Attitudes Towards Canonicity and Religious Authority in Tang Chan Mario Poceski

7/30/2019 Attitudes Towards Canonicity and Religious Authority in Tang Chan Mario Poceski

1/17

Attitudes Towards Canonicity and Religious Authority in Tang Chan

Mario Poceski

University of Florida

Chan's formative period is typically discussed in terms of a gradual shift away from thecanonically-sanctioned traditions of Indian and Chinese Buddhism.1 Although the connectionsbetween early Chan and the mainstream of Tang Buddhism are too obvious to deny, mostChan/Zen scholars have interpreted that relationship as a temporary stage in Chan's irreversiblemove towards complete independence. Even at that point, we are led to assume, it is possible todiscern the latent forces that fueled Chan's strive towards religious and institutional autonomy.Those predispositions were a driving force in the construction of Chan's distinct self-identity,which lead to the repudiation of scriptural authority and subversion of established norms andmores.

Within this interpretative schemata, the Hongzhou school plays a crucial role and its emergence

marks a turning point in the incipient growth of Chan as a uniquely Chinese form of Buddhism.Under the leadership of Mazu and his followers, Chan supposedly took an unmistakablyiconoclastic turn that was predicated on a wholesale rejection of the ideals, doctrinal tenets,spiritual practices, and institutions of earlier Chinese Buddhism. According to this interpretation,the classical Chan tradition that grew out of the Hongzhou school was a culmination of aprolonged process that involved construction of Chan's identity in terms of its repudiation ofcanonical authority and location of its source of religious legitimacy in the timeless experience ofenlightenment, as realized by the Buddha and the great Chan patriarchs.

The examination of Chan's attitudes towards scriptural authority presented in this chapter servesas an implicit critique of such one-sided interpretations, and presents an alternative explanationof the evolution of Chan's relationship with the canonical tradition. I start by situating theformation of early Chan attitudes towards canonicity within the larger religious context of theTang era, and in reference to other major Buddhist schools that emerged during the Sui-Tangperiod, especially Huayan and Tiantai . That is followed with a briefsurvey of the ways in which the various groups that during the eight century constituted theheterogeneous Chan movement appropriated scriptural authority in their search for spiritualauthenticity and socioreligious legitimacy. The next two sections consist of an examination of theHongzhou school's use of scriptural sources and its subtle shift in outlook towards canonicaltexts and traditions, which involved an innovative rapprochement with scriptural authority ratherthan an outright repudiation of it. The chapter ends by drawing attention to parallel developments

in Confucian scholarship, which reflected significant changes in intellectual orientations thatoccurred during the mid-Tang period in the aftermath of the An Lushan rebellion.

Scriptural Authority in Medieval Chinese Buddhism

In medieval Chinese Buddhism the scriptures functioned as chief sources of religious authorityand standards for adjudicating the authenticity and orthodoxy of different doctrines and practices.Canonically-sanctioned traditions shaped virtually all aspects of Buddhist life, including ritualsand other forms of religious praxis, ethical observances, and monastic mores and institutions.The gradual Sinification of Buddhism brought about transformation of doctrinal and otherelements that constituted the religion brought to China from the "Western regions," but suchchanges were generally justified by reinterpreting canonical texts and traditions rather than bysubverting them or by openly challenging their authority. That was made easier by the sheer sizeof the Buddhist canon, which included a wide range of texts that dealt with broad array ofsubjects and were written from diverse doctrinal standpoints. It was thus relatively easy to find


2/17

canonical passages that could lend credence to novel interpretations of existing doctrines, or toclaim scriptural support for completely new ideas introduced by Chinese monks. The task wasmade even easier with the emergence of numerous apocryphal texts composed in China, manyof which became part of the canon. Such native texts often initiated novel developments in theevolution of Buddhist beliefs and doctrines, and addressed issues and concerns that wereabsent from or glossed over in the Indian texts. Throughout the period of division, and into theTang, the translation and exegesis of Indian scriptures and treatises remained a main concern forChinese Buddhists, and the leading translators and exegetes were among the most esteemed

members of the clergy.The exalted status of canonical texts did not preclude their creative use (and not infrequentlymisuse) by Buddhist thinkers who were eager to lend scriptural support to the uniquely Chineseforms of religious and philosophical discourse they were creating as participants in the ongoingSinificiation of Buddhist doctrines and practices. The emergence of new Buddhist schools duringthe Sui-Tang period brought about different attitudes towards canonicity. That included atendency to interpret the scriptures in terms of personal religious experiences and viewpoints,which often reveled lack of concern if the interpretations were in accord with the religiousstandpoints expressed in the canonical texts. As it has been noted by Stanley Weinstein, duringthis period Indian canonical texts "were often little more than pegs to which the (Chinese)

patriarchs could attach their own ideas," which stood in contrast with the efforts on part of earlierexegetes to interpret canonical texts in ways that retained fidelity to their authors' originalintents.2 Starting with Zhiyi (538-597), the emphasis in scriptural exegesis shifted fromliteral interpretation towards exploration of the canonical text's "recondite/essential meaning"(xuanyi). 3

A good example of this tendency is Zhiyi's Fahua xuanyi, a seminal Tiantai textssupposedly provides exegesis of the Lotus Scripture. In fact, much of Zhiyi's lengthy discussionconsists of exhaustive interpretation of the five characters that constitute the title of the Chinesetranslation of the Lotus Scripture (Miaofa lianhua jing). In his explanation of thescripture's sublime/subtle meaning, Zhiyi enters into all sorts of philosophical speculations that,although of great significance in the intellectual history of Chinese Buddhism, have little directconnection with the original text of the scripture.4 The same can be said of much of theprodigious literary output of Zhiyan (602-668) and Fazang (643-712), the greatsystematizers of Huayan philosophy. Although most of Zhiyan and Fazang's writings aresupposed to explore the profound mysteries and sublime teachings presented in the HuayanScripture, their detailed and complex formulation of Huayan doctrines such as the "ten profoundmysteries" (shi xuanmen) and "nature origination" (xingqi ) have only tenuousconnections with the actual contents of the scripture.

But even as they were formulating original doctrinal tenets that reflected native intellectual

concerns and patterns of thinking, leading Chinese monks such as Zhiyi and Fazang still feltcompelled to bolster their interpretations and arguments with copious quotations from canonicaltexts. They made considerable efforts to find scriptural support for their highly original andcreative philosophical formulations, despite the fact that they were moving into directions notenvisaged by the Indian texts, and even in instances when their views did not accord with themeaning of the canonical sources. In light of this predisposition, it is not surprising that during theSui-Tang period Buddhist scholiasts turned away from reliance on Indian philosophical treatisesthat presented systematic and clearly argued expositions of Mdhyamika (Zhongguan )and Yogcra (Yuqiexing ) philosophies. Careful exegesis of key Mahayanatreatises was one of the hallmarks of Chinese Buddhism during the fifth and sixth centuries. Themain exegetical schools that were formed during this era-including Shelun , Dilun,

and Sanlun were based on specific translations of treatises or scriptural commentariescomposed by noted Indian scholars/monks. In contrast, the founders of the Huayan and Tiantaitraditions turned towards key Mahyna scriptures that were open to diverse interpretations andmuch more malleable to creative forms of exegesis.


