jocp_1591 366..380

yuet keung lo

DAOIST SIMULATED SERMONIZATION:HERMENEUTIC CLUES FROM

BUDDHIST PRACTICES

The Taishang Laojun Shuo Chang Qingjing Jing(Scripture on the Venerable Lord Speaking

on Perpetual Purity and Tranquility) (Qingjing Jing hereafter) is areligious Daoist scripture whose central doctrine of nondualism wasinspired by and indeed borrowed from the Buddhist Madhyamika,which was introduced to China around the fifth century. Of all reli-gious Daoist scriptures, the Qingjing Jing is certainly one of the mostpopular, and, apparently, it still gains considerable currency in Taiwanand Hong Kong today. Although the scripture is usually dated tothe mid-ninth century, the dating is far from certain. I have arguedelsewhere that it was definitely in circulation in the early eighthcentury because famous calligraphers of the Tang Dynasty such as LiuGongquan (778–865) and Monk Huai’su (737–788 or725–800) had left with us their autographs of the scripture, and that itcould have come even a little earlier in the late Six Dynasties period(221–589).1 Chronologically, the Qingjing Jing could not have beencomposed before the fifth century, not only because it would predatethe arrival of the Buddhist Madhyamika in China, but also becausethe text belonged to the corpus of Lingbao scriptures that did notbegin to appear until the earliest years of the fifth century.2 Despiteits short length of merely 391 characters, the scripture boasts eightdifferent commentaries in the Daoist Canon, and the one attributedto the late Tang Daoist adept Du Guangting (855–933) was theearliest in time, while the rest all came from the early Yuan period(1271–1368). It appears that the scripture was usually not circulated asa self-standing text by itself and was invariably linked to one of itscommentaries.3

Hermeneutically speaking, the interpretive approaches and moti-vations of the eight commentaries differ from one another, and thereis one anonymous commentary among them that is perhaps most

YUET KEUNG LO, Associate Professor, Department of Chinese Studies, NationalUniversity of Singapore. Specialties: Chinese intellectual history, Chinese religions,Chinese women. E-mail: chsloyk@nus.edu.sg

Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37:3 (September 2010) 366–380© 2010 Journal of Chinese Philosophy

noteworthy, given its unusual twofold exegetical structure andbimodal interpretation. While it seeks to explicate the meaning ofthe scripture faithfully, it unabashedly ventures to sermonize on themiraculous powers of the Qingjing Jing with a total indifference to itsnondualistic philosophy. The exegetical ambition of the anonymouscommentary is evidently homiletic rather than philosophical, and it isunique among its peers in routinely employing storytelling to instructand persuade. This rhetorical practice appears to have been inspiredby the Buddhist method of translation cum preaching in early medi-eval China (221–589) and, in modern scholarship, it is often associatedwith Tang transformation texts (bianwen ) discovered in Dun-huang. Of particular note is that the allegedly historical stories thathighlight the religious import of the commentary are not historical atall and that some of them were actually adapted from Buddhist talesof proselytization.

This article argues that some kind of extemporaneous sermonizingmight be at work in this anonymous commentary, and that it may wellbe a record of simulated sermonizing a la the Buddhist fashion to alive audience rather than a textual exegesis written for reading in theearly Yuan period. On the other hand, even though the commentarywas not meant to be an exegetical exercise for scholastic satisfaction,our analysis shows that without a nuanced understanding of its textualmetrics, the hermeneutic fusion of horizons between its author andintended audience would not be possible. And in this hermeneuticfusion, the audience was expected to be intersubjectively drawn toand, indeed, implicated in the pursuit of the ultimate reality of physi-cal transcendence insofar as they could gain a privileged knowledgeof the commentary cum proselytic sermonization. As much as physi-cal transcendence can be understood as a form of ontological reali-zation, the anonymous commentary becomes, as it were, a field ofontological hermeneutics where the audience was predisposed andinspired to seek privileged access to the ultimate reality that is phy-sical transcendence even as the commentator cum proselytizer triedto tease out the salvific potency in the Qingjing Jing through hisinterpretive mediation.4

I. Understanding via Two Kinds of Textual Properties

The Qingjing Jing and its anonymous commentary have receivedvirtually no scholarly attention.5 One of the reasons, no doubt, is theirambiguous dating and anonymous authorship. As Stephen Boken-kamp correctly observes with regard to the study of Daoist scriptures,“we often know so little of the precise social contexts that produced”

367daoist simulated sermonization

them and “in most cases we are still far from knowing the precisehuman situations to which authors of revealed material responded.”6

Insofar as hermeneutic understanding is constituted of, in Gadame-rian terms, a “fusion of horizons” between the author and his reader,the auctorial horizons of the Qingjing Jing and its anonymous com-mentary do not appear to be in view for the reader and thus wouldmake it formidably difficult for any hermeneutic fusion. Nevertheless,the situation is not entirely hopeless as it may seem. The vision of anauthor, after all, is given expression in the text he composes. In thissense, the form, structure, and literary mechanics of the text bespeak,if only obliquely, its auctorial vision. Because the formal features areinternal to a text, they may be considered as its intrinsic properties.While auctorial intent may be difficult to ascertain, the formal fea-tures of a text tend to be relatively stable if not fixed timelessly,even though they were crafted in a particular time-space shaped andinformed by a given cultural tradition.

