The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch

WE HAVE SEEN how Ch’an in the eighth century began with a school that emphasized the Laṅkāvatāra Sutra, under the direction of an illustrious and learned priest, Shen-hsiu. He was revered as few were in his time, and honors were heaped upon him; gradually his power and position grew. Among his disciples were priests of no less fame, who carried on his teachings. To assure its newly acquired position among other Buddhist sects, this Ch’an school was in need of historical records to prove its legitimacy and to attest to the antiquity of its teaching. To this end records of the sect were devised; but so scanty was the available information that the compilers of the first histories were compelled to rely on a non-Ch’an work, the Hsü kao-seng chuan, to piece out their story. To this they added various legends, established a line of transmission, and arrived eventually at a theory of the succession of six Patriarchs, from Bodhidharma through Shen-hsiu. This was the tradition that was known at the court and among high officials, the literati, and the populace in general, in the third decade of the eighth century. The Ch’an priests who represented this tradition were honored men; when they passed away elaborate funerals were held, and distinguished stylists composed their epitaphs. But in the hinterlands, in the provincial capitals removed from Loyang and Ch’ang-an, were other Ch’an teachers whose teachings derived from the same Hung-jen, who had been Shen-hsiu’s Master. We know that they existed, but there was no one to record their teachings, no one to commemorate their deaths with elegantly inscribed stone inscriptions, no one to gather their stories or those of their spiritual ancestors.

The first of these is Fa-hai’s “Brief Preface”1 to the Platform Sutra. Because of its attribution to Fa-hai, who is known as the compiler of the Platform Sutra, many writers have accepted it and its contents as reliable.² Let us see what it says.³

The Master’s name was Hui-neng. His father was Lu Hsing-t’ao and his mother was of the Li family. He was born between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. on the eighth day of the second month of Chen-kuan 12 [= February 27 or March 28, 638].⁴ When he was born beams of light rose into the air and the room was filled with a strange fragrance. At dawn two mysterious monks visited the Master’s father and said: “The child born last night requires an auspicious name; the first character should be ‘Hui,’ and the second, ‘Neng.’”

The priest answered: “‘Hui’ means to bestow beneficence on sentient beings; ‘Neng’ means the capacity to carry out the affairs of the Buddha.” When they had finished speaking they left, and there is no one who knows where they went.

The Master would not drink his mother’s milk and at night a heavenly being brought nectar for him. When he was twenty-four years of age he heard a sutra and was awakened to the Way. Going to Huang-mei, he sought sanction [for his understanding]. The Fifth Patriarch, recognizing his ability, bestowed on him the robe and Dharma and made him his heir. This was in the year 661. He returned to the south where he remained in hiding for sixteen years. On the eighth day of the first month of I-feng 1 [= February 26, 676] he met the Dharma-master Yin-tsung, who became enlightened and awakened to the Master’s teaching. On the fifteenth day of the same month, before a gathering of the whole assemblage, Hui-neng had his head shaven. On the eighth day of the second month various illustrious priests gathered together and ordained him.⁵ The Vinaya-master Chih-kuang of Hsi-ching sponsored his ordination; Vinaya-master Hui-ching of Su-chou supervised the functions; Vinaya-master T’ung-ying of Ching-chou served as teacher; Vinaya-master Ch’i-to-lo of India was in charge of reading the precepts; and the Indian Tripitaka Master Mi-to testified to the precepts.

Thereupon, the Master’s head was shaven and he received the precepts, and for the sake of the assemblage, he expounded the doctrine of the single transmission [from mind to mind], just as had been predicted in the past (from the year 502 of the Liang dynasty to the year 676 of the T’ang dynasty was some 175 years).⁷

In the spring of the following year the Master took leave of the assembly to go to the Pao-lin Temple, and Yin-tsung and over a thousand monks and laymen saw him off. Soon he arrived at Ts’ao-ch’i. At that time the Vinaya-master, T’ung-ying, accompanied by several hundred students, went to the Pao-lin Temple at Ts’ao-ch’i because the Master was there.

Seeing that the temple buildings were too small for the assembly, Huineng wanted to enlarge them. Thereupon he asked a native of the village, Ch’en Ya-hsien: “I seek a donation from you of a piece of land on which to spread my sitting cloth (niṣīdana). Can you supply it for me?”

The Master took it out and showed it to him, and Ya-hsien agreed to his proposal, but when the Patriarch spread out his cloth it covered the whole of Ts’ao-ch’i. The Four Deva Kings materialized bodily and, squatting down, took up guard at each of the four directions, and because of this a hill within the temple precincts is known as the Deva King Peak.