3/17

Regardless of how innovative and idiosyncratic their philosophical speculations might havebeen, it is important to bear in mind that medieval Chinese monks still piously presented them assystematic expositions of ideas and insight original ly expressed in the scriptures. In the case ofthe Huayan school, its complex doctrinal system was supposedly meant to elucidate theessential meaning of the Huayan Scripture, while the Tiantai school made similar claims inregard to the Lotus Scripture. In both cases (and the same was generally true for the rest of Sui-Tang Buddhism), the scriptures continued to be perceived as precious repositories of timelesstruths, unequaled wellsprings of inspiration and guides for spiritual praxis, and ultimate sources

of religious authority.

Early Chan's Attitudes Towards the Canon

In contrast to the doctrinal orientation of Huayan and Tiantai, systematic scriptural exegesis wasnot an area of major concern for the Chan school. Nonetheless, similar reverential andaccommodating attitudes towards the scriptures were also characteristic of early Chan.Notwithstanding the differences among the various Chan groups, one of the key characteristics ofthe early Chan movement, which goes back to its origins, was an unmistakable tendency to

legitimize Chan practice by recourse to the canonical tradition. Let me give a few examples thatillustrate this point. Early Chan's eagerness to co-opt scriptural authority can be seen in theappropriation of the Lankvatra Scripture (Lengqie jing) as a symbol for thetransmission of Chan, which was initially advanced by the followers of Hongren (601-674), the putative "fifth Chan patriarch." Lankvatra's transmission was also retroactivelyimputed back to Bodhidharma, the Indian monk who came to be recognized as the "firstpatriarch" of Chinese Chan. The connection between Bodhidharma and the Lankvatra mighthave been real, as can be seen from the biography of his main disciple Huike (487-593).There Bodhidharma singles out this scripture and hands it to his charge with the instruction thathe should "practice in accord with [its teachings]" (yixing).5 In light of such connection,the choice of this text as a symbol for the transmission of Chan enlightenment can be seen a

logical next step in Chan's initial search to secure authority that was traditionally associated withthe Buddhist canon. Lengqie shizi ji, compiled by Jingjue (683-750?), theearliest text that makes such connection, even goes as far as to recognize Gunabhadra, theIndian monk who produced the first Chinese translation of the scripture, as a Chan patriarch whodirectly preceded Bodhidharma. 6 Gunabhadra had no connection whatsoever with the Chanschool, which at any rate did not exist at the time. His induction into the Chan's patriarchallineage was solely due to the fact that he was Lankvatra's translator, which in i tself points tothe important role the scripture played in Chan's early search for legitimacy.

Another example from the same period is Shenhui's (684-758) use of the DiamondScripture (Jingang jing) as a source of religious legitimacy, when he employed thispopular text to buttress his partisan notions about Chan orthodoxy. As part of his sectariandiatribes against his Northern school opponents, Shenhui's recourse to the Diamond Scripture asa symbol for the transmission of Chan was a direct response to the Northern school'sappropriation of the Lankvatra. According to him all Chan patriarchs, from Bodhidharma untilHuineng, advocated and transmitted the Diamond Scripture, not the Lankvatra.7 In one of histranscribed discussions Shenhui proclaimed the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, thecentral theme of the Diamond Scripture, to be the fundamental source (genben ) of allpractices.8 He then went on to proclaim to his audience that "If you wish to attain comprehensionof the most profound dharmadhtu and enter directly into the Samdhi of Single Practice, youmust first recite the Diamond Scripture and cultivate the Dharma of the perfection of wisdom."9

Similar emphasis on the perfection of wisdom is evident in the Platform Scripture, which might bean evidence of Shenhui's influence on this text. There Huineng is recorded as saying: "With onlythe one volume of the Diamond Scripture you may see into your own nature and enter thesamdhi of praj" (

).10 In these instances we can see how during the mid-eight century specific


4/17

scriptures were at the center of sectarian battles over orthodoxy and religious supremacy wagedby competing Chan factions.

Similar attitudes towards canonical texts and related traditions are also discernable in the extantrecords of the Niutou school, which had its largest following during the middle part of theeight century. Niutou's teachings were influenced by the philosophical tenets of the Mdhyamikaor Middle Way tradition, as mediated by Chinese doctrinal formulations produced by the Tiantaiand Sanlun schools. The teachers of Farong (594-657), the putative founding patriarch of

the Niutou school, were all associated with the Sanlun school (which at the time was regarded asthe main Chinese representative of the Mdhyamika tradition).11 In light of that connection, it isnot surprising that the concept of "emptiness" plays a prominent role in Farong's Jueguan lun,12 or that in his writings on Chan Zongmi describes the Niutou school as advocating aMdhyamika-type of apophasis that reveals the emptiness of all phenomena.13

The Chan penchant for evoking canonical authority is also evident in Lidai fabao ji-, the main record of the Baotang school, which gained notoriety as the most radicalfaction of early Chan. Notwithstanding the conventional view of Wuzhu, the leader of the Baotangschool, as an iconoclast who repudiated all traditional doctrines and practices, the text starts witha list of Buddhist works that were popular at the time (37 titles in total). The list includes popularcanonical texts such as the Nirvana, Lotus, and Diamondscriptures, as well as Chineseapocryphal texts such as Faju jingand Chanmen jing.14 These and othercanonical works are frequently quoted in the Lidai fabao ji, which also cites a number of non-Buddhist works, including Laozi, Zhuangzi, and other Taoist texts, as well as various historicalworks.15

Early Chan was not only using texts that were already part of the canon, but it also took theadditional step of creating apocryphal texts that were presented as scriptures attributed to theBuddha. In doing so, Chan was participating in an establish practice, whereas new religiousdevelopments were provided with added canonical legitimacy by the creation of apocryphal

scriptures that expressed the same (or similar) ideas. One such example, probably originating inKorea, was the Vajrasmadhi Scripture. This text was composed during the seventh century inorder to lend scriptural support to the novel doctrines of the early Chan school. 16 At the timeChan was still in the process of formulating its self-identity, and it was also entering the Koreanpeninsula for the first time, where it faced a backlash from the already-established doctrinalschools.