The stability of a text’s formal features can lend the reader arelatively confident grip at the objective expression of the auctorialvision, therefore a critical readerly analysis of them aimed at revealingthe original structure of a text is not only a reproductive endeavorbut also a creative act of imagination at once. As such, it may yieldimportant insights into its author’s creative vision and in this strictsense makes possible a fusion of horizons of the author and thereader, objective and subjective. As Gadamer puts it, “understandingis not merely a reproductive but always a productive activity as well.”7

As much as a text’s intrinsic properties can reveal its meaning, itsfull meaning is by no means limited to what they can reveal in and ofthemselves. A text never really exists in a cultural vacuum either inthe moment of its original creation or in the act of readerly inter-pretation. As the cultural spatio-temporality that situates the text andinforms its reader changes, the meaning of the text also expands orshifts accordingly; therefore, the text as the object of understanding isnot determinate, but rather reconfigured and reconstituted with eachnew act of understanding. A new cultural–historical circumstancewould situate a text in a novel set of meaning-giving relations, so itsmeaning thickens as it is being engaged in an endless process ofshifting historical situatedness. In other words, a text can be investedwith hitherto unrecognized properties in relation to the frame ofinterpretation and reference in which it is implicated. Such propertiesmay be called its relational properties. It must be emphasized thatrelational properties, albeit coextensive with a shifting historicity,are ontologically real to a text because they “depend on the specificconditions under which an object is presented and are intersubjec-tively verifiable.”8

368 yuet keung lo

While a text’s intrinsic properties may be finite and fixed, its rela-tional properties are literally infinite as it can develop new relationswith ever-changing cultural matrixes that create hermeneutic spacefor new understanding. In Gadamer’s words,

The important thing is to recognize temporal distance as a positiveand productive condition. . . . [It] is what first lets the true meaning ofthe object fully emerge. The discovery of the true meaning of a textor a work of art is never finished; it is in fact an infinite process.. . . New sources of understanding are continually emerging thatreveal unsuspected elements of meaning.9

In fact, only when the temporal distance between the text and itsreader is recognized as a “positive and productive condition” can thefusion of horizon take place. The fusion presupposes that the text canreveal unsuspected properties in relation to a new cultural circum-stance. The temporal distance is “positive and productive” because itaggravates the cultural–historical disparities between the time-spaceof origination and that of reception thereby fertilizing the groundof creative interpretation even as the timeless ontological reality ishermeneutically negotiated.

II. Intrinsic Properties: Twofold Exegetical Structure

With regard to the anonymous commentary, if we fully understandboth its intrinsic and relational properties, we can begin to make itspeak to us and reveal its hitherto unsuspected meaning relative tothe specific extratextual circumstances in which it was composed.Intrinsically, the anonymous commentary contains a twofold exege-tical structure that bespeaks its author’s bimodal interpretation.Structurally, the anonymous commentary divides the 391-characterscripture into seventeen sections of varying lengths10 and appends hiscommentary to each. Virtually each of the entries in the anonymouscommentary consists of four constituents in a formulaic structure.It typically begins with a word-for-word and line-by-line annotation,to be followed by an explicit elucidation of the literal or professedmeaning of the original. This is clearly a mode of scriptural exegesisthat seeks to explicate the source-text faithfully. Immediately follow-ing the elucidation is a procedure of teasing out the implicit purportunderneath the literal surface of the original. Then come the com-mentator’s various citations of classical Daoist texts such as the Kang-cangzi and Zhuangzi as well as historical anecdotesand legends in a concerted effort to validate the hidden meaningjust unpacked.This in effect constitutes the commentator’s attempt to

369daoist simulated sermonization

preach in the voices of the authoritative Daoist classics he cites and itcan be considered a self-expressive mode of hermeneutics, which isdriven by the commentator’s evangelical desire to initiate the faithfulto the pursuit of physical transcendence.

Let it suffice to illustrate this bimodal interpretation with section 2of the scripture according to the division in the Commentary.

Section 2: I know not its name and am compelled to call it Dao.

Commentary 2.1: “I” (wu ) refers to the term of self-address ofthe [Venerable Lord] on High; it means the same as wo (I). TheVenerable Lord on High says, “Although the Great Way has threevirtues of Nothingness—it has neither form nor substance yet isnaturally able to give birth to and nurture heaven and earth; ithas neither feelings nor emotive nature yet is naturally able tomove the sun and moon; it has no name yet is naturally able togrow and nourish the myriad things—I know not its precisename.”11 This means there is no further source to which Dao owesits existence, and Dao is the sole entity that commands all respect,so the Venerable Lord on High was compelled to call it Dao. Hencethe scripture says, “I know not its name and am compelled to callit Dao.”

Commentary 2.2: This means that this entity (Dao) is in the midst ofindistinctness and haziness and we know not its name, but when itdescends and reveals itself, it comes into actual being. Name is thefunction of Dao and the sage employs the unhewn block of name-lessness to govern all under heaven.

