A Study on the Sinification of Buddhism: The Acceptance of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra 成實論 and the Demise of the Chengshi School 成實學派

Abstract

The *Tattvasiddhiśāstra played an essential role in the history of Buddhism during the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420–589). Hitherto, the academic world has not systematically studied this treatise’s influence on the Sinification of Buddhism, specifically manifested in the emergence and demise of the Chengshi School. The acceptance of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra went through three stages. In the third stage, the Chengshi masters, who studied the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, affirmed this treatise as part of Mahāyāna. They adopted Mahāyāna doctrines to overcome the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra’s main limitation, lacking in-depth doctrines and an imperfect understanding of emptiness. However, they had mistaken that it was nirvāṇa rather than emptiness that limited the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. Although they omitted the final target of nirvāṇa, their approach to emptiness was still influenced by the progressive mode of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. This paper clarifies that the demise of the Chengshi School was due to the Chengshi masters’ overestimation of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and their misunderstanding of Harivarman’s intention. No matter how hard the Chengshi masters attempted to improve their understanding, the Chengshi School would have inevitably died out as the Sinification of Buddhism proceeded.

1. Introduction

The Sinification of Buddhism is a crucial issue in the study of the history of Chinese Buddhism. It has been over 2000 years since Buddhism was introduced to China. As an intercultural study, the Sinification of Buddhism continues to attract attention. It is well-recognized by academics that the Sinification of Buddhism has undergone various integration processes. The Sinification of religions does not mean deconstruction, but inheritance and innovation based on their adaptation to Chinese culture (Lou 2020, pp. 63–67). During this process, especially the era of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420–589), the acceptance of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra (collected in the Taishō Revised Tripiṭaka, hereafter T, T32 no. 1646) and the history of the Chengshi School1 have long been a question of great interest in various fields. It is still puzzling that the popularity of this treatise and the influence of the Chengshi School vanished rapidly.

To date, several studies have investigated the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and the Chengshi School. Most of them are parts of research, and few monographs or papers are devoted to these topics. Research on the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra can be introduced through two main themes. The first is about the original title of this treatise, reconstructed earlier as “*Satyasiddhiśāstra” (Bunyiu 1883, p. 280), which has been followed by many scholars (Fukuhara 1969; Arai 1998; Sastri 1975; Dhammajoti 2015). Over the past two decades, more scholars have accepted “*Tattvasiddhiśāstra” as its original title (Willemen et al. 1988; Potter 1999; Buswell and Lopez 2014; Lin 2015; Kardaś 2016). Fukuhara first proposed a new viewpoint which is still supported by some scholars today. Fukuhara deduced that the original name should be “Janaka-Paraḥ-Yathābhāva”.2 The second is the affiliation of Harivarman (ca. 250–350), the author of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. A large volume of studies describing his identification as Bahuśrutīya have been published. First seen in Johnston’s research ( Johnston 1972, xxxi–xxxv), this has also been supported by other scholars (Warder 1980, p. 293; Potter 1999, p. 255; Dessin 2009, p. 39). Furthermore, some scholars think Harivarman’s affiliation is complex due to his interaction with Mādhyamika (Priestley 1970; Kardaś 2016). In addition, Fukuhara examined different viewpoints and boldly concluded that Harivarman does not belong to any school; he only insisted on the truth he believed in (Fukuhara 1969, p. 352). In addition to these two aspects, scholars have also studied some of the Buddhist philosophical concepts in this treatise, including emptiness (Priestley 1970; Yao 2005, pp. 97–120), perception (Arai 1998), mind (Skt. citta), conjunction (Skt. saṃprayoga) (Dhammajoti 2015, pp. 255–57), etc.

For many years, the demise of the Chengshi School has been an inescapable topic in the narrative of Buddhist history. This issue is primarily the concern of the Chinese academic world. They commonly attribute it to challenges by the Sanlun School (Pan 2009, p. 668; Sheng and Lai 2010, p. 223; Guo 2012, pp. 530–44; Tang 2017, pp. 504–5). Only a few scholars have conducted in-depth studies on this issue. Du’s cross-cultural analysis proves that this demise was not due to external denial or criticism, but the inner contradiction between the traditional Chinese idea of “birth” and the Indian philosophical notion of “cessation (Skt. nirodha)” (Du 2008, p. 10). Similarly, Cui concluded that the flaw of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is that its characteristic of Hīnayāna could not adapt to the development of Chinese Buddhism (Cui 2016, p. 137). Overall, these studies are both based on a stereotype that the Sinification of Buddhism led Chinese Buddhism to choose the path of Mahāyāna while abandoning Hīnayāna because Mahāyāna Buddhism is easier to be accepted by merging with Confucianism. However, the Chengshi School chose an alternative path outside of the mainstream. Although their efforts to reconcile the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Mādhyamika failed, this process is still worth researching.