Finally, there is the use of "symbolic exegesis," which exemplifies the tendency to legitimizeChan practice by recourse to key concepts and passages from canonical texts. 17 This practice ismainly associated with the Northern school, but as it can also be found in texts produced by otherschools of Chan, and it can perhaps be viewed as an exegetical strategy that was popularthroughout the early Chan movement. The origins of symbolic exegesis can be traced back toZhiyi's commentary of the Lotus Scripture. Within early Chan literature examples of it can befound in diverse texts such as the Platform Scripture, various Northern school manuscripts, therecords of Shenhui, and the Lidai fabao ji. Its employment as an exegetical tool involvedredefining traditional Buddhist practices and rubrics, which were reinterpreted as metaphors in amanner peculiar to the nascent Chan movement. One of the key objective of this procedure wasthe establishing of close connection between Chan mediation and key ideas found in thescriptures. Let me give a couple of examples. The first one comes from the Lidai fabao ji, whereWuzhu correlates the three propositions taught by Wuxiang (no remembering, no thought, and noforgetting) with the traditional Buddhist rubric of the three trainings (observance of the precepts,

concentration, and wisdom), and then collapses them all into the Chan formula of "no thought."--


5/17

The Minister (Du Hongjian [709-796]) asked: "Did Rev. Kim (Wuxiang) talk about noremembering, no thought, and no forgetting?" The Reverend (Wuzhu) relied: "Yes." The Ministeralso asked: "Are these three propositions one or three?" The Reverend relied: "They are one, notthree. No remembering is [the observance of] precepts, no thought is concentration, and noforgetting is wisdom." He also said: "Not giving rise to thoughts is the precepts, not giving rise tothoughts is concentration, and not giving rise to thoughts is wisdom. No thought is the completeperfection of the precepts, meditation, and wisdom."18

The second example comes from the Dunhuang version of the Platform Scripture. In itsdiscussion of meditation, the text offers the following peculiar explanations of "sitting meditation"(zuochan ) and "meditative absorption" (chanding).

Now that we know that this is so, what is it in this teaching that we call "sitting in meditation"(zuochan)? In this teaching "sitting" means without any obstruction anywhere, outwardly andunder all circumstances, not to activate thoughts. "Meditation" is internally to see the originalnature and not become confused. And what do we call Chan meditation (chanding) ? Outwardlyto exclude form is "chan"; inwardly to be unconfused is meditation (ding). Even though there isform on the outside, when internally the nature is not confused, then, from the outset, you are ofyourself pure and of yourself in meditation. The very contact with circumstance itself causesconfusion. Separation from form on the outside is "chan"; being untouched on the inside ismeditation (ding). Being "chan" externally and mediation (ding) internally, it is known as Chanmeditation (chanding). 19

The employment of symbolic exegesis as a kind of "expedient means" points to the fact that earlyChan made strong efforts to trace its doctrines back to the scriptures. That was part of a strategydeveloped as Chan was moving from the margins and into the mainstream, aimed at convincingits audiences that its teachings were true expression of the Buddhadharma, perhaps even themost authentic one.20 If bizarre metaphors and forced interpretations could help to achieve thatgoal, Chan teachers apparently were quite willing to use them.

Use of the Scriptures within the Hongzhou School

As we turn to the Hongzhou school, it is conspicuous that in its records there is no evidence ofthe use of either symbolic exegesis or any other comparable strategies for bridging the gapbetween Chan and the canonical tradition. At the same time, there are also serious problemswith the conventional interpretation of the Hongzhou school as the first Chan tradition tocompletely break away from the putative Indian character of Buddhism-which among other thingsinvolved repudiation of canonical authority-and pave the way for a completely new and uniquelyChinese form of Chan. The primary textual evidence that shapes such perception of theHongzhou school consists of numerous stories that depict the idiosyncratic saying and doings ofMazu and his great disciples. In these short exchanges, which are by far the best-known part ofChan lore, traditional Buddhist discourse is completely forsaken and there is hardly any mentionof conventional doctrines and practices. Instead, we are presented with brief accounts that depictChan teachers' lively and unpredictable acts, with focus on the ostensibly spontaneousinteractions with their disciples.

Examples of well-known stories that are readily identified with the iconoclastic attitudes and actsof Chan teachers include those about Nan uan killin a cat,21 Mazu kickin Shuilao and sendin


6/17

him down into a puddle of water,22 and the burning of a Buddha image by Danxia, whosupposedly used the wood to warm himself on a cold winter day.23 As I have show in a recentpublication, the problem with this interpretation is that it is based on untenable evidence.24 Noneof the stories that are responsible for Mazu's iconoclastic image were created before the mid-tenth century, some 160 years after his death. The same is true of all other Chan stories thatfeature his disciples and other monks from the Tang period. In effect, the accepted interpretationof the Hongzhou school's radical character and its repudiation of canonical traditions is based onlater fictional stories that really have little to do with its actual teachings and practices.

If that is the case, then what kind of attitudes towards the scriptures and canonical authority dowe find in the earliest sources, which include epigraphic evidence, transcripts of sermons andlectures, texts composed by Chan teachers, and additional materials from non-Buddhist sources(especially poetry and prose composed by noted literati)? In the records of the Hongzhou schoolthere are very few instances where there is an explicit invocation of canonical authority. A rareexception is the following passage that opens one of Mazu's sermons.

--

The Patriarch (Mazu) said to the assembly, "All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha,that this mind is identical with Buddha. The Great Master Bodhidharma came from India to Chinaand transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can lead you all to awakening.Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all ofyou, he used the Lankvatra Scripture to seal the sentient beings' mind-ground. Therefore, inthe Lankvatra Scripture, mind is the essence of all the Buddha's teachings, no gate is theDharma-gate."25

This passage is interesting because it indicates that Mazu advocated the association of Chanwith the Lankvatra Scripture. As was already noted, such connection is usually associatedwith the Northern school. By extension, the passage can also be read as implying Mazu'srejection of the putative link between the "orthodox" Southern school and the Diamond Scripturethat was invented by Shenhui and his cohorts.

Explicit acknowledgement of scriptural authority of the kind evident in the above quotation isatypical of the Hongzhou school. Direct references to specific scriptures are relatively rare in therecords of Mazu and his disciples, but that does not mean that they rejected the canon orrepudiated its authority. To the contrary, one of the striking features of their records is that theyare filled with scriptural quotations and allusions, even though the full extend of their usage of

canonical sources is not immediately obvious and its discernment requires familiarity withBuddhist literature. Here is an example from one of Mazu's sermons.

Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything. Outside of mind there is no otherBuddha, outside of Buddha there is no other mind. Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil,without reliance on either purity or defilement, one realizes that the nature of offense is empty: itcannot be found in each thought because it is without self-nature. Therefore, the three realms aremind-only and all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma. Whenever we seeform, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form.


7/17

Whatever you are saying, it is just a phenomenon which is identical with the principle. They areall without obstruction, and the fruit of the way to awakening is also like that.