The only other place where Fa-hai’s preface may be found is in the Yüan edition of the Platform Sutra, where it appears under the title Liu-tsu ta-shih yüan-ch’i wai-chiř.8 This text varies only slightly from the version translated above.⁹ Not only is this preface not found in any source prior to the Yüan dynasty, but there is also no reference whatsoever to it in any of the earlier editions of the Platform Sutra, or in any of the literature relating to Hui-neng. Its contents, as will be seen, often parallel that of other works, but such similarities cannot serve to relate it to them chronologically. There are, however, several stories about Hui-neng’s career that appear only in this preface. That they were not copied, enlarged upon, or alluded to in other works indicates that these stories are of extremely late origin, for one of the major characteristics of the literature relating to Hui-neng is the borrowing of biographical details from earlier sources. In this instance the details are too striking to enable us to entertain the possibility that this is an early work, and that the stories it contains were arbitrarily rejected by later writers.

Of Fa-hai himself we know almost nothing. Other than the mention in the Platform Sutra (sec. 55), which states: “This Platform Sutra was compiled by the head monk Fa-hai, who on his death entrusted it to his fellow teacher Tao-ts’an,” and the notice in section 57, where it is stated: “This priest was originally a native of Ch’ü-chiang hsien in Shao-chou,” we have no information whatsoever. Presumably the priest mentioned in section 57 is Fa-hai; at least the compiler of the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu seems to have thought so, for the information concerning Fa-hai’s place of origin is repeated in that work.¹¹ The notice in the Ch’üan T’ang wen, preceding the text of the preface, which gives a biographical note on Fa-hai, is clearly in error.¹² It may be possible that Fa-hai can be identified with Chih-hai, mentioned in the Li-tai fa-pao chi,¹³ as a disciple of the Sixth Patriarch, but there exists no corroborating evidence.

Another inscription which can be placed in the same category is the Kuang-hsiao ssu i-fa t’a-chi,14 attributed to the priest Fa-ts’ai and dated 676. It commemorates the burial of Hui-neng’s hair after he had received tonsure at the hands of Yin-tsung at the Fa-hsing Temple¹⁵ in Canton. The text details the history of the establishment of an ordination platform at the Fa-hsing Temple by Gunabhadra, the planting in 502 of a bo tree by Chih-yao, and his prediction that 160 years¹⁶ later some one would come to preach the doctrine before countless people. All this information is found in Fa-hai’s preface. The text then tells how Yin-tsung was impressed by Hui-neng’s ability, how the latter’s head was shaven, and goes on to recount that an eight-sided seven-story pagoda was erected on the site where the hair was buried. There is no mention of this inscription in early sources, and it is not given in the Sung kao-seng chuan, which relied on such inscriptions for a large part of its information. The original inscription is said to have been destroyed, and a new one erected in 1612.¹⁷ Its contents and the fact that it is not mentioned elsewhere, lead one to conclude that it is of late origin, and not of sufficient historical validity to be used as a source for Hui-neng’s biography.

One item from the Ch’üan T’ang wen requires further mention. This is the request, previously discussed, for Hui-neng to appear at the imperial court.¹⁸ Here it is attributed to the Emperor Chung-tsung, and relates how Shen-hsiu and Hui-an, while at court, stated: “In the south is the Ch’an Master [Hui]-neng, who was in secret given the robe and Dharma by the Master [Hung]-jen,” and suggested that he be called to court. The text then reports that the envoy Hsieh Chien was dispatched to tender the invitation. The notice here is untitled and bears no date.

The first record of Hui-neng to which any degree of authenticity can be attached is the passage in the Leng-chia shih-tzu chi which includes his name along with those of ten other disciples of the Fifth Patriarch.²¹ Although only his name is mentioned, there is not much reason to doubt its authenticity, since it is recorded in a history compiled by a priest of the sect that was to become the rival school to that of Shen-hui and Hui-neng.

For our next information about Hui-neng we must turn to the inscription composed by the poet Wang Wei.²² Written at the request of Shen-hui, it mentions incidents in the life of Hui-neng as they were known to Wang Wei. Unfortunately, the inscription is not dated, so that the exact year in which it was written cannot be determined.²³ In summary, its contents are as follows:

It would seem then, that in the third, fourth, and fifth decades of the eighth century there were two unrelated groups of legends about Hui-neng, one centering about his experiences from birth until the time that he left the Fifth Patriarch, and the other concerned with the time after he had left Huang-mei until he became a priest and started teaching at Ts’ao-ch’i. Eventually these legends were brought together, rationalized, and presented as one cohesive story.

Among the books brought to Japan by Saichō is a curious work, the Sōkei daishi betsuden,²⁹ which is no longer extant in China. A biography of Hui-neng, it amalgamates the many legends and also adds a considerable body of new material, much of it demonstrably unreliable.³⁰ It is the product of an entirely different school of Ch’an, that of Hsing-t’ao,³¹ a disciple of the Sixth Patriarch, who was the keeper of the Master’s pagoda at Ts’ao-ch’i. Some of the stories parallel those already seen in the Shen-hui yü-lu, others are mentioned but not elaborated upon by Wang Wei, and still others are entirely new. Obviously, though, it is the source for many of the stories on which later works based their biographies. The Tsu-t’ang chi, Sung kao-seng chuan, Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, and the “Preface” by Fa-hai use much of the material it contains, and it is quite probable that the missing books of the Pao-lin chuan included some of the material found here.

