by Youru Wang
Shanzhao’s teachings were preserved in the Fenyang Wude Chanshi Yulu, edited by his disciple Shishuang Chuyuan. This yulu includes Shanzhao’s sermons, his Songgu Baize (Verses [or Poetic Commentaries] on One Hundred Old Cases), collections of his daiyu (his own answers to the questions he raised for others) and bieyu (his alternative answers to the previous questions raised and answered in the Buddhist texts), short essays, and other poems. His Songgu Baize is often considered the earliest example of the new Chan genre—the gong’an literature—and the Song “Chan of letters and words (wenzi Chan).” Shanzhao’s further use of Linji’s didactic formulas, such as “three mysteries and essentials (sanxuan sanyao)” and “four encounters of guest-host (sibinzhu)”; his use of the Caodong school’s “five ranks”; and the invention of his own formulas, most notably “four turning phrases (si zhuanyu)” and “ten all-true wisdoms (shizhi tongzhen),” helped to develop the unique teaching style and method of the Linji school.
FIVE EXPEDIENT MEANS
The original Chinese term for this is Wu Fangbian. It is an abbreviated title, referring to a handful of Dunhuang documents that contain similar material under different titles, especially Dasheng Wusheng Fangbian Men (The Expedient Means of [Attaining] Birthless in the Mahayana) and Dasheng Wu Fangbian Beizong (The Five Expedienct Means of the Mahayana—Northern School). Scholars believe it is a lost work of the Northen school, most likely a teachers’ manual that was compiled by Shenxiu’s disciples, and reflects Shenxiu’s teaching, although it was never preserved in any East Asian Buddhist canon. In the 20th century, Japanese scholars did editorial work on the discovered copies, published them, and then included this work in the Taishō.
The five expedient means or methods include the following:
Comprehensive manifestation of the substance of Buddhahood (zongzhang foti), also called the teaching of the transcendence of thoughts (linian), in terms of the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (Dasheng Qixin Lun).
Opening the gates of wisdom and sagacity (kai zhihui men), also called the teaching of motionlessness, in terms of the Lotus Sutra.
Manifestation of inconceivable freedom (xian busiyi jietuo), in terms of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra.
Elucidation of the true nature of all dharmas (ming zhufa zhengxing), in terms of the Sūtra of Questioning by the God of Thinking-about-Goodness (Siyi Fantian Suowen Jing).
Realizing non-differentiated, natural, and unobstructed freedom (liao wuyi ziran wuai jietuo), in terms of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing).
The practice of these expedient means highlights Shenxiu and his followers’ flexible interpretation of scriptures and skillful use of conventional Buddhist terms, as well as their focus on contemplating the mind and purity, which unavoidably involves a privileged conceptual hierarchy of the pure and defiled mind, motionlessness and motion, interior and exterior. Nothing sounds non-Buddhist, but the later schools tended to take a turn away from such rhetoric.
FIVE HOUSES
See .
FIVE HOUSES AND SEVEN SCHOOLS (Ch. wujia qizong)
“Five houses” (wujia) refers to the thriving of Chan schools with diverse teaching styles (jiafeng) and methods (menting shishe) during the late Tang dynasty and the Five Dynasties. Although different Chan schools all claim lineage to Huineng and the Southern school, after two generations the Southern school had evolved into two main lines, Mazu Daoyi and Shitou Xiqian, according to Chan tradition. From these two lines emerged the five schools, or main lineages, of Chan. From the line of Mazu Daoyi emerged (1) Guiyang school, which was named after the Gui and Yang mountains where its headquarter temples were built, and was founded by Guishan Lingyou and Yangshan Huiji; and (2) Linji school, founded by Linji Yixuan. From the line of Shitou Xiqian emerged additional schools: (3) Caodong school, founded by Dongshan Liangjie and Caoshan Benji; (4) Yunmen school, founded by Yunmen Wenyan; and (5) Fayan school, founded by Fayan Wenyi.
