Chengshilun 成實論

Chengshilun 成實論 "Treatise on the establishment of truth" is a Buddhist doctrinal treatise written by Harivarman (Ch. Halibamo 訶梨跋摩, c. 250-350 CE) in ancient India. It was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (Ch. Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 344-413) in the Later Qin empire 後秦 (384-417). The work contains 16 juan (sometimes recorded as 14 or 20).

The title chengshi "establishment of truth" signifies the realisation or achievement of the Four Noble Truths (sidi 四諦). The treatise was composed in opposition to the Sarvāstivāda School's (Ch. Shuo yiqie you bu 說一切有部) doctrine that "all dharmas truly exist" (zhu fa shi you 諸法實有). Instead, it promotes the teaching of the emptiness of both person and dharmas (ren fa er kong 人法二空).

According to tradition, Harivarman was a disciple of Kumāralāta (Ch. Jiumoluoduo 鳩摩羅多, also called Tongshou 童受 "Child-recipient", 3rd cent. CE). Initially, he accepted and studied his teacher's doctrine. However, later he felt that these teachings had not shed the constraints of the Mahāvibhāṣā (Chinese version Da pipo sha lun 大毗婆沙論), remaining overly reliant on technical terminology, which made them excessively complicated and fragmented. Consequently, he embarked on an independent and thorough study of the scriptures to explore the original sources of Buddhist teachings. Subsequently, he travelled to Pāṭaliputra (Ch. Huashi Cheng 華氏城) and studied with the Bahuśrutīya School (Ch. Duowen bu 多聞部). There, he encountered Mahāyāna ideas. He also extensively examined the Nine Sutras (jiujing 九經), assessed the five Vinaya traditions (Wubu lü 五部律), investigated various alternative doctrines, and critically analysed different treatises. As a result of these studies, he composed this work.

After this treatise was translated, Tanying 曇影 (fl. 401), a disciple of Kumārajīva, found that its structure was somewhat loose, with unclear chapter divisions and large sections that were difficult to comprehend. He therefore reorganised the text based on its meaning, dividing it into five sections (ju 聚) and 202 chapters. The "Section on origination" (Fa ju 發聚) acts as an introduction. It broadly discusses the Three Jewels (sanbao 三寶, the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha), the reasons for composing the treatise, the various categories of doctrinal discussion, the essential meaning of the Four Noble Truths, and critiques of ten significant divergent doctrines proposed by different schools. The remaining four sections form the main body of the treatise and offer a detailed exposition of the Four Noble Truths. The overall character of the treatise is marked by its opposition to the Sarvāstivāda doctrine of "the self is empty but dharmas truly exist" (wo kong, fa you 我空法有). In response, it advocates the doctrine of the twofold emptiness of both person and dharmas, maintaining that dharmas lack real substance and exist only as conventional designations.

Even the four great elements (Sa. catur-mahābhūta, Ch. sida 四大, earth, water, fire, wind), and the material dharmas (rūpa) composed from them are regarded as merely conventional designations. Accordingly, the treatise states that one must not only eliminate attachment to the self of the person, thereby extinguishing the "mind attached to nominal designations" (jia ming xin 假名心), but must also negate both nominal dharmas and supposedly real dharmas alike. This is the doctrine of the non-self of dharmas, referred to as the "extinction of the mind that grasps dharmas" (mie fa xin 滅法心).

Finally, even the remaining mind of emptiness must also be eliminated—this is called the "extinction of the mind of emptiness" (mie kong xin 滅空心). In this respect, the theory goes beyond the doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda School and approaches the Mahāyāna idea that even emptiness itself is empty.

The "theory of the three minds" (Sa. trīṇi cittāni, Ch. sanxin shuo 三心說) in the Chengshilun later became one of the sources for the "three natures" (trisvabhāva, Ch. sanxing shuo 三性說) doctrine of the Yogācāra School (Ch. Yujia xing pai 瑜伽行派).

In India, this treatise does not seem to have been widely disseminated. The original Sanskrit version was long lost; the existing Sanskrit text is actually a retranslation from the Chinese translation. In China, after Kumārajīva translated it, his disciples vied to study the text and produce commentaries. Sengdao 僧導 (c. 362-457) authored the Chengshi yishu 成實義疏 and taught the treatise to gathered students. Later, he traveled to Shouchun 壽春 (modern-day Shouxian 壽縣, Anhui) to promote the text, which resulted in the creation of the Shouchun Lineage (Shouchun xi 壽春系), influential in southern China. Sengsong 僧嵩 then went to Pengcheng 彭城 (present-day Xuzhou 徐州, Jiangsu), where he not only propagated the Three Treatises (Sanlun 三論, i.e., Zhonglun 中論, Shi'ermen lun 十二門論, and Bailun 百論), but also the Chengshilun. Through the transmission of several generations of his disciples, including Sengyuan 僧淵 (414-481), the Pengcheng Lineage (Pengcheng xi 彭城系) was established and became influential in northern China.

During the Southern Qi period 南齊 (479-502), Sengrou 僧柔 (431-494) and Huici 慧次 (434-490) reduced the twenty-fascicle text to nine juan. Shortly later, Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) composed the Lüe Chengshilun ji 略成實論記 (T2145), while the scholar Zhou Yong 周顒 (d. 493) wrote the Chao Chengshilun xu 鈔成實論序 to explain the rationale for the abridgement. This shortened version enjoyed a period of popularity.

During the Liang period 梁 (502-557), the study of the Chengshilun became even more widespread. Sengmin 僧旻 (467-527), and Fayun 法雲 (467-529) incorporated the Chengshilun with Mahāyāna teachings in their lectures. The influence of this tradition continued steadily into the Tang era 唐 (618-907).

The most important commentaries were Sengdao's Chengshi yishu 成實義疏, Daoliang's 道亮 Chengshi yishu 成實義疏, Tandu's 曇度 Chengshi dayi shu 成實大義疏, Zhizang's 智藏 (741-819) Chengshi yishu 成實義疏 (also called Chengshi dayi ji 成實大義記), Huiyan's 慧琰 Chengshi xuanyi 成實玄義, Baoqiong's 寶瓊 (504-584) Chengshi xuanyi 成實玄義 and Chengshi wenshu 成實文疏, Hongyan's 洪偃 (504-564) Chengshi shu 成實疏, Zhituo's 智脫 (541-607) Chengshi shu 成實疏, Huiying's 慧影 Chengshi yizhang 成實義章 and Mingyan's 明彥 Chengshi shu 成實疏. In the Korean state of Silla 新羅, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (元瑜) wrote the Chengshi shu (Korean reading Sŏngsil so) 成實疏, and in the state of Paekche 百濟, there were Tojang's 道藏 Chengshi shu (Sŏngsil so) 成實疏 and Hoeso's 懷素 Chengshi yizhang (Sŏngsil ŭijang) 成實義章. Not dateable are the commentaries Chengshi xuanji 成實玄記 and Chengshulun yizhang 成實論義章 by Zong Fashi 宗法師, Chengshilun zhang 成實論章 by Cong Fashi 聰法師, and Chengshilun shu 成實論疏 by Fa Fashi 法法師 and Song Fashi 嵩法師.

After the Tang era, the Chengshilun ceased to be studied, and all of the commentaries mentioned above have been lost. However, in Anchō's 安澄 (763-814) Zhongguanlun shuji (Japanese reading Chūganron shoki) 中觀論疏記, one can still find citations and references to many subcommentaries.