Appendix I

FROM: A.F. Price & Wong Mou-lam, Trans. The Diamond Sutra & The Sutra of Hui-neng. (Boston: Shambhala, 1990) 138. (PRE TUN-HUANG)

Obras Citadas

Aitken, Robert. The Gateless Barrier. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990.

Dumoulin, Heinrich. Zen Buddhism: A History Vol 1. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988.

Kohn, Michael H., Trans. The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. Boston: Shambhala, 1991.

McRae, John R. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch'an Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986.

Price, A.F. and Wong Mou-lam, Trans. The Diamond Sutra & The Sutra of Hui-neng. Boston: Shambhala, 1990.

Schirokauer, Conrad. A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1978.

Yampolsky, Philip B., Trans. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967.

Yokoi, Yu-ho-. Zen Master Do-gen. New York: Weatherhill, 1987.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF THE NORTHERN SCHOOL OF CH'AN

by Gary L. Ray

The historical accounts of the Northern and Southern Schools of Ch'an demonstrate an unusual, yet vitally important period of development. This period resulted from a seed of creativity planted by the 5th Chinese Patriarch, Hung-jen, and was followed by what could be called the "Golden Age" of Ch'an development. To adequately discuss this we need to first explain how Hung-jen planted this seed, followed by his creative successors who expanded on his teachings. Then we need to discuss Shen-hui, the man who attempted to re-write history by fabricating stories and attempting to re-create the lineage itself. Finally, the aftermath of this attack and the ushering in of the new age of Ch'an will give us a greater perspective of how Ch'an became what it is today.

Ch'an developed slowly in its first 100 years in China. Bodhidharma taught Hui-k'o, Hui-k'o taught Seng-ts'ang and Seng- ts'ang taught Tao-hsin. Ch'an began to blossom creatively with the creation of a new style of teaching, created by Tao-hsin and carried on by his successors. This style of monastic Ch'an continues to the present day and is summed up in a list of rules known as the "pure regulations".

The "pure regulations" include four major points of practice that set the Ch'an community apart from other sects of Buddhism.

These points include:

1. Scriptures were to be studied for their deeper spiritual meaning and not to be taken literally.

2. Ch'an was a spiritual practice for everyone.

3. Activity of any kind is meditation.

4. The community is independent -- creating its own resources, such as growing food.

Although some scholars debate whether the "pure regulations" originated in this period, these trends are noticeable in the Ch'an stories and documents of the 6th and 7th century.

With Ch'an practice codified and carried out, and theemergence of the unified and stable T'ang dynasty, the next generations of students were given a platform on which to base their own ideas and teachings.

During the period of Tao-hsin's lifetime, the argument about sudden versus gradual enlightenment emerged. Although Tao-hsin was a proponent of gradual enlightenment, later generations continued to debate and new schools began to emerge based on doctrinal differences. Tao-hsin's position is summed up in his work FiveGates of Tao-hsin:

Let it be known: Buddha is the mind. Outside of the mind there is no Buddha. In short, this includes the following five things:

First: The ground of the mind is essentially one with the Buddha.

Second: The movement of the mind brings forth the treasure of the Dharma. The mind moves yet is ever quiet; it becomes turbid and yet remains such as it is.

Third: The mind is awake and never ceasing; the awakened mind is always present; the Dharma of awakened mind is without specific form.

Fourth: The body is always empty and quiet; both within and without, it is one and the same; the body is located in the Dharma world, yet is unfettered.

Fifth: Maintaining unity without going astray -- dwelling at once in movement and rest, one can see the Buddha nature clearly and enter the gate of samadhi.

Tao-hsin had two students of prominence: Fa-jung, who started what is now known as the Oxhead School and his successor Hung-jen.

Hung-jen, the fifth Chinese patriarch of Ch'an, has a history similar to the first four patriarchs of Ch'an. He left home early to become a monk, sat for long periods of time in meditation, discarded the sutras, realized enlightenment, and died at an advanced age after transmitting his teachings to a single successor.

Hung-jen marks the beginning of a new period of Ch'an, one characterized by strong master-disciple relationships and the expanding of spiritual practice beyond the Indian dhyana meditations. Hung-jen's spiritual practice was based on the "gradual enlightenment" teachings of his predecessor, Tao-hsin. In the text Tsui-shang-ch'en lun, a work believed to be written by Hung-jen, he gives instruction to his students:

Look to where the horizon disappears beyond the sky and behold the figure one. This is a great help. It is good for those beginners to sit in meditation, when they find their mind distracted, to focus their mind on the figure one.