At first sight, if one is not familiar with classical Buddhist literature one might assume that thispassage expresses a religious or philosophical viewpoint that is unique to the Chan school. Afterall, we are repeatedly told and led to believe that Chan teachings, especially those formulated by

Mazu and his followers, are unique expressions of sublime wisdom and are unlike the teachingsof the other Buddhist traditions. Now let us have a look at another translation of the samepassage:

[The Vimalakrti Scripture says] "Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything."[As it is taught in the Huayan Scripture,] Outside of mind there is no other Buddha, outside ofBuddha there is no other mind. [ As taught in the Mahsamnipata-stra and the HuayanScripture,] Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil, without reliance on either purity ordefilement, one realizes that [as explained in Foshuo Foming Scripture and otherBuddhist texts,] "the nature of offense is empty": it cannot be found in each thought because it iswithout self-nature. Therefore, [as explained in the Huayan and Lankvatra scriptures] "the

three realms are mind-only," and [as stated in the Faju jing] "all phenomena in the universe aremarked by a single Dharma." Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind doesnot exist by itself; its existence is due to form. Whatever you are saying, it is just [what Dushun'sFajie guanmen refers to as] "a phenomenon which is identical with the principle." [As it is said inHuayan texts,] they are "all without obstruction," and the fruit of the way to awakening is also likethat. 26

Actually, it is the same translation. All I did was follow standard academic practice by addingquotation marks to quoted passages and supplying the original sources of the quotations andother passages that contain ideas borrowed from other texts. With that, what at first sightappeared to be a paragraph of distinctively Chan teachings turned out to be little more then a

collection of canonical quotations accompanied by comments that explicate or draw connectionsbetween the scriptural passages. This passage is by no means unique in that regard. In fact, it isquite typical. Here is one more example from another sermon by Mazu:

[The Vimalakrti Scripture says,] "Not obliterating the conditioned and not dwelling in theunconditioned." The conditioned is the function of the unconditioned, while the unconditioned is

the essence of the conditioned. Because of not dwelling on support, it has been said [in theHuayan Scripture that it is] "like space which rests on nothing." [According to Dasheng qixin lun,]the mind can be spoken of [in terms of its two aspects,] "birth and death, and suchness." [Aspointed out in early Chan texts,] The mind as suchness is like a clear mirror which can reflectimages.27 The mirror symbolizes the mind, while the images symbolize the dharmas. If the mindgrasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes and conditions, which is the meaningof birth and death. If the mind does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness.28

There is really very little in these passages that readily identifies them as teachings unique to theChan school. On the contrary, the ideas presented in them represented mainstream doctrinal

positions that were widely accepted in the world of Tang Buddhism. Having said that, I do notmean to imply that there is noting new in the teachings propounded by the Hongzhou school. Ofcourse, Mazu and his disciples came up with some original and interesting ideas. But the mainpoint, as far as the present discussion is concerned, is that the records of Mazu and his followersare full of quotations and allusions to a vide range of canonical texts. That clearly contradictstheir stereot ical de iction as iconoclasts who re udiated the canonical tradition and whose


8/17

radical Chan teachings harbored strong bibliophobic tendencies.29

Chan's attitudes towards writing in general, and the scriptures in particular, were never as simpleas popular slogans seem to indicate. Such sentiments are readily discernable in the widely-quoted definition of Chan as "A special transmission outside of the teachings, which does notinstitutes words and letters," created during the Song period. 30 Notwithstanding the popularity ofsuch mottos, it is questionable if the debasement of writing and denunciation of scripture weretrue of any mainstream Chan tradition. 31 But it is clear that it is completely mistaken to attribute

such sentiments to the Hongzhou school.

Chan monks' reliance on the Buddhist canon should not come as that much of a surprise if onewere to pay close attention to the biographical data that deals with their formative education, andif one were to take into account the general religious milieu of Tang Buddhism, including theprevalent attitudes and sentiments towards the scriptures. The leaders of the Hongzhou schoolwere well-read monks conversant with the canonical texts and traditions. A number of them,including Mazu and Baizhang, came from upper class families, and they also received classicalConfucian education during their youth. In many (probably most) instances Chan monksdedicated the early years of their monastic training to the study of Buddhist scriptures, a commonpattern followed by the elite segments of the Tang clergy. A good example of such monk isBaizhang. Born in the Wang clan of Taiyuan, one of Tang's greatest aristocratic clans, after hisordination in 767 Baizhang dedicated himself to study of the scriptures.32 The records ofBaizhang's late teachings reveal that the extensive knowledge of the canonical tradition heacquired during the formative years of his monastic vocation continued to inform his religiousoutlook until the end of his life. The transcripts of Baizhang's sermons and conversations with hisdisciples are full of scriptural quotations and allusions, and reveal a monk who was at ease withboth the contemplative and doctrinal aspects of Buddhism.

If, like their earlier Chan predecessors, Mazu and his disciples made free and extensive use ofcanonical texts, are there any major differences in terms of the specific texts they used? The table

presented below list some of the scriptures quoted or alluded to in three important records fromthe Hongzhou school's literary output: Mazu's sermons, 33 Dazhu's Dunwu yaomen, 34 andBaizhang's Baizhang guanglu.35 The list is not exhaustive since the three texts, especiallyDazhu's treatise and Baizhang's record, quote a wider range of canonical works.

Table 1. Scriptural quotation/allusions in the records of the Hongzhou school {table1}

ScriptureMazu's sermons

Dunwu yaomen

Baizhang guanglu

Lotus Scripture 1 1 4

Huayan Sc. 3 3Nirvana Sc. 1 5 3Lakvatra Sc. 6 1Prajpramit [36] 12 4Mahratnakta Sc.

2

Mahsamnipta Sc. 1 1Vimalakrti Sc. 7 14 4Foming Sc. 1 1

There is considerable overlap in the choice of scriptural texts that appear in the three Chanrecords. Sometimes the three records are even quoting or alluding to the same scripturalpassages. Among all canonical texts the Vimalakrti Scripture emerges as a clear favorite. Thatreflects the general popularity of this scripture during the Tang period, and its widespreadacceptance within the Chan school as a canonical text whose teachings had close affinities with


9/17

Chan. Each of the three monks also seems to have had other text(s) with which he felt greateraffinity. In the case of Mazu, apparently he was fond of the Lankvatra Scripture, while Dazhu(and to a lesser extend Baizhang) show greater interest in scriptures belonging to thePrajpramit corpus, among which the popularDiamond Scripture is quoted most often by far.

The texts listed in the above table represented the most popular Mahayana scriptures that werewidely read by monks and laity during the Tang period (and, for that matter, throughout the historyof Buddhism in China). Moreover, these same texts (along with the other Chinese texts

mentioned below) are pretty much the same as the ones that are quoted in earlier Chan texts. Forinstance, the records of the Hongzhou school quote practically the same canonical texts as therecords of Shehui,36 the Northern school, and Mahyna (Moheyan), the Chan teacher who wasthe Chinese representative at the Buddhist council in Lhasa (all of which were discovered inDunhuang).37

Though most of the quotations that appear in the above three records come from Chinesetranslations of Indian scriptures, Mazu, Dazhu, and Baizhang also quoted other sources,including apocryphal scriptures and other Chinese texts that were popular during the Tang.Some of the most important Chinese sources quoted in the three records are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Apocryphal scriptures and other Chinese texts quoted/alluded to in the records of theHongzhou school

Text Title Mazu's sermons Dunwu yaomen Baizhang guangluChanmen jing 2Faju jing 1 3Fanwang jing 3Shoulengyan jing 1 1 1Dasheng qixin lun

2 2

Zhao lun 1 4Fu dashi's records 1 1

Chinese apocryphal scriptures were apparently read by the Hongzhou monks, but as can beseen from the two tables they were less popular than the Indian scriptures. The inclusion ofDasheng qixin lun in the list is not surprising, considering the immense importance of this text inthe doctrinal development of Tang Buddhism, including Chan. 38 Its importance within theHongzhou school was probably greater then the number of quotations indicate. Chan monksapparently were also fond of reading the records of eminent Buddhist leaders from the period ofdisunity. Among them, the most popular were Kumrajva's disciple Sengzhao (374?-

414) and the popular lay sage Fu dashi, both of whom are often quoted in Chan texts from theTang period.

