182 CHAPTER EIGHTand tathagata-garbha, which the Chinese interpreted as fo-hsing (Buddha-
nature), became more and more prominent. Some monks specialized in single
texts; others traveled from group to group to broaden their learning. Eventu-
ally these study groups either died out in China or else were absorbed into
the multisystem schools of later centuries. A few of them were exported to
Korea and Japan, where they have maintained a separate existence up to the
present day.
Paradoxically, this respect for Buddhist texts spawned a number of apoc-
ryphal translations-texts composed in Chinese that claimed to be translations
from Sanskrit-as individual thinkers tried to bestow the authority of scrip-
ture on their own understanding ofBuddhist doctrine. Foremost among these
texts was The Awakening cif Faith, attributed to Asvagho~a (see Section 4.4),
which gave a Taoist tinge to the notion of the Buddha-nature as the One
Mind from which all things came. This text was to play a major role in shap-
ing the Ch'an and Hua-yen schools.
As Chinese scholars gained greater familiarity with Buddhist texts during
this period, they were confronted with a variety of doctrinal issues. Some of
the issues, such as the question as to whether some beings were ineligible for
Buddhahood (Strong EB, sec. 8.3.1), were hotly debated. This particular issue
was sparked by an incomplete translation of the NirvifiJa Sutra and was settled
only after a more complete translation of the text came to light. This incident
underscored the point that not all available translations were totally reliable,
and that there was a continued need for efforts to get back to the source. How-
ever, even in the more trustworthy translations there were many points of con-
tradiction. The fact that all the Sutras claimed to come from the Buddha led
many thinkers to S,e.ek a comprehensive system for resolving the differences
among them. They ended up turning from the scholastic treatises to the
Mahayana Sutras, which furnished the rudiments of an explanation: The Bud-
dha used skillful means and preached different doctrines to suit the conditions
of his various audiences at different points in his career. This interpretation
struck a responsive chord, as it fit in with the Arcane Learning theme of dis-
tinguishing basic principles from their expression. That the Mahayana Sutras
were the ones offering this explanation is one of the factors that assured the
ascendancy of Mahayana over Hi:nayana in Chinese thought.
One of the first proposals for ordering Buddhist doctrines based on this in-
sight was offered by Hui Kuang (468-537). According to him, the Buddha
taught four essential doctrines, in ascending order of sophistication: (1) the
Abhidharma doctrine that claims that phenomena arise in accordance with
causes and conditions, a doctrine taught to counteract the view of spontaneous
origination; (2) the Satyasiddhi doctrine that claims that phenomena are no
more than mere names, as they cannot exist independently of causes and con-
ditions; (3) the Madhyamika doctrine that claims that even names are empty
because there are no substantial phenomena underlying them; and (4) the doc-
trine of the ever-abiding Buddha-nature that constitutes the ultimate reality,
taught by the Nirvif1Ja and Avataf!1saka Sutras, among others. This attempt to