In this period of expansion of Ch'an practice, Hung-jen had as many as eleven students who he confirmed as mastering the teachings. Even more incredible than this, three of these students, Shen-hsiu, Hui-neng and Chih-hsien started their own schools based on variations of Hung-jen's teachings.

However, the tradition of choosing a dharma heir continued, and Hung-jen's heir was a brilliant student named Fa-ju. For some reason, however, Fa-ju was never included in the list of patriarchs, and at the time, a formal theory of a patriarchal lineage had not been established. Despite the succession of Fa-ju, the official heir to Hung-jen, according to the Confucian scholar Ch'ang Yueh (667-730), is Shen-hsiu.

Before we look at Shen-hsiu, we should first look at the teacher who modern day Zen schools consider the sixth patriarch, Hui-neng. It is almost impossible to separate fact from fiction in the case of Hui-neng. Nearly everything that is known about him comes from the Platform Sutra, a work whose historical basis was completely fabricated. We do know that he was a younger contemporary to Shen-hsiu who led the typical mundane life of the Ch'an teacher as was discussed in the section about Hung-jen.

As for Hui-neng's actual teachings, they were no different from those of Shen-hsiu. In fact, as John McRae discovered in his research, "Ch'eng-kuan of the Hua-yen school, for example, was unable to see any significant difference between the teachings of Northern (Shen-hsiu's) and Southern (Hui-neng's) Ch'an. The arguments over sudden versus gradual enlightenment were complete fabrications created by one of Hui-neng's successors, Shen-hui, who will be discussed later.

Shen-hsiu was a very famous, highly educated teacher who attempted, like Hui-neng, to emulate the teachings of his late master. Shen-hsiu moved to Lo-yang, the capitol, in 701. He was accepted by the Emperor and Empress and even tailored his teachings to fit their needs. This was the beginning of the Zen idea of "skillful means". Shen-hsiu named his school the "East Mountain Teaching" in honor of his teacher Hung-jen, who taught on what was known as the East Mountain.

Up to this time, there was no reference to Northern or Southern schools and there was little or no conflict between methods of spiritual practice. This harmonious period between the time of Hung-jen and the deaths of Shen-hsiu and Hui-neng was the most creative period of Ch'an. However, this broad range of creativity inevitably resulted in conflict. As Heinrich Dumoulin points out: "The rich diversity of spiritual and intellectual elements that flowed together during this early period of Zen Buddhism were the harbinger of conflicts to appear in the following two or three generations." The instigator of these conflicts was a monk named Shen-hui.

It is with Shen-hui and his successors that the colorful legends of Ch'an are created and developed. Before Shen-hui, there had been no Northern and Southern schools, gradual or sudden enlightenment, or even a conflict over lineage.

Shen-hui was a monk from Nan-yang who was determined to start his own school of Ch'an. He studied with Hui-neng for about seven years, until Hui-neng's death in 713. In 732, Shen-hui held a conference in Hua-t'ai at the Ta-yun Temple. This was where he planned his attack against the school of Shen-hsiu which included referring to Shen-hsiu's school as the Northern School, substituting Shen-hsiu for Hui-neng in the lineage, attacking Shen-hsiu's school on doctrinal points and once his attack was successful, declaring himself Hui-neng's successor.

Shen-hui's first line of attack was to create a broader difference between the schools of Hui-neng and Shen-hsiu. He did this by labeling Shen-hsiu's teachings "The Northern School", an attack that implied that Shen-hsiu's school was based on inferior teachings. Before this attack, as was mentioned earlier, Shen-hsiu referred to his school as "The East Mountain Teaching". Shen- hsiu's disciples later referred to their school as the "Southern School". This controversy over what is the Northern School and what is the Southern School is based both on geography (the "Northern School" was in the North) and the Chinese saying nan-tun pei-chien, meaning "suddenness of the South, gradualness of the North".

At the time, sudden enlightenment was considered the true teaching, and everyone identified their school with the practice of sudden enlightenment. Therefore, for Shen-hui to label Shen-hsiu's school "The Northern School" is an insult, implying that Shen- hsiu's school had inferior teachings. It would be similar to referring to Theravadan Buddhism as Hinayana. Heinrich Dumoulin writes: "According to the mainstream of later Zen, not only is sudden enlightenment incomparably superior to gradual enlightenment but it represents true Zen -- indeed, it is the very touchstone of authentic Zen."

Shen-hui's substitution of Hui-neng as the real dharma heir involves a series of fabricated stories and teachings, including re-writing the lineage, and attempting to prove that Hung-jen intended for Hui-neng to be his successor.

