by Youru Wang
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.
See also .
CHAN CHART
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.
CHANGLU ZONGZE (1056–?)
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).”
CHANGUAN CEJIN
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 und
er 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.
CHANLIN BAOXUN
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.
CHANLIN SENGBAO ZHUAN
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.
CHANMEN GUISHI
“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.
CHAN OF LETTERS AND WORDS
See
CHAN OF OBSERVING THE KEY PHRASE
See .
CHAN PORTRAITURE
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.
CHAN PROLEGOMENON
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.
