Historical Dictionary of Chan Buddhism

by Youru Wang

  NANYUE HUAIRANG (677–744)

  An important figure in Tang Chan Buddhism and the teacher of Mazu Daoyi, Huairang was a native of Ankang in Jinzhou (in present-day Ankang, Shaanxi). His family name was Du. At the age of 15, he became a monk at Yuquan Temple in Jingzhou, studying with Hengjing (634–712), a master of precepts. Eight years later, he was officially ordained there. However, he soon felt unsatisfied. After being introduced by Hongren’s disciple Hui’an, Huairang went to Caoxi to study with Huineng. After 12 years, Huairang went to Mount Heng to teach at Guanyin Tai. He had several disciples, one of them the famous Mazu. At the age of 68, Huairang died. More than half a century later, a stone inscription for Huairang was written by Zhang Zhengfu (752–834) at the request of Mazu’s disciples in the capital, Chang’an. The posthumous title Dahui Chanshi was granted to him as well. Some legendary tales documented in the records of Huairang in the transmission of the lamp literature are obvious fabrications, though his teachings seem to prefigure the teachings of Mazu and the Hongzhou school. As to whether or not these teachings can be characterized as antinomian or iconoclastic, scholars remain divided.

  NEITHER-MIND-NOR-BUDDHA (Ch. feixin feifo)

  “There is neither mind nor Buddha” is a well-known self-effacement made by Mazu Daoyi on his teaching of “this mind is Buddha.” When “this mind is Buddha” was first taught, it was an attempt to oppose the misunderstanding of the Buddha-nature as something outside of or separable from the ordinary mind. It was itself a kind of deconstructive operation upon the reifying view of the Buddha-nature. However, after he had taught this notion for a certain period of time, it was sedimented and abstracted from the original context. His students displayed a tendency to attach themselves to this notion. Mazu then emphasized, “There is neither mind nor Buddha.” In this way, Mazu kept himself moving with different situations; avoided misleading students; and helped them to eschew sedimentation, fixation, and reification. He did not privilege any notion at all, since all his teachings were nothing but expedient means for healing his students’ suffering and sicknesses. He was able to use kataphatic terms in his soteriological teaching whenever the situation allowed, but he was also able to deconstruct the terms he had used whenever the situation required.

  See also .

  NIUTOU FARONG (594–657)

  A Chan master and the founder of the Ox-Head school (Niutou zong) in the early period of Chinese Chan Buddhism. Farong was a native of Yanling in Runzhou (in present-day Zhenjiang, Jiangsu province). His family name was Wei. Already possessing knowledge of Chinese classics and Buddhist scriptures, he became a monk at the age of 19 and studied with Master Ming (d.u.) of the Chinese Madhyamaka school. In 624, he involved himself in petitioning the Tang authorities to loosen its local restrictions against Buddhism. The remainder of his life was devoted to meditation practice and scriptural study. In 642, he built a meditation center at Youqi Temple on Mount Niutou, where he attracted more than 100 students in the next few years. He was also invited to Jianchu Temple in Jiangning (in present-day Nanjing) twice to give public lectures on the Perfection of Wisdom and other sūtras. He died at the age of 64, in 657.

  There are two extant works attributed to Farong. One is the poem Xin Ming (Inscription on the Mind), which was included in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu. Scholars have deemed it unreliable. The other is the Jueguan Lun (Treatise on the Transcendence of Cognition), which was discovered in several editions among the Dunhuang documents in the 20th century. Most scholars have endorsed its reliability. The treatise was written in the form of a dialogue between teacher and student. The significant contribution of its teaching includes the remarkable integration of the Mahayana philosophy of emptiness and Daoist influence into Chan practice and the rejection of the conceptualized goals and techniques by the notion of no-mind. The approximation of Farong’s teaching to some of the Southern school’s ideas seems obvious, but a close analysis of Farong’s teaching also reveals that he did not oppose the notion of meditative contemplation, as advocated by the East Mountain teaching and the Northern school.

  Modern scholarship on Farong and the Ox-Head school has denied the historical authenticity of the early lineage of Farong, as originally claimed by the Ox-Head school. The story about Farong’s meeting with Daoxin and the school’s corresponding claim of Farong as Daoxin’s successor have no historical basis and only serve the school’s need to establish its own legitimacy and identity as different from the Northern school. Nor was there any historical lineal succession between Farong and the second patriarch, Zhiyan (577–654), or between Zhiyan and the third patriarch, Huifang (627–695), despite the fact that Farong and these others did influence the development of the school.

