Skip to main content
Log in

Ontic Indeterminacy and Paradoxical Language: A Philosophical Analysis of Sengzhao’s Linguistic Thought

  • Published:
Dao Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For Sengzhao 僧肇 (374−414 CE), a leading Sanlun 三論 philosopher of Chinese Buddhism, things in the world are ontologically indeterminate in that they are devoid of any determinate form or nature. In his view, we should understand and use words provisionally, so that they are not taken to connote the determinacy of their referents. To echo the notion of ontic indeterminacy and indicate the provisionality of language, his main work, the Zhaolun 肇論, abounds in paradoxical expressions. In this essay, I offer a philosophical analysis and rational reconstruction of Sengzhao’s linguistic thought, with a view to exploring the rationale for and purpose of his use of paradoxical language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashmore, Robert. 2004. “Word and Gesture: On Xuan-School Hermeneutics of the Analects.” Philosophy East and West 54.4: 458−488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baozang Lun 寶藏論 (The Treasure Store Treatise), attributed to Sengzhao. In T, vol. 45, no. 1857.

  • Cheng, Chung-Ying. 1973. “On Zen (Ch’an) Language and Zen Paradoxes.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 1.1: 77−102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutinho, Steve. 2004. Zhuangzi and Early Chinese Philosophy: Vagueness, Transformation and Paradox. Hampshire and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Chien-hsing. 2008. “The Finger Pointing toward the Moon: A Philosophical Analysis of the Chinese Buddhist Thought of Reference.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 35.1: 159−177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, Hans-Rudolf. 2010. “‘Right Words Are Like the Reverse’—The Daoist Rhetoric and the Linguistic Strategy in Early Chinese Buddhism.” Asian Philosophy 20.3: 283−307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsura, Shōryū. 2000. “Nāgārjuna and the Tetralemma (Catuṣkoṭi).” In Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao, edited by Jonathan A. Silk. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

  • Liebenthal, Walter, trans. 1968. Chao Lun: The Treatises of Seng-chao. Second Revised Edition. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

  • Liu, Ming-wood. 1994. Madhyamaka Thought in China. Leiden, New York, and Köln: E. J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohe Bore Boluomi Jing 摩訶般若波羅蜜經 (The Mahāprajñāparamitā Sūtra), trans. by Kumārajīva. In T, vol. 8, no. 223.

  • Priest, Graham. 2002. Beyond the Limits of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Richard H. 1958–59. “Mysticism and Logic in Seng-Chao’s Thought.” Philosophy East and West 8.3/4: 99−120.

  • Sharf, Robert H. 2002. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, W. T. 1987. Mysticism and Philosophy. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takakusu, Junjirō, and Kaigyoku Watanabe, eds. 1924–35. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (abbreviated as T). Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai.

  • Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. 2006. In Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: A Sanskrit Edition Based upon the Manuscript Newly Found at the Potala Palace, edited by Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University. Tokyo: Taisho University Press.

  • Wang, Youru. 2003. Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism: The Other Way of Speaking. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weimojie Suoshuo Jing 維摩詰所說經 (The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra), trans. by Kumārajīva. In T, vol. 14, no. 475.

  • Westerhoff, Jan. 2009. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Dale S. 1982. “The Significance of Paradoxical Language in Hua-yen Buddhism.” Philosophy East and West 32.3: 325−338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhaolun 肇論 (The Treatise of Sengzhao), by Sengzhao. In T, vol. 45, no. 1858.

  • Zhaolun Shu 肇論疏 (A Commentary on the Treatise of Sengzhao), by Yuankang 元康. In T, vol. 45, no. 1859.

  • Zhonglun 中論 (The Middle Treatise), trans. by Kumārajīva. In T, vol. 30, no. 1564.

  • Zhuangzi Yinde 莊子引得 (A Concordance to Chuang Tzu). 1956. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, Supplement no. 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Zhu Weimojiejing 注維摩詰經 (A Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra), by Sengzhao. In T, vol. 38, no. 1775.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chien-hsing Ho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, Ch. Ontic Indeterminacy and Paradoxical Language: A Philosophical Analysis of Sengzhao’s Linguistic Thought. Dao 12, 505–522 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-013-9347-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-013-9347-9

Keywords

Navigation