At the west stone grotto, a place in the area, was a certain Yüan ch’an-shih, who practiced meditation, as well as another priest, Hui-chi by name. The Master encounters both these men and is impressed by their wisdom. From Hui-chi he hears of the Master Jen at Huang-mei, and on the third day of the first month of Hsien-heng 5 (= February 14, 674), when he is thirty-four,³⁸ he leaves Ts’ao-ch’i to attend on Hung-jen at Huang-mei, traversing wild and desolate areas, and passing alone and unafraid parts where fierce tigers abound. His meeting with Hung-jen is recounted: “Where are you from?” the Fifth Patriarch asks. “From Hsin-chou in Ling-nan,” is the reply. “How can a person from Hsin-chou in Ling-nan expect to become a Buddha?” Hung-jen asks. Hui-neng replies: “What is the difference in Buddha-nature between someone from Hsin-chou in Ling-nan and you?”³⁹ Hung-jen is impressed, and recognizes Hui-neng’s talent, but puts him to work for eight months pounding rice. Because his body is too light, he ties a large rock around his waist in order to give himself added weight. Later the Fifth Patriarch goes to the threshing room and talks with Hui-neng, and afterwards calls him to his room, where he expounds the Dharma, and tells of the transmission from Kāśyapa to Ānanda to Śaṇavāsa to Upagupta, and “then on through the twenty-eight Indian Patriarchs to Dharmatrāta,”⁴⁰ and then through the Chinese Patriarchs, until it reached Hung-jen, who is the Fifth. Then he transmits the Law to Hui-neng, explains how it was not cut off with Simha bhikṣu, the twenty-fourth Patriarch, and sends Hui-neng off, bearing the robe and bowl symbolic of the transmission. He is accompanied by Hung-jen as far as Chiu-chiang station, from where he sets out for the south.

When he is thirty-nine, in the first year of I-feng,45 he arrives at the Chih-chih Temple,⁴⁶ which is presided over by Yin-tsung, an authority on the Nirvāṇa Sutra. He participates in an argument among several monks as to whether the banner on the staff is moving or whether the wind is moving, declaring that it is neither; it is the mind that moves. Impressed, Yin-tsung talks with Hui-neng on the following day and discovers that he is the heir of the Fifth Patriarch. Eventually, on the seventeenth day of the first month of I-feng 1 (= February 6, 676) his head is shaved by Yin-tsung, and on the twenty-eighth day of the second month (= March 17, 676) he is ordained. The names and titles of several participating priests are mentioned, and the prediction made by Paramārtha when he planted two bo trees by the ordination platform is described. Later Hui-neng preaches to the assembly and engages in a question-and-answer session with the thirteen-year-old acolyte from the Ho-tse Temple, Shen-hui.⁴⁷ Hui-neng is asked to remain at the Chih-chih Temple, but he expresses the desire to return to the Pao-lin Temple in Ts’ao-ch’i, and is seen off by Yin-tsung and some 3,000 followers.

On the fifteenth day of the first month of Shen-lung 1 (= February 13, 705) the Emperor Kao-tsung48 requests Hui-neng to come to court. The proclamation states that famous priests from all over the country have assembled at court, and that Shen-hsiu and Hui-an have recommended that Hui-neng be called, since he in secret received the teaching from Hung-jen and possesses the robe and bowl of Bodhidharma. It goes on to say that the court is dispatching the vice-commissioner Hsieh Chien to greet the Master, and that it is hoped that he will comply at once. Hui-neng declines, pleading illness, and says that he desires to remain at his own temple to regain his health. Here follows a passage in which Hsieh Chien asks Hui-neng questions concerning the teaching, to which Hui-neng makes reply. Hsieh Chien then returns to the capital. On the second day of the fourth month of Shen-lung 3 (= May 7, 707) a proclamation praising Hui-neng, accompanied by a gift of a priest’s gown and 500 bolts of cloth, is sent to Hui-neng. On the eighteenth day of the eleventh month (= December 16, 707) a tablet entitled Fa-ch’üan Temple is sent, along with orders to repair the Buddha-hall and the sutra storehouse at the Master’s temple, and also to convert the Master’s old house in Hsin-chou into a temple called Kuo-en.⁴⁹ In 712⁵⁰ the Master goes to the Kuo-en Temple to see about the repairs. In 711 he has a pagoda for his coffin built at Ts’ao-ch’i. In the seventh month of 713 he urges the hurried completion of the building, but his disciples do not understand the import of his words. In the eighth month of this year, in answer to Shen-hui,⁵¹ who asks to whom the robe is to be handed down, Hui-neng replies that it is to be given to no one, but that seventy years after his death two Bodhisattvas will appear, one a layman who will restore his temple, and the other a priest who will propagate his teachings.⁵² The Master passes away on the third day of the eighth month of this year (= August 28, 713), while in a sitting position. His age at death is seventy-six. The reactions of nature and the supernatural phenomena which occurred are described. We now hear that a metal band was fitted about his neck, his body was lacquered completely, and on the thirteenth day of the eleventh month (= December 5, 713) he was placed in a coffin.