  NIUTOU ZONG

  See .

  NO-CULTIVATION

  This is the English translation of the Chinese word wuxiu. In Chinese usage, the word xiu (“cultivation”) is sometimes compounded with lian or xing, both of which mean “practice.” Cultivation-practice (xiulian or xiuxing) is clearly prescribed by traditional Buddhist teachings as the right path to Buddhist soteriological goals. The classical Chan notion of no-cultivation has a shocking effect, without doubt, on many Chan students who have been on the path. It is also a paradoxical notion, since the Chan masters often emphasize that the authentic cultivation is no-cultivation. No-cultivation is only one link in the linguistic chain of the Chan repetition and substitution of words such as no-mind (wuxin), no-seeking (wuqiu), and having-nothing-special-to-do (wushi). The notion of no-cultivation could be understood as parasitic on the traditional teachings of Buddhist cultivation and practice and as a deconstructive approach to that cultivation and practice. It does not tend to abolish Buddhist cultivation-practice as it might appear to do, but presupposes cultivation and practice and encourages non-attachment to them in the sense that no special cultivation-practice would succeed apart from everyday situations and activities, and that from an enlightened perspective the distinction between cultivation and non-cultivation must be transcended. Thus a close connection between cultivation and ordinary life activities, and between cultivation and a natural state of mind (devoid of manipulation/calculation), is promoted by the notion of no-cultivation.

  NO-FORM

  The English translation of the Chinese term wuxiang. Closely related to the concepts of no-thought and non-abiding, no-form is one of the essential teachings of Chan attributed to Huineng in the Platform Sūtra and is endorsed by the later traditions. No-form describes the enlightened mind that is able to detach itself from all forms, even when associated with forms. It is another expression of the practice of non-attachment, letting go of all forms while living in the world of forms. No-form embodies or manifests the Buddha-nature that is inherent in each human being.

  NO-MIND (Ch. wuxin)

  The use of the term “no-mind” can be found in many Chan texts. The earliest of these texts include Bodhidharma’s Erru Sixing Lun, the Platform Sūtra, the biography of Benjing in the Zutang Ji, Niutou Farong’s Jueguan Lun, Mazu Daoyi’s sermon (collected in the Zongjing Lu), and Huangbo Xiyun’s Chuanxin Fayao. However, the term “no-mind” either was a synonym for “no-thought” (wunian) or had not yet been thematized in these texts, except in the works of Niutou Farong and Huangbo Xiyun. Niutou Farong elaborated more on the notion of no-mind, but he still connected it with, and interpreted it in terms of, “no-thought.” In Huangbo Xiyun’s teachings, the notion of no-mind became more significant and played a central role—a reflection of the incessant repetition and substitution of Chan terms in response to the moving social-historical contexts.

  In this incessant process of repetition and substitution, no-mind came to replace other terms such as “no-thought,” “non-abiding” (wuzhu), “non-attachment” (wuzhi), “non-discrimination” (wufenbie), and so forth. Sometimes no-mind is clarified as “the mind of no-mind,” despite its seeming contradiction. No-mind does not mean to stop the functioning of the mind. Rather, it designates a state of mind that is equivalent to e
nlightenment, beyond any conceptual discrimination and its way of thinking. No-mind is the absence of any kinds of discriminating mind, the absence of attachment to any conceptual thought, and therefore frees the mind to move along with the flow of reality. Like all other apophatic terms, no-mind cannot be substantialized as something essential. No-mind itself can also be negated, precisely for this very reason of de-substantialization. Some contemporary scholars have questioned the appropriateness of the tendency to oppose any conceptual thinking in the teaching of no-mind, since it is still a form of conceptual thinking. Others have pointed out that the teaching of no-mind, like all other kinds of conceptual thinking, is regarded as expedient means (fabian) only. This negative conceptual thinking is used for the special purpose of stopping all conceptual discrimination and attachment.