Commentary 2.2.1: The Wenzhongzi says, “Employ the thing of notrace and [everything] will transform of themselves.”12 The Changessays, “By virtue of its [Dao’s] inscrutable power, [everything] will betransformed, and the common people will find it congenial.”

Commentary 2.2.2: Long ago when Tang Taizong (r. 627–649) governed all under heaven, subjects in the ten thousand quar-ters pledged their allegiance. By virtue of the transformative powerof namelessness, he presided over the cases of three hundred crimi-nals on death row without using deterrent punishments. [During hisreign,] nobody committed criminal offense. One bushel of graincost only three cents—the Dao prevailed everywhere—people neednot bring food with them on their journeys. The Dao had thenreached its zenith and it was because the Emperor employed thepower of namelessness. Thus, the Venerable Lord on High said,“I know not its name and am compelled to call it Dao.” Whena person cultivates his practice, though he has not a name initially,he will acquire the name of the Realized One with [adequate]cultivation.”13

Commentary 2.1 clearly aims at explaining with a gloss to thenominal pronoun wu why the Venerable Lord was compelled to callthe ineffable source of genesis Dao. The statements about the threevirtues of nothingness in 2.1 indeed are a repetition of the gloss to

370 yuet keung lo

section 1 of the scripture where they are first introduced. It is repeatedto create a continuous narrative for purely rhetorical consideration.Nothing in 2.1 violates the letter or spirit of the original text andshould therefore be considered faithful exegesis.

Commentary 2.2, however, begins to depart from the original textby extrapolating the relation between Dao and its given name toconstruct a political philosophy. Naming now becomes a functionof Dao by which the sage governs all under heaven. Without anywarning, the cosmological Dao suddenly takes on political signifi-cance and inspires and empowers the sage to rule. Evidently thecommentator’s mode of exegesis has switched at this point, albeitsubtly, from faithful interpreting to personal philosophizing. This maybe called a “self-expressive” mode of interpretation as the commen-tator is now keen on consciously promoting his own reading of thescripture—a reading that is not textually justified. As if realizing theweakness of his idiosyncratic reading, the commentator adducesexternal textual support from Daoist and Confucian classics in Com-mentary 2.3 to reinforce the tenor of his political interpretation14 andconcludes his commentary on section 2 with a historical example ofruling with Dao. In fact, on numerous other occasions,15 an additionalremark of summation marked by the phrase “lun yue” (literally,“to comment”) will be added to the illustrative example from historyor legend to sum up a segment of commentary, with the expresspurpose to confirm the legitimacy of the hidden meaning nowrevealed in the commentator’s own philosophizing or preaching.Despite the lack of a concluding remark, the twofold exegeticalstructure inherent in the commentary on section 2 of the QingjingJing does characterize the entire Commentary. Holistically, then, theCommentary employs a dual mode of scriptural exegesis and self-expression in its hermeneutic persuasion. As will be shown, this is apeculiar mode of scriptural interpretation in the indigenous Chinesecommentarial tradition.

Formal features aside, the content analysis of the anonymous com-mentary can enhance our understanding of its bimodal interpretationand hermeneutic intent. While the Qingjing Jing preaches the doc-trine of spiritual liberation by virtue of wisdom-based nonattachmentà la Buddhist Madhyamika that transcends dualism, the commentary,viewed as a whole, reveals an indisputable effort to promote thereligious faith in the supernatural power of the Qingjing Jing as aninfallible way to achieve physical transcendence. On the one hand, thecommentary shows little interest in expounding the nondualistic phi-losophy in the scripture; on the other hand, it promotes its religiousmessage persistently in the self-expressive mode of exegesis. Exceptfor the beginning section, the commentary is loaded with at least one

371daoist simulated sermonization

didactic story or legend about the scripture’s salvific and transforma-tive power for each of the remaining sixteen sections. Known as talesof divine efficacy (lingyan ), this religious genre is a most notableintrinsic property of the commentary. Repeatedly, the reader is reas-sured with purportedly historical examples that faith in the scriptureor practice according to its teaching would invariably save thebeliever or practitioner from dangers or help him or her to achievephysical transcendence. In fact, even the mere recitation of thescripture could be just as efficacious. The instructive force of thecommentary evidently lies in its religious message of salvation ortranscendence by the scripture. In contrast, the political reading ofsection 2, when viewed in the totality of the commentary, turns outto be only a haphazard aberration.16

III. Relational Properties:Extratextual Connection to Buddhist Sermonization

The ascertaining of the anonymous commentary’s fundamentalmessage of salvation and transcendence in light of the intrinsic pro-perties demonstrates that they are indeed a reliable window to itscommentator’s auctorial intent and religious vision. No doubt whatwe gain from the bimodal interpretation is largely informed by ourcontent analysis of the twofold exegesis in the commentary, and it canbe argued that the recognition itself of the bimodal nature of theexegesis is inspired by and hinges upon the critical content analysis.Thus intrinsic properties are not actually wholly intrinsic—how a textis parsed or organized is often determined by how it is read in thefirst place. Needless to say, any critical reading of a text is necessarilycontingent upon a sensitive awareness to its formal semantic pro-perties. Readerly understanding and textual properties, then, aregenetically inspired and dialectically reinforced.

