Understanding Chinese Buddhism, early Japanese Buddhism

As I continue to read Francis Cook’s Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, I found his explanation of Chinese Buddhism to be interesting. Normally when looking at Japanese Buddhism, you see lots of schools and sects, with different practices, sutras and so on. However, in Chinese Buddhism, the lines are more blurred:

Hua-yen is an example of peculiarity of Chinese Buddhism, in which traditions of scholarship and teaching arose and were centered around the study of one or more Indian scriptural or commentarial works. For instance, the T’ien-Tai tradition was primarily concerned with the Saddharmapuṇdarikā Sūtra [Lotus Sutra], the Fa-hsiang concerned itself with the Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi, and the She-lun school concerned on the Mahāyānasaṁgraha-śāstra. It was as if in the West a group of Christians were to decide that there was something special about the Book of Ecclesiastes and start a tradition of study, exegesis, and commentary centering almost exclusively around this one part of the whole scriptural tradition. They would still be Christians, with by and large the same beliefs and practices as other Christians, but because of their primary concern with Ecclesiates, they would become known as the “Ecclesiastesians” or the “Ecclesiastes School.” This is what the men did who began the Hua-yen tradition. Their work centered around one scripture, which for them was not necessarily more correct than any other Buddhist scripture, but rather was more complete. (pg. 20-21)

Later, to expand on this point, Cook mentions that the fifth patriarch of Hua-Yen Buddhism, Tsung-mi (Zongmi in Pinyin), is considered simultaneously a master of both Hua-Yen and Chan Buddhism. (pg. 24)

Now why does that matter in the context of this blog? Because some of the schools above were imported into Japan:

• Fa-hsiang (fa-xiang in pinyin) => Hossō (法相)
• Hua-yen (huayan in pinyin) => Kegon (華厳)
• T’ien-tai (tiantai in pinyin) => Tendai (天台)

The point is is that we assume that most schools of Buddhism in Japan are very distinct, self-contained schools, but this is really only true in the later schools of Buddhism in Japan like Jodo Shinshu, Zen and Nichiren Buddhism. Earlier schools of Buddhism had more in common, and served more like “specialty” schools of a more broad Mahayana tradition. Like their parent schools in China, the early Buddhist schools in Japan were scholarly traditions, but in terms of practice and such were probably very similar. Indeed at Todaiji Temple, there were altars and offices setup for the original six schools of Buddhism:

• Kegon (Huayan)
• Hossō (Faxiang)
• Sanron (San-lun)
• Kusha (?)
• Ritsu (?)
• Jojitsu (?)

Also, contrary to what I have been led to believe in the past, it appears that at least some of these schools still survive and prosper, though certainly smaller than the more well-known schools now in the West today. For example the Kegon school has a temple in Hawaii, though it’s not open to the public, while the Hosso school, though low-key, has recently published it’s first introduction book in English to Hosso thought.¹

Meanwhile, in cases like the Sanron school, they reached the logical end of their studies by the 11th century and died out, or were absorbed by Tendai and Shingon Buddhism. In fact, all these early Nara schools of Buddhism have maintained very positive relations over the years with Shingon Buddhism in particular, because Kukai was actively supportive of their organizations, while his rival Saicho was actively opposed.² Indeed, many of these early schools have adopted Shingon esoteric ritual practice into their own schools, while Shingon have scholars frequently studied and provided commentary on classic texts of the early schools.

As I am learning more and more, the accepted history of Japanese Buddhism in the West is somewhat biased, and prone to factual errors. History is written by the “winners”, and as I study various sources about Japanese Buddhist history, I realize that certain popular schools have distorted history somewhat, leaving Westerners with a somewhat incomplete view. Additionally, it’s also nice to shed light on the original Chinese schools as well, because so much of Japanese Buddhist thought, of which Western Buddhists owe much to, depends on it. As scholarship improves, I believe things will continue to round out nicely.

P.S. Back from break. Had a nice Father’s Day weekend.

¹ Already bought my copy for Father’s Day.

² Contrary to popular history, Saicho and Kukai got along well, but Saicho and Tokuitsu (徳一), a scholar of the Hosso sect, traded debates via letter.