  NON-ABIDING

  The English translation of the Chinese term wuzhu. The concept of wuzhu is attributed to Huineng by the Platform Sūtra, as one of his essential doctrines. Non-abiding is elaborated in close connection with two other apophatic concepts in the Platform Sūtra—no-thought (wunian) and no-form (wuxiang)—and is endorsed by the later traditions. Non-abiding describes the state of mind in free-flowing that does not cling to any environments, things, or thoughts while being associated with environments, things, and thoughts. This free-flowing is considered to be the original nature of human being and reality itself.

  NON-DUALITY (Ch. Bu’er)

  The original Chinese word bu’er means “non-dualistic” (literally “not two”), but the Buddhist perspective and dimension of non-duality was not invented by the Chinese. It was actually elaborated through Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, including the Prajñāpāramitā literature, other Mahayana texts such as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Nagārjuna’s negations of four pairs of opposites in the dedicatory verses of his Kārikā, and the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra. Non-duality is an enlightened perspective and the ultimate dimension of reality. This perspective and dimension transcends all fixed conventional opposites or dualistic distinctions, since they are not absolute but relative, not independent of each other but mutually conditioned and involved. Non-duality is not equivalent to identity, since the distinction between identity and difference can also be transcended. Non-duality, as such, does not annihilate differences, but instead suspends the reification and absoluteness of all dualistic distinctions. Non-duality amounts to openness to the third possibilities and dynamic relations that could never be subsumed under conventional dichotomies and static distinctions. It could be said that Chan Buddhist traditions carry out this non-duality quite thoroughly and distinctively. Their elaboration on non-duality extends to all relations, including emptiness and non-emptiness, Buddha mind and deluded mind, speech and silence, and so forth. Contrary to many modern interpreters of Chan as favoring silence, Chan masters in the classical period clearly indicated that speech and silence are non-dualistic (yumo bu’er), and also that Buddha dharma and speaking are non-dualistic (fashuo bu’er). This is a convincing example of how they applied the perspective of non-duality to important issues in their practices.

  NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF WORDS

  This is an English translation of the Chinese phrase buli wenzi—one of the most widely used slogans in Chan. Sometimes it is mixed up with another phrase, bujia wenzi, translated as “non-reliance on words.” The slogan was very influential in characterizing the Chan movement of the critique of language, and is very attractive to modern scholars for its concern with the inadequacy or limits of language, which is shared by many religious/mystical traditions and philosophies of language.

  The oldest reference to the phrase buli wenzi in the extant texts can be found in Zongmi’s Preface to the Collected Writings on the Source of Chan (Chanyuan Zhuquanji Duxu), completed in 833. The phrase also appeared in a contemporaneous work, whose author is unknown. Early Chan masters in the classical period did not use the phrase. For example, Baizhang Huaihai in his Guang Lu used another phrase “buju wenzi (not to be fettered by words).” “Not to be fettered by words” obviously does not mean to abandon using words or language. Rather, the early masters elaborated on the necessity and inevitability of using words, including scriptural teachings for guiding students. One way to explain the Chan critique of language and the masters’ preference for non-attachment to language is to understand the point that any living (existential and transformative) experience is always more rich than the available words or generalized expressions, and therefore, the latter are insufficient in conveying or transmitting Chan enlightenment experience. The other meanings of emphasizing non-reliance on words are often related to Chan concerns with the inadequacy of certain conventional or prevalent ways of using language, such as descriptive, cognitive, or reifying uses of language, which mislead Chan students when they practice Chan Buddhism and focus on the existential transformation of the mind and personhood.

  It is quite clear that these understandings did not take the phrase buli wenzi literally. However, when buli wenzi was used together with another Chan slogan, jiaowai biechuan (“separate transmission outside scriptures”) in the Five Dynasties and Song dynasty, many texts took a more radical interpretation. The Chan transmission of the mind was believed to be a secret transmission independent from, and superior to, the traditional transmission of scriptures. In this context, buli wenzi could be rightly translated as “not setting up scriptures.” The preference was increasingly given to non-verbal gestures or actions, which were often accepted as innovative Chan teaching methods, and a more iconoclastic attitude toward scriptures was widely spread in Song Chan rhetoric and narratives.

