Seng Zhao’s The Immutability of Things and Responses to It in the Late Ming Dynasty

Abstract

Seng Zhao and his collection of treatises, the Zhao lun, have enjoyed a particularly high reputation in the history of Chinese Buddhism. One of these treatises, The Immutability of Things, employs the Madhyamaka argumentative method of negating dualistic concepts to demonstrate that, while “immutability” and “mutability” coexist as the states of phenomenal things, neither possesses independent self-nature. More than a thousand years after this text was written, Zhencheng’s intense criticism of it provoked fierce reactions among a host of renowned scholar–monks. This paper explores Zhencheng’s main points as well as the perspectives and motives of his principal adversaries in order to shed light on the nature of philosophical discourse during the late Ming dynasty.

Time and Change in Chinese Buddhist Philosophy: From Sengzhao to Chan Buddhism

“…Because of Sengzhao's esteemed status as one of the early founders of Chinese Buddhism, Zhencheng's critique of Sengzhao caused an uproar among his contemporaries 17 . The ensuing exchange constituted one of the major debates in the history of Chinese Buddhism (Lin, 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Fang et al., 1998; Zhu, 2012) and was considered a significant event in the “rise of Buddhist scholasticism” (Liu et al., 2020, p. 7). In Zhencheng's elaborate critique 18 of Sengzhao's theory of the immutability of things, he interpretes Sengzhao's rejection of change as an implicit adherence to the permanence ( zhu ) of things within each time.…”

“…In contemporary scholars' assessment (Fang et al., 1998; Lin, 2019; Liu et al., 2020), Zhencheng's critique of Sengzhao reflects his own adherence to Huayan Buddhism, and it was based on some Mahayana sutras not yet translated into Chinese in Sengzhao's times 19 . However, both Sengzhao and Zhencheng embrace the Madhyamaka teaching of “ emptiness ” understood as having no self‐nature , being dependent‐arising , and having no permanence .…”

“…17 17 Most of Zhencheng's contemporaries rejected his critique of Sengzhao and wrote their own refutations of Zhencheng. There are only about twenty texts that have survived (Liu et al., 2020, pp. 14‐15).…”

“…He divided three parts in this syllogism: thesis ( zong 宗), reason ( yin 因), and example ( yu 喻). For a detailed explanation, see Lin, 2019 and Liu et al., 2020.…”

“…14-15). For the enumeration of these refutations, seeLiu et al, 2020. 18 Zhencheng employed the syllogism in the Yogācāraformal logic for a careful refutation of Sengzhao. He divided three parts in this syllogism: thesis (zong 宗), reason (yin 因), and example (yu 喻).…”