Finding Wisdom in East Asian Classics

THE PLATFORM SŪTRA is one of the most celebrated works in the vast literature of Chan (Zen) Buddhism, representing the “autobiography” and the recorded sayings of the Sixth Patriarch, Huineng, the Chinese master from whom all later Chan derives. Compilation was assigned to a monk by the name of Fa-hai, identified in the work itself as a resident monk in charge of Huineng’s temple. The work has gone through numerous recensions, ranging from the primitive and error-filled manuscript found in the Tun-huang caves to the greatly enlarged Yuan-dynasty versions of some five centuries later. Huineng is honored as the illiterate firewood gatherer who, by his innate understanding of the principles of Buddhism, became heir to the Chan teachings and in turn handed them down to all future generations.

The Platform Sūtra, particularly the expanded Yuan-dynasty version, has been reprinted numerous times over the centuries, and it remains one of the most popular of Chan works. Until modern times, one can count almost a hundred different printings in China, Korea, and Japan, many of them ordered by pious believers seeking merit for the virtue of widening the distribution of the text. The work has had enormous popularity, particularly as a text for laymen to read and monks to admire. Surprisingly, the work, although often praised, has been the subject of very few commentaries and seems not to have been widely used as a source for the study of Chan or for the subject of lectures by Chan masters.

The Platform Sūtra is distinctly a Chan work; it champions a Chan teacher and emphasizes a particular meditative tradition. Yet at the same time it is characteristically Buddhist, very much in the tradition of other works of the time. Elements common to all Buddhism, such as liturgy, refuges, repentances, vows, acceptance of the precepts, and various standardized formulae, are very much in evidence in the Platform Sūtra. The work shares much with other schools of Tang Buddhism; its concerns are very much the concerns of all Buddhism. The four vows, intoned today by virtually all Buddhist groups, are here in a form almost identical with contemporary usage, and we may assume that they, along with the refuges and repentances, were in the repertoire of all schools of Buddhism. The giving of the precepts and their acceptance by both monks and laymen were widely practiced throughout the history of Buddhism in China. The appeal of the work and its immense popularity over the centuries stem perhaps from the combination of standard Buddhist concepts shared by Chan and all forms of Mahāyāna Buddhism with many of the encounter stories so characteristic of later Chan literature.

The Formless Precepts are an important element of the Platform Sūtra. It has been suggested that one of the particular functions of this text was to assist in giving these precepts. If this suggestion is correct, it would help solve one of the more puzzling features of the work, its title. The term Sūtra is used exclusively for works said to have been spoken by the Buddha. Only in this one peculiar instance is the term applied to the sayings of a patriarch. There are, however, several works relating to the precepts that bear in their title the term “platform precept book” (jieh-tan tu jing), and it is quite likely that the term for Platform Sūtra (tan-ching) derives from the contraction of these two words.

While the Platform Sūtra holds an honored position as an early Chan text that champions the teachings of a revered founder, it differs considerably from the various genres of Chan writings that follow it. The Platform Sūtra is obviously composed of various layers: an autobiographical section, the basic sermons attributed to Huineng, and a number of miscellaneous independent pieces: verses, stories, the genealogy of the school, and admonitions and exhortations to students of Chan. The autobiography seems designed to emphasize the humble origins of the Sixth Patriarch, his illiteracy, and the availability of the teaching to laymen. Although we are told that Huineng cannot read, and later Chan makes much of the claim that it is a silent transmission from master to disciple without recourse to words and letters, it is obvious from the frequent quotations from canonical works that the person who delivered the sermons was fully conversant with scriptural literature. We can, however, gain little knowledge of how Chan was taught, what methods were used, or what was expected of the student. Obviously, sermons aimed at both monks and laymen played an important part in Chan teaching. Recorded by a disciple, they may well serve as predecessors to the later “Recorded Sayings” (yü-lu) genre of Chan literature. Individual monks appear to have come virtually at will to question the master, probably in public assemblies, although private meetings were held as well. There is no evidence as yet of the kōan interview between master and disciple, in which the student gave his solution to the brief story, or kōan, on which he was meditating at the time. The question-and-answer encounter between Huineng and Shen-hui contained in the Platform Sūtra is representative of the type of story that was later adopted for use in kōan meditation. In the early days of Chan, there was no organized monastic community; the elaborate regulations and rules developed later. Monks came and went at will. Those for whom the Master’s teaching was attractive might stay and eventually become disciples and heirs; others might wander off in search of teachers more suitable to their temperaments. We may assume that intensive meditations were practiced, although nowhere are the techniques described nor the role of the teacher specified.

