This study investigates the practice of the Bodhisattva precepts in modern Chinese Buddhism by focusing on the reevaluation of the precepts transmitted in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. While the precepts drawn from the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, which were favored since the Tang dynasty, remained the most influential set, a few prominent modern masters and scholars preferred the Yogācāra precepts. The essay introduces the major cases of implementing this set during the Republic of China, including laymen Yang Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1911), Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943) and Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1896–1989), master Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947) and his lineage, Fazun 法尊 (1902–1980) and Nenghai 能海 (1886–1967). Finally, an assessment of the role of the Yogācāra precepts in contemporary Mainland China is also provided. The essay argues that the role of the Yogācāra precepts during the Republic was stimulated by the emergence of a modern, text-oriented understanding of Buddhism, and that it also reflected an inclination for an actual investment in worldly affairs by Taixu and his followers. To the modern promoters of the Yogācāra set, its superiority lied in four main aspects: its ‘authenticity’, as they are deemed to be authentically Indian; its ‘autonomy’ from the śrāvaka Vinaya; its ‘inclusivity,’ i.e., its suitability for both monastics and lay people; and its ‘feasibility,’ as these precepts were believed to be easier to follow in modern times. In contemporary Mainland China, Yogācāra precepts no longer play a significant role in the formal ritual practices of Chinese Buddhists, with the exception of Nenghai’s Sino-Tibetan communities. This is mainly due to the standardization of ordination procedures (which include conferral of the Brahmā’s Net set). Yet, their enduring renown on a theoretical level may reflect an anti-sectarian sentiment within contemporary Chinese Buddhism, which allows to see the two sets of precepts as complementary rather than as mutually exclusive.
Yogācāra Bodhisattva Precepts in Twentieth Century China: Reevaluating Rules and Commitments in the Light of Modernity
ester bianchi
2023
Abstract
This study investigates the practice of the Bodhisattva precepts in modern Chinese Buddhism by focusing on the reevaluation of the precepts transmitted in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. While the precepts drawn from the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra, which were favored since the Tang dynasty, remained the most influential set, a few prominent modern masters and scholars preferred the Yogācāra precepts. The essay introduces the major cases of implementing this set during the Republic of China, including laymen Yang Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1911), Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943) and Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1896–1989), master Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947) and his lineage, Fazun 法尊 (1902–1980) and Nenghai 能海 (1886–1967). Finally, an assessment of the role of the Yogācāra precepts in contemporary Mainland China is also provided. The essay argues that the role of the Yogācāra precepts during the Republic was stimulated by the emergence of a modern, text-oriented understanding of Buddhism, and that it also reflected an inclination for an actual investment in worldly affairs by Taixu and his followers. To the modern promoters of the Yogācāra set, its superiority lied in four main aspects: its ‘authenticity’, as they are deemed to be authentically Indian; its ‘autonomy’ from the śrāvaka Vinaya; its ‘inclusivity,’ i.e., its suitability for both monastics and lay people; and its ‘feasibility,’ as these precepts were believed to be easier to follow in modern times. In contemporary Mainland China, Yogācāra precepts no longer play a significant role in the formal ritual practices of Chinese Buddhists, with the exception of Nenghai’s Sino-Tibetan communities. This is mainly due to the standardization of ordination procedures (which include conferral of the Brahmā’s Net set). Yet, their enduring renown on a theoretical level may reflect an anti-sectarian sentiment within contemporary Chinese Buddhism, which allows to see the two sets of precepts as complementary rather than as mutually exclusive.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
