ALL THE DIFFICULTIES encountered in attempting to place the Platform Sutra in a positive historical setting repeat themselves when one attempts to deal with the thought and ideas contained in the work. One can, however, make a few remarks about the thought and structure of the Platform Sutra as a whole. There is a certain plan of arrangement detectable; some sections have been added by the compilers, as has been previously noted, with a specific purpose in mind. At the risk of occasional repetition, let us examine the work briefly in terms of the content of the various sections.
The Platform Sutra can be divided into two basic parts: the sermon at the Ta-fan Temple, which includes the autobiography (sees. 1-31, 34-37), and all the remaining portions of the work. This latter material, while largely unrelated to the sermon, does at times serve to reiterate and reinforce certain points of doctrine. The title: “Southern School Sudden Doctrine, Supreme Mahāyāna Great Perfection of Wisdom: the Platform Sutra preached by the Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng at the Ta-fan Temple in Shao-chou” applies to the sermon alone, and clearly identifies the type of Buddhism that is to be preached.
The work opens as though it proposes to launch immediately into the sermon, but the preaching has scarcely begun when it is interrupted by the story of Hui-neng’s early life. By using an autobiographical format, the compilers are able to impart to the audience a sense of intimacy with Hui-neng. A simple man of humble origins, unlettered and without pretensions, he was able with his own innate capacities to achieve the highest rank in Ch’an, while yet a layman. The availability of this teaching to the populace in general is emphasized throughout the work. Not only was Hui-neng himself a layman when he first undertook his training, but the sermon is delivered at the behest of Wei Ch’ü, a government official, before a large audience of monks, nuns, and lay followers. This point is further brought out in section 36, where it is specifically stated that study as a layman is not only possible, but that it may be carried out as well outside the temple environment as within.
Hui-neng’s illiteracy, much spoken of in later Ch’an, is treated here in a rather casual manner, and serves primarily to underline the conflict with Shen-hsiu. We are told early in the autobiography (sec. 8) that Hui-neng cannot read, and that someone with the ability to write was needed to inscribe the verse that he had composed on the wall. In the story of Fa-ta and the Lotus Sutra (sec. 42), we again hear of the Sixth Patriarch’s inability to read. Later Ch’an has called much attention to Hui-neng’s supposed illiteracy, largely in an effort to underline the contention that Ch’an is a silent transmission from “mind to mind,” which does not rely on the written word. The Platform Sutra, however, does not seek to convey this impression: Hui-neng’s first interview with the Fifth Patriarch is verbal, a written verse demonstrates the degree of Hui-neng’s understanding, and, after he has transmitted the Patriarchship, the Fifth Patriarch spends the night expounding the Diamond Sutra to his heir. There is no indication here that the written word and the canonical works are in any way inimical to the teaching of Ch’an. Indeed, when one takes into account the fairly large number of scriptural references contained in the sermon, it is clear that the Tun-huang version of the Platform Sutra was not particularly concerned with emphasizing Hui-neng’s illiteracy, nor was it attempting to assert that Ch’an was a teaching in which traditional Buddhism played no part. It may well be that the compilers of the Platform Sutra judged that a lack of knowledge of the written word on Hui-neng’s part would serve to emphasize the availability of the teaching to any who might come to seek it.
The account of Hui-neng furnished by the autobiography stops with his departure for the south after he has gained the Patriarchship. Of his life until he reached Shao-chou, where he preached the sermon, we are told nothing. In the meanwhile he has become a renowned Ch’an Master, the recognized Sixth Patriarch, and it is as such that he appears throughout the remainder of the Platform Sutra. A few biographical details are furnished, the circumstances surrounding his death are described, but chiefly we find him as the rather disembodied voice represented by the phrase: “The Master said.”
