English translation of the Chinese term yixin, which frequently appeared in many Chan texts, including those of such important figures of classical Chan as Mazu Daoyi and Huangbo Xiyun, and the later texts. The “one mind” refers to the enlightened mind or the mind of Buddha, which is equivalent to the Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha or rulaizang) or self-nature (zixing). Sometimes this “one mind” is also called “original mind” (benxin) or “original nature” (benxing).
Influenced by the Indian and East Asian theories of Buddha-nature, especially by such texts as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, this one mind is the overall condition or source of myriad possible things and beings. While letting things be, it itself is not a thing and goes beyond all binary conceptual distinctions and separations. However, in terms of different perceptions, this one mind could demonstrate different aspects of purity and defilement: the mind of suchness and the mind of death and rebirth. In other words, while this one mind is the source of all things, it functions through the human mind. When the human mind is deluded, a person does not realize this one mind as his or her original mind, nor does one realize its purity or suchness. The soteriological goal of Chan practices is said to overcome delusion and defilement by transmitting and realizing the dharma of this one mind.
Some contemporary scholars have voiced criticisms of the Chan adoption of the notion of one mind from the tathāgatagarbha texts and, for example, have seen it as a kind of metaphysical reappropriation of the Buddha’s early teachings. Others have argued that the element of the deconstruction of Buddha-nature or this one mind can be seen clearly through the Chan masters’ identification of one mind with emptiness (devoid of self-existence), their placing of the one mind in the relations of all everyday activities, and their self-dismissal of the teaching of one mind as expedient means (upaya, Ch. fangbian).
The Sanskrit word samādhi means “concentration.” It refers to a Buddhist practitioner’s ability to establish and maintain the one-pointedness of mind on an object of concentration and as one of the wholesome states of mind. Concentration can be achieved through meditation. The cultivation of concentration for attaining meditative absorption is called “tranquility meditation” (samatha), paired with “insight meditation” (vipassanā) in Theravada Buddhism. In the Mahayana Buddhist emphasis on the practice of wisdom, the metaphysical idea of “one-mark samādhi” emerges as the realization of the undifferentiatedness of dharmadhātu (ultimate reality or tathatā) and becomes the source of Chinese Buddhist discourses on “one-practice samādhi” (yixing sanmei). The Tiantai master Zhiyi (538–597) explained the yixing sanmei as the sitting meditative contemplation on the single spot of the dharmadhātu without shifting.
In the early Chan movements Daoxin, the attributed fourth patriarch of Chan, identified one-practice samādhi with the practice of “maintaining the one without wavering (shouyi buyi)” and exercised a more simplified style of practice than the Tiantai school. The other representatives of the Dongshan Famen, Hongren and Shenxiu, more clearly associated the one-practice samādhi with the realization of the dharma-body and Buddha-nature, in addition to the dharmadhātu, accepting more influence from the Dasheng Qixin Lun. Their notion of “shouxin (maintaining [the awareness of] the mind)” or “guanxin (contemplating the mind)” involved the understanding of this one single practice encompassing all others. Just as the real mark of the dharmadhātu was “no mark,” the one-practice samādhi canceled all other practices or implied “no practice.” Only for beginners or those who had not reached the stage of one-practice samādhi did the masters think it useful to learn certain procedures or techniques.
This tendency was radicalized in the Platform Sūtra and Shenhui’s discourse. The Platform Sūtra interpreted the one-practice samādhi as the practice of no-thought and “straightforward mind (zhixin)” at all times, including walking, standing, sitting, and lying. All circumstances were the occasion of Buddhist pracrice (daochang). Shenhui also proposed to return to the Prajñapāramitā literature, such as the Diamond Sūtra, and identified the one-practice samādhi with no-thought and the perfection of wisdom. In this way, the passivity and isolation of the Dongshan Famen’s “contemplating the mind” was subverted by a more positive and inclusive attitude toward ordinary life activities and a more dynamic way of practicing meditation. It was a dialectical self-deconstruction of the one-practice samādhi. Since this one practice was all-encompassing, and assuming there was no fixed particular type of practice, all practices could be included in the cultivation of concentration and wisdom. This new interpretation thus laid a foundation for the later development of Chan Buddhism.
This is the English translation of Mazu Daoyi’s signature teaching, pingchangxin shidao. The term “Way” (dao) in Mazu’s usage, and in much of classical Chan, denoted both the Buddhist path and enlightenment, the goal of Buddhist practices. The teaching “ordinary mind is the Way” further clarified, supplemented, and expanded on his teaching “this mind is Buddha.” The two teachings were closely interrelated and embraced each other, although in a more careful contextual analysis, they demonstrated some differences. The teaching “this mind is Buddha” leaned more on the pre-enlightenment aspect of the relationship between the everyday activities or functions of the human mind and enlightenment; the teaching of “ordinary mind is the Way” leaned more on the post-enlightenment aspect of that relationship.
