One of the major schools of Chan, which emerged in the late Tang dynasty and became one of the two dominant schools of Chan in China after the Song dynasty. The name of this school is often understood as deriving from the first character of the names of its two founders: Dongshan Liangjie and his disciple, Caoshan Benji. However, the character “Cao” prior to “Dong” does not mean that Caoshan was more important than Dongshan. Rather, the “Cao” designates “Caoxi,” a name being used for the sixth patriarch, Huineng, which is also the origin of the name “Caoshan” itself, as the Chan legend tells that Benji changed Mount Heyu, where he resided, to Mount Cao when memorizing Huineng. The name “Coadong” thus could refer to the lineage from Huineng to Dongshan, including Qingyuan Xingsi, Shitou Siqian, Yaoshan Weiyan, and Yunyan Tansheng (782–841), distinguished from other Chan lineages. One important distinction of this early Caodong lineage, made by Dongshan and his disciples, was to associate the sect with the line of Shitou Siqian rather than Mazu Daoyi in such a way as to better serve the sect’s legitimacy and its independence from other established schools, despite the fact that Dongshan studied with Mazu’s several disciples. It also helped to form the traditional narrative on the “two main lines” of Mazu and Shitou in the development of the Southern school of Chan.
In addition to the establishment of a new lineage, Dongshan and his disciples demonstrated some form of “house style (jiafeng)” different from other masters and schools. For example, unlike Linji’s famous use of shock methods including shouting and hitting, Dongshan’s style was gentler and subtler, more witty and dexterous in using a few words to hint at the reality of suchness and inspire students. One of the principles of these methods in his responsiveness to situations, as Dongshan himself called it, was “never tell too plainly (bushuopo)”—the indirect way of communication and instruction. The methods were based on the understanding that although the reality of suchness manifests itself through all things, including non-sentient beings, it can only be experienced in person and beyond objectification and conceptualization. The other well-known means attributed to Dongshan and characterized the Caodong house (menting shishe) was the “five ranks (wuwei),” which introduced five kinds of interrelationship between the correct (zheng) and the partial (pian), or principle (li) and phenomena (shi), as five perspectives to guide students in experiencing reality.
The Caodong lineage continued with the line of Dongshan’s disciple Yunju Daoying, according to the orthodox Song narrative on the Caodong transmission. However, in the early 11th century, with Dayang Jingxuan, the fourth-generation descendant of Yunju, the Caodong lineage underwent a severe crisis after years of declining. Dayang had to ask Linji master Fayuan (991–1067) to find an heir for Caodong from his able disciples. Thus Fayuan’s disciple Touzi Yiqing later became the legitimate receiver of Dayang’s dharma and the sixth-generation descendant of Dongshan in the rewritten narrative of the Caodong lineage created by Yiqing’s disciples.
Starting with Furong Daokai, the next generation, and within the two generations of his disciples, the Caodong school achieved a remarkable revival, which involved its success in elite circles in the 12th-century Song, and therefore became a major force in Chan monastic communities. The culmination of this prominence came with several of Daokai’s second-generation disciples, including the well-known Hongzhi Zhengjue and Zhenxie Qingliao, whose third-generation disciple Tiantong Rujing was the teacher of the Japanese Sōtō Zen founder Dōgen Kigen.
The 12th-century Caodong tradition not only produced the orthodox narrative on its lineage, but also invented a new approach of “silent illumination Chan (mozhao Chan)” with its distinctive vocabulary. The new approach started with Furong Daokai and his disciples and culminated in Hongzhi Zengjie. Recent study of this silent illumination Chan indicates that the meditation technique this new approach used and its doctrinal foundation of inherent Buddha-nature are all familiar things that have existed within the Chan tradition. What makes this approach unique is its new stress on stillness and sitting meditation as the manifestation of inherent Buddha-nature or as an end in itself; its de-emphasis on enlightenment as a sudden and crucial moment of experience; and its thorough deconstruction of dualism between practice and enlightenment, or means and goal.
The new Caodong approach is quite successful in attracting elites, and this might be one of the reasons for the Linji Chan master Dahui Zonggao’s attack on it and for the further development of Dahui’s own approach—kanhua Chan (literally “Chan of observing the key phrase”). Because Dahui’s attack has considerable influence, the silent illumination approach has often been seen as less orthodox than the Linji school’s kanhua practice. Nevertheless, this Caodong legacy is still preserved in many ways in present-day East Asia.
A Chan master of the Tang dynasty, a disciple of Dongshan Liangjie and considered the second founder of the Caodong school. Born into a Huang family in the area of Quanzhou in present-day Fujian province, China, he became a monk at the age of 19 in Fuzhou and was officially ordained at the age of 25. He studied with Dongshan for about 10 years. When he was leaving, according to a 12th-century text and texts published afterward, Dongshan secretly transmitted to him a number of works that Dongshan had received from his own teacher, Yunyan Tansheng (782–841), including “The Jewel Mirror Samadhi,” “Verses on the Five Ranks of Lord and Vassal,” and others. The story signifies the traditional acknowledgment of Caoshan as Dongshan’s legitimate dharma heir. Caoshan visited Caoxi (in Guangdong) to pay respect to the sixth patriarch, Huineng’s, pagoda. He then started to teach students in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, settling on Mount Heyu and changing its name to Mount Cao when memorizing Huineng (hence people called him Caoshan Benji). Caoshan had about 14 disciples in his lifetime, but after four generations, his lineage was ended. Although the Caodong school continued with the line of Dongshan’s senior disciple Yunju Daoying, Caoshan was seen by the tradition as the cofounder with Dongshan.