We do not gain from this work any precise knowledge either of the manner in which the doctrine was transmitted or of the teaching methods used. The transmission is described merely as the acknowledgment on the part of the teacher of his disciple’s understanding. Up to the time of Hui-neng, we are told, the robe of Bodhidharma was handed down as a symbol of the transmission of the teaching. But the Platform Sutra pointedly explains that this practice ceased with the Sixth Patriarch, for in section 49 we find Hui-neng stating that the robe is no longer to be handed down. We know that the Fifth Patriarch had a large number of disciples to whom he transmitted the Law, but of this the Platform Sutra does not inform us, for Hui-neng alone is mentioned as heir. But of Hui-neng’s disciples, some ten who were present at his death are listed (sec. 45). It would seem, then, that at this time a renowned Ch’an teacher, such as Hung-jen or Hui-neng is esteemed to have been, gathered under him a great number of disciples. Those with particular talent served the Master, attended on him, received instruction from him, and eventually became teachers on their own. We do not know precisely how these heirs were designated or which of the students whose names appear in conjunction with Hui-neng were legitimate heirs. By the time the Ching-te ch’uan-teng lu was completed in 1004, the number of Hui-neng’s heirs had in-increased to forty-three.1 The Platform Sutra, however, is quite specific in its insistence that a copy of the work itself be required as proof of the transmission of the teaching (sec. 38). Thus the abandonment of the robe as a symbol is compensated for, as far as this work is concerned, by the establishment of the Platform Sutra itself as proof of the transmission.
Exactly what teaching method was used at this time is not completely clear. We know that sermons, addressed to the monks and to people at large, played an important role. From the later sections of the work we can also gather that individual priests came, almost at will, to question the Master and to ask for an explanation of problems that bothered them. Whether these questions were put in private or before a large gathering of monks is not quite clear. We are told, in the story of Fa-ta (sec. 42), that all who were present to hear his conversation with the Master gained enlightenment, which would indicate a public assembly. It is probable that both methods were used, but we have no evidence here of the use of the private interview, a teaching technique that developed later. It would seem then that various wandering priests, the Vinaya-masters and specialists in individual sutras that we hear of, as well as monks and laymen who showed an interest, might appear as the spirit moved them. Those who felt an affinity for the Master’s teaching would stay and become disciples, and perhaps eventually, heirs, but there seems to have been no compulsion to remain, and as yet no particular monastic establishment or order of which they were required to become members.
The Platform Sutra offers no clear picture of the method of study employed nor does it indicate to what extent canonical works were used. Meditation, of the type advocated by this work, was undoubtedly a major feature of the training, but the details are never spelled out. Because the need for self-realization is emphasized so greatly, it may be assumed that to a large extent the disciple was on his own. He obviously must have received some instruction from the Master, but to what degree is not explained. The method of teaching, as seen here, consisted primarily of sermons, given before both large audiences and small groups, and the elucidation of particular problems that faced the student. Other than this he seems to have been obliged to work out his own Ch’an destiny.
When one turns to the sermon one is at once struck by the fact that almost all of the basic ideas presented are drawn from canonical sources; they are by no means concepts original to the Platform Sutra. For the most part they are phrases, terms, and ideas taken from the context of various sutras, and discussed, to a certain extent, in terms of Ch’an. Most often these concepts are supported by canonical references; indeed the compiler makes no claim for their originality, for he quotes Hui-neng as saying: “My teaching has been handed down from the sages of the past; it is not my personal knowledge” (sec. 12). Although it is not our particular concern here, it should be reiterated that passages in the sermon are found, very frequently in almost identical form, in the works of Shen-hui. We have, then, basic ideas, drawn from a variety of sources, which, while later subjected to exhaustive elaboration and commentary by other Ch’an figures and in later editions of the Platform Sutra, are here presented in a rather simple form. Most often they are statements and brief descriptions of the teaching, the Sudden Doctrine of the Great Perfection of Wisdom, which the audience is exhorted to try out and realize for itself. It should be noted, too, that while at times a specific idea can be traced to a particular sutra, the same idea may very often appear in a variety of works. Thus, except where a specific book may be cited, one cannot with any degree of assurance, identify the exact source from which a certain concept derives.