If even a text’s intrinsic properties are not wholly intrinsic, itsrelational properties by definition are ontologically constituted byextratextual contingencies. Extratextual contingencies refer to bothcultural factors that are not inherent in a text as well as textualconsiderations that lie beyond the text under review. What does thebimodal interpretation in the anonymous commentary mean in itself?What can the formal features of the twofold exegetical structure tellus about the commentary in the first place? Because of their self-referential nature, knowledge of the intrinsic properties alone is notadequate to answer questions of this sort. We can only know so muchabout a text in total isolation, and in that sense, the object of under-standing is incomplete. If we can examine a text in comparison with

372 yuet keung lo

something else or against a cultural backdrop, not only will a richermeaning of the text become possible but its significance as a constitu-ent integral to that very cultural backdrop will be illuminated as well.As Gadamer says, “New sources of understanding are continuallyemerging that reveal unsuspected elements of meaning.” The “newsources” can help us relate some formal features of a text toits extratextual contingencies and illuminate relational propertieshitherto unrecognized in it.

The Gadamerian recognition of temporal distance as a positive andproductive condition requires a certain historical reflexivity on thereader’s part. To uncover and appreciate the relational properties ofthe anonymous commentary, it is necessary to reexamine it at a his-torical distance and with a historically effected consciousness. If weexamine the anonymous commentary’s twofold exegetical structurein light of the Chinese commentarial tradition, it becomes clear that itowed its origin to Buddhist sermonizing.The twofold exegetical struc-ture as analyzed above was virtually a new phenomenon in earlymedieval China and it was borrowed from the Buddhist practice ofsermonizing to a live audience.

Because of their limited proficiency in Chinese, early foreign Bud-dhist translators often relied on their Chinese disciples or associatesin translating Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. Around the fourthcentury, a standard system of translation was established wherebyforeign monks would give a public lecture on the same scripture atthe same time they were translating it, with the aid of their Chinesedisciples or associates.17 Thus, it makes perfect sense that the monkwould gloss all the words in a line in a scripture as he saw fit18 and thenexplain the line as a whole as it was naturally the first procedure in thelong process of translation. Further, he would group sentences into aparagraph or section (duan ) and elaborate on its overall import.Sometimes, other scriptures might be cited for textual support. Mostimportant, stories and parables were often recounted for illustrationas well as for entertainment.

Fortunately, we are left with a commentary on the Vimalakırti-sutra(Zhu Weimojie Jing ) attributed to Kumarajıva (344–413) that as I have argued elsewhere, was indeed a written record ofhis translation cum lecture on the Vimalakırti-sutra to a live audiencein 406.19 Evidence abounds that indicates the commentary was an oraltext, and the frequent appearance of an interlocutor is one example.Although the commentary was not a verbatim record of Kumarajıva’spublic lecture, the mode, format, outline, and spirit of his scripturalinterpretation were nonetheless captured. A comparison between theanonymous commentary on the Qingjing Jing and Kumarajıva’s com-mentary on the Vimalakırti-sutra shows that they share virtually all of

373daoist simulated sermonization

their intrinsic textual properties including the use of interlocution.20

This of course does not mean that the former imitated the latter.Rather, the mode of interpretation in Buddhist translation cum publiclecture, which was originally necessitated by the practical and realisticdemands of the on-site oral-interpretive endeavor, eventually becamea common bimodal exegesis in native Chinese Buddhist written com-mentaries known as yishu (explicatory commentary).21 The yishustyle of commentary in fact exerted enormous influence outside ofthe monastic circle. Many commentaries on Confucian classics fromthe early medieval period also adopted a similar format and the solesample that survives today is Huang Kan ’s (488–545) Lunyu JijieYishu (Explicatory Commentaries on the CollectedCommentaries on the Analects). Again, the intrinsic textual proper-ties of Huang Kan’s explicatory commentary including the twofoldstructure of exegesis are practically identical to those of the anony-mous commentary on the Qingjing Jing.22 Even the most notablefeature of storytelling in the latter can be found in the former and itcannot be overemphasized that storytelling was rarely employed inwritten commentaries in China.23 And it is no coincidence that thesingular example of illustrative story in Huang Kan’s commentaryis of fantastic nature as it is typical of those narrated in virtually allexplicatory commentaries on Buddhist scriptures.24

Even for a Buddhist master such as Kumarajıva who was widelyrecognized to be instrumental in introducing Buddhism to theChinese with faithful translations, storytelling unrelated to the teach-ings in the scripture he preached figured prominently in his homiliesfor the sole purpose of awakening the faith in Buddhism among hisaudience.25 Translation of Buddhist scriptures was not strictly a schol-arly endeavor after all. Entertaining as they might be, Kumarajıva’sstories essentially are not fantastic tales,26 but Chinese Buddhistmasters were more inclined to tell miracle tales to inspire faith intheir audience especially when they preached the Lotus Sutra andDiamond Sutra (Jin’gang Jing ). In fact, miracle tales aboutBodhisattva Guanshiyin (Avalokitesvara) compiled by Bud-dhist laymen could date back at least to the fourth century,27 whilesimilar stories about the Diamond Sutra were circulated as earlyas the sixth century.28 In short, miracle tales had become integral toBuddhist storytelling and it was often included in the homilies ofthe Chinese Buddhist masters at least since the late sixth century.The Tiantai master Zhiyi (538–597) was just one such notableexample. In his Guanyin Yishu (Explicatory Commentaryon the Bodhisattva Guanyin), he narrated seven miracle tales aboutthe salvific power of Bodhisattva Guanyin who responded to peoplecalling upon his name.29 It must be emphasized that the Guanyin

374 yuet keung lo

yishu was not penned down by Zhiyi himself for private reading;rather it was a record of the master’s lectures to the public composedby his disciple Guanding (561–632) after the event.