In 739 someone dragged the Master’s body out into the garden and attempted to cut off the head, but one of the monks, hearing the sound of grating metal, rushed out, and the intruder fled.⁵³ The text then goes on to explain that it has been seventy-one years from the Master’s death in 713 until the present (782). Next we are presented with an utter confusion in dates. We are told that in 713 one of the Master’s leading disciples, Hsing-t’ao, was charged with guarding the Master’s robe, and that thirty-five years after this date Wei Ch’ü⁵⁴ wrote an inscription for the Master, which was effaced in 719 by a lay disciple of Northern Ch’an, Wu P’ing-i, who wrote a text of his own. Then follows a story about a certain Huang ch’an-shih, who had studied under the Fifth Patriarch and then had returned to his home temple, where he practiced meditation sitting. Ta-jung, who had spent thirty years under Hui-neng, happened to pass by Huang’s temple, and, as a result of a conversation between the two priests, Huang discovered that he had been sitting thirty years in vain, went to the Sixth Patriarch, and gained enlightenment in 711.⁵⁵

Next we have the text of a mandate by the Emperor Su-tsung, dated the seventeenth day of the twelfth month of Shang-yüan 2 (= January 16, 762),56 in which Hsing-t’ao, together with his lay disciple Wei Li-chien,⁵⁷ is requested to accompany the imperial commissioner, Liu Ch’u-chiang,⁵⁸ to court, bearing the Sixth Patriarch’s robe. On the first day of the first month of Ch’ien-yüan 2 (= February 3, 759), Hsing-t’ao declines this invitation, pleading illness, and sends in his stead his disciple Hui-hsiang,⁵⁹ who takes the robe with him. On the seventeenth day of the first month (= February 19, 759), Hsing-t’ao passes away at the age of sixty-nine.⁶⁰ Hui-hsiang is awarded a purple robe by the emperor, and a layman who accompanies him is made a priest. There follow several imperial mandates, bestowing names on temples and changing temple names.⁶¹ Next we have a lengthy request, undated, in which Hui-hsiang asks permission to leave the court, and a statement by the emperor in which Hui-hsiang’s accomplishments are praised. Then on the twentieth day of the eleventh month of Ch’ien-yüan 3 (= December 31, 760) Emperor Su-tsung sends the imperial commissioner Ch’eng Ching-ch’i⁶² to offer incense before the grave of the Sixth Patriarch, whereupon from within the grave a white light leaps forth, soaring straight up to a remarkable height.

The Sōkei daishi betsuden then concludes its story by quoting a mandate sent by the emperor when he returned the robe to Ts’ao-ch’i in Pao-ying 2 (763).⁶³ The emperor states that in a dream the Sixth Patriarch had asked him to return the robe to Ts’ao-ch’i, and therefore he is sending the General Yang Ch’ung-ching⁶⁴ with the robe, which is a National Treasure, and should be installed in the temple and guarded from loss. Here follows the mention of six miraculous occurrences which happened during the Master’s life and after his death.

Tsung-mi provides a brief biographical sketch of the Sixth Patriarch in his Yüan-chüeh ching ta-shu ch’ao,68 but adds no significant information which has not been seen before. The Sung kao-seng chuan, while it does not add much to the knowledge of the legend, provides information on the posthumous honors done Hui-neng by a number of prominent officials.⁶⁹ It does not shed much light on Hui-neng himself, but does indicate the prominence to which he had been lifted by Shen-hui’s campaign. We have no corroborative sources for many of the statements made, and we do not know on what this work based its information. We are informed that the vice-president of the Army Ministry, Sung Ting, made an inscription concerning Hui-neng to accompany some paintings made in a new building that Shen-hui built for the Sixth Patriarch at the Ho-tse Temple. These paintings told the lineage of the school, starting from the Tathāgatha, running through the Indian Patriarchs, and including the six Patriarchs in China.⁷⁰ Fang Kuan⁷¹ wrote a preface for the pictures which represented the six generations in China. Sung Chih-wen⁷² paid a call on Hui-neng and wrote a long piece about it.⁷³ Chang Yüeh (667–731)⁷⁴ offered incense and presented a poem, presumably at Hui-neng’s tomb. Wu P’ing-i wrote a poem for the Sixth Patriarch, and since Nan-yüeh Huai-jang was casting a giant bell at the time, the verse was inscribed on it, in Sung Chih-wen’s hand. Sung Ching (662–737)⁷⁵ paid his respects at the pagoda and questioned Hui-neng’s disciple Ling-t’ao⁷⁶ about points of doctrine, and was pleased with the answers he received.

Hsüeh Chien said: “When I return the emperor will be sure to question me. I beg of you to be so compassionate as to indicate to me the essentials of your teaching.”

The Master said: “There is no light and darkness in Tao. Light and darkness suggest alternation. Light cannot be exhausted and then again it is exhausted.”

