五種種性=five lineages; 法爾定性=determinate lineage; 一分無性=some sentient beings being devoid of Buddha-nature; 判教=classification of teachings; 理、行兩種佛性=Buddha-nature as principle and Buddha-nature as practice; 性、習兩種種性=inborn nature and produced nature
In the early Tang period (seventh century), the debate over whether all sentient beings can attain Buddhahood, centering on the doctrine of five lineages of the Faxiang School, is an important episode in the development of the philosophy of Buddha-nature in China. The debate came to a head when Fabao (c. 627-c. 705) launched a frontal attack on the Faxiang position in his Yicheng foxing jiujing lun. Huizhao (648-714), a leading Faxiang theorist, rose to defend Faxiang's doctrine with a point-by-point rebuttal of Fabao's criticisms. Huizhao's book, Nengxian zhongbian huiri lun, became a key to the understanding of both Huizhao and the Faxiang school's thought on the matter. In my paper "Fabao's Teachings about Buddha-Nature" (published in vol. 22 of this journal), I have examined Fabao's position. In the present paper, I will present the arguments on Huizhao's side of the case. It demonstrates how Huizhao refutes the ideas of "five teachings" and "true mind" central to Fabao's Buddha-nature teaching by resorting to the distinctions between "determinate" and "indeterminate" lineage, and between Buddha-nature "as principle" and "as practice." It shows how Huizhao defends the key ideas of the Faxiang Buddha-nature teaching, such as the idea of the icchantika being totally devoid of the nature of nirvana, by bringing in the distinction between "inborn" and "produced" nature, and by upholding the partial presence of "Buddha-nature as practice" in contrast with the universal presence of "Buddha-nature as principle." By highlighting the difference in Fabao and Huizhao's approaches to the Buddha-nature problem, this paper attempts to reveal the crux of the Buddha-nature debate, which had as its participants some of the most prominent early Tang Buddhist thinkers.