  Nevertheless, it has not been difficult to find the deconstructive voices among the Song texts against the radical total negation of scripture and language. For example, one of the later editions of the Platform Sūtra had the following comment attributed to Huineng: “Even these two words—‘not establish (buli)’— are themselves written words.” Some contemporary scholars also pointed out that, far from making such traditional claims of non-reliance on words, Chan depended on the use of language, and that language shaped Chan’s identity. The radical view itself contradicted the Buddhist teaching of interdependent arising, since it tended to deny the interrelationship between Chan practice and scripture and language. Others explored the underlying connection between the two conflicting sides: negating language and using language as the two sides of one coin, as the realization of, and playing on, the limits of language. This opened up possibilities of using language differently and unconventionally. If “non-establishment of words” marked a major movement and turning point of Chan, it was not a turn away from language, but a turn within language. It was a kind of strategy and rhetoric that served to establish Chan’s new identity. The study of scriptures and use of language as part of Chan monastic practice have never ceased, even during the Song dynasty, when the slogan was increasing in popularity.

  NORTHERN SCHOOL (Ch. Beizong)

  The Northern school of Chan Buddhism designates an important group of Chan masters and disciples who were active in the northern area of China, especially in the cities of Luoyang and Chang’an during the early decades of the 8th century. Traditionally, this school was associated with the master Shenxiu and his disciples, in opposition to the Southern school, associated with Huineng and his disciples. The Northern school was considered an unorthodox form of Chan Buddhism and Shenxiu the illegitimate heir of the fifth patriarch, Hongren. The denial of its positive role in the development of Chan was based largely on the accusation that it advocated gradual enlightenment (jianwu) instead of sudden enlightenment (dunwu), and gradual cultivation (jianxiu) instead of sudden cultivation (dunxiu). Another accusation against Shenxiu and his Northern school was about their dualistic formulation of pure and defiled aspects of the mind. These accusations were made first by Shenhui, a disciple of Huineng. Shenhui’s rhetoric of sudden enlightenment and his claims about the orthodoxy of Huineng were embraced by the later generations of Chan, although his
sectarianism of dividing the Northern and Southern schools did not arouse much interest. A form of Chan ecumenism soon emerged with the rise of the Hongzhou school.

  Recent scholarship in Chan history has thrown serious doubt on whether Shenxiu was responsible for advocating a kind of gradual enlightenment and whether this Northern school institutionally existed. Both seem to be Shenhui’s inventions, serving his polemical and sectarian purposes, since Shenxiu acknowledged the non-dualistic and instantaneous nature of enlightenment and appeared content with his transmission of the East Mountain teaching (Dongshan Famen), which he inherited from Hongren. He and his disciples never related themselves to the so-called Northern school. However, the study of early and classical Chan texts has also shown that if the so-called Northern school was not homogeneous, then classical Chan, or the so-called Southern school, did move in a direction different from that of the Northern school, through its more non-dualistic rhetoric about enlightenment and cultivation, and showed a more deconstructive understanding of the traditional goals and practices. Based on the development of the Dongshan Famen that Shenxiu and his disciples achieved, and for the convenience of covering the later part of Chan history, many scholars nonetheless follow the convention of subsuming Shenxiu and his disciples under the category of the Northern school and separating them from Hongren and his other disciples, the Dongshan Famen.

  NO-SEEKING

  English translation of the Chinese word wuqiu. No-seeking for enlightenment or for the Buddha-mind had been a signature teaching of Chan Buddhism ever since its classical period. The notion of no-seeking advised Chan students to stop seeking for enlightenment or for the Buddha-mind outside each one’s being (including one’s own body/mind) and one’s everyday activities, or inside one’s body and mind, apart from their daily functioning. Some Chan masters even expressed this notion in paradoxical terms, such as “no-seeking is authentic seeking” (wuqiu shi zhenqiu)—a famous paradoxical expression added by Chan masters to the already huge repertoire of Buddhist paradoxical language. Like many other paradoxical and ironic teachings of Chan, this deconstructive notion of no-seeking was parasitic on the fact that many Chan Buddhists/students had already been on the path to seeking enlightenment. The purpose of this notion was to help them overcome their attachment and misunderstanding that enlightenment or the Buddha-mind is a goal that can be isolated from one’s existential problems in daily activities and be obtained from outside them. Furthermore, the distinction between seeking and realization should also be transcended by the enlightened perspective of non-duality. Enlightenment should be carried out in terms of the dimension of naturalness and spontaneity, rather than artificial and calculative seeking.