Caoshan’s authority in explaining Dongshan’s doctrine of five ranks is demonstrated by a number of his commentaries, including “The Essentials of the Five Ranks of Lord and Vassal” (Wuwei Junchen Zhijue), “Explanations of Dongshan’s Essentials of Five Ranks” (Jieshi Dongshan Wuwei Xianjue), and others. However, these works, along with Dongshan’s own works on the five ranks, were introduced much later by a text of the early 12th century. There are no other earlier reliable sources to verify what was written by Caoshan and Dongshan themselves. The numerous dialogues between Caoshan and his students preserved in the earlier transmission of the lamp anthologies, such as the Zutang Ji and the Jingde Chuandeng Lu, rather than in the Ming edition of Caoshan Yulu, are relatively more reliable for the study of Caoshan’s teachings. They illustrate a kind of subtle and witty style that he inherited from his teacher Dongshan in responding to situations and inspiring students to realize self-nature or experience suchness.
Translated into English as the Biography of the Great Master of Caoxi, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan is one of the hagiographies about the sixth patriarch, Huineng, produced in the early history of Chan Buddhism. Contemporary scholars have generally agreed on the date of its composition as 781, about 70 years after Huineng’s death. However, there is no plain evidence for the exact author of this text, so contemporary historians can only speculate about its possible authorship. A relatively convincing theory is that it was produced by a member of, or someone connected to, the Baolin Temple (Baolin Si) community at Caoxi, in the area of Shaozhou (in present-day Guangdong province), where Huineng preached and the lineage of his disciples continued. The text adds new materials about Huineng to the early hagiographical compositions by Shenhui and the Lidai Fabao Ji and influences the ensuing Dunhuang edition of the Platform Sūtra and the Baolin Zhuan. However, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan’s contribution does not help to make Huineng’s biographical information any less conflicting. It instead demonstrates the competing stories about Huineng from different groups of his followers.
Contemporary scholars have analyzed a number of crucial differences between the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan and the stories about Huineng offered by the other texts. First, the verse competition between Huineng and Shenxiu, and its role in Huineng’s being chosen as the sixth patriarch, so popular with the Platform Sūtra and endorsed by Chan tradition, is absent from this biography of Huineng. Second, although the texts of Shenhui and the Platform Sūtra emphasize the central role of the Diamond Sūtra in Huineng’s enlightenment, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan depicts Huineng as a master of the Nirvana Sūtra, through the stories about Huineng’s meeting with the nun Wujincang and the master Yinzong’s (627–713) attesting to Huineng’s perfect understanding of the Nirvana Sūtra. Third, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan presents, for the first time, the full story of Huineng’s conversation about the banner and the wind, and his meeting with and later official ordination by Yinzong, which is not included in the Dunhuang edition of the Platform Sūtra but is absorbed by the later versions of the Platform Sūtra and the transmission of the lamp literature. Fourth, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan rejects the relevance of Empress Wu (r. 690–705) to the transmission of Bodhidharma’s robe and the claim made by the Lidai Fabao Ji that the robe was given by Huineng to Empress Wu and was further passed to Wuzhu through Zhishen (609–702), Chuji (669–736 or 648–734), and Wuxiang. By asserting that only Baolin Temple holds the mummy of Huineng and the robe of transmission, and by mentioning imperial decrees as proof of recognition from the imperial court, the Caoxi Dashi Zhuan promotes the orthodoxy of the lineage at Baolin Temple. This limiting of the Chan heritage of Huineng to one single place seems different from the more ecumenical attitude adopted by the Dunhuang edition of the Platform Sūtra, especially the Baolin Zhuan. Despite these and other differences, the basic teachings of Huineng contained in this text do not run counter to those in the more popular Platform Sūtra.
The word chan is often confused with the word Chanzong, which means “the school of Chan” or “Chan Buddhism.” Under many circumstance, people do use “Chan” to designate the Chan school in Chinese Buddhism. In such usage, “Chan” becomes an abbreviated form of Chanzong. However, chan was used before the advent of the Chan school. “Chan” could denote the practice of meditation (xichan), such as sitting meditation (zuochan), or the study of meditation (chanxue), apart from the school of Chan. The fact that Buddhist schools other than the Chan school practice meditation is also evident. Obviously, the term chan can be discussed separately from the term Chanzong.
Chan is a shortened form of the Chinese word channa, rendered from the Sanskrit word dhyāna, which denotes practices of the concentration of the mind through meditation or contemplation. Although rooted in the Indian tradition of yoga, which aims at the unification of the individual being with the divine, meditative concentration became integrated into the Buddhist path to enlightenment as one of the three learnings (sanxue) of Buddhism. Early Buddhist (or Hinayana Buddhist) scriptures include the teachings on forty objects of meditation, four foundations of mindfulness, four stages of meditation, four divine abodes, four formless meditations, the tranquility (samatha) and insight (vipassanā) meditations, and so forth. Buddhist communities commonly practiced these meditations, along with the moral disciplines and the study of the scriptures and doctrines to acquire wisdom. In this general context, some eminent monks might have composed scriptures/treatises for the training of meditation or have become more famous for meditation. Mahayana Buddhism continued the practice of meditation as one of the six perfections (or virtues) of the bodhisattva path. It inherited the essential methods of meditation from early Buddhism while at the same time diversifying them, attempting to overcome the tendency of escapism or quietism, and basing meditations on the Mahayana doctrines of emptiness, mind-only, non-duality, and Buddha-nature.