From the above analysis it is evident that if there was anything new in the Hongzhou school'sattitude towards the scriptures and canonical authority, it is not to be found in its rejection of thescriptures or in its turning towards a new set of canonical texts. Rather, the subtle but significantshift in the Hongzhou school's attitude towards scriptural authority can be located in the mannercanonical texts were employed in the production of new knowledge and the creation of distinctreligious identity.

Evolving Attitudes Towards Scriptural Authority

When we compare the Hongzhou school's use of canonical materials with that of the earlierChan movement, there are notable similarities but also significant divergence between the two.

Although the texts that are cited in the records of Mazu and his disciples are pretty much the


10/17

same as those quoted in earlier Chan texts, they are used in a somewhat different manner. Thedifference in usage is subtle, but it has serious ramifications for our understanding of Chan'sevolution as a distinct school of Chinese Buddhism. In the passages from Mazu's record thatwere introduced above we saw how Chan teachers seamlessly wove into their sermonsnumerous scriptural quotations and allusions, usually without identifying their sources. The samepropensity to imbed canonical passages or images into Chan sermons without divulging theirprovenance is also characteristic of other Hongzhou school texts, including Baizhang's Guangluand Huangbo's Chuanxin fayao. In these texts scriptural citations and metaphors are integrated

into the overall narrative structure of Chan sermons, without delineating specific structuralboundaries or explicit markings between the excerpts from scriptures and the teachings of Chanteachers.

The tendency to quote a scripture without identifying the source, or even without indicating thatcertain passage is a quotation, was not unique to the Hongzhou school. Examples of similarusage can also be found in the writings of earlier Buddhist scholiasts, such as Zhiyi.39

Furthermore, in the Hongzhou school's records occasionally a scriptural quotations is marked assuch, usually by prefacing it with the phrase "a scripture says" (jing yun ). There are alsorare instances where the text provides the title of the canonical source that is being quoted. Inother cases the text indicates that an idea or passage comes from another source by using a

phrase such as "it has been said," but without identifying the original source of the quotation. Thefollowing passage from Baizhang guanglu exemplifies some of the ambiguities that characterizethe use of canonical quotations in this type of Chan texts (with references to original sources andquotation marks supplied by the translator).

As is stated [in the Vimalakrti Scripture,]"The Dharma has nothing it can be equated with,"

because it cannot be compared [to anything].40 [Jizang's commentary of the LotusScripturesays,] "The Dharma-body is unconditioned, and it does not fall into all categories."41 Therefore itis said [in a commentary on the Vimalakrti Scripture and/or the Zhaolun?] that the essence ofthe sage is nameless and cannot be expressed in words.42 It is like the simile [from the Dazhidulun] about insects that can settle anywhere except that they are unable to settle on the top ofburning flames. Sentient beings are also thus: they can form connections anywhere, except thatthey cannot form connections with the perfection of wisdom.43

This short passage (and there are many like it) highlights the problems one encounters whentrying to unravel the complex webs of canonical quotations and allusions that are embedded in

Baizhang's record and other similar texts. In part, the difficulty arises from the peculiar (andfrequently imprecise) ways in which Baizhang is using canonical texts. That was probably largelydue to the fact that he was quoting from memory. It also seems that he was not unduly concernedwith academic pedantry and scholarly accuracy. The situation is further exacerbated by the broadscope of his knowledge of the canon and the wide range of texts he was using. It appears as ifBaizhang had internalized the contents of large sections of the Buddhist canon to such an extentthat he spontaneously used copious scriptural quotations and allusions as part of his naturalspeech.

How about the audience to which Mazu's and Baizhang's sermons were addressed? Were theyable to discern the infusion of scriptural imagery and exegesis in the sermons of their teaches?

The exact sources do not directly address these sorts of questions, but they provide us with someindirect clues. We can presume that the sermons where delivered in front of larger audiences thatincluded individuals with different levels of education and knowledge of the canon.Notwithstanding such qualifiers, it is apparent that at least rudimentary knowledge of the keyscriptures and doctrines was taken for granted within the religious communities where these


11/17

sermons were delivered. It is important to bear in mind that the sermons were primarily directed atmonastic congregations, whose members were expected to have at least basic knowledge of thecanon. The second key audience were the literati and officials who frequented Chanmonasteries. They were the best-educated members of medieval Chinese society, and a goodnumber of them were conversant with Buddhist li terature and possessed rather sophisticatedknowledge of Buddhist doctrines.

Familiarity with canonical texts is evident in the questions posed to Chan teachers by their

disciples. Many of the questions found in the early sources contain quotations from scriptures orextra-canonical works, and a number of questions simply ask for explanation of well-knownscriptural passages. Here are a couple of examples from Baizhang's record. The first questionalso appears in an identical form in the record of Baizhang's disciple Huangbo.

A monk asked: "How is it that Excellence of Great Universal Wisdom Buddha sat at the site ofawakening for ten eons without the Buddhadharma appearing to him, and without him achievingBuddhahood [as is described in the famous passage from the Lotus Scripture]?"44

Question: "What is the meaning of [the well-known saying from therangama Scripture],'Empty space is born within great awareness, like a bubble being formed in the ocean.'"45

Far from revealing the kind of iconoclastic sentiments and anti-doctrinal tendencies usualassociated with classical Chan, the records of key Hongzhou school figures show an inventivesense of rapprochement between Chan and canonical Buddhism. The structure of the sermonsreveals how the integration of the two was symbolical ly enacted by the dissolution of theboundaries between the words of the Buddha and the words of Chan teachers. This blurring ofdistinctions between scriptural authority and the authority of Chan teachers conveys a sense of

self-confidence and maturity on part of the Hongzhou school. Such confident stand in stands outagainst the overtly assertive efforts on the part of early Chan to show that its teachings are inharmony with the scriptures.