The Guiyang school was formed first among these five, but declined in the early Song. The Fayan school was the last to come into existence and disappeared in the middle of the Song. The Yunmen school did not survive after the Song. Only the Linji and Caodong schools continued after the Song and spread their lineages to Japan during the Song period. The Linji school developed into two main branches, or subschools, during the Song dynasty, one called Huanglong school (or Huanglong pai), founded by Huanglong Huinan, the other Yangqi school (or Yangqi pai), founded by Yangqi Fanghui. They were added to the original “five houses.” Thus the phrase “five houses and seven schools” is used to designate all these schools that appeared in the late Tang, Five Dynasties, and Song.
Scholars have recently questioned the historical accuracy of describing the Chan movements of the mid- to late Tang and Five Dynasties as “two main lines” and “five houses.” The mid-Tang sources do not regard the Shitou line as a major branch from Huineng’s Southern school or as opposed to the Hongzhou school. The assertion of a separate lineage of Shitou from Mazu was later made retrospectively by a number of Chan masters who broke away from the Hongzhou line and attached themselves to the Shitou line exclusively. Moreover, the division of Chan from the late Tang to the Five Dynasties involved eight major houses. In addition to the “five houses,” there were the houses of Deshan, Xuefeng, and Shishuang. The use of the phrase “five houses” was not fixed until the mid-Northern Song. Recent study also points out the overestimation of the significance of five houses and seven schools. The competition among these schools was not based on substantial differences of doctrines and practices, but rather on lineage relationships or loyalties.
FIVE RANKS
The English translation of the Chinese word wuwei here refers to the teaching or doctrine of “five ranks” attributed to the Tang dynasty Chan master Dongshan Liangjie, the founder of the Caodong school. Influenced by Huayan Buddhism’s four kinds of relationships between principle (li) and phenomena (shi), this teaching describes five kinds of relationships between the categories zheng and pian, namely, between the correct and the partial, but the categories could also be the real and the apparent, the universal and the particular, oneness and many, the whole (ti) and the function (yong), or emptiness (kong) and form (se). Two more categories are sometimes added by the metaphors of lord (jun) and vassal (chen), or host (zhu) and guest (bin). The formulation of these five relationships could be regarded as a dialectical philosophy, or ontology, underlying Dongshan and the Caodong school’s understanding of reality. Some scholars also see these five relationships as five perspectives about the world or five modes of experience with the world. They are basically used by the Caodong school as a set of temporary expedients, or skillful means (shishe), to accommodate different student abilities and situations and lead them on to the realization of suchness (zhenru). They should not be understood as a series of stages of development.
The first kind of relationship is “the partial within the correct (zheng zhong pian),” which points to the traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching that all forms or phenomena are empty of their own existence, and hence helps students realize that all forms and phenomena rely on emptiness. The second kind of relationship is called “the correct within the partial (pian zhong zheng),” which points to the other perspective that emptiness is just the nature of all forms and phenomena: it manifests itself through all forms and phenomena but not apart from them. Despite this point, the third relationship—“coming from within the correct (zheng zhong lai)”—teaches students that, still, attaining the perspective of emptiness and understanding all phenomena in terms of emptiness, rather than individual substantiality, is necessary. Thus far, all three relationships are based on distinguishing the two sides of the polarity.
The fourth relationship—“going within together (jian zhong zhi)”—advises students to deconstruct this polarity or aspire to the harmonizing of the two sides, based on the perspective that emptiness and form are interconnecting, interpenetrating, and ultimately one and the same. The fifth relationship—“arriving w
ithin together (jian zhong dao)”—brings up a perspective in terms of which all separation and sense of distinction are transcended while they are present. Neither side functions independently but rather in a complete and wondrous harmony.
Many of Dongshan’s encounter dialogues and poems are considered to be references to this teaching of five ranks. The brief formulation of this teaching could be found in a number of documents, including “The Jewel Mirror Samadhi” (Baojing Sanmei), and “Verses on the Five Ranks of Lord and Vassal” (Wuwei Junchen Ji), attributed to Dongshan. These documents on the five ranks are commonly believed to be directly transmitted from Dongshan to his disciple Caoshan Benji, although a southern Song text claims that “The Jewel Mirror Samadhi” was first transmitted from Yunyan Tansheng (782–841) to Dongshan. A number of commentaries on this teaching are also attributed to Caoshan and considered to be among the earliest and most authoritative interpretations.