In this research, I use a hermeneutical method to investigate different views of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. The author, Harivarman, the translator, Kumarajiva (344–413), the advocators, Chengshi masters, and the critic, Jizang (549–623), have various understandings and opinions about this treatise. In other words, this paper presents the history of accepting the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, especially how the Chengshi School inherited and developed it. This paper will expose Harivarman’s real intention through describing the twofold truth and, in this way, responding to the discussion of the original title and the author’s affiliation.

From the perspective of doctrinal interpretation, this paper clarifies that the demise of the Chengshi School was due to their overestimation of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and their misunderstanding of Harivarman’s intention. They did not accept the final target as “nirvāṇa without remainder” (Skt. anupādiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) and instead tried to improve and rationalize this point. At the same time, they accepted Harivarman’s approach to reach the level of emptiness. No matter how they developed their theories, they could not escape this treatise’s progressive mode. Despite the ultimate failure of the Chengshi School, their unique innovations and attempts, which we can all empathize with, showed one of the possible paths of the Sinification of Buddhism.

2. The Acceptance of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra

The acceptance of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra went through three stages. The first stage was the translation of this treatise. There is almost no record of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra before it was introduced into the Chinese Buddhist world. Kumārajīva is the first person to mention this treatise and his translation contributed the earliest extant version of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. It is vital to figure out the motivation behind Kumārajīva’s translation.

Once the translation was completed, some reviews proposed by Kumārajīva were recorded in Sanlun xuanyi and Gaoseng zhuan:

Someone said: “This treatise explains the cessation (Skt. nirodha), just like Mahāyāna.” Kumārajīva heard and sighed: “Chinese monks are short sighted. How could they be so shallow?” 或有人言，此論明於滅諦，與大乘均致。羅什聞而歎曰，秦人之無深識，何乃至此乎？(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 3c17-19).

Kumārajīva addressed Rui: “This treatise challenges the Adhidhamma in seven places, while it only talked about the cessation. He can be called talented if he could understand it without consulting.” 什謂叡曰：“此諍論中有七變處文破《毘曇》，而在言小隱，若能不問而解可謂英才。”(CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 364b7-9).

It is a mystery why Kumārajīva, despite his low opinion of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, invested so much of his late years in translating this 16-volume work. The “Biography of Harivarman” (collected in Chusanzang jiji) offers a clue, highlighting the treatise’s esteemed reputation in Magādha (Bihar, India) (CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 79a21-22). During the translation, Kumārajīva worked from a foreign language version of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. A “Record of *Tattvasiddhiśāstra (collected in Chusanzang jiji)” stated the following:

Minister Yaoxian asked for a translation of this treatise. It was not finished until the following year. Master Kumarajiva interpreted the original version of the text. 尚書令姚顯請出此論。至來年九月十五日訖，外國法師拘摩羅耆婆，手執胡本口自傳譯。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 78a7-10).

Kumārajīva likely had access to the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra in his early years and had kept it for a long time. Moreover, Yaoxian (?–413) requested a translation of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. We can infer that during Kumārajīva’s lectures, he frequently mentioned this treatise, probably positively. That is why Yaoxian had heard of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra in advance and was interested in this treatise. In terms of volume, the work is quite long. The structure of the text is complete enough to show that the translator did not excerpt or revise the text, but reproduced it in its entirety. From the above points, we can ascertain that this treatise was valued then. Even Kumārajīva pointed out that this treatise was not Mahāyāna and only talked about the cessation. However, it still became popular in the world of Chinese Buddhism.

The second stage involved the rapid spread of this treatise. The early Chengshi School emerged gradually, and Kumārajīva’s disciples Sengdao 僧導 (362–457) and Sengsong 僧嵩 were treated as the founders of two lineages of the Chengshi School. In the “Biography of Sengdao”, he studied not only the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, but also the Sanlun treatises and preached one of the most famous Mahāyāna classic, Vimalakirti Sutra, at the same time:

At that time, there was a gathering of masters in Guanzhong (Xi’an, China). Sengdao was perceived to be personable and had studied various classics, especially *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, Commentaries on Sanlun…. The emperor ordered Sengdao to preach Vimalakirti Sutra in the Waguan monastery. 導既素有風神，又值關中盛集，於是謀猷眾典，博採真俗，迺著《成實》、《三論義疏》……即勅於瓦官寺開講《維摩》。(CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 371a29-b2, b22-b23).

Afterwards, Sengdao moved to the Donglin monastery in Shouchun (Lu’an, China) and adopted many monks fleeing from the north, forming the Shouchun lineage of the Chengshi School, as Gaoseng zhuan recorded:

Sengdao had disciples, such as Sengwei, Sengyin, etc. They were both good at *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. 導有弟子僧威、僧音等，並善《成實》。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 371c6-7).