Shen-hui first makes his point by saying that from the time of Bodhidharma, each master has given his robes to his successor. This line of succession continues all the way down to Hung-jen, who, according to Shen-hui, gave his robes to Hui-neng. Shen-hui wrote:

The robe is proof of the Dharma, and the Dharma is the doctrine (confirmed by the possession) of the robe. Both Dharma and robe are passed on through each other. There is no other transmission. Without the robe, the Dharma cannot be spread, and without the Dharma, the robe cannot be obtained.

Up to this point, the idea of a singular line of succession did not exist. In fact, when Shen-hui first told this story at the

conference in Hua-t'ai, a representative from Shen-hsiu's lineage expressed puzzlement: "Confused, Ch'ung-yuan asked why there could be only one succession in each generation and whether the transmission of the Dharma was dependent on the transmission of the robe." As most lies tend to be, this one required additional supporting lies to make it stand on its own.

To legitimize these fabricated stories, Shen-hui created another story to complement them. In this story, Shen-hui creates a fictional dialogue that he uses in his teachings: "During his lifetime the Ch'an Master Shen-hsiu stated that the robe, symbolic of the Dharma, as transferred in the sixth generation, was at Shao-chou (near Hui-neng's temple)."

The most important fabricated story is probably the dialogue that takes place between Shen-hsiu and the Empress Wu. Philip Yampolsky describes this story from one of Shen-hui's texts called Nan-yang ho-shang wen-ta tsa-cheng i:

...when the Empress Wu invited Shen-hsiu to court, in the year 700 or 701, this learned priest is alleged to have said that in Shao-chou there was a great master [Hui-neng], who had in secret inherited the Dharma of the Fifth Patriarch.

See Apendix I. This story appears in almost every account of Ch'an in this period, including the Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch which will be discussed later.

Shen-hui then attacks "The Northern School" on doctrinal differences. Again, these attacks are fabricated. Shen-hui claims, as was mentioned in his labeling of Shen-hsiu's teachings, "the Northern School", that the Northern School practices gradual enlightenment. To back up this claim, he uses several fabricated dialogues similar to the ones he used in his robe claims. The most famous one is a dialogue between Master Yuan and Shen-hui about two of Shen-hsiu's successors, P'u-chi and Hsiang-mo:

The Master Yuan said: "P'u-chi chan shih of Sung-yueh and Hsiang-mo of Tung-shan, these two priests of

great virtue, teach men to "concentrate the mind to enter dhyana, to settle the mind to see purity, to stimulate

the mind to illuminate the external, to control the mind to demonstrate the internal." On this they base their

teaching. Why, when you talk about Ch'an, don't you teach men these things? What is sitting in meditation (tso-ch'an)?"

The priest [Shen-hui] said: "If I taught people to do these things, it would be a hindrance to attaining

enlightenment. The sitting (tso) I'm talking about means not to give rise to thoughts. The meditation (ch'an) I'm

talking about is to see the original nature."

This assault was Shen-hui's best shot against the Northern School. As Philip Yampolsky writes: "This attack was clever and effective; it may, however, have been quite unjustified." The Northern School also taught a form of sudden enlightenment. It's teachings were a sophisticated blend of practices derived from the Heart Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra and the teachings of Hua-Yen. As Philip Yampolsky points out, it may have been closer to the teachings of Hung-jen than what Shen-hui promoted.

These descriptions of Shen-hui's attacks might sound as if there was a pitched battle between the Northern School and the Southern School. This was not the case. The "Northern School" as it is known today, ignored Shen-hui. There is not a single reference to Shen-hui in any Northern School text. As John McRae points out, "This failure to rebut Shen-hui's criticism is indicative of the fictitious nature of the entity `Northern School.'" Even if these attacks failed, however, it gave Shen-hui's school much needed publicity. If it had not been for Shen-hui's attack, which drew attention to the school of Hui-neng, Hui- neng's school would have drifted into obscurity. The down side to this for Shen-hui, was that his outspoken attacks attracted the attention of the imperial censor, Lu I, who was in favor of the Northern School. After an interview with Emperor Hsuan-tsung in 753, government officials were convinced that Shen-hui was a dangerous person, and therefore banished him from the capitol, Lo- yang.