From the 2nd to 5th centuries CE, several Buddhist missionaries, such as An Shigao (d.u.) and Kumārajīva (344–413) (Ch. Jiumoluoshi), translated some Indian Buddhist scriptures and treatises on meditation into Chinese. Eminent Chinese monks, such as Dao’an (312–385) and Huiyuan (344–416), showed great enthusiasm for these works and wrote prefaces to the translations. Among the most influential of the scriptures are the Anban Shouyi Jing, translated by An Shigao; the Zuochan Sanmei Jing by Kumārajīva; and the Damoduoluo Chan Jing by Buddhabhadra (359–429). However, what these texts taught were basically Hinayana-oriented methods of meditation with a dualistic emphasis on the purification of the mind, even though some translators, such as Kumārajīva, interpreted these methods in terms of major Mahayana doctrines. More substantially, Mahayana-style meditation gradually became prominent in Chinese Buddhism, as more Mahayana scriptures were translated into Chinese. Some of these scriptures did not limit themselves to the theme of meditation, but nonetheless involved important Mahayana instructions on the practice of meditation and the critique of Hinayana-oriented meditation, such as those in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra.
Not only did the eminent missionaries and translators from India and central Asia play a crucial role during the early period of Chinese Buddhism, but their translations and interpretations also demonstrated a dual root of the Chinese Buddhist practice of meditation. The translators were hard-working students of Chinese language and culture, surrounded by some eminent Chinese monks who were also highly knowledgeable in the works of Laozi and Zhuangzi, which were extremely popular through the so-called dark learning (xuanxue) of the Wei Jin period (220–420). Daoist-style sitting meditation was practiced long before Buddhism spread to China. The translated Buddhist scriptures on meditation and their interpretation often adopted available Daoist vocabularies. For example, Dao’an’s and Huiyuan’s prefaces to the scriptures clearly used Daoist concepts such as wuwei (non-action) and wang (forgetfulness) to describe the levels of meditation. Although Chinese Buddhism soon left behind the practice of matching up Buddhist meanings (geyi) with Daoist terms, the Daoist wisdom of achieving joy and equanimity in ordinary activities through the realization of the way of the universe continued to pervade the mature Chinese Buddhist understanding of Mahayana doctrines and practices, including meditation.
Despite these developments, when Huijiao (497–554) presented biographies of the eminent monks of 2nd- to 5th-century China, who specialized in or became famous for meditation, in his Gaoseng Zhuan, there were only about 20. This indicated that no independent school of Chan was formed yet. Here we distinguish between the approach of meditation by separate individual monks (xichan) in Buddhist history and the school of Chan (Chanzong) with its unique institutional history. As a component of the common Buddhist practice, the approach of meditation could evolve and diversify without establishing a school of Chan. However, the school of Chan is obviously more than just a method or approach. As one of the Sinicized Buddhist schools, different from others, it involves its own ideology, community, and genealogical history, serving to establish its own identity.
This is a short title for Chart of the Master-Disciple Succession of the Chan Gate That Transmits the Mind-Ground in China (Zhonghua Chuanxindi Chanmen Shizi Chengxi Tu), written by Zongmi in the early 830s. An earlier version of the text discovered in Japan shows that its original title was Pei Xiu Shiyi Wen (Imperial Redactor Pei Xiu’s Inquiry), which fits its form of a literary correspondence between Zongmi and Pei Xiu. Scholars believe that the current title was added later. The text also has had many other titles in its history of circulation in East Asia.
In his answers to Pei Xiu’s questions, Zongmi presents the earliest extant Chan genealogical chart to trace all lineages descending from Bodhidharma and subsequent patriarchs, including Heze Shenhui, the seventh patriarch. Zongmi provides his critical examination of the four major Chan schools: the Northern school, the Hongzhou school, the Ox-head school, and the Heze school. He uses the simile of the brightness and blackness of a wishing jewel (moni zhu) to illustrate these schools’ different attitudes toward the relationship between the mind or nature of true suchness and the deluded mind or ordinary phenomena, with his preferred ranking of Heze at the top and Northern at the bottom. Although his promotion of the Heze lineage had little influence on the historical development of Chan, Zongmi’s Chan Chart and other works are among the few invaluable Chan texts of the 9th century that provide reliable sources for the study of Tang Chan Buddhism. His characterization of the Hongzhou school is fair and accurate, offering a different perspective on this leading Chan movement. His elaboration on the doctrinal differences of Heze and Hongzhou, regarding the intrinsic, original functioning (zixing benyong) and the conditioned, responsive functioning (suiyuan yingyong), is sophisticated and thought provoking. While he never blames Hongzhou for breaking Buddhist precepts or for pursuing antinomian consequnces, his questioning of Hongzhou’s failure to address the difference between perverted views of reality and correct views, between merits ansd faults, reflects a legitimate concern.