The other one was the Pengcheng (Xuzhou, China) lineage of the Chengshi School. Historical records rarely mention Sengsong, but mainly focus on his disciples. “Weishu shilaozhi 魏書釋老志 (collected in Guanghongmingji 廣弘明集)” recorded:

In this monastery, there was a famous monk named Sengsong who learned *Tattvasiddhiśāstr from Kumārajīva. Afterward, he taught Sengyuan, and master Sengyuan taught Master Sengdeng and Master Sengji. 此寺近有名僧嵩法師者，受成實論於羅什，後授淵法師，淵又授登紀二法師。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T52, p. 104a22-24).

Sengsong’s most famous disciple, Sengyuan, was the actual founder of the Pengcheng lineage. Referring to the “Biography of Sengyuan (collected in Gaoseng zhuan)”, I can also find that Sengyuan studied both the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Abhidharma from Sengsong (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 375a27-29).

These materials clearly illustrate that the early Chengshi School was much closer to a sect in its form. The *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, Sanlun, and Abhidarma were all considered Buddhist classics and were widely studied by the monks. The *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, in particular, with its well-organized structure and easy-to-understand ideas, stood out among treatises, gaining significant popularity among the monks. This popularity played a crucial role in forming the early Chengshi School. Some outstanding masters among the learners gradually constituted the early Chengshi School, tracing their lineages back to Kumārajīva to inherit orthodoxy.

Along with the popularity of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, different editions gradually appeared. There is more than one edition of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra recorded in Lidai sanbaoji 歷代三寶紀: there is a 16-volume work, a 20-volume work, and a 24-volume work (CBETA 2024.R1, T49, pp. 78c22, 119c24). In 489, the emperor of Qi ordered a revision to this treatise. Zhouyu 周顒3 was chosen to record this incident. His preface shows the general skepticism of the Buddhist world towards the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. In the “Record of Abridge of *Tattvasiddhiśāstra 略成實論記 (collected in Chusanzang jiji)”, Zhouyu commented:

The *Tattvasiddhiśāstra abandons the essence and only pursues superficial things. People get lost in complicated discussions. 棄本逐末，喪功繁論。(CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 78a21).

Likewise, in his “Preface of the Copy of *Tattvasiddhiśāstra 抄成實論序 (collected in Chusanzang jiji)”, Zhouyu also pointed out:

*Tattvasiddhiśāstra reverses the position of cause and effect. This treatise cannot help people answer their questions. 摽因位果，解惑相馳。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 78b4).

Meanwhile, Zhouyu also affirmed the positive effects of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. He also explained that the purpose of this revisal was not to criticize, but to make it more acceptable to the Buddhist world.

*Tattvasiddhiśāstra is helpful to practice, and it is indispensable. In order to prevent learners from chasing the target, this treatise should be revised. 成實既有功於正篆，事不可闕，學者又遂流於所赴，此患宜裁。(CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 78b19-21).

As Kumārajīva previously discovered, the irrationality of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is its ultimate target, retirement (the Satya of cessation). As people’s understanding of Buddhism deepened, pursuing personal liberation was seen as a characteristic of Hīnayāna, which was not accepted in mainstream Chinese Buddhism. However, considering that it had spread over half a century, if they fiercely attacked or discredited this treatise, it would inevitably shake the faith of many monks. Therefore, a compromised revisal was adopted. It made the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra more reasonable and placed it in Mahāyāna doctrines. The most important thing is that all this effort was not carried out by the Chengshi School alone, but in concert with the masters of that time. Regarding its revised content, Zhouyu described the following:

The purpose of the modification is to simplify it, reducing the length of this treatise to nine volumes by cutting out the redundant and selecting the essential content. In this way, the content of Mahāyāna has not changed, but the troubles of learners will be reduced. 刊文在約降為九卷。刪賒採要取効本根。則方等之助無虧。學者之煩半遣。(CBETA 2024.R1, T55, p. 78b22-24).

This incident marked the transition of the Chengshi School from the second to the third stage. With the legitimacy of the lineage becoming less critical, their strong defenses of this treatise became their main characteristic. To them, it was also the most critical period in the Sinification of Buddhism. During the Liang Dynasty (502–557), Sengmin and Fayun, together with Zhizang, later known as the “Three Masters in the Liang Dynasty 梁代三大家”, were the representatives of the Chengshi School. They demonstrated a meticulous and thoughtful approach as they selectively inherited and developed the doctrines of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. They both showed their proficiency in interpreting Mahāyāna classics based on the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, as Jizang recorded in Fahua xuanlun:

Zhizang (in Kaishan Monastery) was praised for his interpretations on Mahāparinirvāņa-sūtra. Sengmin (in Zhuangyan Monastery) was famous for his interpretations on Daśabhūmika Sūtra and Śrīmālā-simha-nāda-sūtra. Fayun (in Guangzhai Monastery) was unique in his interpretations on Sad-dharma Puṇḍárīka Sūtra. 但開善以《涅槃》騰譽，莊嚴以《十地》、《勝鬘》擅名，光宅《法華》當時獨步。(CBETA 2024.R1, T34, p. 363c18-20).