That self-confidence on part of the Hongzhou school especially stands in sharp contrast with theattitudes discernible in the records of earlier monks who found themselves on the margins of theChan movement. Perhaps the best example of such monk is Shenhui. One generation Mazu'ssenior, Shenhui was best-known for his involvement in the sectarian debates between the so-called "Northern" and "Southern" schools of Chan. His desire to become a representative of theorthodox faction of Chan led to Shenhui's trenchant critique of the Northern school and hisconstruction of a fictional patriarchal tradition.46 Like his Northern school adversaries, Shenhuiwas favorably inclined towards the use of the scriptures, and he promoted the unity of Chan andthe canonical teachings. But his use of scriptures to lend legitimacy to his ideas went evenfurther, and he was quite prepared to misuse scriptural quotations to score a point. In some casesscriptural passages were either misquoted or used merely as props for justifying ideas that werenot at all present in the original texts, even if in the process of doing so the canonical teachingswere manifestly misinterpreted.47 Such tendency can be seen in a dialogue between him andDharma teacher Yuan, where he defends his outrageous claim that he is a tenth stagebodhisattva with a quotation from the Nirvana Scripture.48 (It is interesting to note that Shenhui'sbrazen boast that he is a tenth stage bodhisattva constitutes aprjika offense, the most seriousform of monastic transgression that leads to automatic exclusion from the order).

In contrast to Shenhui, in the records of Mazu and his disciples there is little to suggest that theywere overly anxious to prove the orthodoxy of their teachings, nor is there any indication that theywere willing to manipulate and misuse scriptural quotations to accomplish their objectives. TheHongzhou school had enough self-confidence to simply present its teachings as a genuine


12/17

expression of authentic Buddhist religiosity. There is nothing to indicate that they felt compulsionto prove that their teachings were in accord with the canonical tradition, or that they were superiorto those of other schools of Chan. The attitude evidenced in their records is not that of an outsidergroup trying to break into the mainstream religious establishment and position itself as part of it,or create an alternative to it. Effectively, their basic stance can be interpreted as implying: Thisare the essential teachings of Buddhism as understood and experienced by us; we invite you toconsider them carefully.

To some extent, such attitudes reflected the religious personalities and communal ethos of Mazuand his followers. But in a more general sense, such confident stance reflected importantchanges that marked the transition from early to classical Chan. By the early ninth century theHongzhou school's meteoric rise to preeminence led to its total eclipsing of all other schools ofChan . As we saw in Part 1 of the present volume, its success was reflected in its establishmentof strong presence in the two capitals and all major provinces of the vast Tang empire, thewidespread popularity of its teachers and teachings, and in its procurement of recognition andsupport from the Tang state and the ruling elites. All of that signaled the fact that the Hongzhouschool had become an integral part of the Buddhist mainstream. As they felt secure in theirpositions as leaders of a respectable Buddhist tradition, Mazu's disciples probably did not feelstrong pressure or need to bolster their status and reinforce their group legitimacy by

aggressively appropriating the religious authority of the Buddhist canon, even as they made freeuse of the scriptures in their expositions of the path to spiritual awakening.

In that sense the Hongzhou school's usage of scriptural images and narratives, and in a moregeneral sense its attitudes towards canonical authority, represent an important new developmentin the evolution of Chan attitudes towards the scriptures and the normative doctrines ofMahayana Buddhism. In the course of the formation of the Hongzhou school's identity, Mazu andhis disciples adopted a stance of active yet somewhat low-key engagement with the canonicaltradition. Rather than rejecting the scriptures and repudiating canonical authority, theyappropriated them and present their Chan teachings as their very essence. In doing so, theystruck a balance between acknowledging the authority and charisma of the hallowed traditions

represented by the Buddhist canon on one hand, while at the same time they were able to adoptan independent stance and present they own teachings as expressions of genuine religiousinsight. The two were not necessarily in conflict because, from their point of view, their insightsresonated with the deepest truths of Buddhism. While that implied the Chan teachers' role astransmitters of essential truths and insight, it also presented implicit critique of other establishedtraditions that failed to grasp and communicate those truths. In that sense, their teachings werepartially meant to serve as correctives to partial visions of the Path that were accepted in theworld of Tang Buddhism.

As pointed out in Chapter 6, Mazu and his disciples reformulated religious ideas that wereperceived as the crowning truths of the Buddhist canon, expressing them in ways that resonated

with monks and literati interested in meditative praxis. Such approach can be understood interms of the already-noted dialectic of iconoclasm and traditionalism, which informed theHongzhou school's construction of its religious identify. The Hongzhou school's balancing actinvolved appropriate responses to two contrasting requirements. On one hand, Mazu and hisdisciples demonstrated their mastery and fidelity to hallowed Buddhist traditions that were largelyidentified with the canon. At the same time, they were able to construct for themselves a newreligious identity by rejection and/or reformulation of important aspects of those traditions. Thesuccess of the Hongzhou school was largely due to the fact that they proved themselves morecapable of meeting both challenges than their predecessors and potential competitors within theChan movement.

Chan teachings such as Baizhang's "three phases" (discussed in the last chapter) combined animpression of intellectual sophistication with a sense of spiritual exigency, and conveyed theprospect of actualizing the immediacy of awakening within the context of everyday life. WhileBaizhang's teaching was an engaging new description of the path to spiritual awakening, at thesame time it also conveyed deep insights about the nature of religious practice and experience


13/17

that were at the core of Sinitic reformulations of Mahayana Buddhism. Baizhang framed histhoughts with the help of copious quotations from and allusions to canonical texts, while blurringthe boundaries between his own ideas and those of the canonical tradition. The inclusion ofscriptural quotations in Chan sermons conveyed a sense of rapprochement between Chan andthe canonical tradition, and acknowledgment/respect for traditional religious authority. However,the dissolution of the boundaries between the words of the Buddha and the words of Chanteachers also suggests a new source of religious authority: the enlightened Chan teacher whosewords and deeds embodied the truths of Buddhism.

It is possible to argue that later, especially during the Song period, Chan adopted more radicaland sectarian approaches to defining spiritual authenticity and religious authority. But as far asthe mid-Tang period is concerned, Chan was in the process of becoming an integral part ofmainstream Buddhism, not a replacement for it. In the same vein, Chan teachers such as Mazuand Baizhang were becoming spokespersons for Buddhism, especially for its contemplativebranch, rather then alternative foci of religious authority that existed outside of the main monasticorder. In a sense, the emergence of the Hongzhou school and the transition to classical Chanrepresents a beginning of new chapter in the historical development of Chan. For the first time,Chan came to occupy a position that from that time onward became characteristic of its placewithin Chinese Buddhism. Namely, Chan was moving away from being one among the various

Buddhist schools and was rejecting the proposition of acting as an alternative to establishedorthodoxies. Instead, Chan positioned itself at the very center of Chinese Buddhism,simultaneously representing its very core and essence, but also reaching outwardly andembracing other key elements of elite Buddhism, which of course included the scriptures and thecanonical traditions.

Confucian Parallels

Before concluding this exploration of Chan attitudes towards canonicity, let me briefly note an

interesting parallel in intellectual developments outside of Buddhism that took place during thesame period. The preliminary observations introduced here are only meant to suggest aninteresting topic for further scholarly research, rather than propose an interpretation of theseevents. The Hongzhou school's appearance on the Tang religious landscape took place duringthe years following the An Lushan rebellion. That was a fascinating historical period that amongother things was marked by momentous changes in Tang intellectual l ife.49 In reference to thepresent subject, it is interesting to note that the subtle but significant shift in the Hongzhouschool's attitudes towards the Buddhist canon paralleled changes in the attitudes towardsConfucian canonical scholarship evidenced among scholars active during the post-rebellionperiod.