There is very little information about Zongze’s life. According to later sources, he was a native of Xiangyang (in present-day Hubei province). His family name was Sun. At a very early age, he lost his father; he and his mother had to live with his uncle. He studied Confucian classics, but at the age of 29 he entered monastic life with Fayun Faxiu (1027–1090), a Chan master of the Yunmen school, in Changlu, Zhenzhou (in present-day Jiangsu province). When Changlu Yingfu (d.u.), another Yunmen master, replaced Faxiu, Zongze became his disciple, eventually succeeding to the abbacy. Zongze is famous for his compilation of the Chanyuan Qinggui (Rules of Purity for the Chan Monastery), the earliest extant text of a comprehensive Chan monastic code. Its impact on the later compilers of similar regulatory texts in the Song and Yuan dynasties was enormous. A short text entitled Zuochan Yi (Principles of Seated Meditation), included in the eighth fascicle of the Chanyuan Qinggui, though sometimes used separately, is also the earliest known work of its kind in the entire Chan tradition and became a popular meditation manual in East Asia. Moreover, Zongze was exemplary in integrating Confucian filial piety (xiao) into Buddhist practice. Not only was it reported that he brought his aged mother to the monastery to take care of her, but he also wrote 120 short essays, all under the title On Advising [People to Practice] Filial Piety (Quanxiao Wen). In addition, Zongze was one of the pioneers in reconciling the practices of meditation and reciting the Buddha’s name (nianfo). He established a community of reciting the Buddha’s name (nianfo she) in Changlu in 1089 and published papers and poems to promote the practice and the idea of “the mind as the only pure land (weixin jingtu).”
Translated into English as Whip for Spurring Advancement through the Chan Barrier, this is a concise collection of recorded Chan sayings and anecdotes compiled by the Chan master Yunqi Zhuhong of the late Ming dynasty in 1600. It became quite popular in China, Korea, and Japan after its first printing. Zhuhong intended to use this book as a guide to Chan students’ practice of the kanhua Chan (Chan of observing key phrases), deliberately avoiding abstract discussions of theory by selecting extracts of sermons, exhortations, authobiographical narratives, letters, and anecdotes that dealt directly with issues of practice. The selection was based on a survey of Chan literature from the late Tang dynasty to the late Ming, but gave a special place to those masters of the Linji school in the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties. The anthology is divided into two parts. The first, “Front Collection,” occupies 80 percent of the book and includes two sections: “Extracts from the Dharma Sayings of the Patriarchs,” consisting of excerpts from the public instructions of various masters, and “Extracts from the Painful Practice of the Patriarchs,” consisting of short stories on arduous practices by various masters. The second part, “Back Collection,” occupies 20 percent of the book under the title “Extracts from the Sūtras to Authenticate [the Preceding Selections],” consisting of short passages from various scriptures. Zhuhong’s own comments are appended to many selections in the anthology.
Treasured Instructions of the Chan Grove, a concise anthology of the teachings and anecdotes of various Song Chan masters, was compiled by the Chan monk Jingshan (d.u.) in the Song dynasty. It was based on an original selction made by Miaoxi Pujue (Dahui Zonggao) and Zhu’an Shigui (d. 1149) at Yunmen Temple in Jiangxi. During 1174–1189, Jingshan acquired an incomplete copy of their selection. By adding new materials taken from various texts of recorded sayings (yulu), Jingshan expanded the collection to over 300 short teachings and anecdotes. It soon became a popular Chan text for beginners and was included in the Ming and Qing Buddhist canons. Numerous commentaries on this book were also produced during the Ming and Qing dynasties and ensuing periods.
Chronicles of Monk-Treasure in the Chan Grove, a book compiled by the literatus-monk Juefan Huihong of the Northern Song dynasty in 1119. It consists of 30 fascicles, collecting the records of activities, stories, and sayings of 81 Chan masters from the late Tang and Five Dynasties to the Northern Song. Following the style of the transmission of the lamp literature, each biography of a Chan master is followed by a brief comment summarizing the master’s life and achievement. However, Huihong intended this book to supplement the transmission of the lamp literature by paying closer attention to recording events and activities of Chan masters rather than just recording their sayings, and by collecting materials that were not included in the transmission of the lamp literature. He utilized various neglected texts, records of activities (xing lu or xing zhuang), and epitaphs (beiming). As a result, his book presents a vivid picture of the development of Chan in the Northern Song period, especially the thriving of the Lingi school and the Yunmen school during that period.
“Regulations for the Chan School” was claimed to be an outline of the alleged Chan monastic code Baizhang Qinggui. It was written in 1004 as an appendix to the biography of Bizhang Huaihai in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu. This outline has been seen as important evidence for the existence of the original Baizhang Qinggui and, along with other Song historiographers’ writings, has contributed to Baizhang’s fame as an inventor of the independent Chan monastic system. Among the earliest documents, this Chanmen Guishi provides some detailed descriptions of Chan monastic life and information about evolving Chan monastic rules. However, modern and contemporary scholars have questioned the reliance of this document and its claims about Baizhang’s role in creating an independent Chan monastic code. Independent Chan monasteries were established long before Baizhang’s time, while the majority of public Buddhist monasteries were not exclusively for Chan until the Song dynasty. What is stated in this text about Baizhang’s initiatives on Chan monastic rules is not supported by any reliable historical documents from the Tang era. Nor is Baizhang’s authorship of a written Chan monastic code like this verified. The editor never explains why this Chanmen Guishi does not even have the title Baizhang Qinggui.
