Ching Keng
耿晴
Ching Keng 耿晴 is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. His field of research is Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha thought in India and China during the medieval period. He has been part of various research projects studying Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Viṃśikā of Vasubandhu and Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā of Dignāga, Wŏnch’uk’s Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and the development of the Three-Nature theory (trisvabhāva-nirdeśa) in Yogâcāra. Among his publications are: his PhD dissertation, entitled “Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramârtha (499-569 CE) and His Chinese Disciples” (2009); and journal articles such as "A Fundamental Difficulty Embedded in the Soteriology of Tathāgatagarbha Thought? – An Investigation Focusing on the Ratnagotravibhāga (2013), and "The Dharma-body as the Disclosure of Thusness: On the Characterization of the Dharma-body in the Nengduan jin’gang banruo boluomi jing shi." (2014) (both written in Chinese). (Source: A Distant Mirror, 530–31)
Library Items
A Distant Mirror
In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions. (Source: Hamburg University Press)
Lin, Chen-kuo, and Michael Radich, eds. A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 3. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2014. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/146/pdf/HamburgUP_HBS03_LinRadich_Mirror.pdf.
Lin, Chen-kuo, and Michael Radich, eds. A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 3. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2014. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/146/pdf/HamburgUP_HBS03_LinRadich_Mirror.pdf.;A Distant Mirror;Dasheng qixin lun;Two Truths;Yogācāra;Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra;*Amalavijñāna;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Early Buddhism;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Indian Buddhism;A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism
A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan
Ching Keng’s paper challenges the prevalent assumption that the Awakening of Faith was composed under the influence of the Dilun School. Keng aims to show that in the representative works of Huiyuan, arguably the most important Dilun master, we do not find the essential doctrinal feature of the Awakening of Faith, namely, the compromise or even the total obliteration of the distinction between unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) and conditioned (saṃskṛta) dharmas. Keng observes that almost all available studies of Huiyuan focus on a small piece entitled "Bashi yi" (八識義, "On the Meaning of the Eight Consciousnesses"), which shows strong influence from the "Awakening of Faith"; but that other works of Huiyuan outline a very different conceptual scheme. Taking these other works as representing Huiyuan's earlier thought, and therefore Dilun thought, Keng argues that the hallmark of Huiyuan's thought is a dualist scheme, in which the inherently pure aspect is unambiguously unconditioned, with no blending with conditioned dharmas; this inherently pure aspect can adjust to falsity (suiwang 隨妄) and give rise to misconception, but without compromising its unconditioned nature. Upon this basis, Keng contends that the compromise between unconditioned and conditioned in the Awakening of Faith should be regarded as an innovation, rather than a direct outgrowth from Dilun thought. An important broader implication of Keng's argument is that Huiyuan’s thought, Dilun thought, and even the thought of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra has been anachronistically misinterpreted through the later, typically Chinese lens of the Awakening of Faith. This suggests the sobering possibility that typically "sinitic" (or even "sinified") developments became so pervasive in the later East Asian tradition that their stamp may still lie heavy upon parts of modern Buddhology itself, and that we might therefore overlook both evidence and products of "sinifying" processes, and even the actual features of Indic materials. (Radich and Lin, introduction to A Distant Mirror, 25–26)
Keng, Ching. "A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan." In A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism, edited by Chen-kuo Lin and Michael Radich, 183–215. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2014. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/146/chapter/HamburgUP_HBS03_Keng_LinRadich_Mirror.pdf.
Keng, Ching. "A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan." In A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism, edited by Chen-kuo Lin and Michael Radich, 183–215. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2014. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/146/chapter/HamburgUP_HBS03_Keng_LinRadich_Mirror.pdf.;A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan;Dasheng qixin lun;Ching Keng; 
Toward a New Image of Paramārtha (Keng 2023)
Yogacāra and Tathāgatagarbha are often regarded as antagonistic Indian Buddhist traditions. Paramārtha (499–569) is traditionally credited with amalgamating these philosophies by translating one of the most influential Tathāgatagarbha texts in East Asia, the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana, and introducing Tathāgatagarbha notions into his translations of Yogacāra texts.
Engaging with the digitalized Chinese Buddhist canon, Ching Keng draws on clues from a long-lost Dunhuang fragment [T2805] and considers its striking similarities with Paramārtha's corpus with respect to terminology, style of phrasing, and doctrines. In this cutting-edge interpretation of the concept of jiexing, Keng demystifies the image of Paramārtha and makes the case that the fragment holds the key to recover his original teachings. (Source: H-Net)
Keng, Ching. Toward a New Image of Paramārtha: Yogacāra and Tathāgatagarbha Buddhism Revisited. Bloomsbury Studies in World Philosophies. London: Bloomsbury, 2023.