Once contextualized in the Chinese commentarial tradition, par-ticularly the unique practice of Buddhist storytelling and sermoniza-tion, the relational properties of the anonymous commentary on theQingjing Jing become evident as we can now see how its intrinsicproperties can relate to the historical extratextuality that informedthe commentary. It is almost uncanny that virtually all the intrinsicproperties of the anonymous commentary can be mapped over thoseof the yishu style commentary that originated with Buddhist transla-tion cum lecture; in fact, it is the social, linguistic, religious context aswell as the actual practice of Buddhist sermonization that make itpossible to identify the anonymous commentary’s formal propertiesin the first place.

As mentioned earlier, the anonymous commentary was spiced upwith sixteen stories of divine efficacy that were designed to beartestimony to the Qingjing Jing’s salvific and miraculous power. Whilethe religious genre of miracle tales had a long history in religiousDaoism by the thirteenth century,30 it was originally borrowed fromBuddhism. In fact, at least three of the miracle tales in the anonymouscommentary were adapted from Buddhist miracle tales about theDiamond Sutra. In all cases, the title Jingang Jing was replaced byQingjing Jing,31 with the plots and details of the stories essentiallyintact—namely, the miraculous power of the Diamond Sutraremained the same and was transferred to the Qingjing Jing. In asense, the entire commentary reads like a grand narrative of QingjingJing’s divine efficacy whose sole purpose is to convert;32 its philo-sophical scaffolding merely serves to support its commentator’sreligious impulse to proselytize.

As Gadamer states, “What expression expresses is not merelywhat is supposed to be expressed in it—what is meant by it—butprimarily what is also expressed by the words without its beingintended—that is, what the expression, as it were, betrays.”33 Whatthe anonymous commentary betrays without its author’s intention, ifour argument holds, certainly includes the peculiar historical extra-textuality embedded in the Buddhist tradition of sermonizationand the explicatory commentary it inspired. And the betrayal needsto be deciphered by reconstituting its relational properties, whichare no longer immediately apparent to the modern reader. Yet therewas also a contemporaneous extratextuality that should not be over-looked. If the auctorial intention of the anonymous commentarywas indeed to proselytize religious Daoism, we must imagine theenvironmental context in which the intention was situated. Why

375daoist simulated sermonization

would the commentator choose to preach his religious message ashe did in the way his commentary was crafted? Why did he favorthe bimodal interpretation in a twofold exegetical structure with thehermeneutic thrust anchored in the miracle tales? If the anonymouscommentary was indeed a simulacrum of a religious Daoist sermon,it would make sense to its contemporary readers only if it realisti-cally resembled how such a sermon was actually delivered in theirtimes. In other words, the formal structure (including the twofoldexegetical structure and the bimodal interpretation), literary devicessuch as the use of interlocution and recapitulatory verses,34 and therecounting of miracle tales must have been a stock fixture of Daoistsermonization when the commentary was composed; therefore thecommentator could not help but mimick without deliberate designhow a Daoist sermon would be delivered with an imagined audi-ence. In fact, if the commentator himself was a member of theDaoist clergy who was qualified to preach to the public, his com-mentary might very well be either a written record of an actualsermon he had given or an outline he had prepared in advance forone.35 For this reason, even though the anonymous commentaryis intriguing to the modern reader in terms of its intrinsicand relational properties, the Ming Daoist bibliographer BaiYunji had virtually nothing to say about its uniqueness. Forhim there was nothing more ordinary than a realistic account of areligious Daoist sermon he witnessed now and then.

Regrettably we know virtually nothing about the actual practiceof religious Daoist sermonization in spite of its long history thatdates to at least the eighth century.36 Back then in the Tang capitalcity Chang’an, Buddhist monasteries and Daoist temples werewithin each other’s vicinity, and cross-fertilization between the tworeligions was easily facilitated. As has been demonstrated, both theConfucians and the Daoists had adopted the Buddhist practiceof sermonization. With good reason we can say that ever since itsgenesis, the development of Daoist sermonization was coextensivewith that of its Buddhist predecessor. Understanding the intrinsicproperties of the anonymous commentary perhaps can satisfy ourantiquarian interests, yet the rediscovery of its relational propertiesoffers us, however obliquely, an extraordinary window to the routinepractice of Daoist sermonization in the early thirteenth century.In this sense, Gadamer was certainly right when he observed thatunderstanding is always a matter of “coming to an understandingabout something.”37

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORESingapore

376 yuet keung lo

Endnotes

The author is grateful to Friederike Assandri for her kind invitation to write this articleand her admirable efforts and patience to see to successful completion this special issue onthe hermeneutics of Daoist scriptures. Appreciation also goes to Professor Chung-yingCheng for commenting and providing the reference in his works and those of HyunHöchsmann.