Moreover, a critical examination of Buddhist texts about the monastic code discloses that actions attributed to Baizhang’s initiatives, such as establishing “Dharma hall (fatang),” “Sangha hall,” and communal labor (puqing), can all be traced back to the Indian Vinaya texts and the texts of the Chinese Lüzong (school of precepts). The rules or customs ascribed to Baizhang in fact adopt the traditional precepts and do nothing revolutionary, although this fact does not allow for the denial of any evolutionary process that adds indigenous elements to the Chan and other Chinese Buddhist monastic systems.
In addition, the Chanmen Guishi’s claim about Baizhang’s revolutionary role even runs ironically against what is recorded in this same text about Baizhang’s view that the monastic rules should include both the Hinayana and Mahayana ones in a harmonious way. In other words, Baizhang’s point is not to break with the tradition. This point is indeed in accord with Baizhang’s practices, and it subverts the text’s premature conclusion. Attention should also be paid to the underlying power struggle between the Chan school and the school of precepts (Lüzong) over the influence and control of monasteries, which might be one of the hidden motives behind the post-Tang Chan’s lifting and invention of Baizhang’s legendary role to serve its need for systematization.
In medieval Chinese Buddhist language, the term xiang (“image”) or zhen (“resemblance”) referred to formal portraits. Early Chinese Buddhist use of portraits of eminent monks in the Tang and pre-Tang periods was related to funerary, memorial, and devotional rites, parallel to the worship of relic and effigy, and accompanied Buddhist attempts to maintain the remains of eminent monks. These portraits and images were seen as sacred or spiritually alive. Chinese Buddhist monasteries also started to build a separate portrait hall or patriarch hall enshrining portraits of patriarchs and eminent monks. These ritual uses of portraits and the construction of portrait halls were not exclusive to Chan Buddhism, however, and a unique Chan style of portrait hall or patriarch hall only emerged from the end of the 7th century to the 9th century.
Shenxiu’s leading disciple Puji was perhaps among the earliest to build a hall of seven patriarchs of Chan at Shaolin Temple on Mount Song. In terms of a different Chan lineage theory, Shenhui’s disciples also established a hall of seven patriarchs. Such portrait halls or patriarch halls became a common feature of Chan monasteries during the Song dynasty. Starting from the Song, portrait halls reduced the number of enshrined portraits of ancient patriarchs and included more portraits of the former abbots of each monastery. These portraits were offered food and drink and worshiped on a daily basis. During major memorial services for patriarchs and abbots, portraits would be brought out of the portrait hall and set up in the dharma hall to receive congregational offerings and prayers, then would be returned to the portrait hall after the ceremony.
Furthermore, during the Song dynasty, portraits of abbots began to be used outside of these monastic rituals. Many abbots had portraits made by and distributed to a variety of persons, including individual monastic officers, lay followers, and patrons. The abbots were also asked to write self-eulogies, consisting of verse inscriptions, for such portraits. By the mid-11th century, many abbots’ recorded sayings had a common section of “portrait eulogies (zhen zan)” placed at the end of the work. The most outstanding example of these portrait inscriptions is from the Hongzhi Lu or Hongzhi Chanshi Guanglu. This text includes hundreds of such portrait inscriptions spanning several fascicles. The personally autographed and eulogized portrait of a Chan abbot thus became a treasure and an object of reverence for many followers in medieval China. Although many masters’ inscriptions involve a warning that the true image of a master cannot be mistaken for his physical form, this kind of warning itself could not be signified without being parasitic on a certain form—whether portrait or inscription.
This is a short title for Zongmi’s Prolegomenon to the Collection of Expressions of the Chan Source (Chanyuan Zhuquanji Duxu), written around 833. It is usually regarded as a preface to the Chan canon Zongmi was editing. But more accurately, it is a theoretical treatise or a critical discussion serving to introduce and interpret the extended work, the Chan canon. Whether Zongmi completed this Chan canon or whether it ever existed is a subject of ongoing scholarly debate, although the question has never reduced the value of this masterpiece alone. Its all-inclusiveness with regard to Chan has no precedent in Chan literature, but it influenced many successors of Chinese Buddhist syncretism, starting with Yongming Yanshou’s Zongjing Lu (Records of the Source-Mirror) in the Song dynasty.
In this treatise, Zongmi continues to elaborate on his notion of “harmonizing various schools of Chan,” which he expressed earlier in his Notes to the Great Commentary on the Perfect Awakening Sūtra (Yuanjue Jing Dashu Chao) and in his Chan Chart. The underlying assumption of this synthetic approach is that the various Chan schools, when viewed in isolation from one another and outside the overall Buddhist context, are wrong in their self-absolutization. When understood within this overall context, each will acquire its validity. To articulate a comprehensive framework in which every different perspective of Chan could be harmoniously subsumed is thus the goal of his critical examination of Chan schools. The rationale for this inclusivism and syncretism is made clearer in his elaboration on the notion of the correspondence of scriptural teachings and Chan (jiaochan yizhi). As scriptures are the Buddha’s words and Chan is the Buddha’s intent, Zongmi argues, the two cannot be contradictory; they share the same source. Zongmi shows how the principles of the different Chan traditions of his time correspond to the different scriptural teachings through his doctrinal classification scheme. By this notion of the correspondence of scriptural teachings and Chan, Zongmi makes his position distinct from both scholastic tendency against Chan and iconoclast tendency within Chan.
