Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Indian Disciplinary Rules and Their Early Chinese Adepts: A Buddhist Reality

2008; American Oriental Society; Volume: 128; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

2169-2289

Ann Heirman,

Eurasian Exchange Networks

This study focuses on the various attitudes of Chinese Buddhist masters toward the intro duction of Indian disciplinary rules in a Chinese reality, more particularly in the Chinese society of the fifth to the eighth centuries, a period that saw the full development of Chinese monastic discipline (vinaya) and that continues till today to be the basic reference point for this subject. Many influential masters date from this period, but two stand out prom inently. The first is Daoxuan Hit (596-667), founder of what came to be called the Nanshan luzong l^lllflt^ or vinaya school of Nanshan. This school promoted the rules, and in particular the Dharmaguptakavinaya, seen as the tradition on which the first Chinese ordinations were based. As abbot of the Ximing g?B?| monastery near the capital Chang'an, Daoxuan wrote several influential commentaries, and actively promoted Buddhism at the imperial court.1 The second notable master in this period is Yijing (635 713), who apart from the many other works he produced, is known as the translator of the M?lasarv?stiv?davinaya, and as the author of a detailed report on Indian monasteries, the Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan S$|itFji? l^lffifll, or Account of Buddhism Sent from the South Seas, T.2125.2 The present article aims at improving our understanding of the position of these masters toward the practical implementation of rules into Chinese monastic life. How far can rules attributed to the Buddha, or rules considered to be the core of the ordina tion transmission, be applied in a pragmatic way? Or, from a different angle, how absolute or fundamental are these rules? In order to throw some light on these questions, we shall start with an overview of the background of Chinese monasteries and the reactions to it by Daoxuan and Yijing. In the second section of this study, we focus on the crucial term, like jiao or abridged teaching, a concept that allows an actualization of many rules. Finally, the different attitudes of the masters toward the implementation of rules will be discussed. As we shall see, the same masters adopt very different attitudes when con fronted with the reality of the Chinese context in which Buddhist monasteries function. A strict interpretation of discipline is not always as strict as first announced. On the other hand, pragmatism clearly has its limits.