The teaching “this mind is Buddha” advises Chan students that they cannot realize enlightenment outside their deluded minds. The deluded mind and the true mind are just two aspects of the same human mind. The key is not to abandon the mind even when it is deluded, but to transform this same mind from the deluded to the enlightened—a relational and non-dualistic perspective. Meanwhile, the “ordinary mind” in the teaching “ordinary mind is the Way,” according to Mazu, goes beyond the distinctions of right and wrong, grasping and rejecting, terminable and permanent, worldly and holy. It is a mind of detachment and transcendence but still functions, without obstruction, in the ordinary activities of the everyday world. All ordinary activities can manifest this enlightened state of mind. This teaching thus pointed to and interpreted the goal of Buddhist practices for the students from an enlightened perspective. The one thread running through the teachings of “ordinary mind is the Way” and “this mind is Buddha” is this relational and non-dualistic perspective.
Also called “Platform of precepts,” for the original Chinese, jietan. Tan (“platform”) is used with high frequency in Chan literature, due to the famous Platform Sūtra and Shenhui’s Tanyu (the Platform Sermon). Here, tan does not refer to a lecture platform. It is a public ordination platform from which the Chan masters conferred the bodhisattva precepts on the participants of a congregational ceremony, including the lay and monastic practitioners. It is commonly recognized that Huineng’s sermon recorded in the Platform Sūtra and Shenhui’s sermon were given from such an ordination platform, during an ordination ceremony. Similar use of an ordination platform and ritual can also be found in the practice of the Northern school, as described in the Northern school text Five Expedient Means (Wufangbian). However, the ordination ritual used by Huineng and Shenhui was much more simplified. No Buddha image was prepared, and the Buddha was summoned from within each recipient. In this kind of short ceremony, the precepts were called forth from the listener’s own nature (zixing) in almost a modified self-ordination—the conferral of the formless precepts.
A Chan expression substituting for, or interchangeable with, other Chan terms, such as original mind and original nature. It designates a person’s Buddha-nature or one’s original state of enlightenment.
English translation of the Chinese term benxin. “Original mind” refers to one’s own Buddha-nature or Buddha-mind. This Chan notion teaches everyone to understand one’s true mind or true nature, which is originally enlightened but covered by delusions and defilements, and to therefore stop seeking enlightenment outside oneself or seeing it as an external thing to gain or possess. One should realize and experience this enlightenment inwardly as discovering or restoring one’s own mind-nature by oneself (zishi benxin). The notion of original mind is influenced by the notion of original enlightenment (benjue) in the Awakening of the Faith in Mahayana. However, in the development of Chan teachings, masters in classical Chan placed more emphasis on the realization of one’s original mind in everyday activities. All everyday activities can manifest one’s original mind. Thus, the dichotomy of inward and outward is challenged. Within the more deconstructive teachings such as “neither mind nor Buddha,” the notion of original mind, along with others, is further de-substantialized as one of the expedient means in Chan.
A term similar to “original mind.” Both refer to one’s own Buddha-nature or Buddha-mind. The notion of “original nature” teaches that to attain enlightenment is to restore and realize one’s own true nature. Here the word “nature” (xing) is not equivalent to some kind of essential nature or changeless essence deeply rooted in every human being’s mind awaiting discovery. The Chinese Chan usage of “nature” (xing) is relational and dynamic. It involves the meaning of the changeability and growth of the mind and personhood, which is part of the reason that “mind” (xin) and “nature” (xing) in Chinese usage are so often interchangeable, under the influence of the Confucian, and especially Mencian, theory of mind-nature.
This is the English translation of the Chinese designation Niutou zong, one of the early schools in Chan Buddhism. The school was named after Mount Niutou (in present-day Nanjing, Jiangsu province) and made the center of practice by the patriarchs and generations of disciples of this school. The lineage story of the Ox-Head school, created by the school itself and accepted by traditional Chan narrative, has been problematic. In addition to establishing Niutou Farong as the school’s first patriarch, the lineage stories tell how Farong met Daoxin, the fourth patriarch of Chan, and indicate that Farong received the transmission of Chan from Daoxin. This attempt to legitimize the lineage of Niutou is not supported by any historical evidence. Moreover, no historical evidence can support the lineal succession between Farong and the second patriarch, Zhiyan (577–654), and between Zhuyan and the third patriarch, Huifang (627–695), despite the fact that their fame held strong appeal for the later generations of the school. It was during the time of the fourth patriarch, Fachi (635–702), and the fifth patriarch, Zhiwei (646–722), that the Ox-Head school started to be influential in southeast China. The culmination of the school came with Zhiwei’s two disciples, Niutou Huizhong (683–769) and Helin Xuansu (688–752), along with their students, Foku Weize (751–830) and Jingshan Faqin.
There are several important characteristics of the Ox-Head school. First, all of the major masters of this school came from and were active in south China—a uniquely southern tradition in Chinese Chan. Second, the school was a community loosely connected by a bond of the shared religious ideal represented by Niutou Farong and other major figures. The links between teachers and students were relatively weak. Third, the school maintained connections with, and also distance from, both the Northern school and Southern school. Fourth, this school emerged during a time that was transitional between the early period of Chan and its classical period. Fifth, the major figures of the school were notable for producing literary texts, especially Niutou Farong’s Jueguan Lun but also a good many others in later generations. Using these related reasons, some scholars have argued that a member of this school, Fahai, who was the disciple of Helin Xuansu, compiled the famous Platform Sūtra, although other scholars have different theories.