Wonhyo's Philosophy of Mind

II. Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies (Simmun hwajaeng non)

II Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies (Simmun hwajaeng non) Translation by Cuong T. nguyen Introduction by A. ChArles Muller 163 Contents Introduction 165 Translation 167 1. CAuses of ConTroversies 167 2. Being And eMPTiness 167 3. The oPPonenT’s view 168 4. Wŏnhyo’s response: Words and realiTy 168 5. lAnguAge And eMPTiness 169 6. The Three nATures And reAliTy 169 7. CAnoniCAl sourCes 169 8. nonduAliTy And The universAliTy of BuddhA nATure 171 9. BuddhA nATure is wiThouT Beginning And wiThouT end 173 10. The Two kinds of selflessness 174 165 Introduction As was discussed at some length in the general introduction to this volume, if there is one term that is used more than any other to describe Wŏnhyo’s distinctive approach to scholarly commentarial work, it is hwajaeng, or “resolution of doctrinal disputes.” The implications of this concept in Wŏnhyo are seen in many ways, going from his strict logic-grounded methodology to his profound, faithoriented form of discourse. In all of his modes of discourse, he shows a pronounced ecumenical attitude toward all schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, as well as other religious and philosophical traditions. As a methodological approach, hwajaeng refers to Wŏnhyo’s basic practice of taking ostensibly variant or conflicting Buddhist doctrinal positions, investigating them exhaustively until identifying the precise point at which their variance occurs , and then showing how differences in fundamental background, motivation, or sectarian bias have led to the creation of such variances. Wŏnhyo carries out this process repeatedly, in every extant commentary, in every essay and treatise— to an extent, to our knowledge, not seen in any other East Asian scholar or exegete. Thus it is appropriate that he is known as a reconciler of doctrinal disputes. Since the general introduction to this volume discusses at considerable length the role of hwajaeng in Wŏnhyo’s career, there is no need to repeat that discussion here. The Simmun hwajaeng non (Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies , hereafter SHN), of which only fragments from the beginning portion are extant, is one of Wŏnhyo’s very few works that is not actually a commentary and is not intended to resolve a particular doctrinal theme. It is, rather, a methodological exercise based in both Mādhyamika and Dignāgan logic, seamlessly interwoven with the themes of the major Mahāyāna scriptures, including the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, and so on. As in his other works, his point is to show how ostensibly conflicting doctrinal problems—especially those concerned with innate Buddhahood— stand up under the scrutiny of a rigorous logical examination. There is good reason to guess that Wŏnhyo’s SHN may have been regarded by his contemporaries as his magnum opus. To begin with, the Kosŏnsa Sŏdang hwasang t’appi (Stele Inscription to Master Sŏdang [viz. Wŏnhyo] of Kosŏnsa)— the earliest extant account of Wŏnhyo’s life, composed approximately one 166 Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies hundred years after his death—mentions only two works of Wŏnhyo’s: the SHN and the Hwaŏm chong’yo (Doctrinal Essentials of the Flower Ornament Sutra; not extant).1 This is a fact of some significance, given the extensive influence of some of his commentarial works, such as his commentaries on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, the Nirvana Sutra, and the ** Vajrasamādhi-sūtra. In this essay he does not engage in the work of hwajaeng in regard to any particular text or single doctrinal problem but treats a series of fundamental Buddhist doctrinal and philosophical issues. In this sense the SHN is a unique document in his corpus, which we must assume to have been written at a stage of relative maturity in his scholarly career. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that only the early portion of this work is available, with even this portion missing pieces here and there. The text that is available to us is the result of heroic efforts on the part of a number of Korean scholars toward its reconstruction, and some, such as Yi Chŏng-ik, have attempted to further reconstruct the arguments that may have characterized each of the ten approaches...