old existence of the Buddha expounded in
the Lotus Sūtra was to be construed as an eternal existence or an impermanent existence was a heated issue. As for the “bodhisattvas emerging
from the earth,” there were persons who advocated profoundly interesting views on bodhisattva practice, such as Huisi and Xinxing. However,
we do not find individuals who centrally concerned themselves withpropagation of the Lotus Sūtra while affirming a personal identification
with the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth.
NOTE: I would like to offer my appreciation to Prof. Daniel Bruce Stevenson for
the translation of my Japanese paper to English.
Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokekyō no shutsugen (Tokyo: DaizØ shuppan, 1997).
Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokekyō chūshakusho shūsei 2: Hokke giki (DaizØ shuppan,
1996).
3
See Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokke gengi: jō, chū, ge (Daisanbunmeisha, 1995); also,
Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokke gengi nyūmon (Daisanbunmeisha, 1997).
4
Hiroshi Kan’no, “A Comparison of Zhiyi’s and Jizang’s Views of the Lotus Sūtra:Did Zhiyi, after all, Advocate a ‘Lotus Absolutism?’” Soka Daigaku, Kokusai
Bukkyōgaku kōtō kenkyūjo nempō 3 (March, 2000).
5
Shun’ei Hirai, Hokke genron no chūshakuteki kenkyū (Shunjūsha, 1987); also,“Zoku Hokke genron no chūshakuteki kenkyū (shunjūsha, 1996).
6
Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokke to wa nani ka: Hokke yū‘i o yomu (Shunjūsha, 1992).
,
7
Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokekyō chūshakushoshūsei 6: Hokke tōryaku, jō (DaizØ shuppan,
1998) and Hokekyō chūshakusho shūsei 7: Hokke tōryaku, ge (DaizØ shuppan, 2000).
8Fahua wenju 1A, T 34. 2c.
9
See Liu Qiu’s
five-period scheme of doctrinal classification as discussed in thesection on “Doctrinal Traces of the Sutras” (zhongjing jiaoji yi) contained in
Jingying Huiyuan’sDasheng yizhang, T 44. 465a. Also, in the criticism of Fayun found in fascicle 1A of the Fahua xuanyi, it is remarked:
Why is it that you so rashly claim that, in the Lotus Sūtra, the idea of the one vehicle is illumined with full disclosure (nı̄ta-artha), the idea of Buddha-nature is illuminedwith only partial or incomplete disclosure (neya-artha)? Why, also, is it that the Buddha-nature of contributory cause (yuanyin foxing) is clarified in full in the
Lotus SËtra, but the Buddha-nature of comprehending cause (liaoyin foxing) isnot fully expounded? Why does it say that [the life span of the Buddha] extends back intime for eons that exceed in number the sands in the Ganges River, and that its futurespan will be twice that of the past? Does this not, after all, indicate a cause that isimpermanent? (T 33. 691c–692a)
10
A very similar interpretation of Never-Disparaging’s practice had been set forth in
the Fahua lun (T 26. 9a) written by Vasubandhu.
11
In the case of Zhiyi, see Fahua xuanyi 5B, T 33. 744c–746a; for Jizang, see Fahua
xuan lun 1, T 34. 367a–b; also, Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokekyō no shutsugen, chapter 5,“BusshØ-Busshin jØjË no mondai to ChËgoku Hokke shisØ.”12
Fahua yiji 1, T 33. 573c–574a.
13
For Zhiyi, see Fahua xuanyi 10A, T 33. 802c–803a; for Jizang, see Fahua xuanlun
2, T 34. 374c–378b. Also, Hiroshi Kan’no, Hokekyō no shutsugen chapter 5, “BusshØ1
2

122

THE RECEPTION IN CHINA

Busshin jØjË no mondai to ChËgoku Hokke shisØ.”14
The Japanese monk Nichiren (1222–1282) recognized himself to be one of the bodhisattvas emerging from the earth and possessed a keen religious self-awareness as
someone whose task it was to uphold the Lotus Sūtra during the age of the decline of
Dharma.
15
Teruma Nishimoto, Sangaigyō no kenkyū (Shunjūsha, 1998), pp. 47–48. Xinxing
states in his Duigen qixing fa, “Concerning the Dharma of the single personand single practice: The single person refers to the idea that oneself is nothing but anevil person. The single practice refers to the idea, as taught in the Lotus Sūtra, that theBodhisattva Never-Disparaging engaged exclusively in a single practice. For persons
other than himself he had nothing but reverence, regarding them as the tathågatagarbha,
as the Buddha-nature, as future Buddhas-to-be, or as living Buddhas. Thus it is called“single practice.” Dunhuang baozang 22. 237b; Nishimoto, p. 326.