Rules of Purity for the Chan Monastery, the earliest surviving text of a comprehensive Chan monastic code compiled in 1103 during the Northern Song dynasty (960–1127) by the Yunmen Chan abbot Changlu Zongze. The code features a wide-ranging coverage of almost every aspect of life in the large public monasteries of the time. For example, it specifies guidelines for traveling monks, emphasizes the importance of studying under masters at various monasteries, prescribes the protocol for attending retreats, and details the procedure for requesting an abbot’s instruction. A considerable portion of the code addresses the administrative hierarchy within the monastery, including the duties and powers of different monastic officers. Many rules indicate proper social manners for the interaction of monks of various ranks at a range of functions from tea ceremonies to chanting rituals and monastic auctions. The text even details the proper procedures for mundane activities such as packing one’s belongings for travel or bathing. The impact of this comprehensive monastic code on later compilers of regulatory texts in the Song and Yuan dynasties was enormous. Prior to this text, all monastic codes were very limited and scattered, not intended to be definitive codes for Chan Buddhism. Other extensive codes that might have existed had been lost. This text was also extremely influential overseas; in Japan, it served as the model for generations of monastic codes. Dōgen (1200–1253), for instance, paraphrased many of its passages in his works.
Notwithstanding its due place in the long evolutionary progression of monastic regulations, the contents of the Chanyuan Qinggui do show numerous borrowings and assimilations from many earlier works on monastic regulations. The most recent study of the Chanyuan Qinggui has traced these borrowings and assimilations directly back to the Indian Vinaya (jielü) texts and to the early Sangha regulations (senggui), compiled by Chinese monks such as the Vinaya advocate Daoan (312–385) and the Lü master Daoxuan (596–667). Although the Chanyuan Qinggui is still seen as the culmination of early endeavors in developing a monastic code, all these borrowings and assimilations have helped refute the traditional claim that this kind of collection of rules of purity is solely a Chan invention by Baizhang Huaihai’s groundbreaking work. In addition, the Chanyuan Qinggui includes elements incorporated from Chinese governmental policies and from traditional cultural customs and practices. For instance, the text conforms to state decrees concerning travel permits, the sale of tonsure and titular certificates, the election of abbots, the conversion of public monasteries into private ones, and so forth. It also echoes court protocol in monastic ceremonies and borrows popular and Confucian ritual customs.
This term refers to “the school of Chan” in Chinese Buddhism, but it is difficult to fully translate the meaning of zong in this context as “school.” The Chinese character zong has a variety of connotations other than just “school” (or zongbai) that emphasize the practice of meditation. The zong originally depicted an ancestral hall (zongmiao), in which a clan’s ancestor, or ancestors, were enshrined and the tablets for ancestors (zuzong paiwei) were kept. The zong involves the meanings of “clan” (zongmen or zongzhu), “[the same] ancestor,” “[the same] patriarch-predecessor” (zuxian), “origin,” “source” (benyuan), and “revere” (zunchong). These meanings help reveal the genealogical sense of the Chanzong in its Chinese context.
The institution of Chanzong is precisely defined by its tradition as a genealogical system, a lineal succession of patriarchs and dharma heirs (fasi), who transmit (chuan) enlightenmental experience or engender the echoing (qihui) of this kind of experience between their minds and the minds of their disciples (the so-called yixin chuanxin), rather than transmitting skills of meditation or scriptural teachings. This lineage of patriarchs, masters, and dharma heirs is an elite core of the Chan school. The great majority of the monks, nuns, lay followers, and patrons who live and train in Chan monasteries are not members of this lineage. They are members of the Chan school and could aspire to succeed to the lineage, but only a select few eventually receive the transmission. Thus, from an institutional perspective, the Chan school involves everyone who believes in the Chan lineage, acquires inspiration from its stories, reveres its patriarchs, and follows the masters or abbots who are the living Buddhas and patriarchs; everything evolves from this live lineage.
Moreover, the function of this lineal institution is shaped by its mythology about the lineage. The success and prosperity of various Chan sects depends, to a great extent, on their contribution to the establishment of Chan narrative on the legitimation of the lineage coming down to them. This narrative becomes the source of authority and identity needed for each rival faction within Chan. The earliest theories of the Chan lineal transmission were produced by the texts of the Dongshan Famen, which constructed a six-generation lineage of Chan patriarchs. Shenhui, in setting up the authority of his teacher Huineng as the true sixth patriarch of Chan and overturning the Dongshan Famen and the Northern school’s lineage theory, made a new list of strict one-to-one patriarchal succession for Chan Buddhsm and added a list of Indian patriarchs.
The parallel attempts made by other Chan sects culminated in the Baolin Zhuan’s version of 28 Indian patriarchs in addition to 6 Chinese patriarchs, which became an orthodox “history” of Chan lineal transmission from India to China that was followed by all later Chan texts. This and other texts of the Hongzhou school also created a new tradition of Chan ecumenism, opposing the divisive sectarianism of separating the Southern and Northern schools, and recognizing the Chan lineage after Huineng as evolving from the unilineal transmission to the multilineal transmission. The various lineages were accommodated and seen as belonging to the same extended family. This huge Chan clan thus came to embody familial relationships. The masters and disciples in a lineage were related like spiritual fathers and sons or grandfathers and grandsons. They were also related to practitioners of the other Chan lineages like siblings, cousins, uncles, and nephews.