1. See Lao Yueqiang (Yuet Keung Lo), “Shuojing Zhuwo—Cong Wuming ShiTaishang Laojun Shuo Chang Qingjing Jing Zhu Kan Daojiao Jiangjing”

, Zhongguo Zhexue YuWenhua 5 (2009): 123–49.

2. According to Stephen R. Bokenkamp, “the Lingbao scriptures were composed toreplace all previous spiritual knowledge with higher and more enduring truths.” Seehis Ancestors and Anxiety: Daoism and the Birth of Rebirth in China (Berkeley/LosAngeles/London: University of California Press, 2007), 12. On Lingbao scriptures,see Kristofer Schipper and Franciscus Verellen, eds., The Taoist Canon: A HistoricalCompanion to the Daozang (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004),516–19.

3. Strictly speaking, the scripture did appear without a commentary under the title ofTaishang Laojun Shuo Chang Qingjing Miaojing and it wascirculated with three other short scriptures also without a commentary. For the text,see Daozang (Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe; Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian; Tianjin:Tianjin Guji Chubanshe, 1988), 11: 344–45. It should be noted that the TaishangLaojun Shuo Chang Qingjing Miaojing comes with an epilogue in 197 characters atthe end—a feature that is missing in the Qingjing Jing. Hans-Hermann Schmidt saysthat “the main text of the present work (Qingjing Jing, numbered as 756 in The TaoistCanon) has been abridged by more than one third . . . , as is the epilogue.” SeeSchipper and Verellen, eds., The Taoist Canon, 728. In any case, the Qingjing Jing is notknown to have circulated alone without a commentary even though it has beenclaimed that it was used in the daily lessons in the Quanzhen (Complete Authen-ticity) Daoist temples in the thirteenth century.

4. Chung-ying Cheng has proposed a theory of onto-hermeneutics that unravels“the meaning of the historical development and the meaning of the theoreticalconstruction or reconstruction of an experienced reality.” See his “ConfucianOnto-hermeneutics: Morality and Ontology,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 27,no. 1 (2000): 33. Cheng also says, “To understand and to interpret is thus to appealto this underlying ontological hermeneutics or the hermeneutical understanding ofreality for the actualization and validation of a specific interpretation in a specificsituation as well as in light of the understanding of the specific situation.” See his“Inquiring into the Primary Model: Yi Jing and the Onto-hermeneutical Tradition,”Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30, nos. 3–4 (2003): 289. To the extent that the pro-motion and pursuit of physical transcendence (xian ) can be considered “an expe-rienced reality” in an ontological sense, we may say that the author of theanonymous commentary was engaging in an onto-hermeneutical exercise and in theprocess of unraveling his work, I, too, am actually implicated in it as I try to explainthe exegetical and institutional scaffolding of Buddhist sermonization as a historicalpraxis and how it was emulated by religious Daoists in refashioning and advertisingphysical transcendence as “an experienced reality” invested with ontological signifi-cance to its aspirants.

5. Traditionally, Bai Yunji wrote in his Daozang Mulu Xiangzhu (dated 1626) (Anno-tated Catalogue of the Daoist Canon) the only annotation for the anonymous com-mentary on the Qingjing Jing and it was in one brief line of eleven characters. He said,“Annotated by Wuming Shi (anonymous), who cited the Wenzi numer-ous times.” See Daozang Mulu Xiangzhu in Yingyin Qinding Wenyuange SikuQuanshu (Taipei: Shangwu Yinshuguan, 1983), vol. 1061, 691. Bai Yunji actually waswrong about the Wenzi, which the anonymous commentary does not cite. Instead, itcites the Wenzhongzi . See also note 12. In modern scholarship, as far as I

377daoist simulated sermonization

know, Hans-Hermann Schmidt has written the sole synopsis for the same commen-tary. See Schipper and Verellen, eds., The Taoist Canon, 728.

6. Bokenkamp, Ancestors and Anxiety, 13.7. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.

Marshall (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 306. See also Chung-ying Cheng, “Inquiringinto the Primary Model,” 371, and Hyun Höchsmann: “Foreseeing a Fusion ofHorizons—Gadamer, Quine, and Chung-Ying Cheng,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy34, no. 1 (2007): 139.

8. See David Weberman, “The Relational Properties Approach to a Theory of Inter-pretation,” (paper presented at the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Boston,August 10–15, 1998), Paideia Project On-line, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Inte/InteWebe.htm.

9. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 297f.10. The shortest section (section 13) has only four characters while the longest sections

(sections 14 and 17) have thirty-two each. It should be noted that a total of 152characters, or roughly two-fifths of the Qingjing Jing, are missing in the final section(section 17). While it is possible that the missing characters were due to the oversightof its anonymous author or the editor of the Daoist Canon, it is rare to find such anegregious textual omission in the entire Daoist Canon. However, if the anonymouscommentary was written as a prompt text before the act of sermonization or as arecord of the lecture afterward, a sizable omission would not seem so odd.