Hsüeh Chien said: “Light symbolizes wisdom and darkness symbolizes the passions. If the practicer does not destroy the passions by illuminating them with wisdom, how can he escape from the endless cycle of birth and death?”

The Master said: “To illumine the passions with wisdom is the shallow view of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha, the technique of the sheep and deer.⁷⁸ No one with superior wisdom and great capacity (the Mahāyāna believer) is like this.”

“If a person is endowed with these two samādhis, he is like a seed within the ground which has been retained and nourished well, and then has been brought to fruit. These two samādhis are just like this.

“The sermon that I have just preached is like the rain that waters the great earth, and your Buddha natures are like the many seeds that sprout when they encounter the wetness. Those who embrace my teachings will without fail gain enlightenment (bodhi) and those who follow my practices will surely realize the wondrous fruit.”

In the first year of Hsien-t’ien [712] the Master announced to the assembly: “Although unworthy, I received the robe and the Dharma from Master Hung-jen, and now I am preaching to you. The robe will not be handed down, for the root of your faith is deep, you are firm and without doubts, and you are fit for the one great causal event (the appearance of a Buddha in this world). Listen then to my verse:

After finishing his verse the Master said: “This Dharma is not dual; neither is the mind. This Tao is pure and has no form at all. Take care not to contemplate purity or to make the mind empty. The mind is from the outset pure; there is nothing you must grasp or throw away. Each one of you must exert himself. Leave now and go to wherever circumstances lead you.”

The Master answered: “The possessor of Tao will get it and the one with no-mind will penetrate it.”

The Master replied: “Some five or six years after I die someone will come to get my head. Listen to my prediction:

We have reviewed and discussed the biographical material relating to Hui-neng. But with all this information can a biography really be written? Can we select from this material what is most probable; can we determine which account is reliable, which represents the true story? Some of the elements of some of the biographies can be rejected outright, yet what we have seen does not represent the compilation of a biography. It is no more than the development of a legend, one part of the story of the gradual rise of Ch’an in the eighth century. And when we come to the Platform Sutra, the work which purports to convey Hui-neng’s life and describe his teachings, we find ourselves faced with the same insoluble problems.

¹ CTW, ch. 915 (XIX, 12032–33). It is entitled Liu-tsu ta-shih fa-pao t’an-ching lüeh- hsü.

² Ui, Zenshü shi kenkyū, II, 174, dates it at “around 714.” W. T. Chan, The Platform Scripture, p. 158, n. 13, gives a similar date, and lists it first among the sources for Hui-neng’s biography.

³ The full translation from the Ch’üan Tang wen is given below. The reader is referred to secs. 2–11 of the translation of the Platform Sutra for an account of events not detailed in Fa-hai’s preface.

⁴ There are two second months in Chen-kuan 12. The text does not indicate which one is referred to here.

⁵ The following names are those of the three superior priests and two of the priests of lesser rank whose presence was required at an official ordination.

⁶ The version in the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p. 235c, differs: the Tripitaka Master is given as Paramārtha (Chen-ti); he is said to have planted two trees; and to have predicted that Hui-neng’s appearance would be 120 years in the future.

⁷ Note in the original text.

⁸ T48, pp. 362b–63a. This edition places the preface at the end of the work. The Yüan edition compiled by Te-i (see below, p. 107) contains the same preface with identical title, but places it at the head of the text, following Te-i’s own preface. See Gen Enyū Kōrai kokubon Rokuso daishi hōbō dankyō, Zengaku kenkyū, no. 23 (July, 1935), pp. 1–63.

⁹ The variants are discussed in Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 175–76. He notes some fourteen textual differences, mostly of an insignificant nature.

¹⁰ T50, p. 755a.

¹¹ T51, p. 237a. Chan, The Platform Scripture, p. 22, assumes that the priest mentioned in section 57 is Hui-neng, and that there is thus a contradiction in the text between this section and section 2, which describes Hui-neng’s origins. Sections 55–57, however, seem clearly to be additions to the text, designed to promote the authenticity of Fa-hai’s particular school, or of the priests who succeeded him. I can see no justification for Chan’s assumption.

¹² CTW, ch. 915 (XIX, 12032). The editors of Ch’üan T’ang wen have mistakenly followed information concerning the Fa-hai mentioned in the Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, pp. 736c–37a, but this is clearly a different person. See Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 253.

¹³ T51, p. 182c.

¹⁴ CTW, ch. 912 (XIX, 11996). The text is also found in Kuang-hsiao ssu chih, ch. 10, pp. llb–12a.

¹⁵ An old name for the Kuang-hsiao Temple.

¹⁶ Fa-hai’s preface gives 170 years.

¹⁷ Tokiwa Daijō, Shina Bukkyō shiseki ki’ nenshū hyōkai, p. 34.

¹⁸ CTW, ch. 17 (I, 241). See above, p. 31.

¹⁹ See above, p. 31.

²⁰ CTS 191, p. 14a.

²¹ See above, p. 17.