In the more decentralized scholarly world of the mid-Tang period, which was no longerdominated by the kinds of imperial commissions of large scholarly works that were prevalentduring the early Tang, unofficial Confucian scholarship flourished. In their writings, Confucianscholars moved away from interpreting the canon in ways consistent with the state's concern withits legitimacy. Instead, they presented new ideas in which the classics were primarily utilized to

justify their views about a wide range of issues with which they were concerned, includingquestions of religious beliefs.50 The development of such independent critical tradition inConfucian canonical learning led to what David McMullen has called the "deep interiorization" ofthe post-rebellion Confucian tradition.51

The guwen ("old-style writing") movement, whose best-known representatives were HanYu (768-824) , Li Ao (772-841), and Liu Zongyuan (773-819),represented an attempt to relate traditional intellectual concerns to the actualities of life in mid-Tang China. As they were attempting new ways of reading the Confucian classics withoutrecourse to established commentarial traditions, but in light of the issues and problems that wererelevant to their own time, in their writin s uwen ro onents ado ted an activist tone and self-


14/17

conscious reflectiveness that evoked similarity with the attitudes of Chan monks.52 For themappropriate course of action was based on personal acquisition of proper ideas, rather than onknowledge and imitation of normative cultural forms.53 Yet, while cultivated man were supposedto the able to think by themselves, values had to be grounded in "the way of the [ancient] sages"(shengren zhi dao ).54 Like in the case of the Hongzhou school, the new attitudestowards canonicity involved formulation of new responses to received traditions, which at theircore involved personal insights into the essential principles revealed by the scriptures/classics.That implied bringing new li fe into hallowed traditions by recapturing their substance and makingthem relevant to contemporary concerns and issues of vital import.

Obviously more research needs to be done before we can draw any firm conclusions aboutpossible connections between Chan and Confucian scholarship during this period. In thatrespect, it is also interesting to note that there are examples of personal connections betweenMazu's disciples and noted Confucians.55 Presently, we can simply consider that although theHongzhou school's redefinition of canonical authority was shaped by other aspects of the internaldevelopment of Chan, at least to some extent it also reflected broader changes in the intellectualand social climates that defined the post-rebellion period.

Notes

1. The conference "paper" evolved into a chapter for a forthcoming volume on the Hongzhouschool I am currently working on, which is how I am presenting it here. Although I have not madean effort to change the text's structure and deal with the cross-references, on the whole it can beread on its own as an independent study of the subject matter. return

2. Stanley Weinstein, "Imperial Patronage in the Formation of T'ang Buddhism," in Arthur F.Wright and Denis Twitchett, eds., Perspectives on the T'ang, p. 272. return

3. Ibid, p. 284. return

4. See Paul L. Swanson, Foundations of T'ien-t'ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two TruthsTheory in Chinese Buddhism, pp. 123-56. return

5. Gaoseng zhuan 16, T 50.552b. return

6. T85.1283c-84c. return

7. See Philip B. Yampolsky, trans., The Platform S(tra of the Sixth Patriarch, p. 34. return

8. Yang Zengwen, ed., Shenhui heshang chanhua lu, p. 34. return

9. Ibid, p. 35; translation from John R. McRae, Evangelical Zen: Shen-hui (684-758), the SuddenTeaching, and the Southern School of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism (forthcoming). return

10. T 48.340a; Yampolsky, trans., The Platform S(tra, p. 149. return

11. Hirai Shunei, "The School of Mount Niu-t'ou and the School of Pao-T'ang Monastery"(translated by Silvio Vita), East and West37/1-4, p. 14. For more information about theconnections between early Chan and Sanlun see Suzuki Tetsuo, Chgoku zenshshi ronk,pp. 93-116. return

12. The termjueguan (obliteration of contemplation or cognition) that appears in the title ofFarong's treatise originally comes from Jizang's (549-623) Dasheng xuanlun. See JohnR. McRae, "The Ox-head School of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism: From Early Ch'an to the Golden

A e," in Robert M. Gimello and Peter Gre or , eds., Studies in Ch'an and Hua- en, . 209. For


15/17

discussion of parallels/connections between the contents ofJueguan lun and teachingsassociated with Bodhidharma see Sekiguchi Shindai, Daruma no kenky, pp. 321-31. return

13. Chanyuan zhuquanji duxu 2, T 48.402c, and Zhonghua chuan xindi chanmen shizi chengxitu, XZJ 110.436a-b; see also Jan Yun-hua, "Tsung-mi: His Analysis of Ch'an Buddhism," inT'oung Pao 58 (1972), pp. 38-39, and Peter N. Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Sinification ofBuddhism, pp. 234-36. return

14. Yanagida Seizan, trans., Shoki no zenshi II: Rekidai hbki, p. 39. return15. See Yanagida, "The Li-tai fa-pao chiand the Ch'an Doctrine of Sudden Awakening," p. 36.return

16. For a study and translation of this text see Robert Buswell, The Formation of Ch'an Ideologyin China and Korea: The Vajrasamdhi-Stra,A Buddhist Apocriphon. return

17. The expression "symbolic exegesis" comes from the work of Bernard Faure; see Faure, TheWill to Orthodoxy, p. 41. McRae uses the term "contemplative analysis," which is a translation ofguanxhin shi; see McRae, The Northern School, pp. 201-02. return

18. T 51.189a, and Yanagida, trans., Shoki no zenshi II, p. 200. Similar idea can be found in therecords of Shenhui. See Hirai Shunei, "The School of Mount Niu-t'ou and the School of Pao-T'ang Monastery," pp. 360-61, and Yanagida, "The Li-tai fa-pao chiand the Ch'an Doctrine ofSudden Awakening," pp. 29-30. return

19. T 48.339a; translation from Yampolsky, trans., The Platform S(tra, p. 140. Note thatYamposky uses a different rendering forchandingthat the one suggested by me above. return

20. McRae, The Northern School, p. 198. McRae makes such assertion in reference to theNorthern School. I think the same can be said of the authors/editors of Shenhui's records and thePlatform Scripture. return

21. CDL 8.133 (T 51.258a), Chang Chung-yuan, trans., Original Teachings of Chan Buddhism, p.156. return

22. MY, XZJ 119.408a; and Cheng Chien, Sun-Face Buddha, p. 16. There is a different versionof this story in Gu zunsu yulu; see XZJ 118.80d, and Cheng Chien, Sun-Face Buddha, p. 92, n.58. return

23. ZTJ 4.96-97; CDL 14.262. The story is illustrated in a painting by Yintuolou, with aninscription by Chushi Fengqi (1297-1371), painted during the Yuan dynasty and now in thepossession of Nanzenji temple in Kyoto. return