A great deal of Chinese Caodong, as well as Japanese Sōtō, scholarship, has contributed to the exegesis of these works. However, these works had never been mentioned by the Zutang Ji and Jingde Chuandeng Lu, which were among the earliest of the transmission of the lamp literature. The earliest source that included these documents of five ranks, before the extant Ming edition of the Dongshan Yulu, is Juefan Huihong’s Chanlin Sengbao Zhuan (Biographies of the Monk Treasure of Chan Grove, compiled in 1119), long after the time of Dongshan and Caoshan. The historicity of these documents has not been convincingly verified, even though the Caodong tradition has long believed that they are authentic works of Dongshan and Caoshan. On the other hand, the importance of these formulations of five ranks has been de-emphasized by many Chan Buddhists and scholars, both in ancient and modern times. For example, Japanese Sōtō Zen master Dōgen opposed seeing the five ranks as fully representative of the Buddha-dharma that Dongshan has transmitted.
FOFA
The Chinese translation of the Sanskrit word Buddha-dharma.
See also .
FORGETTING MIND
This is the English translation of the Chinese word wangxin. Its use in classical Chan is similar to the use of other apophatic terms, such as wuxin (“no-mind”). For example, in addition to Huangbo Xiyun’s well-known elaborations on “no-mind” in his Chuanxin Fayao, Huangbo also advises students that, if forgetting environment (jing) is relatively easy, it is most difficult to “forget mind.” The use of the term wangxin indicates the Chan adoption of Daoist Zhuangzi’s influence. Wang (“forgetting”) is a favorite term Zhuangzi uses in his philosophy to describe the enlightened mind of a Daoist sage who is able to transcend all kinds of distinctions, including self/other, subject/object, individual/world, and speech/silence, while living in the world. It is also a method related to Daoist meditation practices. However, the Chan use of wangxin has its own Chinese Buddhist context. Wangxin involves two basic meanings. First, it denotes the necessity to forget (or to transcend and transform) the discriminative mind that is the root cause of the human attachment to objects and environments. Without this sense of “forgetting mind,” forgetting (or detaching oneself from) objects or environments cannot be accomplished. Second, it also denotes the necessity of transcending even the distinction between the discriminative mind and the enlightened Buddha-mind. This Buddha-mind cannot be sought or obtained outside the ordinary human mind. In this sense, it must be forgotten. Wangxin is thus used in relation to the notion of “no-seeking” (wuqiu).
See also .
FORI QISONG
See .
FORMLESS PRECEPTS
The English translation of the Chinese words wuxiang jie. This teaching of “formless precepts” is recorded in the Platform Sūtra and attributed to Huineng. Chan Buddhism inherits the practice of the Mahayana bodhisattva precepts, including the common ceremony of conferring the precepts on a gathering of monks and laypeople. According to the sūtra, on such an occasion, Huineng confers the “formless precepts” by performing repeated recitations of taking refuge in the threefold body of Buddha, the four bodhisattva vows, the formless repentance, and taking refuge in the three treasures of Buddhism, before giving his sermon to explain the dharma. The teaching of the formless precepts does not mean to completely abolish the traditional precepts and practices, as contemporary scholars have pointed out its similarities with those of the other Chinese Buddhist schools, including the Tiantai school and the Dongshan Famen, nor does this teaching mean to create totally new precepts. It merely attempts to provide the traditional precepts with refreshed understandings and interpretations.
One of the main points in the teaching of the formless precepts is to relate the practice of the precepts to seeing or realizing one’s own Buddha-nature (zixing). One’s own Buddha-nature is the formless source for the unimpeded practice of the precepts in various forms, and the practice of the precepts should not be separated from seeing one’s own Buddha-nature. The teaching thus advises Chan Buddhists to detach themselves from various forms of the precepts; not to see the precepts as external moral codes or regulations and rely on them externally, but to look beyond them while practicing them and to realize their internal source, which is the foundationless foundation of all ethical codes or regulations. The ethical source and power, which paradoxically goes beyond the merely ethical, lies within each human being, not outside. This teaching is based on the combined understanding of the tathāgatagabha (Buddha-nature) theory and the philosophy of emptiness from the Prajñāpāramitā literature. As a result, the conferral of the precepts and the performance of the ceremony, in the setting of an ordination intended more for lay believers (as presented in the sūtra or used by Shenhui), are more simplified, and the distinction between lay and monastic was not most important to Huineng (or Shenhui) and his followers.