²² Wang Yu-ch’eng chi-chien-chu, pp. 446–49. The inscription is entitled Neng ch’an-shih pei.

²³ Hu Shih, “Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China, Its History and Method,” Philosophy East and West, III (no. 1, April, 1953), in the same article gives two different dates for the inscription: p. 10, “about 734”; p. 13, “at the time of Shen-hui’s exile” (i.e., 753–56). Gernet, “Biographie du Maître Chen-houei du Ho-tsö,” Journal Asiatique, 249 (1951), 48, gives the probable date as 740. He reasons that since Wang Wei was made Censor of General Affairs in 739, and because he is given this title in the text of the Shen-hui yü-lu (Hu Shih, Shen-hui ho-shang i-chi, p. 137; Gernet, Entretiens du Maître de Dhyāna Chen-houei du Ho-tsö, p. 63), it was probably written after this date.

²⁴ In addition to the biographies contained in the Shen-hui yü-lu (Suzuki text), pp. 53–64, we have reference to a lost work, the Shih-tzu hsieh-mo chuan, which is mentioned in the P’u-t’i-ta-mo Nan-tsung ting shih-fei lun (Hu Shih, Shen-hui ho-shang i-chi, p. 159; Gernet, Entretiens . ., p. 81; Hu Shih, “Hsin-chiao-ting te Tun-huang hsieh-pen Shen-hui ho-shang i-chu liang-chung,” CYLYYC, XXIX [no. 2, February, 1958], 838), and which also contained biographies of the Patriarchs. The title of this lost work is the same as an alternate title to the Li-tai fa-pao chi (see above, p. 40). and there is a very close resemblance between the biographical material in the Li-tai fa-pao chi and the Shen-hui yü-lu (Suzuki text). Therefore, we may be justified in assuming that there may have been a close relationship between these three works, and that a fairly detailed biography of Hui-neng was in use in Shen-hui’s school at the time that Wang Wei’s inscription was being written.

The problem of the dating of Shen-hui’s works remains. If we knew accurately when they were written, they would serve to pinpoint certain elements in the development of the story of Hui-neng’s biography. The only work for which we have an exact date, however, is the Shen-hui yü-lu (Suzuki text). The year the manuscript was transcribed is given as 791 (the year of the era and the cyclical designation do not correspond. See Gernet, “Complément aux entretiens du Maître de Dhyāna Chen-houei,” BEFEO, XLIV [no. 2, 1954], 454). The Li-tai fa-pao chi may be dated at around 780. Hu Shih, “Hsin-chiao-ting . . .,” p. 873, estimates that the Tun-huang manuscript of the P’u-t’i-ta-mo Nan-tsung ting shih-fei lun (which contains mention of the lost Shih-tzu hsieh-mo chuan) was made sometime during the T’ien-pao era (742–756). This does not provide us with a particularly precise date; however, the contents of Shen-hui’s works furnish certain clues to the approximate date of certain events. Contained are accounts of Shen-hui’s meetings with various officials; and when the biographies of these officials are consulted, it is possible to date approximately when these meetings took place. For example, a conversation between Shen-hui and the Minister Chang Yüeh is recorded (Hu Shih, Shen-hui ho-shang i-chi, p. 115; Gernet, Entretiens . . ., p. 31), and since Chang Yüeh died in 731, we know that the meeting took place prior to this date. Again Fang Kuan (697–763), as Gernet points out (see Gernet, “Complément . . .,” p. 455, fn. 1), is mentioned as holding the rank of Grand Secretary of the Imperial Chancellery (Shen-hui yü-lu [Suzuki text], p. 42) at the time he questioned Shen-hui. Since Fang Kuan (Biography in CTS 111, pp. 2a–6b) held this rank between 744 and 755, and later achieved a higher rank, it would indicate that the conversation took place some time during this period, and furthermore that the text was compiled at the same time, since Fang Kuan would have been referred to by the highest rank he achieved if it had been compiled later. It would thus appear safe to place Shen-hui’s writings between 732, when the meeting at Hua-t’ai took place, and the end of the T’ien-pao era, 756.

There remains, however, one further problem: because Shen-hui’s works were recorded by his disciples and we have a manuscript made as late as 791, we might be justified in questioning to what degree the texts have been altered, emended, or refined. There is no way of arriving at a definite conclusion to this problem, but there seems no particular reason to assume that the texts do not represent Shen-hui’s own words, or a close approximation of them. These works did not persist in China; it is only through their preservation at Tun-huang that we have knowledge of them. Several copies did make their way to Japan around the middle of the ninth century (the P’u-t’i-ta-mo Nan-tsung ting shih-fei lun is included in Engyō s list of 839 (Reiganji oshō shōrai hōmon dōgu mokuroku, T55, p. 1073b); the Nan-yang Wen-ta tsa-cheng i (apparently the correct title for what has come to be called Shen-hui yü-lu) is found in Ennin’s list of 847 (Nittō shin gushōgyō mokuroku, T55, p. 1084a), Enchin’s list of 857 (Nihon biku Enchin nittō guhō mokuroku, T55, p. 1101a), as well as his list of 859 (Chishō daishi shōrai mokuroku, T55, 1106C), and in Eichō’s list of 1094 (Tōiki dentō mokuroku, T55, p. 1164b); a work known as Ho-tse ho-shang ch’an-yao is found in Enchin’s list of 857 (T55, p. 1101a), as well as his list of 859 (T55, p. 1106c), but these works are no longer extant. The failure of Shen-hui’s works to persist in the Ch’an tradition may justify our assumption that they were not subjected to any great degree of textual tampering.