With three masters dominating the Buddhist world in the Liang Dynasty, the Chengshi school reached its most potent point despite the significant skepticism it faced. The Chengshi school was not a lineage anymore. Anyone who was the advocator of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra could be called the “Chengshi master”. Just like their predecessors, they did not find out the fundamental limitations of this treatise. Thereby, they failed to truly understand the author’s intention and their inheritances and developments were in vain.

3. The Limitations of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Chengshi Masters’ Efforts

There are two main limitations of this treatise. One is that the treatise lacks an in-depth explanation of Buddhist doctrine, and the other relates to its understanding of emptiness. We should explain what this treatise talks about. In the 36th chapter of “Rūpa-Trait”, Harivarman directly pointed out the following:

It is stated that the “*SATYA-SIDDHI-ŚĀSTRA” will be composed. The term “Satya” stands for the four truths: suffering, origin of suffering, cessation of suffering, and the path gates… Now, I intend to ascertain the meaning of these terms in order (Sastri 1975, p. 75). 問曰：汝先言當說成實論，今當說何者為實？答曰：實名四諦，謂苦、苦因、苦滅、苦滅道……我今欲次第撰集令義明了故說。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, pp. 260c28–261a1).

The *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, a comprehensive work, is structured around the four truths (Skt. caturāryasatya). It consists of 202 chapters, which can be categorized into four parts: suffering (Skt. duḥkha), arising (Skt. samudaya), cessation (Skt. nirodha), and path (Skt. mārga). This scholarly work, despite its 16 volumes, delves into beliefs (three treasures), epistemology (three minds), ontology (emptiness), practice (meditation), and popular arguments (ten disputes)4. It can be likened to an encyclopedia. In comparison to the popular treatises of that era, the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is not precisely lengthy. For instance, Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra contains over 200 volumes and the Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra comprises 100 volumes; even Abhidharmakośabhāsya has 30 volumes. They are all longer than *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and yet are not as rich in their content as this treatise. No matter how knowledgeable the author, *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is always too narrow to include all Buddhist doctrines. Clearly, the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is a rich seam of doctrines, but it also seems so simple in detail.

During the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420–589), Chinese Buddhism experienced rapid development. In earlier times, this treatise had yet to be fully explored and was only used as a clue to grasp the entirety of Buddhist doctrines. This feature led to the flourishing of the Chengshi School during the second stage. With numerous Buddhist works being introduced and translated, people began to realize the limitations of this treatise; in other words, there were many replacements for the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. From the perspective of beliefs, the Jingtu School replaced three treasures with Amitabha in a more straightforward approach of praying. As for practice, the Tiantai School and Chan School provided effective meditation methods. In epistemology, the Shelun School explained it more deeply.

Even so, the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra still contains a unique twofold truth that significantly contributed to theoretical developments in ontology. We can find this influence in the “Order to explain the meaning of twofold truth 令旨解二諦義 (collected in Guang hongmingji)”:

The way of enlightenment is not one. The key points are perception (Skt. viṣaya) and wisdom (Skt. jñāna). Sometimes knowledge is presented through perceptual fields, or laws are understood through wisdom. Twofold truth is clarifying knowledge through perceptions. 明道之方，其由非一，舉要論之不出境智。或時以境明義，或時以智顯行，至於二諦即是就境明義。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T52, p. 247c2-5).

In Jizang’s Erdiyi, the Chengshi masters followed this view, adopting an even more extreme perspective:

Chengshi masters explain “meaning” by saying: “Ultimate truth (Skt. paramārtha-satya) and conventional truth (skt. saṃvṛti-satya.) are both perceptions. They all belong to the conventional truth. Truth cannot be described and can only be expressed in conventional words.”若是成論家解義者,即云:“真俗二諦是境。境有真俗，說真說俗，此兩說竝俗諦。真不可說，寄俗諦說也。”(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 87a26-28).

Due to the “unspoken” nature of the twofold truth, the Chengshi masters were driven to develop other doctrines. As members of the Chengshi School, they were not celebrated for their commentaries on the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, but for interpreting Mahāyāna. This is not a mere coincidence, but a result of their strong belief in the profound associations between these Mahāyāna classics and the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. Three masters’ efforts illustrated this vividly.

Fayun focused on the Sad-dharma Puṇḍárīka Sūtra, whose central theme involves the uniting of three vehicles into one. He believed that the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra should not be treated as Hīnayāna, but as a transition between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. Therefore, he explained Mahāyāna classics together with the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 464a26-28).

Sengmin was famous for his commentaries on the Daśabhūmika Sūtra and the Śrīmālāsimhanādasūtra. The Daśabhūmikasūtra talks about various levels of practice, while the Śrīmālāsimhanādasūtra emphasizes the unity of the four truths into the cessation. Similar ideas can be found in the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra.

