Historical Dictionary of Chan Buddhism

by Youru Wang

  While the sermons were included in the Linji Lu to appeal to Song literati, that relatively conservative form of discourse alone could not have greatly stirred the imagination of the public. Linji’s use of shock methods, such as shouting and hitting; his quick, straightforward, and sometimes abrasive responses, characterized as “razor sharp”; and even his iconoclastic attitude, along with his colorful and forceful language, were the defining features of his innovation and uniqueness at the hands of the Song compilers. The Linji Lu helped to establish the new orthodox form of Chan discourse—the encounter dialogues—and paved the way for the development of gong’an Chan or kanhua Chan. All these aspects point to a new way of reading the Linji Lu: basically, as the story of a movement inspired by Linji, instead of as the story of one individual, to understand those words and teachings not just as being uttered by Linji himself but as something attributed to him and evolved through the filter of collective memory and imagination. This is a more interpretative approach, though it does not cancel out other interpretations and approaches. What is neglected by the Song characterization of Linji’s methods and style, and what remains in those sermons—for instance, the underlying relationship between the negative attitude toward scriptures/doctrines and the necessary understanding of them, the possibility of replacing iconoclastic interpretation with a deconstructive one that is not iconoclastic, the development of linguistic strategies in sermons—nonetheless deserves further study.

  LINJI SCHOOL (Ch. Linji zong)

  Named after the Tang dynasty Chan monk Linji Yixuan, it was one of the five schools of Chinese Chan, which emerged during the late Tang dynasty and the Five Dynasties and has become one of the two dominating schools of Chan since the Song dynasty. The Linji school claimed its lineage directly from Linji Yixuan and recognized him as its patriarch. The first generations of Linji’s disciples did not attract great attention from the outside, and neither did Linji’s name itself during that time. In the early Song dynasty, however, the later generations of the Linji lineage, starting with Shishuang Chuyuan, worked more successfully in southern China and helped the school rise to great prominence. That success had much to do with the school’s involvement in the compilation of the Linji Lu, which brought greater fame and popularity to its founder as well. The Linji Lu not only was a great patriarch-making project of the Linji school, which defined its founder’s vigorous spirit and innovative teaching style, but it also introduced to the public several sets of didactic means and formulas special to this school and its founder (menting shishe), such as “three mysteries and essentials (sanxuan sanyao),” “four alternatives (siliaojian),” and “four encounters of guest-host (sibinzhu).” The institutionalization and systematization of these expedients attracted a lot of attention but also set limits on the school’s development.

  The new generation of the Linji school, starting with Fenyang Shanzhao, tried to find a new momentum for the school’s novelty and to stay away from the imitative uses of shouting, hitting, and other shock methods, which had been made famous and popular. The school gradually shifted its attention from uses of these methods to the study of stories and narratives describing effective communications between teachers and students and their successful triggering of the enlightenment experience. To facilitate the studies and use them in meditation, these stories were put into anthologies of “public cases” (gong’an). The development of gong’an practice provided the school with a new alternative to the increasingly stereotyped shouting and hitting. It reinforced the school’s fame and growth. More charismatic figures such as Huanglong Huinan and Yangqi Fanghui quickly emerged and established separate branches with their own names—the Huanglong pai and Yangqi pai—contributing to the prosperity of “seven schools (qizong)” after the “five houses (wujia).” As the Huanglong branch declined in the late Song dynasty, the Yangqi branch became the only orthodox heir of the Linji school. However, it was Huanglong’s Chan that Japanese monk Eisai transmitted to Japan and that helped him to establish the first Japanese Rinzai sect. The Yangqi Chan was transmitted to Japan too by several Chinese masters and their Japanese disciples and dominated the Japanese Rinzai school.

