by Youru Wang
Very little information has been passed down about what he taught. It seems he emphasized meditation and affirmed those teachings about Buddha-nature, emptiness, non-attachment to words, and the non-duality between sentient beings and Buddha. These teachings are consistent with what Bodhidharma taught, as recorded in the Erru Sixing Lun. However, the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan claimed that Bodhidharma transmitted the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Huike, and Huike did the same to his students. Scholars have pointed out that there is no direct evidence from any other early source to support such a use of, or any emphasis on, the scripture by Bodhidharma and Huike, despite the fact that later sources accept it as truth.
HUINENG (ca. 638–713)
A Chan master of the Tang dynasty, Huineng was regarded as the sixth patriarch of Chan Buddhism and the founder of the Southern school by Chan tradition. In 816, Emperor Xianzong (r. 805–820) granted him the posthumous title “Chan Master of Great Mirror” (Dajian Chanshi). Many of his disciples, including Heze Shenhui, Nanyang Huizong, Qingyuan Xingsi, and Nanyue Huairang, were crucial figures in the development of Chan Buddhism. However, historically Huineng is a very obscure figure. Little can be found about his life in the writings of his contemporaries or any historical documents. He was included in the list of Hongren’s 10 great disciples by the texts of the Dongshan Famen. During that time, he was still a marginal figure on the national stage and at most had only some local influence, since he taught at Caoxi of Shaozhou (in modern Guangdong province) in the remote south. What we now know about the details of Huineng’s life comes almost entirely from the famous Platform Sūtra.
According to the legends presented by the Sūtra, Huineng grew up in poverty, living with his widowed mother, surviving by collecting firewood and selling it at the market. Despite his illiteracy and lack of any social privileges, Huineng was endowed with very great ability to understand Buddhist teachings. When he joined Hongren’s monastery at Mount Huangmei, he was assigned to menial work as a layperson there. Despite his juniority, Huineng won a verse competition over the senior monk Shenxiu by deconstructing the latter’s verse about enlightenment. Impressed by Huineng’s radical non-dualistic understanding of enlightenment, the fifth patriarch, Hongren, chose him to be the heir; handed down the robe and bowl of Bodhidharma, the founding patriarch of Chan; and secretly sent him south, away from the potential harm of rivals, to preserve and spread the true dharma. Huineng then taught at Baolin Temple in Caoxi to the end of his days.
These legends, supplemented by other hagiographical writings about Huineng outside the Platform Sūtra, vividly conveyed the Buddhist message about virtue and insight in general and established an ideal image of the enlightened Chan master in particular. Although the narrative is charmingly instructive and pedagogically effective and helps define the movements of Chan, many details are thoughtful fabrications without historical basis. Contemporary scholars have revealed that it was Shenhui who broke public silence about Huineng in the two decades after Huineng’s death; who named Huineng as the true sixth patriarch of Chan, the founder of the Southern school, not Shenxiu and the Northern school; and who made up stories about Huineng, such as the receipt of Bodhidharma’s robe and bowl from Hongren. The Platform Sūtra adopted the outline of Huineng’s biography from Shenhui’s texts with additional information, including Huineng’s winning over Shenxiu in that verse contest about the understanding of enlightenment and other stories of a dramatic nature. The authenticity of these stories about Huineng cannot be verified by any historical documents. The only early text close to a historical document is an epitaph for Huineng, written by the famous Tang poet Wang Wei (701–761), commissioned by Shenhui, and even this text shows important differences from Shenhui’s account of Huineng and those in the Platform Sūtra.
Scholars have also cast doubt on the accuracy of Huineng’s teaching, preserved only through Shenhui’s speech and the Platform Sūtra, since it is quite difficult to distinguish between Huineng’s original teaching and its representation by Shenhui and his followers, who greatly influenced the formation of the Sūtra. The acknowledgment of these problems is not to deny the existence of Huineng and his teachings, but simply to admit that we have no way to know exactly what Huineng taught through the currently available documents. Despite these problems, the representation of Huineng’s teachings in the Platform Sūtra, such as the teaching of sudden enlightenment, the notion of no-thought (wunian), and the non-duality of concentration and wisdom (dinghui bu’er), has had universal significance for Chan practitioners throughout the ages.