From a different, more doctrinal, perspective, the meaning of the zong as source or origin (benyuan) lends itself to the exploration of the source and principle (zongzhi) of the Chan school. For some, to study the Chan school is to study this source and principle of Chan. Any lineal transmission is the transmission of “something,” no matter how different the interpretation of this “something” would be, and the principle of Chan holds this family together. One prominent example along this line of thinking is Yongming Yanshou’s Zongjing Lu (Records of the Source-Mirror). In that book, he identifies the one mind as the underlying and universal principle that transcends and unifies all sectarian divisions, all kinds of scriptural teachings and spiritual practices, and all provisional articulations of this principle itself. It is the source and foundation of a myriad of things and beings, of all existence, and of liberation and enlightenment. Yanshou’s view is obviously based on the classical Chan notion of the one mind, which assimilates the tathāgatagarbha/Buddha-nature theory and the Yogācāra mind-only theory. One of the purposes of this metaphysical explanation on the principle of Chan is to clarify Chan ideology and to do away with a sectarian identity based on an esoteric transmission between the minds. However, since this universal “one mind” transcends all historical conditions and is ineffable, it still leaves room for esotericism.
“Imperial Edition of the Baizhang Rules of Purity,” deemed the most authoritative text of Chan monastic code and compiled by the Chan abbot Dongyang Dehui (d.u.) from Mount Baizhang in 1335–1336, who was appointed by Emperor Huizong (r. 1333–1370) of the Yuan dynasty to lead the compilation. The main motive was to unify all existing Chan monastic regulations and to reconcile the discrepancies produced by different editions of the Chan rules of purity that had come into existence after the compilation of Chanyuan Qinggui. Dehui based his compilation and revision of existing regulations on three major sources: the Conglin Jiaoding Qinggui Zongyao (also called Jiaoding Qinggui, compiled by Jinhua Weimian in 1274), the Chanlin Beiyong Qinggui (also called Beiyong Qinggui, compiled by Zeshan Yixian in 1311), and the Chanyuan Qinggui.
The result was a more comprehensive collection, with wider establishment and elaboration of Chan monastic regulations. The text is divided into nine chapters: “Festivities and the Observance of Rites,” “Discharging Indebtedness to the State,” “Discharging Indebtedness to Buddha (the Root of Buddhism),” “Honoring the Patriarchs,” “The Abbot,” “The Dual Order Offices,” “The Practitioners,” “The Annual Celebration Calendar,” and “The Monastic Sound Instruments.” Because of this imperial edition’s comprehensiveness and definitiveness, it had far-reaching effects in the subsequent Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties. The Ming imperial court repeatedly decreed that this text was the standard for all Chan monasteries and must be strictly followed by all practitioners. In 1442, the Ming imperial court authorized its reprint edition, on which the Taishō Tripitaka edition relied while consulting its Japanese Five Monasteries Edition (Gozanban), published in 1356. Despite the fact that this comprehensive monastic code had gone far beyond its alleged origin, the so-called ancient rules of purity (guquinggui) of Baizhang, the imperial edition restored the title “Baizhang Rules of Purity” to assert its lineage and authority. Baizhang was praised as one of the greatest patriarchs of Chan; his image was ordered to be placed just to the right of Bodhidharma—the founding patriarch of Chan—and the conducting of a memorial ritual for him was also prescribed.
The English translation of this Chinese title is Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasure. The Chuan Fabao Ji is an important text for the study of early Chan Buddhism in general and for the earliest theory about the transmission of dharma through patriarchal succession in particular. It is a short work authored by a layman, Du Fei (d.u.), who is reported by another source to be an early teacher of Shenxiu’s disciple Yifu (658–736), but whose other biographical information is almost non-existent. However, from this work and other limited information, one can see that Dufei had a close association with Shenxiu’s disciples. The work was composed sometime between 716 and 732 and was mentioned by Shenhui in his famous debate with Chongyuan (d.u.) of the Northern school in 732. Beyond that, it was soon forgotten by all later Chan texts. In the 1930s, it was discovered among the Dunhuang documents and published by Japanese scholars.
The Chuan Fabao Ji includes Du Fei’s preface and the biographies of Bodhidharma, Huike, Sengcan, Daoxin, Hongren, Faru, and Shenxiu. His preface is the first evidence of an attempt to trace the origin of Chinese patriarchs back to India in early Chan Buddhism, although the names of Indian patriarchs draw heavily on the Damo Duoluo Chanjing (the Meditation Sutra of Dharmatrāta). The biographies of Chinese patriarchs, on the other hand, draw largely on Daoxuan’s Xu Gaoseng Zhuan (Supplements to Biographies of Eminent Monks). However, one of the differences from the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan is that the thread running through these biographies in the Chuan Fabao Ji is a clear indication of the lineal transmission of the teachings from patriarch to patriarch from the perspective of the Northern school, one of the earliest evidences of this kind in early Chan. It accepts the position of Faru’s epitaph (“Tang Zhongyue Shamen Shi Faru Chanshi Xingzhuang”)—seeing Faru as Hongren’s dharma heir and placing him before Shenxiu, which is different from the other early sources such as the Lengqie Shizi Ji—and shows different perspectives on the orthodox lineage within the Northern school. The Chuan Fabao Ji is also the earliest work of hagiographical writing in Chan Buddhism, establishing the images of ideal Chan masters for religious practitioners.
The English translation of this title is Record of the True Lineage of Dharma Transmission. It is a book of nine fascicles, concerning the genealogical history of Chan, written by the Song Chan master Qisong in 1061. The biographical accounts of the Buddha, 28 Indian patriarchs, and 6 Chinese patriarchs are included in the first six fascicles. The seventh and eighth fascicles provide short biographies of 1304 Chan masters who can track their lineages all the way back to Huineng. The last fascicle offers biographies of those Indian and Chinese masters before Huineng, who are not included in the aforementioned orthodox lineage, such as some disciples of the fifth patriarch, Hongren, and their descendants.
