In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3. Introduction The symbiotic relationships between charismatic religious individuals, the communities and institutions that grow around them, the society in which they live, and the state that seeks to control them have always been among the more revealing in Chinese history. Buddhism, with an arguably transcendent doctrine of individual perfection (the awakening of the individual in Buddhahood) as well as an emphasis on altruistic practice within the world (the practice of the bodhisattva) presents a particularly rich ³eld for the investigation of these relationships. This book is concerned with the teachings of one such charismatic religious leader, Hsin-hsing =‘ (540–594), the popular and inμuential new religious community that formed around him (the San-chieh X‰ or Three Levels movement), and the persistent of³cial proscription that they encountered. The focus of the study is not, however, the suppressions of Hsin-hsing’s teachings or the purely historical setting of his community; rather it is the way in which he drew from the wider context of normative Buddhist ideals in order to forge new soteriological opportunities and institutional practices that he believed uniquely resonated with that historical setting. Anyone interested in the San-chieh teachings or related areas of Buddhist doctrinal and institutional history must begin with Yabuki Keiki’s epochal Sangaikyõ no kenkyð published in the 1920s; unfortunately, most research ends there as well.1 Until now there has been no book-length study of the San-chieh materials in any language since Yabuki’s work more than a halfcentury ago, and precious few articles.2 The paucity of research should not, however, lead scholars to assume that Yabuki’s solitary study said it all—on the contrary, his study can only whet the intellectual appetite of the curious and patient student, for many questions remain unanswered. For example, what does it mean when a tradition that insists on a universal and abiding truth predicts its own demise? Is the decline tradition a teaching about external 1 Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyõ no kenkyð (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1927; reprint, 1974). 2 Just as I finished this manuscript Nishimoto Teruma’s outstanding new book Sangaikyõ no kenkyð (Tokyo: Shunjðsha, 1998) appeared; I have endeavored to incorporate his research where appropriate. vii historical events, or is it concerned with the internal, the moral condition of humankind—or, as I will suggest, something rather different altogether? How does this notion develop in China; what are its terms, texts, and dates, and what are the parameters of its discussion? What are the forms of the tradition (narratives, polemics, etc.)? How is it introduced and by whom? Is there a difference in understanding between the Chinese “consumers” of the idea of the demise of the dharma and the Indian “producers” of this idea? What spurred the Chinese to decide that the prophesied time of the destruction of the Buddha-dharma had actually arrived, and with what did they respond? What is the relationship of the three levels of Hsin-hsing’s teaching to the doctrine of three distinct periods of the Buddha Š„kyamuni’s dispensation : the true doctrine (cheng fa ±À), semblance doctrine (hsiang fa …À), and ³nal doctrine (mo fa =À)? Is mo fa an Indian Buddhist concept or solely a creation of the Chinese, an “apocryphal word,” as some have alleged? What was the political and institutional import of such a pessimistic assessment of one’s contemporaries? Given the importance of the doctrine of mo fa in East Asian Buddhism and signi³cant new research on this topic, all of these questions, and more, demand thorough answers. The same can be said of the doctrine of universal Buddha-nature, a teaching that, like the decline motif, undergirds much, if not all, of East Asian Buddhism. Unlike the apophatic terms of the Madhyamaka or the analytic approach of the Yog„c„ra, the universal capacity of all living beings for Buddhahood is an extremely positive teaching that has even been labeled “devotional.” How does Hsin-hsing’s expression of this doctrine as the refuge of the Universal Buddha compare to those of other teachers and schools, such as the Ti-lun, She-lun, or the later Hua-yen? What impact did his teachings have on other more rebellious movements of the time? How was the idea of the Universal Buddha realized in the institution of the sangha and what did this mean for the observance of the monastic regulations? The San-chieh teachings denied the Buddha-nature of the non-sentient, as did the later Hua...

Share