11. The quotation is actually the text of section 1 of the scripture. The commentator isrepeating what has been just said in order to link it directly to his commentary onsection 2. His attempt to construct a continuous narrative is evident here and sus-tained throughout the entire commentary. This emphasis on repetition is character-istic of an oral presentation.

12. “The thing of no trace” presumably refers to Dao. Wenzhongzi is actually a Confuciantext by Wang Tong (584–617), but the quotation cannot be found in the Wen-zhongzi. The commentator presumably had Wenzi in mind, which is indeed a pre-QinDaoist text. However, the quotation does not appear there either. Similarly, thecitation from the Changes is also fabrication.

13. Daozang 17, 143–44.14. Routinely, the commentator cited well-known classical sources and Daoist texts to

support his reading of the scripture. These includes the Wenzhongzi (12 citations),Kangcangzi (1), Zhuangzi (1), Liuzi (1), Xiaojing (Classic of FilialDevotion) (1), Xianjing Neizhuan (Inner Accounts of Classic on Tran-scendents) (1), Yijing (Book of Changes) (7). It should be noted that most ofthese references were downright fabrications. In addition, the anonymous commen-tary appeals (five times) to the authority of a nebulous figure called Baiyun Weng

(The Old Man on White Clouds), who is not identifiable in any source I know.Regarding the historical model, whether Tang Taizong, one of the most accomplishedemperors in Chinese history, ruled with the power of namelessness is anybody’s guess.The fact that spurious sources were forged for persuasion purposes suggests that thecommentary was not intended for scholarly consumption.

15. Of the seventeen sections of the scriptural text, twelve comes with a remark ofsummation at the very end of a segment of commentary. Section 2 is an exception.

16. For this reason the illustrative story for section 2 has nothing to do with QingjingJing’s salvific power or even the scripture itself for that matter—the only exception inthe commentary.

17. For the institution of translation, see Wang Wenyan, Fodian Hanyi Zhi Yanjiu(Taipei: Tianhua Chuban Shiye Gongsi, 1984), 129–201, esp., 131–

41.18. These need not be key words in any philosophical or religious sense, or even un-

common vocabulary; they could be common words that do not seem to warrant anyexplanation. But if we look at the glosses from the consideration of translation, or thebenefit of the illiterate folk in the audience, such seemingly trivial ponderings andannotations would be justifiable. The example of qiujing (“well on a mound”)mentioned below (note 25) in Kumarajıva’s commentary appears to be such a good

378 yuet keung lo

case in point. Similarly, the gloss of wu (“I”) in the anonymous commentary can onlymake sense in such light, except that, as will be argued, it was actually crafted for thepurpose of simulating an on-site sermonization rather than addressing a mostlyilliterate live audience.

19. See Yuet Keung Lo, “Storytelling and the Earliest Buddhist Oral Text in China:Clues from Kumarajıva’s Commentary on the Vimalakırti-sutra,” in Interpretation andIntellectual Change: Chinese Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective, ed. Ching-ITu (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2004), 103–16, and for theinnovative style of Kumarajıva’s commentary, see Lao Yueqiang (Yuet Keung Lo),“Cong Weimojing Zhu Kan Zhonggu Fojiao Jiangjing” ,in Han-Wei Liuchao Wenxue Yu Zongjiao , ed. Ge Xiaoyin(Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 2005), 512–37.

20. See Lao Yueqiang, “Shuojing Zhuwo,” 137–47. Interlocution is routinely used in theanonymous commentary.

21. See Mou Runsun, “Lun Rushi Liangjia Zhi Jiangjing Yu Yishu”in his Zhushizhai Conggao (Beijing:

Zhonghua Shuju, 1987), 239–302 and Lao Yueqiang, “Shuojing Zhuwo.”22. Mou Runsun, “Lun Rushi Liangjia Zhi Jiangjing Yu Yishu,” 295–96 and Lao Yue-

qiang, “Shuojing Zhuwo,” 138–47. It is noteworthy that Huang Kan did not purposelyseek to depart from the original intent of the Analects passages even though heoften consciously tried to break new ground in his interpretation of the Confucianclassic—a practice no longer allowed in the explicatory commentaries since the Tangwhen they became a written form of commentary rather than a record of oralexegesis. Nonetheless, his Explicatory Commentary no doubt exhibits a twofoldexegetical structure.

23. The use of illustrative stories in the Hanfeizi in interpreting the Laozi isvirtually exceptional in the Chinese commentarial tradition. The Hanshi Waizhuan(Han’s Outer Commentary on the Odes) from the early Western Han is anotherexception and that was why it was called the Outer Commentary. Since the HanDynasty, storytelling was rarely seen in written commentaries particularly in theConfucian tradition. Therefore, in light of many other formal structural featuresincluding the title of his work, Huang Kan’s Explicatory Commentary owed itsinspiration to the Buddhist practice of sermonization popular in his times. See LaoYueqiang, “Cong Weimojing Zhu Kan Zhonggu Fojiao Jiangjing,” 512–37.