The above considerations lead us to believe that at the time that Wang Wei’s inscription was made there was also in current use in Shen-hui’s school a fairly detailed biographical account of the careers of the Chinese Patriarchs, including one descriptive of Hui-neng.

²⁵ See above, p. 32.

²⁶ The Li-tai fa-pao chi, T51, p. 183c, gives seventeen years.

²⁷ It is included in the Li-tai fa-pao chi in considerable detail. It is not found under the biography of Hui-neng, which closely resembles the Shen-hui yü-lu (Suzuki text), but in the supplementary material which follows the biography.

²⁸ For such an attempt, see Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 173–248.

²⁹ zz2B, 19, 5, 483a–88a. It has a lengthy original title descriptive of its contents. The title Sōkei daishi betsuden was given the work by its Japanese editor Sohō in 1762. The existing manuscript was written in 803 and obtained by Saichō on his trip in 804. For a discussion of the work, see Hu Shih, “T’an-ching k’ao chih i,” Hu Shih wen-ts’un, IV, 292–301, and Matsumoto Bunzaburō, Bukkyō shi zakkō, pp. 94–98. A word of caution in regard to the use of the Zokuzōkyō edition is required. There are apparently a considerable number of misprints in the text. A facsimile reproduction in scroll form exists, but I have been unable to locate a copy. Thus, in the summary of the work given in the following pages, what appears to be an error on the part of the Sōkei daishi betsuden itself may in fact be an error on the part of the editors of the Zokuzōkyō.

³⁰ Hu Shih, “T’an-ching k’ao chih-i,” pp. 299–300, discusses eight errors he has discovered in the work.

³¹ The Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, p. 755b, and the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p 236c, give his name as Ling-t’ao.

³² See p. 75.

³³ This is the only source that says that Hui-neng’s mother and father both died when he was young.

³⁴ This work gives his death date as 713, at the age of seventy-six. He would thus be thirty-three, by Chinese reckoning, not thirty, in 670.

³⁵ The legend of Hui-neng’s illiteracy, found in section 8 of the Platform Sutra, and constantly repeated in later works, makes its first appearance here. It is a convenient means to emphasize that Ch’an is a teaching which must be transmitted silently from mind to mind, without recourse to written words. The frequency with which Hui-neng quotes the sutras in the Platform Sutra would seem to belie the legend of his illiteracy, unless he learned to read in later life. The question is academic; we do not know enough about Hui-neng to determine whether he could or could not read.

³⁶ He is not, however, ordained at this time.

³⁷ Another miscalculation; he would be thirty-six.

³⁸ This too is an error; he would have been thirty-seven in 674.

³⁹ See Translation, sec. 3.

⁴⁰ The Sōkei dais hi betsuden seems to have followed a tradition similar to the Li-tai fa-pao chi, but omitting the third Indian Patriarch. It does not, however, change the name of Dharmatrāta to Bodhidharmatrāta. It would seem that even at this late date the name of Bodhidharma had not gained full currency among all the schools of Ch’an.

⁴¹ His biography is given in Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, p. 756b–c. See Translation, p. 134, n. 47.

⁴² I-ch’un hsien, Kiangsi.

⁴³ Ssu-hui hsien, Kwangtung.

⁴⁴ Huai-chi hsien, Kwangsi.

⁴⁵ Again a mistake in dating. Hsien-heng 5 is 674; I-feng 1 is 676. Yet he is said to have spent five years in hiding. Note that Wang Wei gives the period of time as sixteen years and the Li-tai fa-pao chi as seventeen years.

⁴⁶ Another name for the Fa-hsing Temple. See Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 205–6, for a discussion of the changes of name of this temple.

⁴⁷ Here Shen-hui is called a young boy at the time he visits Hui-neng; he appears once as a youth in the Platform Sutra (sec. 48). At any rate, Shen-hui, who was born in 670, would have been seven, not thirteen, if the Sōkei daishi betsuden is to be believed.

⁴⁸ Kao-tsung died December 28, 683; thus the attribution is obviously in error. For this proclamation, see pp. 30, 65.

⁴⁹ Both of these proclamations are erroneously attributed to Kao-tsung. They appear (as one proclamation) in the Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, pp. 755b–c; in the Tsu-t’ang chi, I, 94–96; the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p. 236c; and the Yüan edition of the Platform Sutra, T48, p. 360a.

⁵⁰ This date is suspicious; it is later than the next one mentioned.