Following roughly the order in which they are presented in the text, let us examine briefly the major ideas that appear. The identity of prajñā and meditation, a fundamental concept in the Platform Sutra, is described as basic to Hui-neng’s teaching (sec. 13). We are told that to hold another view, to believe that one or the other comes first, or that one gives rise to the other, implies duality. The concept of the identity of the two, however, does not originate with this work, for it is to be found in the Nirvāṇa Sutra.2 The Platform Sutra rejects the idea that through meditation prajñā can be obtained, for prajñā is conceived of as something possessed from the outset by everyone (sec. 12). Thus, while prajñā is described as the “function” of meditation, it is at the same time explained as something akin to the original nature, wisdom of which is tantamount to enlightenment. Besides representing a fundamental concept, it is probable that the identity of prajñā and meditation is emphasized in order to point out a basic disagreement with those sects of Buddhism that stressed one of these concepts to the exclusion of the other, or gave priority to one over the other.
The concepts of “samādhi of oneness,” and “direct mind,” a discussion of which follows in the sermon (sec. 14), are both traceable to canonical works: the former to the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun3 and the latter to the Vimalakīrti Sutra.4 The Platform Sutra associates the two concepts, saying: “Just practicing direct mind only, and in all things having no attachments whatsoever, is called the “samādhi of oneness.” Both concepts appear synonymous, and seem to be used in the sense of the ultimate meditational attitude, one in which there is no attachment to anything, including the samādhi of oneness itself. Implicit is a criticism of Northern Ch’an: “The deluded man clings to the characteristics of things, adheres to the samādhi of oneness, [thinks] that direct mind is sitting without moving and casting aside delusions without letting things arise in the mind” (sec. 14). The immediacy of the results of the practice advocated in the Platform Sutra is alluded to in a later passage (sec. 16), in which the Sudden Teaching is spoken of as the method used by the enlightened. Nowhere does the Platform Sutra spell out in detail the specific characteristics of sudden enlightenment; however, it should not be conceived of as sudden in the sense of easily obtainable, without benefit of meditation practice. A thoroughgoing experience in its methods, the practice of direct mind in contradistinction to a step-by-step process of meditation, would appear to be what is being advocated here. It is thus conceivable that the sudden method might very well, from the standpoint of time, take much longer to attain than the gradual method. The Platform Sutra does not specifically deal with the period after sudden enlightenment has been gained. It is possible to construe this to mean that nothing more is needed, that the student has achieved all that is necessary for him to achieve. Judging from later Ch’an practices, however, this probably was not the implication intended. Indeed, in one of the remarks attributed to Hui-neng just before his death, we find him instructing his disciples to continue to sit in meditation as if he were still present (sec. 53). Once the initial awakening was gained, more practice, more enlightenments, greater efforts, were probably called for on the part of the student. But of subsequent practice the Platform Sutra has nothing to say.
One of the messages most prominent in the Platform Sutra is the doctrine of no-thought. Here again we have a concept drawn from earlier canonical writings: it is to be found in the Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun,5 among other works. In the Platform Sutra (sec. 17) it is referred to as the main doctrine of the teaching, and is associated with non-form as the substance, and non-abiding, as the basis. Non-abiding is defined as the “original nature of man.” These terms all seem to be pointing to the same thing: the Absolute, which can never be defined in words. Thoughts are conceived of as advancing in progression from past to present to future, in an unending chain of successive thoughts. Attachment to one instant of thought leads to attachment to a succession of thoughts, and thus to bondage. But by cutting off attachment to one instant of thought, one may, by a process unexplained, cut off attachment to a succession of thoughts and thus attain to no-thought, which is the state of enlightenment. Enlightenment is gained by a meditation not inhibited by a specific formula. The Platform Sutra fails to explain the process, except to insist that it is something that must be accomplished by the individual for himself. The Platform Sutra maintains that the nature of man is from the outset pure, but that his purity has no form (sec. 18). But by self-practice, by endeavoring for himself, man can gain insight into this purity. Meditation, prajñā, True Reality, purity, the original nature, self-nature, the Buddha nature, all these terms, which are used constantly throughout the sermon, indicate the same undefined Absolute, which when seen and experienced by the individual himself, constitutes enlightenment.
Sitting in meditation (tso-ch’an) is defined in words attributed to Hui-neng (sec. 19): “In this teaching ‘sitting’ means without any obstruction anywhere, outwardly and under all circumstances, not to activate thoughts. ‘Meditation’ is internally to see the original nature and not to become confused.” The definition is clear but the process is not. It is a rejection of formal meditation procedures, as advocated in other schools of Buddhism and Ch’an. It is, however, by no means a rejection of meditation itself. Certainly meditation must remain one of the principal means for attaining enlightenment in any doctrine which draws its teachings from the Prajñāpāramitā. The self-practice advocated here, for which no specific details are provided, may well foreshadow the concept of a constant meditation in all the activities of daily life found in later Ch’an. But no such development is mentioned here, and it is perhaps wise not to presuppose it.