  LINJI TEMPLE (Ch. Linji Si)

  A temple located in the city of Zhengding, historically known as Zhenzhou, in present-day Hebei Province, northern China. Because of its location on the banks of the Hutuo River, the temple was named Linji, which literally means “overlooking the ford.” It is a small Buddhist temple. Around 851, the Chan monk Yixuan came to this temple (he was later known as Linji Yixuan). It was there that he started his teaching career and gained fame. He had about 20 disciples. Although he spent his final years at another temple, Xinghua Si in Daming, his disciples nevertheless erected a pagoda called Chengling (“pure spirit”) to house his remains at this temple after his death. Later generations of his lineage attained greater success and established a Chan school with his name, the Linji school, which became a dominant school not only in China but also in Japan. The Linji Temple has been considered by the followers of this school to be the House of Patriarch (zuting).

  LINJI YIXUAN (?–866)

  One of the most prominent Chan masters of the Tang dynasty. He was regarded by his followers and the tradition as the founder of the Linji school and has been regarded as the leading representative of classical Chan since the Song dynasty. Little is known of Linji’s early years, and no biographical information about him is directly provided by historical sources from the Tang dynasty. Almost all information about Linji’s life comes from the texts of the Five Dynasties and specifically the Song dynasty, with no verifiability for their historical accuracy, including the Linji Lu (the Record of Linji), the earliest full version of which was compiled in 1029.

  According to these texts, Linji’s family name was Xing. He was a native of Cao Prefecture (in present-day Shandong Province) and entered monastic life when he was young, devoting himself to the study of the precepts, scriptures, and doctrines. Later on, he turned to the study of Chan, visited various teachers and places, and eventually became a disciple of Huangbo Xiyun. Although the story about Linji’s attainment of enlightenment involved another Chan master, Gao’an Dayu (d.u.), with whom he had a close relationship, traditional narrative ascribes Linji to Huangbo’s lineage and regards Linji as Huangbo’s heir. About 10 years after his enlightenment, Linji left Huangbo on a pilgrimage, which ended at Zhenzhou in the Hebei area. A local official, Wang Shaoyi (r. 857–866), invited Linji to take up residence at a small temple called Linji Yuan. It was from there that Linji began his own teaching career, giving sermons and conducting conversations with students, which included visiting guests and local officials, and gained great fame.

  Linji died in 866. His posthumous title was “Chan Master of Illuminating Wisdom” (Huizhao Chanshi). He had only a few students, but the lineage was maintained and gradually rose to prominence, as one of the Five Houses (wujia) of Chan during the late Tang dynasty and the Five Dynasties. Since the Song dynasty, the Linji lineage has been one of the two dominating schools of Chan and exists today in East Asia. Linji’s sermons, his verbal/non-verbal instructions to students, and the method/style of his teaching are preserved in various Chan texts, including Zutang Ji (the earliest), Jingde Chuandeng Lu, and the more complete Linji Lu, all of which are believed to be based on his disciples’ original notes and records.

  However, recent critical study of Linji has investigated the editorial and forming process of these textual materials and how revisions and additions were made to them under the impact of a wide range of sectarian, political, and ideological forces during the Song dynasty. As a result of the evolving rhetoric and details of stories, what readers see as the image and personality of Linji from the standard edition of the Linji Lu is more vivid, powerful, enigmatic, and even iconoclastic. Though his sermons are included in the Linji Lu, that kind of conservative form of discourse could no longer stimulate public imagination. Linji’s use of shock therapy, such as shouting and hitting; his q
uick, straightforward, and sometimes abrasive responses, characterized as “razor sharp”; and his colorful and forceful language became the defining features of his innovation and uniqueness in the hands of the Song compilers. Since the reader has no way to distinguish two kinds of Linji—Linji as a historical figure and Linji as a fictional creation—recent scholarship has suggested Linji should be seen as a collective persona, the embodiment of the aspiration and thought of the Song Linji movement. This attitude represents the new approach to the Chan yulu texts: seeing them as literary devices of Chan rather than historical documents. It rectifies the age-old uncritical acceptance of those texts as historical truth, although the importance of the study of Linji and his sayings remains, even after the disillusionment.

  LINJI ZONG

  See .

  LIUZU TANJING

  See .