Zhizang and his effort to spread the Mahāparinirvāņa sūtra should receive greater attention because doctrines of nirvāṇa can be supplementary to the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra in terms of its target. Zhizang established five stages of the Buddha’s body, as Jizang summarized in Zhongguan lunshu:

Buddha lives in a formless body in the fifth stage eternally. He has a perfect wisdom that can be widely mastered, and so is Buddha. 第五時明，佛常住佛無有色，但有一圓智有總御用，故名為佛。(CBETA 2024.R1, T42, pp. 140a15-17, a18-20).

Inspired by Mahāparinirvāņa-sūtra, in the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, “nirvāṇa without remainder” is replaced by perfect wisdom. To the Chengshi masters, this transformation perfectly solves the irrationality of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and finally returns this treatise to the claims of Mahāyāna.

Three Chengshi masters made efforts to uphold the position of this treatise. However, Jizang, as a Sanlun master, did not accept the confusion between the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Mahāyāna. In Sanlun Xuanyi, Jizang pointed out it was “emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā)” not “nirvāṇa” that limited *Tattvasiddhiśāstra:

What *Tattvasiddhiśāstra illustrates is the emptiness as Śrāvakayāna (understands it). 成實所明但是聲聞空。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 4b9-10).

Sad-dharma Puṇḍárīka Sūtra examines the way how Śrāvakayāna argues emptiness. Śrāvakayāna cannot perceive existence through emptiness or know emptiness through existence. They are not identical. *Tattvasiddhiśāstra says so. If it does not, is there any difference between *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Mahāyāna? 法華之文，辨聲聞證空，不能即空觀有，即有觀空，故無相即。成實所說亦無相即。若明相即，應空有並觀，若空有並觀,與大乘何別？(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 4b15-18).

Jizang uses “Śrāvakayāna” instead of “Hīnayāna” when addressing this treatise. Jizang believed that Harivarman’s understanding of emptiness had been ahead of his time. However, the Chengshi masters’ interpretations of Tattvasiddhisastra were outdated by Jizang’s time. For this reason, Jizang regarded Harivarman highly and fiercely criticized the Chengshi masters:

Suppose anyone asserts that this treatise belongs to Mahāyāna. It must be his followers’ fault, not Harivarman. 若言斯論亦明大者，過在門人，非跋摩之咎。(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 3c24-25).

Jizang’s high regard of Harvarman can also be found in the four types of monks which Jizang divided:

The third type of people, like Harivarman or other Sautrāntika, have already known emptiness of the inner (Skt. adhyātma-śūnyatā) and emptiness of existences (Skt. sarvadharma-śūnyatā) with the advanced foundation. According to their understanding, the Abhidharma is inferior in Hīnayāna while *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is superior. 三者譬喻訶梨之流，具得二空，為上根人也。約空義淺深，則毘曇為小乘之劣，成實為小內之勝也。(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 5a4-5).

Jizang suggested that the Chengshi masters should accept the limitation of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. He admired Harivarman’s meticulous thought and his foundation regarding Mahāyāna. However, he deeply regretted that Harivarman was discouraged by his teacher’s failure to fully understand Mahāyāna (CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 4c1-4).

In addition to theoretical development, the Chengshi masters attempted to explore a path of faith. During the Northern Qi Dynasty (550–577), Chengshi master Daoji was disrespected by his disciple (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 701a21-25). This unpleasant experience urged him to reflect on his thirty years of teaching the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. Eventually, Daoji gave up the path of Buddhist doctrines and started writing his most famous work, Jinzang lun 金藏論, which focuses on the faith of Buddhism. This incident is recorded in the “Biography of Daoji (collected in Xu gaosengzhuan)”:

Daoji said: “I have taught *Tattvasiddhiśāstra for thirty years…Now, I only understand rather than practice. It is better not to understand at all…” Daoji returned to his house and studied Buddhism comprehensively. He enlightened laypeople and finished a work called Jinzang lun, consisting of seven volumes. 吾講成實，積三十載…今解而不行，還如根本不解矣…”乃退掩房戶，廣讀經論，為彼士俗而行開化。故其撰集，名為金藏論也，一帙七卷。(CBETA 2024.R1, T50, pp. 701a25-27, a29-b2).

Jinzang lun revolves around a few stories about Saṃskāra and aims to persuade people to be moral. As a result, he achieved considerable success among the laypeople. Although Daoji had given up his achievement on *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, he never regretted his choice (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 701b18-19). As the Northern Qi Dynasty was replaced by the Northern Zhou Dynasty (557–581), Daoji’s teachings faded.

Both examples demonstrate that the Chengshi masters were not just proficient in the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra; they were outstanding masters who focused their efforts on overcoming these two limitations. Concerning the first point, they innovated to perfect its doctrines. However, in terms of the second, they rarely realized the irrationality of the “Śrāvakayāna emptiness” rather than the “Hīnayāna nirvāṇa”. The progressive mode of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra influenced the Chengshi masters’ ideas, causing their efforts to reconcile the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Mahāyāna (especially Mādhyamika) to inevitably be in vain.

