Historical Dictionary of Chan Buddhism

by Youru Wang

  See also ; .

  NOT-A-THING (Ch. bushiwu)

  The Mazu Yulu recorded that when Mazu Daoyi was asked what he would teach people after he had taught mind-as-Buddha and neither-mind-nor-Buddha, he answered that he would teach them that it is not a thing (bushiwu). “Not-a-thing” conveys the Chan notion that the Buddhist goal, enlightenment, or the realization of Buddha-nature, is not something objective, external, or substantial that can be obtained or possessed through Chan practices. Enlightenment or the realization of Buddha-nature is the existential-practical transformation of the human mind and entire personhood into the everyday functioning of the original state of non-attachment and free-flowing. To objectify, externalize, or substantialize the goal is to distort Buddha-dharma and to impede Buddhist practice. The notion of not-a-thing can be found in other Chan texts as well. The Zutang Ji recorded Nanyue Huairan’s statement: “As long as I say it is like a thing, I immediately miss the point.” Some versions of the Platform Sūtra also place in Huineng’s verse the similar saying “originally there is not a thing.” The expression became popular in Chan history.

  NO-THOUGHT (Ch. wunian)

  This important notion was developed in early Chan and affirmed by the later traditions. Among the early Chan texts that used this term, those of Heze Shenhui, Wuzhu of the Baotang school, and Niutou Farong are most notable. However, the most influential elaboration on no-thought is attributed to Huineng, in the Platform Sūtra. According to this text, no-thought describes the state of the enlightened mind that enables the person to respond to the flow of all thoughts and things. It is the function of non-attachment, free-flowing together with all thoughts and things, since the enlightened mind would never cling to any thought or any thing. However, it does not advocate that students stop thinking or eliminate all thought.

  In the Platform Sūtra and in the texts of Shenhui, the teaching of no-thought was presented in the context of the criticism on Shenxiu and the Northern school. Modern scholars have been divided on the question of whether there is a significant difference between Huineng’s concept of “no-thought (wunian)” and Shenxiu’s concept of “being free from thought (linian).” Some scholars hold that Shenxiu’s idea of linian is more influenced by the emphasis in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana on the pure, enlightened mind being free from all deluded thoughts. Meanwhile, the concept of no-thought (wunian) reflected the new rhetoric of negativity in Chan and the increased need to rectify the misunderstanding that the enlightened mind isolates itself from all thoughts. Other scholars argue that both linian and wunian had their origins in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. Their difference was exaggerated by the sectarian polemic.

  O

  ONE MIND

  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).

  ONE-PRACTICE SAMĀDHI

  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.

  ONE-WORD BARRIER

  See .

  ORDINARY-MIND-AS-THE-WAY

  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 differenc
es. 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.

  See also .

  ORDINATION PLATFORM

  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.

  See also .

  ORIGINAL FACE (Ch. benlai mianmu)

  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.

  ORIGINAL MIND

  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.

  ORIGINAL NATURE (Ch. benxing)

  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.

  OX-HEAD SCHOOL

  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.

  P

  PATRIARCH CHAN

  The original Chinese for this term is zushi Chan. The earliest use of zushi Chan appears in a conversation between Guishan Lingyou’s disciple, Xiangyan Zhixian, and his dharma brother, Yangshan Huiji, in the Zutang Ji (the Patriarch’s Hall Collection), compiled in 952. In his comment on one of Zhixian’s verses about enlightenment, Huiji indicates that Zhixian only understands tathāgata Chan (rulai Chan), not patriarch Chan. In the context of this recorded conversation, its more detailed later version, and the commentaries made by other Chan masters, zushi Chan generally refers to the approach taken by the mainstream Mazu Daoyi and Shitou Xiqian lineages, who claim to inherit from Huineng, and especially represented by the “five houses” of Chan. This approach stresses the transcendence of the Buddhas (chaofo), scriptural teachings, and descriptive language. It advocates the direct transmission or echoing of unique enlightenment experience between the patriarch’s mind and the disciple’s mind and the free-flowing and working out of one’s own enlightenment with everyday circumstances, and opposes attachments to any gradual procedures and dualistic conceptualization of cultivation and realization. It is often associated with more radical or iconoclastic rhetoric, as reflected in many Chan yulu texts. One of the results of this promotion of the zushi Chan i
s that the rulai Chan becomes a negative label, despite the fact that early Chan masters such as Shenhui, Zongmi, and the legendary Huineng used it as a positive term. Although considering it superior to the rulai Chan, the advocates of the zushi Chan never clearly described its differences from the rulai Chan. Questions about the necessity of this distinction between the zushi Chan and the rulai Chan have also been raised and recorded in Chan texts.

  PATRIARCH HALL

  English translation of the Chinese term zutang, which refers to a kind of hall in Chan monasteries that honors and enshrines Chan patriarchs and the deceased abbots of the monastery, allowing practitioners to perform services or rituals for them. It is also called “portrait hall” (zhentang, literally “the hall of resemblance”), since many portraits of patriarchs and abbots were set up in this hall. However, halls enshrining portraits of patriarchs and eminent monks existed in other Chinese Buddhist monasteries of the Sui and Tang dynasties also, such as the Chinese Tantric and the Tiantai ones. They were not exclusive to Chan Buddhism. A distinctively Chan style of patriarch hall only evolved from the end of the 7th through the 9th centuries.