Shen-hui was sent to various places during his exile, all of which were strongholds of Northern School teachings. He used this situation to his advantage, preaching and gaining increasing influence through his attacks. The government which banished Shen- hui was driven into exile in 756, when a rebel army took the capital cities in the An Lu-Shan Rebellion. Forced to defend themselves from this attack, the government began fund-raising efforts to support their armies, which included setting up ordination platforms to sell certificates of ordination. Shen-hui was brought back from exile to help in these efforts. In return for his service, the government promised him a position of authority and power. Heinrich Dumoulin responds to this by saying:

It seems ironic that one who so relentlessly criticized masters of the Northern School for carelessly assuming honorific titles and so betraying the true spirit of Bodhidharma should spend his old age basking in the grace of the powers that be.

A discussion of this conflict would not be complete without mentioning the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. This work was composed by a monk of the Ox-head school in an attempt to reconcile the difference between the schools of Northern and Southern Ch'an. In what some Buddhist historians call brilliant planning, the Oxhead School, in writing the Platform Sutra, decided to agree with the doctrinal points of the Northern School while supporting Shen-hui's claim that Hui-neng was the 6th Patriarch. At the same time, they carefully avoided any mention of Shen-hui. The historical accounts of Hui-neng and Shen-hsiu in the Platform Sutra, which some scholars and Zen teachers still hold as true, come mainly from the fictional tales created by Shen-hui. Although the historical accounts in the Platform Sutra are completely false, however, the teachings within it come from the Northern School, and as was pointed out earlier, are very much along the lines of those taught by Hung-jen.

The Northern School continued to exist until the Hui-ch'ang Persecutions of the 9th century (842-845), but without much prestige or power. Shen-hui's school, fostered by the government, became the predominant school of Ch'an. By being so close to the imperial court, Northern Ch'an had become the "trendy" religion of the day. Therefore, it is not surprising that a new trend emerged, a trend led by Shen-hui. This event has prompted Zen masters to warn their students against "setting up shop" near centers of government. 500 years later, Zen Master Do-gen, clearly the most famous Japanese Zen Master, was warned by his Chinese teacher Ju-ching:

You should not live in cities or other places of human

habitation. Rather, staying clear of kings and

ministers, make your home in deep mountains and remote

valleys, transmitting the essence of Zen Buddhism

forever, if even only to a single true Bodhiseeker.

Not only was this loss of favor a reason for Northern Chan's initial decline, but it stood as a blemish against its reputation, not only because of its degeneration but because of the stigma of being a religion of court, and therefore trendy and superficial. Another important, and often overlooked reason for the decline of the Northern School, is argued by John McRae.

McRae's argument is: Why shouldn't the Northern School cease to exist? After all, the labels, lineage tables and arguments over doctrine were insignificant to followers of the Northern School. They were only individuals studying under a teacher in an attempt to follow the path of the Buddha. McRae argues:

There is no evidence that its members took any pledge of

loyalty other than a personal dedication to the

bodhisattva path. Each individual's affiliation was with

the Dharma and with his own master, not to some

institutional entity known as the East Mountain Teaching,

or the Northern School.

Far from being vanquished in a religious struggle, the Northern School simply lost its popularity and slowly declined. However, the Southern School shared the same fate. Although Shen-hui won the battle, forever resulting in the inclusion of Hui-neng as the 6th Patriarch, his Southern School slowly died out due to a lack of creativity among its successors. As Heinrich Dumoulin points out: "There are no names of note among the direct disciples of Shen-hui."

The interaction and creativity of the seven different schools that emerged from the Hui-ch'ang Persecutions became the imaginative force that brought Ch'an to where it is today. They included Hui-neng as the 6th Patriarch, as it was taught in the Oxhead School's Platform Sutra, but left out Shen-hui, substituting his name with the creative leaders of their own schools. This clearly became the Golden Age of Ch'an Buddhism, characterized by "...a relaxing of traditional institutional structures, a loosening of metropolitan controls, a geographical diffusion across the entire country, a deeper penetration among the common people, and in general a widespread process of inculturation."

This period of Ch'an is what eventually resulted in the spread of Ch'an Buddhism to Vietnam, Korea and Japan -- and ultimately to the West. Although this period of infighting was unusual, it was very important in the development of Ch'an. After Shen-hui, Ch'an schools began to cooperate with each other, allowing themselves to grow, both in size and in understanding as students and masters exposed themselves to different aspects of teachings. In fact, there is a Zen tradition today of not looking at "sects" or "schools" of Buddhism as separate or different, but as some of the different manifestations of Buddhist teachings; a "skillful means" for teaching a variety of students. Although the period of Ch'an infighting was lacking in Buddhist spiritual values, it nevertheless brought about a period of cooperation and creativity that exists to the present day.