Keng, Ching. Toward a New Image of Paramārtha: Yogacāra and Tathāgatagarbha Buddhism Revisited. Bloomsbury Studies in World Philosophies. London: Bloomsbury, 2023.;Toward a New Image of Paramārtha (Keng 2023);Paramārtha;tathāgatagarbha;Ching Keng; Toward a New Image of Paramārtha: Yogacāra and Tathāgatagarbha Buddhism Revisited
Keng, C.: Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters
Abstract
This dissertation argues that the Yogâcāra Buddhism transmitted by the Indian translator Paramârtha (Ch. Zhendi 真諦) underwent a significant transformation due to the influence of his later Chinese interpreters, a phenomenon to which previous scholars failed to paid enough attention.
I begin with showing two contrary interpretations of Paramârtha's notion of jiexing 解性. The traditional interpretation glosses jiexing in terms of "original awakening" (benjue 本覺) in the Awakening of Faith and hence betrays its strong tie to that text. In contrast, a contrary interpretation of jiexing is preserved in a Dunhuang fragment Taishō No. 2805 (henceforth abbreviated as T2805).
The crucial part of this dissertation consists in demonstrating that T2805 and the Awakening of Faith represent two competing lineages of the interpreters of Paramârtha. The first clue is that modern scholars have voiced objection to the traditional attribution of the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha. In addition, I discovered that striking similarities exist between T2805 and Paramârtha's corpus with respect to terminology, style of phrasing, and doctrine. I further draw attention to the historical testimonies about two different doctrinal views held by Paramârtha's interpreters. Therefore, I argue that there were two lineages in the name of Paramârtha's disciples around 590 CE: the indirect lineage interpreted Paramârtha through the lens of the Awakening of Faith; and the direct lineage—represented by T2805—preserved Paramârtha's original teachings but died out prematurely. Later Chinese Buddhist tradition mistakenly regards the indirect lineage as Paramârtha's true heir and attributes the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha.
This implies that Paramârtha may have agreed with Xuanzang 2T5c (600–664) much more than scholars used to assume. For example, Xuanzang's characterization of the notion of "aboriginal uncontaminated seeds" looks very similar to how Paramârtha depicts jiexing. It also implies that we should distinguish the strong sense of the notion of "tathāgatagarbha" in the Awakening of Faith from its weak sense. The fact that even Vasubandhu endorses the weak sense of "tathāgatagarbha" strongly challenges the received wisdom that Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha were two distinct and antagonistic trends of thought in India.
I begin with showing two contrary interpretations of Paramârtha's notion of jiexing 解性. The traditional interpretation glosses jiexing in terms of "original awakening" (benjue 本覺) in the Awakening of Faith and hence betrays its strong tie to that text. In contrast, a contrary interpretation of jiexing is preserved in a Dunhuang fragment Taishō No. 2805 (henceforth abbreviated as T2805).
The crucial part of this dissertation consists in demonstrating that T2805 and the Awakening of Faith represent two competing lineages of the interpreters of Paramârtha. The first clue is that modern scholars have voiced objection to the traditional attribution of the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha. In addition, I discovered that striking similarities exist between T2805 and Paramârtha's corpus with respect to terminology, style of phrasing, and doctrine. I further draw attention to the historical testimonies about two different doctrinal views held by Paramârtha's interpreters. Therefore, I argue that there were two lineages in the name of Paramârtha's disciples around 590 CE: the indirect lineage interpreted Paramârtha through the lens of the Awakening of Faith; and the direct lineage—represented by T2805—preserved Paramârtha's original teachings but died out prematurely. Later Chinese Buddhist tradition mistakenly regards the indirect lineage as Paramârtha's true heir and attributes the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha.
This implies that Paramârtha may have agreed with Xuanzang 2T5c (600–664) much more than scholars used to assume. For example, Xuanzang's characterization of the notion of "aboriginal uncontaminated seeds" looks very similar to how Paramârtha depicts jiexing. It also implies that we should distinguish the strong sense of the notion of "tathāgatagarbha" in the Awakening of Faith from its weak sense. The fact that even Vasubandhu endorses the weak sense of "tathāgatagarbha" strongly challenges the received wisdom that Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha were two distinct and antagonistic trends of thought in India.
Keng, Ching. "Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters." PhD diss., Harvard University, 2009.
Keng, Ching. "Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters." PhD diss., Harvard University, 2009.;Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters;Yogācāra;Paramārtha;tathāgatagarbha;Dasheng qixin lun;Ching Keng;Yogâcāra Buddhism Transmitted or Transformed? Paramārtha (499–569) and His Chinese Interpreters
Affiliations & relations
- National Chengchi University 國立政治大學 · workplace affiliation