HUOJU
“Living words” or “living sentences,” in contrast to “dead words” or “dead sentences” (siju).
HUQIU SHAOLONG (1077–1136)
A Chan master of the Yangqi branch of the Linji school in the Song dynasty, Shaolong was a native of Hezhou (in present-day Anhui). His family name is unknown. At the age of nine, he entered his monastic life, and he was ordained six years later. At the age of 21, he started his pilgrimage. He studied, respectively, with the Chan masters Changlu Congxin (d.u.), Zhantang Wenzhun (1061–1115), and Sixin Wuxin (1043–1115). Finally, he became the disciple of his desired teacher, Yuanwu Keqin, for about 20 years. After leaving Keqin, he preached at Kaisheng Temple in Hezhou, Zhangjiao Temple in Xuanzhou, and Yunyan Temple in Huqiu. His teachings at these three temples were recorded and collected by his students into the Huqiu Longheshang Yulu. He had more than 60 disciples, and his lineage was called Huqiu pai, competing with the Dahui pai (the lineage of Dahui Zonggao) within the Yangqi lineage. The later generations of his lineage continued to the modern age.
HU SHI (1891–1962)
A modern Chinese scholar, Hu Shi was a native of Jixi in Anhui. He was admitted into Cornell University in the United States in 1910 and completed a PhD at Columbia University in 1917. Returning to China, he became a professor at Beijing University and was active in the new cultural movement. His early study of Chan was driven by his interest in the reform of classical Chinese language. In 1926, he discovered important Chan texts from the Dunhuang documents in the museums of Paris and London. In 1938, the Chinese government appointed him ambassador to the United States. In 1946, he became the president of Beijing University. He later went to Taiwan and became the president of the Academia Sinica. His contribution to the modern study of Chan lies not only in his rediscovery and redefining of Shenhui’s role in the history of Chinese Chan, but also in his application of critical method and relying on evidence in the study of Chan history. His critical and scientific method led to a famous debate with D. T. Suzuki, who believed that Hu Shi’s method could not do justice to the irrational and illogical nature of Chan. While Suzuki’s view dominated for several decades and was embraced by various Western scholars who romanticized Chan, contemporary critical historians of Chan in the West have revisited Hu Shi and favor his method, though not necessarily his conclusions.
HUYIN DAOJI (1148–1209)
Also called Fangyuan Shou (Elder of Square-Circle), Daoji’s more famous nicknames are Jigong (Sire Ji) and Jidian (Crazy Ji), as used by popular folklore, but he himself is hardly mentioned in Song and Yuan Buddhist literature. According to the only Buddhist source from a contemporary of Daoji, he was a native of Linhai (in present-day Zhejiang province). His family name was Li. At Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou, Daoji was ordained by the Chan master Xiatang Huiyuan (1103–1176) of the Yangqi lineage of the Linji school. Although he was a person of integrity and compassion, and outstanding in many aspects, including his delicate poetic skill, he did not comply with the accepted monastic norms. An eccentric personality, he was sharp, witty, unrestrained, and wild, and never stopped his habitual drinking. For four decades, he lived as a wandering and reclusive monk, while devoting his time to the healing of others. He died at Jingci Temple near West Lake. His behavioral transgressions alienated him from the monastic establishment but did not decrease his holiness in the eyes of laypeople. By the time of his death, he had become a renowned holy man. It was the lay
people, rather than his fellow monks, who stored his remains below the Twin Peak. The laypeople also transformed Daoji into a literary and dramatic hero, as well as a deity, and only under lay pressure did the monastic establishment, centuries later, accept him into its enshrinement.