FORMLESS REPENTANCE
The English translation of the Chinese words wuxiang chan or wuxiang chanhui. Formless repentance is a crucial part of the formless precepts recorded in the Platform Sūtra and attributed to Huineng. Inheriting the Mahayana perspectives on emptiness, non-duality, and the original purity of Buddha-nature, formless repentance further develops the early Chan Buddhist and Tiantai approach of uniting the practice of repentance with the practice of meditation and wisdom, denying the necessity of separating them with different procedures and methods. That approach could be found in the fourth patriarch Daoxin’s Rudao Anxin Yao Fangbian Famen, in which he expresses the view that attaining no-thought through meditation is the most advanced repentance (diyi chanhui). The descendants of the Dongshan Famen—Shenxiu and his followers—continued Daosin’s trend of seeing Buddha nature as the nature of all precepts, including repentance (foxing wei jiexing). A similar attitude can be found in the Tiantai master Zhiyi’s Mohe Zhiguan. Zhiyi identifies repentance practices as either “in form (youxiang)” or “formless (wuxiang),” but in the latter, the sins are eliminated not by remorse but by the realization of the mind that is free from any designations of sins or merits. Despite all these precursors, the formless repentance in the Platform Sūtra identifies itself most clearly with the “zixing chanhui (the repentance of self-nature).” Since the realization of self-nature is true repentance (zhen chanhui), it is not necessary to even recite verses of repentance or to cultivate merits and eliminate sins. This teaching paved the way for Chan Buddhists to simplify the ritual practice of repentance and other precepts, as illustrated in the Platform Sūtra and other Chan texts.
FOUR ALTERNATIVES
The English translation of the Chinese term siliaojian. It is one of the formulas of the Linji school’s didactic expedients, which can be found in the Linji Lu for its early elaboration. “Four alternatives” are the four ways of instructing students and helping them attain the four perspectives of non-attachment. The first is “to take away the person (ren) but not the environment (jing),” which means to help overcome the attachment to the subjective self. The second is “to take away the environment but not the person,” which means to overcome the attachment to objects and thei
r self-nature. The third is “to take away both the person and the environment,” which means to overcome the attachment to both, if the attachments have existed or have been demonstrated. The fourth is “to take away neither the person nor the environment,” which means to let the student experience reality as such, if both attachments have gone, and object and subject themselves do not need to be negated (the negation of the previous negations). Scholars have pointed out the influence of Indian Madyamaka Buddhist philosophy’s fourfold logic (the negation of self, other, both, and neither) on this formula of four alternatives, as well as its correspondence to the Chinese Huayan Buddhist notion of the four realms of reality—the realms of facts (shi), principle (li), both facts and principle, and neither. But all these philosophies are expressed here in more simplified, vivid, pragmatic, and heuristic terms.
FOUR ENCOUNTERS OF GUEST-HOST
The English translation of the Chinese term sibinzhu. It is one of the formulas of the Linji school’s heuristic expedients, attributed to Linji, and can be found in the Linji Lu. “Four encounters of guest-host” refers to the four situations of communication between a student (guest or visitor) and a teacher (host). The first is “the guest examines the host (bin kan zhu),” in which situation the guest’s or student’s level of understanding seems higher than the host’s or teacher’s. (Chan students are allowed to challenge teachers in verifying each other’s enlightenment experience.) When the student gives a shout and utters a sentence to test the teacher, the teacher does not discern the situation but pretends to know and gives inadequate verbal explanations. The second is “the host examines the guest (zhu kan bin),” in which situation the teacher is superior. He allows the student to raise questions and then undercuts whatever attachment the student has right away. The third is “the host examines the host (zhu kan zhu),” in which case both the student and the teacher stay on the same level of understanding. The teacher would not be confused by the student’s subtle question, and the student’s mind resonates with the teacher’s. The fourth is “the guest examines the guest (bin kan bin),” in which situation both persons are misled by the question and answer. Their minds are all fettered. The point of these descriptions is to call attention to the singularity of each situation and to sensibility, flexibility, and skillfulness in carrying out effective conversation and mind-to-mind transmission.