But if we examine the biography of Huineng and the work that is attributed to his name from the unclouded vantage of historical plausibility, we are at once confronted with a series of problems. Although there is little doubt that a monk by the name of Huineng existed and that the dates assigned to him, 638–713, are in all probability correct, there is little else that we really know about him. His autobiography, as contained in the Platform Sūtra, and all later biographies are fabrications of later generations. The standard history of early Chan, the “official” history that has been handed down over the centuries, is replete with unfounded simplifications; the forgotten history, revealed in the documents discovered at Dunhuang, is a combination of fact and deliberate fabrication; the actual history that can be reconstructed from the above two, despite lacunae and areas of uncertainty, is the story of the struggle of various Chan factions to establish themselves during the eighth century and of the eventual emergence of a group that had little connection with the Chan of the Platform Sūtra but that nevertheless traced its origins to the Sixth Patriarch, Huineng.

The work known as the Platform Sūtra has a curious and in many ways an obscure history. A cursory examination of the earliest version we have, the Dunhuang manuscript, which bears an elaborate title that reads in part: “Southern School Sudden Doctrine, Supreme Mahāyāna Great Perfection of Wisdom: The Platform Sūtra preached by the Sixth Patriarch Huineng at the Dafan Temple …” indicates that it itself is a copy of an earlier, no longer extant, version. Evidence, both external and internal, indicates that an original text dating to around 780 must have existed and that the present Dunhuang manuscript is written in a calligraphic style that would place it around 820. The great popularity that the work has enjoyed in China is attested to by the large number of versions that have appeared over the centuries. In the Song dynasty, there were several editions, some preserved in Japan and others now lost, that were fairly faithful to the early Tun-huang text; they correct errors, improve on the literary style, and eliminate certain sections that are no longer pertinent. By the Yuan dynasty, some ten different versions can be accounted for. The two different Yuan texts, of 1290 and 1291, are largely expanded works, twice the size of the Dunhuang edition. While they treat to a large extent the same teachings that are expounded in the earlier versions, the biographical sections are greatly enlarged, and a wealth of new stories of Huineng’s encounters with other monks is provided.

To understand the significance of the Platform Sūtra, one must examine briefly the background from which it emerged. Our knowledge of this background derives largely from the documents discovered at Dunhuang, of which the Platform Sūtra is but one. Numerous works relating to Chan Buddhism in the seventh and eighth centuries were discovered in the caves at Dunhuang, and they form the primary source of our knowledge of Chan history. Chan was, of course, only one of several forms of Buddhism, some esoteric, some scholarly, some popular, that flourished during the Tang dynasty. In the early eighth century, Chan was in the process of attempting to establish itself, and several competing groups were striving for recognition. The most prominent among them was a group descended from the Fifth Patriarch, Hung-jen, which based its teaching on the Lakāvatāra Sūtra and which devised genealogical histories of its own tradition to strengthen its claim for legitimacy. This group traced its origins to the semilegendary Bodhidharma, the first patriarch in China, who had brought the teachings from India and who had handed down, through successive patriarchs, the teachings of the Lakāvatāra Sūtra.

This group and its heirs came to be known as the Northern Chan, although it did not initially refer to itself as such. Most prominent among this group was a famous monk, Shen-xiu (606?–706), later to be maligned in the Platform Sūtra, who was greatly honored by the Tang court and treated with the utmost pomp and respect. For the first decades of the eighth century, Shen-xiu and his descendants dominated the Chan of the capital cities.

In 732, however, an obscure monk by the name of Shen-hui (684–758; his dates have recently been revised, based on the discovery on the mainland of his stele) mounted a platform at his temple in Hua-tai, northeast of Loyang, and launched a virulent attack on Pu-ji (561–739), the heir of Shen-xiu, before a large audience. In speeches and in written texts Shen-hui, who had studied briefly with Huineng, denounced what he called Northern Chan and extolled the Southern School of Huineng. Huineng was the legitimate Sixth Patriarch, he maintained; Shen-xiu never pretended to that station, but now his heir claims to be the Seventh Patriarch. Shen-hui went on to assign to the leaders of Northern Chan a variety of crimes: Pu-ji is accused of sending an emissary to remove the head from Huineng’s mummified body and of having sent a disciple to efface the inscription on Huineng’s stele and to substitute one that stated that Shen-xiu was the Sixth Patriarch. Shen-hui wrote in detail the biography of Huineng, either inventing details or repeating legends current at the time. He never quotes from the Platform Sūtra, although there are numerous instances where his writings and those of the Sūtra are identical. Shen-hui did not limit his invective to accusations of the misrepresentation of the lineage; he attacked Northern Chan for the quality and content of its teaching. The most radical claim was that it was not the Lakāvatāra Sūtra that had been handed down from Bodhidharma but rather the Diamond Sūtra. This was a complete fabrication on Shenhui’s part, yet it has been accepted by all later biographers of Huineng. Perhaps the most damaging accusation was that Northern Chan adopted a gradual, step-by-step method of attaining enlightenment, whereas Huineng’s Southern School called for a sudden method for awakening to the self-nature. Whether this attack was justified is quite debatable—the Northern School in all probability advocated a more sophisticated process—but it was effective. By the year 780, Shen-hui had won the battle; Huineng was accepted by all schools of Chan as the legitimate Sixth Patriarch. Shen-hui himself and the line that descended from him did not share in the success. He was never recognized as a legitimate heir to the teachings, and his descendants failed to prosper. He virtually disappeared from the pages of traditional Chan history; it was not until the documents at Dunhuang were discovered that his real role was made clear.