I
INDIAN PATRIARCHS OF CHAN
The ongoing awareness of the need to establish its own legitimacy or prove its authenticity in a competitive environment is a major driving force behind the fascination with the lineage and patriarchal succession of Chan Buddhism. This lineage and patriarchal succession must be traced back to Indian Buddhism to claim its legitimacy successfully. Tiantai Buddhism’s recognition of 24 Indian patriarchs to establish its lineal legitimacy could be an inspiring and challenging factor to Chan Buddhism. The earliest endeavor to connect Chinese Chan masters with Indian patriarchs is reflected in two early Chan texts in the late 7th and 8th centuries. One is Tang Zhongyue Shamen Shi Faru Chanshi Xingzhuang (The Account of the Activities of the Monk, Chan Master Faru from Zhongyue of the Tang Dynasty), an epitaph for Shenxiu’s disciple Faru. The other is Chuan Fabao Ji (Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasure) by Du Fei (d.u.), a layman closely associated with Shenxiu’s disciples. Both texts list several Indian patriarchs’ names before Bodhidharma, drawn from the Damoduoluo Chan Jing (the Meditation Sutra of Dharmatrāta), a Chinese translation of Indian scripture of uncertain origin. These two texts show that the earliest effort to establish a patriarchal succession was made by the Dongshan Famen and the Northern school. Through his attack on the Northern school, Shenhui later also presented his version of eight Indian patriarchs and six Chinese patriarchs to legitimize Huineng and the Southern school.
The later Chan texts, however, were not satisfied with this version. The Lidai Fabao Ji used a version with 29 Indian patriarchs after the seven Buddhas of the past, which draws on information from a putative 5th-century work, Fu Fazang Yinyuan Zhuan (Traditions of the Causes and Conditions of Transmission of the Dharma Treasury), and the Platform Sūtra’s list of Indian patriarchs is largely based on the Lidai Fabao Ji. It was not until the advent of the Baolin Zhuan’s version of 28 Indian patriarchs that an orthodox “history” of Chan transmission from India to China was finally fabricated. Although this version was based on a large body of legend, and many sources were apocryphal or erroneous, all later Chan texts followed it. This is the list of 28 Indian patriarchs after the seven Buddhas of the past: Mahākāśyapa, Ānanda, Śaṇavāsa, Upagupta, Dhṛtaka, Miccaka, Vasumitra, Buddhanandi, Buddhamitra, Pārśva, Puṇyayśas, Aśvakhoṣa, Kapimala, Nāgārjuna, Kāṇadeva, Rāhulata, Saṅghānandi, Gayaśāta, Kumārata, Jayata, Vasubandhu, Manorhita, Haklenayaśas, Siṁha bhikṣu, Basiasita, Puṇyamitra, Prajñātāra, and Bodhidharma (who is also the first patriarch of Chinese Chan).
J
JIANFU CHENGGU (970–1045)
Also called Gutazhu Chenggu. A Chan master of the Yunmen school in the Song dynasty, he was a native of Xizhou (in present-day Xinjiang). His family name is unknown. He became extensively learned in his youth but eventually gave up the desire to be an official after being mistreated during a government examination. He entered his monastic life at Daguang Temple with the Chan master Jingxuan (d.u.) in Tanzhou (in present-day Hunan). At Fuyan Temple on Mount Heng, he became the disciple of the master Liangya (d.u.), the disciple of Dongshan Shouchu of the Yunmen school. Chenggu later openly stated that he was not satisfied with his teachers. One day, when he was reading Yunmen Wenyan’s recorded sayings, he suddenly reached awakening. He then claimed that he was the direct disciple of Yunmen Wenyan, not merely a disciple of the third generation in the Yunmen lineage. Chenggu moved to Mount Yunju and lived in the pagoda in which the Tang Chan master Yunju Daoying was buried; hence his other name, Gutazhu (host of ancient pagoda). He started preaching on Mount Zhi and was invited by the literatus-official Fan Zhongyan (989–1052) to be the abbot at Jianfu Temple in Raozhou (in present-day Jiangxi). He died at the age of 76.