The sermon now leaves the elucidation of the various terms and concepts adopted by Ch’an and shifts its attention towards the area of Mahāyāna Buddhism in general. It turns to what appears to have been a basic concern of T’ang Buddhism in general, the conferring of the Precepts on an assemblage of monks and laymen. Here they are described as the “Formless Precepts,” but no attempt to define the term is made. Formless might best be conceived of as an adjectival reference to the Absolute. Those portions of the sermon (sees. 20-26) in which Hui-neng requests the assemblage to repeat in unison what he is about to say, and in which the compiler states in a textual note that the various formulas are to be repeated three times, deal with the Precepts. We cannot tell whether any particular ceremonies were involved in this instance; however, the conferring of the Precepts seems to have had a considerable vogue at this time among a variety of Buddhist groups, so it is conceivable that it had some kind of ceremonial significance. The Precepts given here represent basic concepts that are applicable to Mahāyāna Buddhism as a whole. Based on the text, they may be divided into five categories: 1) the three-fold body of the Buddha (sec. 20); 2) the four great vows (sec. 21); 3) the formless repentance (sec. 22); 4) the three refuges (sec. 23); and 5) the preaching concerning the Prajñāpāramitā (sees. 24-30).6 While these sections deal to some extent with what might be called peculiarly Ch’an teachings, they seem clearly to serve a wider purpose: the general initiation of a group into Buddhism as a whole.
The Prajñāpāramitā doctrine, which may be considered the last of the five Precepts mentioned above, is enlarged upon. Here the idea so widely associated with Ch’an, “seeing into one’s own nature,” is emphasized (sec. 29). Enlightenment is not to be sought outside, but within the mind of the practitioner himself, for “the ten thousand dharmas are all within our bodies and minds” and “unawakened, even a Buddha is a sentient being, and . . . even a sentient being, if he is awakened in an instant of thought, is a Buddha” (sec. 30). Here again the ideas should not be conceived of as original to the Platform Sutra, for various canonical works are invoked to lend them authority. The Diamond Sutra, particularly, is singled out for attention. Man must gain awakening for himself; if he cannot do so, he must find a good teacher to show him the way. But, in the end, the best and only teacher is oneself: “If standing upon your own nature and mind, you illumine with wisdom and make inside and outside clear, you will know your own original mind.” Presumed throughout is the doctrine that holds that the Buddha nature is inherent in all sentient beings, and that to discover this nature is to see one’s own original mind.
The sermon closes with a series of discourses in the form of answers given by Hui-neng to questions put by the Prefect, Wei Ch’ü. The familiar story of Bodhidharma and the Emperor Wu (sec. 34) serves to condemn the concept that good works—the making of temples, the supporting of monks, the copying of sutras—are of benefit to the attainment of salvation, and that they constitute a form of merit. Merit, we are told, is in the mind, and only by self-practice of the teachings advocated in the Platform Sutra can true merit be attained. The Pure Land teachings of a Western Paradise, presided over by the Buddha Amitābha, where the believer hopes to be reborn, are subjected to criticism in the final part of the sermon (sees. 35-37). To yearn for rebirth in a distant land to the west is for people of low intelligence, we are told. The superior person makes his own mind pure and finds there this Western Land; indeed, it is to be sought within the nature of man himself and never on the outside. As has been noted before, there were during the eighth century certain schools of Ch’an which emphasized the Pure Land teachings. It may well be that the Platform Sutra is here criticizing the type of Ch’an advocated by the Szechuan school which derived from Chih-hsien, as well as the Pure Land teaching in general.