24. Huang Kan, Lunyu Jijie Yishu (Taipei: Guangwen Shuju, 1991, 2nd ed.), vol. 1: 138–39.As Huang Kan was a lecturer at court on Confucian classics, scholars agree that hisExplicatory Commentary was a written record of his lectures on the Analects,although in his actual lectures he probably could have told many more illustrativestories. That the only story kept in his Explicatory Commentary is of fantastic natureis thus even more intriguing. Huang had another explicatory commentary on the Liji

(Accounts of Rites) but it only exists in fragments today.25. Yuet Keung Lo, “Storytelling and the Earliest Buddhist Oral Text in China: Clues

from Kumarajıva’s Commentary on the Vimalakırti-sutra,” 103–16. For instance, onthe purely descriptive line in the Vimalakırti-sutra that has neither philosophicalnor religious import—“Like a well on a mound, this body is opposed by old age”—Kumarajıva gives a brief gloss of the term qiujing (“well on a mound”) and then takesthe occasion to promote the Buddhist faith by recounting a story totally unrelated tothe original. For the text of the story and its moral, see Li Yizhuo, Weimojie Jing Jizhu

(Taipei: Laogu Chubanshe, 1983, 2nd ed.), 114. For the Englishtranslation, see Yuet Keung Lo, “Stories from Kumarajıva’s Homilies,” Renditions,no. 61 (Spring 2004), 10–11.

26. Buddhist stories often contain fantastic elements and some of Kumarajıva’s illustra-tive tales have a fair share of them. In addition, Kumarajıva translated the biographiesof Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva into Chinese, and all three of them arereplete with fantastic details. See Taisho 2046, 2047a, 2047b, and 2048.

27. Xie Fu’s Guangshiyin Yingyan Ji (Accounts of Bodhisattva Guang-shiyin’s Efficacies), which was based on numerous reports from earlier times, wascompleted in 399. For a discussion of the miracle tales of Bodhisattva Guanshiyin,

379daoist simulated sermonization

see Robert Ford Campany, “The Earliest Tales of the Bodhisattva Guanshiyin” inReligions of China in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1996), 82–96. See also Daniel B. Stevenson, “Tales of the Lotus Sutra,” inBuddhism in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1996), 427–54.

28. Numerous collections of the miracle tales about the Diamond Sutra can be found inthe Xu Zangjing (Sequel to the Buddhist Canon). In Dunhuang manu-scripts, a Buddhist text called Jin’gang Jing Lingyan Gongde Ji(Accounts of Miracles Generated by the Merits of the Diamond Sutra) con-sisting of nineteen miracle tales were copied at the beginning of the DiamondSutra. See Zheng Acai, “Cong Dunhuang Wenxian Kan Fojiao Chuanbu deTongsuhua” in Wenxue, Wenhua Yu Shibian

, ed. Li Fengmao (Taipei: Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan WenzheYanjiusuo, 2002), 127.

29. Guanyin Yishu was the abbreviated form of Guanshiyin Yishu. See Taisho ShinshoDaizokyo, vol. 34, no. 1728.923c14–23, 924c19–29, 925c25–29, 926b13–24, 927c28–928a3, 928c11–22, 930c10–11.

30. Tales about the miraculous powers of the Dao De Jing, Duren Jing , LaojunZhenzhong Jing , Huangting Jing , and many others werereported in Du Guangting’s Daojiao Lingyan Ji , a famous anthologyof Daoist miracle tales. See Daozang 10: 841–42, 10: 843, and 10: 844, respectively.It should be noted that miraculous powers were not limited to scriptures; portraits,talismans, temples, and other objects or fixtures related to religious Daoism could beinvested with such powers. Accounts of their divine efficacy are also included in DuGuangting’s anthology.

31. Schipper and Verellen, eds., The Taoist Canon, 728. There are other references in theanonymous commentary including at least one other miracle tale that were adaptedfrom Buddhist sources.

32. See note 10. The extensive narrative accounts for the size of the anonymous com-mentary, which runs to nearly 20,000 characters. If we realize that the sizable work ofZhuangzi is about 65,000 characters, the significance of the length of the anonymouscommentary (versus the 391 characters it interprets) is evident. It is the result ofsimulated storytelling.

33. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 335f.34. The anonymous commentary is spangled with seventeen poems; most of them come

at the end of an illustrative story as a sort of refrain that recapitulates the key religiousmessage about the importance of faith in the Qingjing Jing or the divine efficacy of thecultivation with the scripture. The medley of prose and poetry in such fashionresembles the prosimetric style of Buddhist narrative we find in Dunhuang transfor-mation texts.

35. An extremely interesting similar case is ni huaben xiaoshuo (pseudo oralfiction) in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), which were composed by literati in imita-tion of the actual storytelling by oral performers in earlier Song Yuan times. Manyof the literary devices characteristic of oral narration including the use of the inter-locutor can be found in literati pseudo huaben fiction.

36. The Japanese monk Ennin (794–864) who stayed in China from 838 to 867 offeredeyewitness testimony to religious Daoist sermonization in the capital city Chang’an.No doubt the practice must have an even longer history. See Ennin, Ru Tang QiufaXunli Xingji (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe, 1986), 147,151. See also Lao Yueqiang, “Shuojing Zhuwo,” 2007: 147–49.

37. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 180.

380 yuet keung lo