His teachings, including the distinction between the original self and everyday self and the notion of resting the mind (xiuxin), were preserved in his Jianfu Chenggu Chanshi Yulu, compiled by his disciple, Wenzhi (d.u.), but that text did not include his controversial interpretation of Linji’s teaching method of sanxuan sanyao (three mysteries and three essentials). Chenggu proposed that the three mysteries should be tizhong xuan (mystery of the understanding of the essence or true suchness), juzhong xuan (mystery of being flexible with time, person, and situation when speaking), and xuanzhong xuan (mystery of the true mind itself which is beyond all words and forms). This interpretation was criticized later by Juefan Huihong as distorting and complicating Linji’s original saying.
JIANJIAO
This Chinese word literally means “gradual teaching.” It refers to the teaching of gradual enlightenment.
JIANWU
See .
JIANXING
A Chan term and an important notion in Chan teachings. Literally, it means “seeing (one’s authentic) nature.” This teaching was a Chinese appropriation of Indian Mahayana tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought. The tathāgatagarbha tradition teaches that every human being has Buddha-nature within. This Buddha-nature is the inner cause and condition of enlightenment. Some texts of this tradition also teach that this Buddha-nature is the foundation of the world.
In Chinese Chan tradition, for example, in the Platform Sūtra Buddha-nature is equivalent to the self-nature (zixing) in the sense that Buddha-nature cannot be objectified and realized outside each person. Seeing or realizing the Buddha-nature is the existential transformation of personhood, being able to understand and appreciate what constitutes a person—elements of impermanence and non-abiding—and then acting accordingly. Jianxing is therefore another term for enlightenment. The English translation of xing here as “nature” is somewhat misleading. The Buddha-nature or self-nature in the above-mentioned Chan soteriological context is not a changeless essence deeply rooted in the human mind for one to discover; rather, it refers to the changeability, transformation, and growth of personhood. Jianxing thus requires the accomplishment of action, the practical-behavioral carrying out of non-attachment.
JIANXIU
See .
JIANZHONG JINGGUO XUDENG LU
Continued Record of [the Transmission of] the Lamp from the Jianzhong Jingguo Era, a book of 30 fascicles in the Chan “lamp history” genre, was compiled by the Yunmen Chan master Foguo Weibai (d.u.) of the Song dynasty in 1101, with imperial sanction, and eventually was included in the Song Buddhist canon. It continued the tradition of Chan hagiographical writing on Chan genealogical and biographical history started by the Jingde Chuandeng Lu and Tiansheng Guangdeng Lu. More than 1,700 masters of 48 generations were included. The repeated stories of Chan lineages were made brief and terse, but some refashionings can still be seen. One of the examples is that the radical interpretation of “a separate transmission from the teachings (jiaowai biechuan)” was for the first time directly linked to the story of Sākyamuni’s holding up a flower and transmitting the dharma to Mahākāśyapa. When adding new materials and figures to the Chan genealogical history, those neglected by previous lamp history books, and contemporary masters, were included, with a preference for those in the Yunmen and Linji schools, who occupy 25 fascicles of this book. Despite these aspects, the book reflected the popularity and fortunes of five Chan schools in the Northern Song, including the early signs of the Caodong revival and the decline of the Guiyang school.
JIAOWAI BIECHUAN
See .
JIATAI PUDENG LU
Comprehensive Record of [the Transmission of] the Lamp from the Jiatai Era, a book of 30 fascicles in the genre of the Chan lamp history, was compiled in 1204 by the Yunmen Chan master Lei’an Zhengshou (d.u.) of the Southern Song dynasty, who worked on it for 17 years. It received imperial approval and was included in the Buddhist canon. The compiler attempted to combine all three previous Chan lamp histories—the Jingde Chuand
eng Lu, the Tiansheng Guangdeng Lu, and the Jianzhong Jingguo Xudeng Lu—without awareness of a similar compilation, the Liandeng Huiyao. However, the compiler Zhengshou clearly stated that, although the previous lamp histories continued the tradition, they were not comprehensive since only records of monks were included. The Jiatai Pudeng Lu instead supplemented the material of the previous lamp histories with newly collected records on nuns, laypeople, emperors, and minsters in relation to the transmission of Chan, and included various neglected sayings, poems, prosaic and poetic commentaries on the gong’an, and miscellaneous writings, in addition to sermons and encounter dialogues.
JIETAN