While maintaining the orthodox Chan lineage of 28 Indian patriarchs and 6 Chinese patriarchs in terms of the Baolin Zhuan and Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Qisong also attempted to correct as many errors as he could through the exegesis of scriptural sources. He acknowledged the lack of textual evidence in certain Chan genealogical narratives, and for that matter expressed his reluctance to accept some newly created accounts by the Tiansheng Guangdeng Lu (Tiansheng Extensive Record of the Lamp), even though he still believed that the intimacy of the mind-to-mind transmission of the dharma would not ensure the historical precision of all records. In his own account, he opposed the literal understanding of the notion of “a separate transmission from the scriptural teachings.” For Qisong, Chan transmission works within the broader scriptural tradition, and the only difference Chan makes is to verify teachings through the realization of the mind. In this respect, Qisong is in line with Guifeng Zongmi and Yongming Yanshou. The purpose of his book is to refute both the attack on the legitimacy of Chan lineage from the outside and the misunderstanding of Chan as separate from the scriptural teachings within the Chan circle. To serve this purpose, he also composed the Chuanfa Zhengzong Lun (Treatise on the True Lineage of Dharma Transmission) and the Chuanfa Zhengzong Dingzu Tu (Portraits of the Established Patriarchs of the True Lineage of Dharma Transmission).
This is the first part of the recorded sayings of Huangbo Xiyun. Its complete title is “Essential Teachings on the Transmission of Mind from Chan Master Duanji at Mount Huangbo” (Huangboshan Duanji Chanshi Chuanxin Fayao). It includes Huangbo’s sermons and his answers to the disciple’s questions, recorded during the late 840s and compiled with a preface by Pei Xiu, a high-ranking official and one of Huagnbo’s important lay disciples, in 857. It is one of the most influential and earliest texts of Chan recorded sayings, despite the fact that the text has no biographical summary and is therefore quite different from standard Chan recorded sayings literature. Although the Chuanxin Fayao underwent a long editorial process, like all collections of oral instructions in the genre of Chan recorded sayings (yulu), and although what we see now as the standard edition is from the Song dynasty, contemporary scholars are convinced that this text is more reliable than many other texts of Chan recorded sayings, whose historical origins are more vague and problematic.
Acknowledging that, in many aspects, this text lays the foundation for the further development of Chan, contemporary scholars also distinguish its use of the more traditional forms of sermons, its quoting and alluding to Buddhist scriptures, from the later Chan’s more radical iconoclastic approaches. The Chuanxin Fayao involves the most noticeable elaborations on such classical Chan teachings as the critique of conceptual (or cognitive) understanding (zhijian or zhijie), the non-duality (bu’er) between realizing self-nature (jianxing) and ordinary activities, “doing nothing special (wushi),” “no-seeking (wuqiu),” “no-mind (wuxin),” “forgetting mind (wangxin),” “transmission from mind to mind (yixin chuanxin),” “verification from mind to mind (yixin yinxin),” and “directly pointing to the human mind (zhizhi renxin), realizing one’s self-nature and becoming a Buddha (jianxing chengfo).” These teachings played a remarkable role in shaping the Chan tradition.
Record of Equanimity, one of the best-known collections of the Chan gong’an, compiled by the early Yuan Chan master Wansong Xingxiu of the Caodong school in 1223, is Xingxiu’s commentary on the Song Caodong Chan master Hongzhi Zhengjue’s Songgu Baize (Verses on One Hundred Old Cases). The full title of this book is Wansong Laoren Pingchang Tiantong Heshang Songgu Congrong-an Lu (Record of Old Man Wansong’s Promoting Commentary on Monk Tiantong’s Verses on Old Cases from the Temple of Equanimity). Basically following the format of the Song Linji Chan master Yuanwu Keqin’s Blue Cliff Record (Biyan Lu), each of the 100 cases in this book starts with a pointer (shizong similar to Biyan Lu’s chuishi), an overall suggestion for the study of this gong’an case, followed by the original case picked up (ju) by Zhengjue and his original verse. Xingxiu then adds his own pingchang, the promoting and guiding commentary, and inserts his zhuyu, the explanatory note to the sentences of the case description and its commenting verse. The Congrong Lu also gives each gong’an case a brief title. A preface written by Xingxiu’s lay disciple and the statesman Yelü Chucai (1190–1244), and a letter from Xingxiu, are attached to this book. The current version preserved in the Taisho (volume 48) is a Ming dynasty edition.
The Baizhang Guanglu records Baizhang Huaihai’s teaching on how to avoid opposite concepts in Chan language. Baizhang advises his students that they must use a kind of sentence that cuts off two opposites (geduan liangtou ju). Through this kind of language, Baizhang suggests, one would not be caught on either side of opposites. For example, one should assert neither existence nor non-existence, neither profane nor holy, neither Buddha nor sentient beings, neither cultivation nor realization, and so forth. In this way, one eschews the oppositional way of thinking, follows the perspective of non-duality, and practices non-attachment and the Middle Way. Baizhang uses this kind of language as an example of “living words.” Baizhang’s teaching demonstrates the Chan appropriation of the paradoxical language of Mahayana Buddhism and the Chan simplification of that language within ordinary practical contexts.