⁵¹ In the Platform Sutra it is Fa-hai who asks this question.

⁵² We have seen this prediction before as twenty years. It so appears in the Platform Sutra (sec. 49). The reason for seventy years is unclear, but it may very well refer to the compilers of the Sōkei daishi betsuden, which was made about seventy years after Hui-neng’s death.

⁵³ This story, first introduced by Shen-hui (see p. 28), is greatly enlarged in later works. See Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, p. 755b, and Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p. 236c.

⁵⁴ See Translation, p. 125, n. 5.

⁵⁵ This story is found, under the names of the individual priests concerned, in the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p. 237c (under Chih-huang); p. 243c (under Hsüan-su). See Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 262–63, for the variations of these priest’s names.

⁵⁶ Another dating error. The year is probably Ch’ien-yüan 1 (= January 20, 759).

⁵⁷ Unknown.

⁵⁸ Unknown.

⁵⁹ Biography unknown. The Sung kao-seng chuan, T50, p. 755c, gives his name as Ming-hsiang.

⁶⁰ The Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu, T51, p. 244a, gives his age at death as ninety-five, but does not give the year. He is said to have received the posthumous title “Ta-hsiao ch’an-shih.”

⁶¹ It is not quite clear to which temple or buildings these apply. Presumably they refer to specific buildings at Ts’ao-ch’i, or to the temple built at the Master’s old home in Hsin-chou.

⁶² Unknown.

⁶³ Although Pao-ying 2 is mentioned in the text, the mandate itself is dated the seventh day of the fifth month of Yung-t’ai I (= May 31, 765). Since a textual note remarks that the robe had been kept for seven years at the Tsung-ch’ih Temple, the latter date is more likely. The emperor was Tai-tsung. The text of this mandate is also found in^{CTW, ch. 48 (II, 646).}

⁶⁴ Unknown.

⁶⁵ Ts’ao-ch’i ti-liu-tsu tz’u-shih Ta-chien ch’an-shih pei, CTW, ch. 587 (XII, 7535).

⁶⁶ Ui, Zenshū shi kenkyū, II, 179, believes that this date should be corrected to 816.

⁶⁷ Ts’ao-ch’i liu-tsu Ta-chien ch’an-shih ti-erh pei ping-hsü, CTW, ch. 610 (XIII, 7824–25).

⁶⁸ zzl. 14, 3, p. 277a.

⁶⁹ T50, pp. 755b–c.

⁷⁰ We are not told when these paintings were made, but it was presumably before 745, when Shen-hui went to Loyang. One may assume that there were thirteen patriarchs represented, conforming with Shen-hui’s theories of the transmission of the Dharma.

⁷¹ For his biography see CTS 111, pp. 2b-6b and HTS 139, pp. la–2b. He rose to be grand secretary of the Imperial Chancellery, vice-president of the Bureau of Justice, and president of the Grand Secretariat of the Left. He died in 763 at the age of sixty-seven.

⁷² His biography is in CTS 190, pp. 9b–10b. A famed poet, he was recognized at court by the Empress Wu, but was in frequent difficulties and was exiled from time to time. He was allowed to commit suicide in the Hsien-t’ien era (712–713). He was at one time exiled to Ling-nan, so that it is possible that he visited the Sixth Patriarch at the time. See H. A. Giles, Chinese Biographical Dictionary, no. 1829.

⁷³ Not preserved.

⁷⁴ Biography in CTS 97, pp. 7a–13b; HTS 125, pp. 5a–9a. Biographical notice in Giles, Chinese Biographical Dictionary, no. 134.

⁷⁵ Biography in CTS 96, pp. 6a–10b; HTS 124, 5b–9a. Biographical notice in Giles, Chinese Biographical Dictionary, no. 1830.

⁷⁶ He appears in the Sōkei daishi betsuden as Hsing-t’ao.

⁷⁷ The exact quotation has not been located. It paraphrases a passage in the Diamond Sutra: “If someone says that the Tathāgata comes and goes, sits or lies down, that person does not understand what I teach” (T8, p. 752b).

⁷⁸ Reference is to the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra (T9, p. 76a).

⁷⁹ Unidentified.

⁸⁰ Translation uncertain. The text reads: lai-shih wu-jih. The Yüan edition of the Platform Sutra substitutes k’ou (mouth) for jih (day) (T48, p. 361b): “When leaves return they have no mouth (speak no words)” or “When I come I will have no mouth.”

⁸¹ This verse predicts the events detailed at the end of this selection. A man in need of food was hired by a Korean monk to cut off the Sixth Patriarch’s head and to take it to Korea so that it might be venerated there. The man was named Man and the officials concerned with the thief’s punishment were Yang and Liu.

⁸² The table of contents to chüan five lists Hui-neng and forty-three heirs. For nineteen some sort of information is provided; the others are given by name only. Of the remaining twenty-four men, then, fourteen can be considered “true heirs,” and the other ten should be assigned to “collateral branches.”

⁸³ T51, pp. 235b–37a.