With the completion of the sermon the text now moves into the second part, a series of miscellaneous sections containing unrelated stories, verses, and other materials, which, while distinct from the sermon, repeat to a certain extent its contents. The verse on formlessness (sec. 33) reiterates the need for the student to concern himself with a persistent effort at self-cultivation, to attach to nothing, to abide in nothing, and to achieve no-thought. The formless verse (sec. 36), which may legitimately be considered a part of the sermon, is a further exhortation on the same subject, and includes various cautionary statements regarding the correct practices to be followed. In section 48 we again have a verse which calls upon the practitioner to work for his own enlightenment. It is couched in rather general terms and contains a warning against the meditation practices attributed to Northern Ch’an. The verse in section 52 reiterates the sentiments expressed in sections 30 and 35: everyone has within him the Buddha nature, which must be sought for within oneself. The verse in section 53 deals also with self-nature and the need for self-realization. While the Sudden Doctrine is advocated as the appropriate method for this achievement, the concepts expressed relate more to the Prajñāpāramitā teaching and to Mahāyāna Buddhism in general than to any peculiarly Ch’an ideas.
When we turn to the miscellaneous stories, we find a body of material that can best be described as critical of other forms of Buddhism, and that is designed to emphasize the superiority of Hui-neng’s teaching. These stories are quite similar in structure to the tale of Bodhidharma and the Emperor Wu and the criticism of the Pure Land doctrine found in the sermon. They all involve an interlocutor, who poses a question and thus enables Hui-neng to expound a particular point of doctrine. Northern Chan is subjected to a direct attack in the story of Chih-ch’eng (sees. 40-41), who allegedly arrives as a spy from Shen-hsiu, becomes enlightened under Hui-neng, and then chooses to remain. The story of Fa-ta and the Lotus Sutra (sec. 42) may perhaps be considered a criticism of priests who were affiliated with no particular sect, lecture-masters or specialists in one particular text or group of texts, who traveled about visiting various teachers. The Lotus doctrine itself is not a target for attack; Hui-neng is here insisting that recitation is insufficient, that the sutra’s teachings must be realized in the mind of the practitioner. The wisdom of the Buddha, inherent in the minds of all sentient beings, must be awakened to. The story of Chih-ch’ang, who asks for an explanation of the Supreme Vehicle (sec. 43), serves merely to repeat the assertion that the student must practice for himself. Shen-hui appears, somewhat to his disadvantage, in the only story (sec. 44) reminiscent of the question-and-answer type so popular in later Ch’an texts. Here he is taken to task for the impudence of his remarks, and unable to reply, he bows reverently before the Master and becomes his disciple. The statement that Shen-hui never left Hui-neng and always attended on him has no basis in fact.
Among the other sections of the work we find the thoroughly obscure disquisition on the thirty-six confrontations (sees. 45-46), whose origins are quite unknown. The sections containing the transmission verses of the Chinese Ch’an Patriarchs (sees. 49-50) and the list of the Indian and Chinese Patriarchs of the sect (sec. 51) reflect the peculiar concern of Ch’an with establishing itself as a legitimate school within Buddhism as a whole. Transmission verses of this type, as has been noted, were fairly widely used at the end of the eighth century, and the Pao-lin chuan provided such verses for all the Patriarchs of the sect.
There are several sections whose primary concern is to attack the teachings of Northern Ch’an (sees. 37, 39, 48-49) and to extol the Sudden Doctrine at the expense of the so-called gradual teaching. These reflect the struggle for supremacy between the two schools, a problem which had resolved itself by the time that the Platform Sutra was composed. One last type of material must be mentioned in conclusion. There are several sections whose purpose seems merely to assert the need for the transmission of a copy of the text itself as proof of one’s position as a teacher (part of sec. 1, sees. 32, 38, 47). These sections may be attributed to the particular line of transmission which stemmed from Fa-hai and made its home at Hui-neng’s temple in Ts’ao-ch’i.
1 T51, p. 235a.
2 T12, p. 547a.
3 T32, p. 582b.
4 T14, p. 538b.
5 T32, p. 576b.
6 For a discussion, sec Yanagida Seizan, “Daijō kaikyō to shite no Rokuso dankyō,” IBK, no. 23 (January, 1964), pp. 65-72. Yanagida believes that the Precepts relating to the threefold body of the Buddha derive ultimately from Tao-an (312-385) and that Hui-neng’s “Formless Precepts” are stated in opposition to the gradual approach to enlightenment preached by Shen-hsiu.