  LIVING WORDS

  The original Chinese for “living words” is shengyu (alternative translation, “living speech”) or huoju (alternative translation, “living sentences”). In Chan usage, shengyu is often coupled with and in contrast to siyu—“dead words (or speech).” The same meanings also appear in another pair of terms: huoju, “living words (or sentences),” and siju, “dead words (or sentences).” They all refer to an important Chan notion about using language. Recent scholarship in Chan language has revealed that the so-called non-establishment of words reflected the Chan concern with how to use language differently rather than turning completely away from language. The Chan opposition to descriptive and cognitive uses of language paved the way for the unconventional use of words. This turn of language is crystallized in the notion of living words.

  Among the well-known Chan masters of the Tang dynasty, Baizhang Huaihai may have been the first to distinguish living words (shengyu) from dead words (siyu). Living words would later also become a focus for the development of gong’an, kanhua Chan, and wenzi Chan in the Song dynasty, as was emphasized by Dongshan Shouchu, Yuanwu Keqin, Dahui Zonggao, and Juefan Huihong. In general, Chan living words tend to function and play at the boundaries of language. Living words are those that can point to something beyond any fixed words or meanings. Moreover, living words are those that can better serve Chan soteriological practices, not hindering but catalyzing Chan awakening in flowing contexts. Many examples of living words involve the use of paradoxical words. Baizhang Huaihai’s advice to cut off opposites, such as cultivation and realization, Buddha and sentient beings, clearly shows that living words tend to elude and violate the conventional rules of oppositional thinking and either/or logic. Living words also include the use of double negation, irony, tautology, poetic language, and so forth.

  M

  MAD CHAN

  This is the English translation of the Chinese term kuang Chan. The term was first used by Confucian literati in the Song dynasty, including followers of the neo-Confucian school of principle (lixue), as well as by some more conservative members of the Yangming school of neo-Confucianism in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Kuang Chan negatively referred to the kinds of inappropriate practices of Chan iconoclasm that broke with traditional scriptural-doctrinal studies, intellectual understanding, and meditational or other institutional practices and cultivations, by focusing solely on the sudden awakening of every person’s original mind or nature. In a broader sense, this term was used in criticism of the mainstream Chan of the five houses, or at least of the problems or radical aspects of the five houses. Although iconoclastic tendencies did exist within the five houses, it was not criticized as “mad Chan,” before the late Ming, by any Chan literature in the Five Dynasties or in the Song. On the other hand, since there were opposing tendencies to the Chan iconoclasm within the five houses, it is not proper to characterize the entire five houses as mad Chan.

  In fact, the term was more specifically targeted at the later generations of the Yangming school of neo-Confucianism (yangming houxue), at persons such as Wang Gen (1483–1541), Wang Ji (1498–1583), Yan Jun (1504–1596), Ruo Rufang (1515–1588), and Li Zhi (1527–1602). This indicates that “mad Chan” more often referred to some post-Yangming neo-Confucian teachings and practices, which expanded some aspects of Wang Yangming’s (1472–1528) original thought, further assimilated the Chan style and method of sudden enlightenment from the five houses, and served to immediately realize the original whole of the innate knowledge (liangzhi benti). The so-called madness of this “Confucian Chan” lies not only in that the necessity of gradual cultivation stressed by the school of principle and the tradition of Confucianism was discounted, but also in that even effort or cultivation (gongfu) was increasingly dismissed in terms of the self-realizing and complete liangzhi benti. It thus presents a great challenge to the moral teaching of Confucianism in the eyes of many Confucian scholars, despite the historical fact that radical Confucian Chan is one of the results of the growing discontent with the dogmatism and lack of creative vitality of the school of principle and the long tradition of Confucianism.

