佛性說的中國化問題 -- 吉藏到法融的無情有性說之轉向=On the Sinification of Buddha Nature Theory?: A Doctrinal Shift of "Non-sentient Beings Possess Buddha Nature' from Jicang to Farong
無情有佛性=Non-sentient beings possess Buddha nature; 三論教學=Thought of Three Treatise School; 初期禪宗=Early Chan history; 嘉祥吉藏=Jicang; 牛頭法融=Farong; 佛教中國化=Sinification of Buddhism
Chinese Chan Buddhism is usually regarded as one of the most representative example of the sinification of Buddhism. Moreover, in the traditional view on the history of the Chinese Chan schools, The Oxhead school was considered to originate from the orthodox lineage of the fourth patriarch Daoxin (580-651), as Kaiten Nukariya and D. T. Suzuki suggested. However, following the studies on the Oxhead school led by Hu Shi, Ui Hakuju, Sekiguchi Shindai and Yanagida Seizan, the aforementioned view evolved over time, and the historical position of the Oxhead school was reexamined. Later still, Yin Shun deemed that Farong (594-657), founder of patriarch Chan, was the real founder of Chinese Chan and the pivot for the sinification of Chan. In addition to this, he also held that Jicang’s (549-623) and Farong’s thought were derived from the same origin. There are quite a few scholars who have investigated this issue. For the most part, these researches focused on Chinese culture, especially Taoist elements, neglecting the internal dynamics at work within the Buddhist intellectual discussions of that time. In my view, the transmission and transformation of ideas from Jicang’s “plants possess Buddha nature” to Farong’s “non-sentient beings conform with Dao”, which hasn’t been deeply explored by these research, can specifically show former’s influence on latter’s Oxhead Chan: (1) The subject of accomplishing-Buddhahood was shifted from “sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood” to “non-sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood”. (2) The nature of the doctrinal teachings also shifted from “philosophical arguments” to “practically oriented guidance”. In my investigating these issues, I found notion of sinification which has become central to the research of many in this field, fail to account for this ideological shift. Using the approach of constructive interpretation, I try to reconstruct the inner dynamics that have informed the development of Buddhist thought over this period. In contrast to the main historical thread linking Bodhidharma(5th-6th) to Huineng(638-713), the evolution that I wish to highlight here may be considered as an “alternative aspect of Chan’s formation”; that is, “how Jicang’s thought of the Three Treatise evolved into a practical doctrine and teaching of the Chan school”. Finally, I also tried to argue and avoid the approach which stressed the sinification and influence of Chinese culture excessively and then led to ignore the inner development in Buddhist thought and limit the probability of other interpretations about this topic.