Up to now it has been assumed by modern scholars that Shen-hui or one of his followers was the actual compiler of the Platform Sūtra. Recent research by the distinguished Japanese scholar Yanagida Seizan has shown rather persuasively that the Platform Sūtra was compiled by a certain Fa-hai, who was a member of the Ox-head School of Chan, a group that has been little studied but that flourished contemporaneously with the Southern and Northern schools. The Ox-head School, as did all the Chan schools of the time, traced its origins to the early teachers of Chan, but its major development as a school appears to have been during the last decades of the eighth century. The Ox-head School in all probability developed along independent lines, perhaps in reaction to the Northern and Southern schools. Four distinct lineages can be identified, each based on the teachings of specific masters, some of whom gained substantial recognition and for whom biographical materials remain. Less available, however, are texts that describe the content of the Ox-head teaching. It appears to have rejected the so-called gradual practices of Northern Chan and to have advocated a negation that did away with stated aims, techniques of meditation, and moralistic standards. The Ox-head School, together with groups that flourished in Szequan, may well have served to transcend the sectarian distinctions of North and South and to have established a connection with the groups that were moving toward a new developing Chan.

There is no room here for a detailed discussion, but biographical information indicates that Fa-hai was a highly literate monk who was concerned with the precepts, familiar with poetry, and active around the year 780, when the Platform Sūtra appears to have been written. By this time, most if not all schools of Chan had come to accept Huineng without reservation as the Sixth Patriarch. Internal evidence from the Platform Sūtra, combined with known facts, give much credence to Professor Yanagida’s view that the Ox-head monk Fa-hai was the actual compiler of the Platform Sūtra. Making use of stories and legends current at the time, Fa-hai wrote a biography of Huineng, championed the Southern School of sudden enlightenment, and condemned the gradual approach associated with Northern Chan. However, Fa-hai avoided the invective and violent accusations that accompanied Shen-hui’s attack. That the Platform Sūtra makes little mention of Shen-hui and includes the lineage of twenty-eight Indian patriarchs accepted in both Northern Chan and the Ox-head School but quite different from the lineage espoused in Shen-hui’s works lends credence to the attribution. If one discounts the error-filled version that represents the Dunhuang text as nothing more than a copy by a less-than-literate monk, the identification of the work as a product of Fa-hai and the Ox-head School appears quite appropriate.

If we examine the texts of the sermons, we find that the major concepts are drawn from scriptural works. Although the autobiographical section places great emphasis on the Diamond Sūtra, the concepts described derive more from the Nirvāa Sūtra and the Awakening of Faith. Huineng, in his sermon, is quoted as saying that the teachings derive from the sages of the past and are not his original concepts. Stress is placed on the identity of meditation and wisdom; to conceive that one precedes the other implies dualism. Wisdom is inherent; it is the original nature with which we all are endowed, and the realization of this is akin to enlightenment. Emphasized is the concept of no-thought. Thoughts are spoken of as progressing endlessly from past to present to future, and attachment to a single thought leads to attachment to a succession of thoughts; however, by cutting off this attachment one may achieve no-thought, which in itself is a state of enlightenment. The Perfection of Wisdom is given prominence in the Platform Sūtra; indeed, the term is contained in the original title of the work. The standard Chan doctrine of “seeing into one’s own nature” is constantly invoked. One must not seek on the outside but always look within one’s own mind and obtain awakening for one’s self. Failing this, a good teacher may be sought as a guide, but in the end it is only you yourself who must perform the practice.

All these are concepts that are associated with Chan, yet they are found in other schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism as well. The Platform Sūtra, then, is not characterized by contributions that can be regarded as uniquely representative of Chan Buddhism. Yet historically the work is of great importance. That an unlettered “barbarian” from the south was able to attain the highest position in Chan emphasized the availability of the teaching to all. The work marks a shift in emphasis in Chinese Buddhism, a move from an abstract Nirvāna to an individual enlightenment available to anyone who seeks to realize through meditation the Buddha nature inherent within him. The content of Buddhism does not change; Chan is always Mahāyāna Buddhism, but the method of teaching assumes a different cast, with a greater emphasis placed on meditation. The decline of the Tang court, domestic upheavals, and persecutions of Buddhism all contributed to the emergence of Chan as the dominant form of Buddhism in the early ninth century. Although we find no direct link between the Tang of the Platform Sūtra and that of the Hongzhou School that gained prominence at this time and from which all later Chan derives, the position of Huineng had become such that the founding fathers of this new form of Chan all traced their ancestry to him. Huineng always remains the Sixth Patriarch, the dominant figure in the early history of Chan Buddhism.