  MAZU DAOYI (709–788)

  One of the most important Chan masters in history and the founder of the Hongzhou school, Mazu was born in Shifang county, Hanzhou prefecture, in Sichuan, and entered monastic life during his teens in Zizhou with Monk Tang (684–734, also known as Chuji, a disciple of the second generation in the lineage of Hongren). Mazu was officially ordained under the preceptor Yuan in Yuzhou at the age of 21. He also studied with Wuxiang, the founder of the Jingzhong school. Around 730, Mazu left Sichuan for a journey of “wandering and learning.” He then met the master Nanyue Huirang at Mount Heng in Hunan and studied with him for about 10 years. In the early 740s, Mazu started to teach at several places in Fujian and Jiangxi. Within three decades, he had acquired great fame and influence. In 772, he was invited to Kaiyuan Temple, a government-sponsored monastery in Hongzhou (present-day Nanchang, the capital of Jiangxi Province) and taught there until his death in 788.

  During his long teaching career of over 40 years, Mazu attracted and trained a great number of followers, led a large Chan community, and built a strong connection with, and gained support from, literati and local government officials. A list of Mazu’s known disciples numbered 145. Many of these disciples were also successful and famous abbots. Emperor Xianzong (r. 805–820) granted Mazu the posthumous title “Chan Master of Grand Quiescence” (Daji Chanshi), and Kaiyuan Temple and Mazu’s pagoda were restored by order of Emperor Xuanzong (r. 846–859) after the Huichang persecution.

  Modern scholarship on Mazu and his Hongzhou school, based on the Song narratives of classical Chan, has involved two interrelated perspectives. First, it has seen Mazu and his Hongzhou school as a revolutionary, or iconoclastic, movement that broke away from previous Buddhist traditions and overturned established norms and practices. Second, it has regarded Mazu and his disciples as the founders of a new and independent religion and initiators of a new form of practice widely known as encounter dialogues. These two perspectives have been seriously challenged by contemporary scholarship on Mazu and the Hongzhou school. The radical, iconoclastic image of Mazu and his disciples, portrayed by the stories of Chan encounter dialogues, is basically a Song editorial revision and addition to the raw materials originally circulated, many of which could no longer be seen by later generations.

  By critically analyzing and separating Mazu’s more reliable sermons from those later produced and less reliable materials, especially those encounter dialogues attributed to him, contemporary scholars demonstrate that Mazu was not radical enough to be called an iconoclast. In his sermons, Mazu straightforwardly instructed students, used relatively conservative rhetoric preexisting in early Chan, and frequently quoted and alluded to scriptural passages. He also advised students to comply with monastic precepts, follow mentors, and accumulate good karma. His notion of no-cultivation and no-meditation (buxiu buzuo) quite clearly aimed at overcoming the confusion of meditation with enlightenment, or the means with the goal. It was never meant to stop the practice of meditation, but rather presuppose
d the ongoing practice of the Buddhist path.

  Mazu’s attitude of working within tradition does not mean that there was a lack of innovation, or creative reformulation, of Buddhist teaching in terms of practical needs. Mazu’s notions of “this mind is Buddha (jixin jifo)” and “the ordinary mind is the way (pingchangxin shi dao)” held wide appeal to Chan Buddhists and Chinese people, which contributed to the popularity of his school. Through these notions, Mazu emphasized that enlightenment cannot be sought outside the human mind and its everyday activities. The everyday activities or functions of the human mind, including its ignorance and delusion, are necessary conditions and presuppositions for enlightenment. Without delusion or ignorance, there would be no enlightenment. This was a strictly relational perspective on enlightenment, which can be justified by the teachings of Mahayana scriptures, but was formulated in fresh idiomatic terms.

  Mazu’s teaching caused some concern with its possible antinomian consequences and garnered criticism from Zongmi and Nanyang Huizhong for its failure to distinguish between ignorance and enlightenment, or defilement and purity. Scholars have pointed out that this was a legitimate concern, but there is no evidence that Mazu advocated any antinomianism or deluded mind. To counter the misunderstanding of “this mind is Buddha,” Mazu later used an apophatic proposition that there is neither mind nor Buddha and made clear that all his teachings were nothing but expedient means for therapeutic purposes, pragmatically useful only to specific people in specific situations. As such, Mazu’s teaching was neither merely a foreseeable continuation of the received tradition nor a dramatic shifting of paradigm prompted by an iconoclastic atmosphere.