4. The Theoretical Failure of Chengshi Masters

Before the revision of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, the thoughts of the Chengshi School and the Sanlun School were almost identical as they studied emptiness and developed the notion of twofold truth in Buddhist doctrines. It is important to note that “the twofold truth” can both be found in *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Madhyamaka, but differing greatly in these two contexts. This shared name serves as a connection point, allowing us to delve deeper into the subject. Furthermore, the Chengshi masters misunderstood the author’s actual intention from the start. They exaggerated the importance of emptiness in this treatise and omitted the final target of nirvāṇa. In this way, this treatise is still valuable in terms of its ontological doctrines, but has lost its authentic purpose.

4.1. Ignoring the Differences Within the Truth

The core concept of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is the “truth” or “Satya”. Harivarman said his purpose was to ascertain the meaning of “truth” (CBETA 2024.R1, T32, pp. 260c28-261a1). This text is structured into four parts, each presenting a unique perspective on the meaning of “truth”. The author’s approach through “double twofold truth” reveals that the descriptions of “Satya” change with the constant exploration of the perceptual world. The first twofold truth appears in the 141st chapter of “Setting up of Nominalism (Skt. prajñapti-sthāpana)”:

The first ultimate truth is what are (the separate elements) Rūpa, etc., and Nirvāņa. The second one, i.e., conventional truth is what is mere prajñapti, nominalism, e.g., the conception of a pitcher of rūpa, color, etc. and the conception of purușa on the basis of five aggregates (Sastri 1975, pp. 334–35). 真諦謂色等法及泥洹，俗諦謂但假名無有自體，如色等因緣成瓶、五陰因緣成人。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, p. 327a21-23).

The second twofold truth is presented in the 153rd chapter of “Cessation of Dharma-idea”:

Why is it then stated that things, rūpa, etc., are the absolute truths? They are stated so for the good of the ordinary men. There are certain persons harboring the notion of the absolute truth towards the five aggregates (Sastri 1975, p. 356). 問曰：若五陰以世諦故有，何故說色等法是真諦耶？答曰：為眾生故說。有人於五陰中生真實想，為是故說五陰以第一義故空。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, p. 333a13-16).

Sastri uses “ultimate truth” and “absolute truth” to make a distinction. Examining them etymologically, they are both derived from the same Sanskrit word “Paramārtha-Satya”. The word “Paramārtha-Satya” means the real or entire truth. (Monier-Willams 1899, p. 588c). The scholarly debate on whether Harivarman intentionally differentiates the usages of “ultimate truth” and “absolute truth” or just adopted the meaning of “Paramārtha-Satya” is an engaging aspect of my study.

By comparing the Chinese text, “ultimate truth” mainly refers to four noble truths (Skt. caturāryasatya), which can be found in the following places:

When the Buddha knows the living beings’ opportune mind, soft mind and disciplined mind, then he preaches the four noble truths (Sastri 1975, p. 126). 佛若知眾生歡喜心、柔軟心、調和心，堪任得解脫，然後為說四真諦法。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, pp. 274c28–275a1).

Just as white garments are placed in the lake, their color one experiences very well; likewise, this person sitting in a place perceives four truths (Sastri 1975, p. 468). 鮮淨白疊投之池中即時受色，此人如是，即於一坐見四真諦。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, p. 362c17-19).

The next step is to figure out the meaning of “absolute truth”. It is commonly known that Kumārajīva preferred using “absolute” to refer to the emptiness in the translations of Prajñā treatises (CBETA 2024.R1, T25, p. 210c8-9) (CBETA 2024.R1, T30, p. 21b17-18). As for “absolute truth”, it is the negation of the five aggregates (Skt. pañca-skandha) or four noble truths because their nominations are not actual, which can be found in the following places:

The Sūtra saying that they are void from the absolute truth indicates that they are void from the objective truth (Skt. artha-satyatā) and not empirically. The absolute truth is that the matter is void and akiñcanam, non-thing, consciousness is void and non-thing. Therefore, to view things, matter, rūpa, etc. as void is termed the vision of the absolute voidness. (Sastri 1975, pp. 355–56). 又經中說第一義空，此義以第一義諦故空，非世諦故空。第一義者，所謂色空無所有，乃至識空無所有。是故若人觀色等法空，是名見第一義空。(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, no. 1646, p. 333a10-13).

Obviously, Kumārajīva chose these two translations to highlight the difference between them. Furthermore, the word “Paramārtha” means the highest or whole truth and spiritual knowledge (Monier-Willams 1899, p. 588c). Clearly, “Paramārtha-Satya” involves the pursuit of the higher truth. Hence, the point is not whether “ultimate truth” and “absolute truth” are identical or not; they are all established in comparison.