24. Mario Poceski, "Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings," in StevenHeine and Dale S. Wright, eds., The Zen Canon (forthcoming from Oxford University Press in2003). return

25. MY, XZJ 119.405d-06a; Cheng-chien, trans., Sun-Face Buddha, p. 62. return

26. MY, XZJ 119.406a; translation adapted (with minor modifications) from Cheng-chien, trans.,Sun-Face Buddha, p. 62. return

27. For a discussion of the metaphor of a mirror see McRae, The Northern School, pp. 144-46. As

McRae points out, the metaphor was connected to the Yogcra doctrine of the "great perfectmirror wisdom," one of the four wisdoms that emerge whenlaya is transformed at its basis withthe realization of enlightenment. Baizhang seems to have been aware of this connection, as in anumber of passages in BGL he refers to the mirror wisdom. return


16/17

28. MY, XZJ 119.406d; translation adapted (with minor modifications) from Cheng-chien, trans.,Sun-Face Buddha, p. 67. return

29. A representative visual representation of such attitude is the painting of the Sixth Patriarchdestroying a stra ( ) by Liang Kai (Southern Song), in the collection of the TokyoNational Museum. return

30. The verse of which these two lines are a part first appeared in Zuting shiyuan, XZJ 113.66c.

For the origins of the individual lines of this verse see Yanagida, Shoki zensh shiso nokenky, pp. 461-62, 470-77. return

31. I think that the "special transmission outside of the teachings" motto did not really representthe attitudes of the mainstream Chan movement at any historical period, nor does it reflect themanner in which canonical literature was used by the Chan school. The statement shouldperhaps best be read as an example of the strategies that the early Song advocates of sectarianChan identity developed during the ideological battles waged in order to assert the uniquenessand superiority of Chan vis--vis the other competing Buddhist traditions. return

32. See the discussion of his life in Chapter 3. return

33. This includes all five extant sermons of Mazu, which do not appear together as a single text.For a useful presentation of the Chinese texts of the extant versions of each sermon that lendsitself to easy comparison see Yanagida, "Goroku no rekishi," pp. 484-89, 496-98, 504-07, 512.return

34. Because of the large number of quotations from diverse sources that appear in Dunwuyaomen, in this and the following table I have not included a number of less known texts whichare only quoted once or twice by Dazhu. Examples of such texts include Fangkuang jingand Foshuo jiuzhi jing. For a listing of texts quoted by Dazhu see Scott Dennis Peterman, "The Legendof Huihai" (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1986), pp. 369-71. return

35. Because of the lack of critical editions and studies of Baizhang's text, and the manner inwhich it quotes canonical sources (see below), it is highly plausible that I have not been able toidentify all quotations from the sources listed in the table; the actual number ofquotations/allusions that appear in BGL is probably higher then it is indicated in the table. return

36. For a useful summary of the canonical sources quoted in Shehui's records see the table inSuzuki, Chgoku zenshshi ronk, p. 128. return

37. See Paul Demiville, Le concile de Lhasa: une controverse sur le quitisme entrebouddhistes de l'Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe sicle de l're chrtienne, p. 160. For more

information about Mahyna see Luis O. Gmez, "The Direct and Gradual Approaches of ZenMaster Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen," in Gimello and Gregory, eds.,Studies in Ch'an and Hua Yen, pp. 69-167, and Yamaguchi Zuih, "Makaen no zen," inShinohara Hisao and Tanaka Rysh, eds., Tonk butten to zen, pp. 379-407. return

38. See Kamata Shigeo, "Ch(goku zen shis keisei no kygakuteki haikei: Daij kishinron och(shin to shite," in Ty bunka kenky(jo kiy 49 (1969), pp. 98-109. return

39. See Paul Swanson's discussion in his "Apocryphal Texts in Chinese Buddhism: T'ien-t'aiChih-i's use of Apocryphal Scriptures," in A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn, eds.,Canonization and Decanonization, p. 249. return

40. Weimojie suoshuo jing, T14.0540a; Burton Watson, trans., TheVimalakrti Stra, p. 38. return

41. Fahua youyi, T34.640b. The first part of the sentence, "The Dharma-body isunconditioned," also appears in Sengzhao's commentary of the Vimalakrti Scripture; see Zhu


17/17

weimojie jing T38. 355a, 360a, 412a. I suspect Baizhang is conflating (orconfusing) the two commentaries. return

42. Alternative translation could read "the sagely essence..." I have been unable to find any textwhere the exact sentence appears. The closest is a sentence from a fragmentary commentary ofthe Vimalakrti Scripture, which reads: "the essence of the true nature of reality is namelessand cannot be expressed in words." Weimojie jing shu 3, T85.381c. Similar ideasare also expressed in the "Nirvana is Nameless Treatise" in Zhaolun (see T45.157a-58b), which

is probably the text Baizhang is referring to. In addition, similar statement, which reads "the self-essence is nameless" (ziti wuming), appears in Baozang lun , T45.144b.return

43. BGL, XZJ 118.83c-d; cf. Cleary, Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang, p. 35 (note theunidentified quotations and misplaced quotation marks). The last two sentences allude to apassage in Dazhidu lun 94, T25.717a. return

44. BGL, XZJ 118.86b; Cleary, Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang, p. 52. For the original passagein the Lotus Scripture see Miaofa lianhua j ing3, T 9.22b, and Watson, trans., The Lotus Sutra, p.119. return

45. BGL, XZJ 118.86c; Cleary, Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang, p. 53. return

46. As pointed out by Faure, sectarian activities l ike those engaged in by Shenhui represented alack of richness of tradition and a sense of personal insecurity on part of him and his followers.Faure, The Will to Orthodoxy, p. 9. return

47. For a discussion of Shenhui 's ingenious (mis)use of scriptural quotations see Suzuki Tetsuo,Chgoku zenshshi ronk, pp. 132-34. return

48. Yang Zengwen, ed., Shenhui heshang chanhua lu, p. 24. return

49. The intellectual changes that occurred during this period have been studied by a number ofscholars, starting with Pulleyblank's seminal article, and more recently by McMullen, Bol,Hartman, and others. See Edwin Pulleyblank, "Neo-Confucianism and Neo-Legalism in T'angIntellectual Life, 755-805," in Arthur F. Wright, ed., The Confucian Persuasion, pp. 77-111; DavidMcMullen, State and Scholars in T'ang China; and Peter Kees Bol, "This Culture of Ours":Intellectual Transitions in T'ang and Sung China, pp. 108-47. return

50. David McMullen, State and Scholars in T'ang China, pp. 69-70. return

51. See Ibid., p. 70. return

52. See Charles Hartman, Han Y and the T'ang Search for Unity, pp. 5-8. return

53. Peter Bol, "This Culture of Ours," p. 109. return

54. Bol, "This Culture of Ours," p. 125. return

55. The connections between Li Ao and Mazu's disciples are noted in Chapter 3. return

Documents

Attitudes Towards Canonicity and Religious Authority in Tang Chan Mario Poceski