The Chengshi masters were devoted to the twofold truth between perception and wisdom, but ignored the differences within truth. When exploring perceptual fields, the cognition of the world eventually reaches emptiness. This approach may seem right, but it goes against the author’s intention. To Harivarman, his real purpose was not to clarify the emptiness, but to accomplish the emptiness.

4.2. Progressive Mode in the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra

The author’s intent to emphasize the process of “establishing” in the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, the so-called “treatise on establishing reality” (Buswell and Lopez 2014, p. 180), is a profound philosophical approach. The author adopts a progressive mode, affirming the latter through negating the former. Returning to the discussion of the original title, “Janaka-Paraḥ-Yathābhāva”, the word “Janaka” means both generative and producing (Monier-Willams 1899, p. 410c), aligning with the author’s intention concerning establishing. The word “Para” means farther than, beyond, more than, and better or worse than (Monier-Willams 1899, p. 586b), being in harmony with the author’s progressive thinking. Compared to “Tattva” or “Satya”, they both have the meaning of the “true state” (Monier-Willams 1899, pp. 433a, 1135c), as the word “Yathābhāva” means proper condition or relation (Monier-Willams 1899, p. 842c). It is closer to the reality in which we live. Undoubtedly, this title is more in line with the author’s idea than the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra or *Satyasiddhiśāstra.

Following the author’s reasoning, the substantiality of existences and the five aggregates can be considered destroyed. In addition, emptiness negates existence, which cannot be a concept of being. As a result, there is no reality at all. How does Harivarman answer it?

The cessation exists by way of absolute truth. The Sūtra says: False is what is trifling (Skt. tucchaka). Truth is what exists truly (Skt. yathābhūta). The cessation is definitely yathābhūta and hence it is truly existing (Sastri 1975, p. 480). Additionally, Yogin could obtain a wisdom of yathābhūta. All existences are emptiness; therefore, cessation is the absolute existence. 滅是第一義諦故有。如經中說：“妄謂虛誑，諦名如實。滅即是如實決定，故名第一義有。”又行者生真實智，一切有為皆悉空無，故知滅是第一義有。”(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, p. 365b28-c3).

Harivarman’s statement is pivotal in understanding the concept of ultimate reality. He posits that this reality is not tied to any specific existence, but rather to a profound understanding he calls the wisdom of yathābhūta. In a world where everything is nominal and perception is but an illusion, the deconstruction of the five aggregates into emptiness emerges as the only truth. This truth does not necessitate the destruction of anything but rather a guiding of oneself into the realm of emptiness. The absolute state or transcendence that results from this process is beyond the reach of language, leading Harivarman to focus on the methods of cessation rather than attempting to describe the state itself. Two methods are outlined for achieving this state:

It is ceased in two stages: (1) When one enters into the concentration devoid of the mind and (2) When one enters into Nirvāņa without residue… Śāstra says: “In the person of the Yogin who has abandoned these three minds in the action and defilements do not operate.” (Sastri 1975, p. 359). 問曰：此空心於何處滅？答曰：二處滅，一入無心定中滅、二入無餘泥洹斷相續時滅…論者言：“行者若能滅此三心，則諸業煩惱永不復起。”(CBETA 2024.R1, T32, p. 333c21-23,25-26).

The following diagram shows the vertical axis from the conventional truth to absolute truth, representing this progressive mode. The horizontal axis also shows how the author conceives this treatise in terms of four truths (Skt. caturāryasatya) (Figure 1). To conclude, “nirvāṇa without remainder” is not just a possibility, but the inevitable consequence of this mode, a fact that cannot be ignored.

4.3. Chengshi Masters’ Prejudice and Overinterpretation

Although the Chengshi masters followed Harivarman’s approach, they did not accept the third part of cessation and attempted to reconcile the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra with Madhyamaka. In Zhizang’s “Interpretation of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra (quoted in Dacheng xuanlun)”, he uses three middle ways to explain Madhayamaka’s theory: “the middle way of conventional Satya”, “the middle way of true Satya”, and “the middle way of conventional and true Satya” (CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 26a19-25). This doctrine is beyond the scope of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and contrary to the idea of Madhayamaka. Apart from the previous analysis in this paper, I adopt hermeneutics to present a further explanation.

Gadamer provided an intricate definition of “prejudice (G. Vorurteil)” as a judgment rendered before all the elements that determines a situation as having been finally examined. Thus, “prejudice” certainly does not necessarily mean a false judgment, but is part of the idea itself; it can have either a positive or a negative value (Weinsheimer and Marshall 1994, p. 283). This complexity, far from being a barrier, is an intellectual challenge that the Chengshi masters grappled with. As advocates, their understanding of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, initially as an introductory treatise to Buddhist doctrines, was influenced subconsciously by a progressive mode, forming a prejudice that continued to affect their understanding and acceptance of the Mahāyāna. Furthermore, the foundation of Mahāyāna also contributed to their prejudice against the final target, “nirvana without remainder”. Therefore, the Chengshi masters abandoned cessation and firmly insisted that the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra was a part of Mahāyāna.

The Chengshi masters’ knowledge of Buddhism was more excellent than the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, and their perspectives on Buddhist doctrines, including their understanding of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, Madhyamaka, nirvāṇa, etc., can be treated as their “horizon (G. Horizont)”. The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point (Weinsheimer and Marshall 1994, p. 313). One intends to understand the text itself. However, this means that the interpreter’s thoughts re-awaken and affect the meaning of the text. Gadamer described this as a “fusion of horizons (G. Horizontverschmelzung)” (Weinsheimer and Marshall 1994, p. 406).

In this study, the Chengshi masters’ understanding and interpretation of this treatise can be considered a fusion of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra and Madhyamaka. Three masters were obsessed with the noumenon of twofold truth and were deeply engaged in attempting to reconcile the contradictions between these two contexts. Jizang reviewed this in his Sanlun xuanyi:

Although (Chengshi masters) know twofold truth, some of them agree that the noumenon of the twofold truth is one as well as some of them insist it is two. These arguments are both false and deviate from ultimate and conventional truth. 雖具知二諦，或言一體，或言二體。立二不成，復喪真俗也。(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 6a21-22).

Suppose twofold truth have their own noumenon, the connection will be broken. If they connect each other, two noumena cannot be established. Neither of inferences is valid, and vice versa. 若言各體，相即便壞。若有雙即，便二體不成。故進退無通，異義亦屈。(CBETA 2024.R1, T45, p. 6a27-29).

As a result, three masters were engaged in overinterpreting Madhyamaka or Mahāyāna. They did not accept cessation as the final target, and in this case, there is no way to solve the noumenon of the twofold truth.

Despite Jizang’s fierce criticism, the Chengshi School did not simply vanish as assumed in general history. A few monks continued to interpret Mahāyāna based on the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, following in the footsteps of the three masters who shaped the school’s interpretation. This lineage is evident in the records of the Sui and Tang Dynasties (581–907) found in Xu gaosengzhuan:

Leading by Zhijue in Zhuangyan temple, new Chengshi School became famous for generations. 莊嚴㬭師，新實一家鷹揚萬代。 (CBETA 2024.R1, T50, p. 502c23-24).

In addition, Zhijue’s disciples Zhituo 智脫 (541-ca.607), Zhiyan 智琰, and Zhiju 智聚 (538–609) advocated for the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. Although we cannot ascertain their main ideas completely, this path eventually leads to a dead end.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, the function of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra constantly changed. Initially, Harivarman created this work to guide practitioners to absolute cessation. For Kumārajīva, it served as an instruction for beginners. For three masters, this treatise was the basis upon which they developed Mahāyāna doctrines. Their views on this treatise also differ. As the author, Harivarman’s motivation was to synthesize various Buddhist doctrines through this work. As the translator, Kumārajīva considered this treatise an object of comparison with the Abhidhamma. As followers, the Chengshi masters treated this treatise as an essential foundational work and were deeply influenced by its progressive mode.

The failure of the Chengshi School’s doctrinal interpretation is not the only factor that led to its demise. The doctrinal interpretation was not the most important, but it was the most overlooked during the Sinification of Buddhism. From this point of view, the heyday of the Chengshi School emerged because the Chengshi masters aimed to defend the legitimacy of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra more than to develop its doctrines. Although many commentaries are recorded in the Gaoseng zhuan and Xu gaoseng zhuan5, the Chengshi masters were more likely to choose a path of fusion (as mentioned above) rather than promoting this treatise’s own value.

Neverthless, the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra is a unique and complete treatise that culminates in the cessation of everything; nothing can be supplementary structural. Any development of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra essentially involves the development of other schools’ ideas (mainly Mahāyāna). Harivarman perfected this path, leaving only two feasible ways to go forward. The first is spreading the faith of the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra, and the second is seeking a more practicable method to the cessation. Daoji carried out the former while the latter left no trace. As a path of belief, derivative works, such as moral instructions, were hardly collected in the Tripitaka. Therefore, they remained scattered among the folk writings, waiting to be exposed.

When Harivarman created this work, he had limited the theoretical innovation of the later generation. Despite the Chengshi masters’ efforts to improve their doctrines, the Chengshi School still inevitably died out during the Sinification of Buddhism. We can also find that the Chengshi School spread to Japan where it also declined afterward. This process is very different to that in China and awaits future clarification. In any case, Mahāyāna Buddhism represents the mainstream trend in Chinese Buddhism. The Chengshi School, a fleeting historical phenomenon, was one of the endless possibilities of the Sinification of Buddhism. Additionally, the Chengshi masters contributed greatly to the development of the doctrines of Chinese Buddhism, even if their unique creations of Buddhist doctrine have not been accepted and inherited.