Daosheng

DeshengZong.
txt
<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Three Language-Related Methods In Early Chinese Chan Buddhism</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#666666" text="#ffcc99"

link="#d9d9b8" vlink="#d9d9b8" alink="#d9d9b8">
ZEN MESTEREK ZEN MASTERS 
<a
href="../index-2.html" target="_parent"> Zen foldal </a> 
<a
href="https://terebess.hu/index.html" target="_top"> vissza a Terebess Online
nyitlapjra</a>
 
Three Language-Related Methods In Early Chinese Chan
Buddhism
by Desheng Zong 
Department of Philosophy and Religion, Central Michigan University 
Philosophy East and West 55/4 (Oct 2005): pp. 584-602
(19) 
© 2005 University of Hawaii Press 
The primary concern
of this essay is the history and philosophical significance of three
language-related methods widely used in Chan practice during the golden age of
Chinese Chan Buddhism, roughly from the eighth to the twelfth centuries. 
 
Known as a school that does not rely on words and erects no systems in its
teaching and practice, Chan more than any other school in the history of philosophy
has relied on unconventional ways to convey its message. For convenience of
discussion, I will call these unconventional ways "methods." Many of these methods
are well known and well discussed. As examples, we may mention the so-called "Five
Ranks" of the House of Caoshan and Dongshan, the "Four Ways of Sorting" and "Four
Ways of Host and Guest" of the House of Linji, and the fourfold use of two types of
symbols (circles) in the House of Guishan and Yangshan. This part of the story is
familiar to students of Chan. 
Pgina 1
DeshengZong.txt
 
The three methods that I discuss here are a different story. Despite their wide
use and indisputable importance, there is surprisingly very little discussion of
them by Chan scholars. Indeed, if I am correct, one of these methods has never been
clearly recognized. As for the other two, although one sees the telling and
retelling of some of the stories and anecdotes as instances of the use of these
methods, rarely are they brought under appropriate general categories that help
expose the meaning and nature of the methods. The present essay is an effort toward
remedying this problem. The first three sections are devoted to a general account
of the three methods. Where possible, the origin, history of use, and the sectarian
source of a method is traced. The fourth section is devoted to deciphering the
philosophical meaning of the methods and how they are supposed to work. I end with
a few remarks on the relation between the philosophical originality of Chinese Chan
Buddhism and its use of language-focused methods such as the ones discussed here.
 
 
The Bodhidharma Method 
 
We are all familiar with the following story about Bodhidharma, the founder or
first patriarch of Chinese Chan Buddhism, and his disciple Huike (Jpn: Eka):

<blockquote>
 
HUIKE: My mind is not at peace. I beg the master to pacify it for me. 
BODHIDHARMA: Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it for you. 
HUIKE: I tried but was unable to find it. 
BODHIDHARMA: I'm done pacifying your mind for you. 
</blockquote>
This story (found in the Wu-deng-hui-yuan, (1) Zu-tang-ji, (2)
Jing-de-chuan-deng-lu, (3) and Wu-men-kuan (4)) has always struck readers of early
Chan writings as significant and refreshing. Perhaps partly for this reason the
story is frequently told in both scholarly as well as popular writings on Chan
Buddhism. Despite this, few have taken the trouble to tell us just what it is that
is significant and refreshing about the story. (5) 
But what many may not be aware of, or may be aware of but have not given it much
thought, is that there is another closely related story that is strikingly similar
to this one. Only this time the story concerns Huike and another person, not
Bodhidharma. (6) It often goes as follows: 
<blockquote>
 Someone who suffered from paralysis [rheumatism?] came to see the 
 second patriarch, Huike, saying: "I beg the master to pardon my 
 sin." Huike said: "Bring me your sin and I will pardon it for 
 you." The person was silent for a long time. He then said: "I 
 tried to look for it but have failed to find it." The master said: 
 "I'm done pardoning your sin." (7)
</blockquote>
Pgina 2
DeshengZong.txt
One wonders if Huike's use of "bring me so and so and I will do such and such for
you" is not a direct result of having received a similar lesson from his own
earlier master. 
 
But there is more. In many Chan writings a similar story is also told about an
incident that happened between Sengcan, the third patriarch of Chan, and Daoxin
(Jpn: Doshin), the fourth patriarch. The story often goes like this: 
<blockquote>
 When Daoxin was fourteen, he came to see Sengcan, saying to the 
 latter: "I beg the master to have mercy. Please instruct me on how 
 to achieve release." The master said: "Is there someone who 
 constrains you?" Daoxin said: "There is no such person." The 
 master said: "Why then seek release when you are constrained by no 
 one?" (8)
</blockquote>
The similarity in the way an answer is given to a question in all three stories
is striking. The questions invariably take the form "Please do such and such about
the so and so," and the answers always take the form "Bring me the so and so and I
will do such and such about it." (9) Furthermore, three of the four men involved in
the stories stand in the relation of either master to student or predecessor to
successor. In view of all this, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that the
three instances may somehow be related. For example, it is very possible that they
are the result of a consistent application of one and the same method, a method
rooted in some shared approach to philosophical issues. Since the first use of this
method was associated with Chan's first patriarch, Bodhidharma, let us, for
convenience of reference, call it "the Bodhidharma method." 
But there is yet another intriguing thing about these three stories. This time it
has to do with their sources. A careful examination shows that all the Chan
histories in which the stories are recorded are Chan writings that were composed no
earlier than the later half of the eighth century. For example, they are all told,
in various forms, in the Zu-tang-ji (A.D. 952), the Jing-de-chuan-deng-lu (A.D.
1004), the Wudeng-hui-yuan (thirteenth century), and the Wu-men-kuan (A.D. 1228).
On the other hand, if one expects to find any of these stories in Chan writings of
the first half of the eighth century or earlier, one is in for a big surprise. For
there is virtually no record whatsoever to be found of stories of this kind. For
example, there are no traces of these stories in Daoxuan's Xu-gao-seng-chuan
(mid-seventh century), (10) nor do we find them in the Chuan-fa-bao-ji (mid-eighth
century), (11) nor are they recorded in the Leng jia-shi-zi-ji (early eighth
century). How can this be explained? 
The early history of Chan Buddhism is still a much-debated subject. It is
generally agreed that beginning from around the third decade of the eighth century
the once prominent Northern school of Chan experienced a dramatic decline; in less
than two decades it had lost not only the political support of the imperial court
and the favor of the social elite of its day, but its lines of succession had also
Pgina 3
DeshengZong.txt
become extinct. The so-called "Southern school of Chan" had replaced Northern Chan
in prominence and influence, both in the elite circles and among the masses. (12)

If we believe this reconstruction of this part of the early history of Chan
Buddhism, in particular the role played by factional figures such as Shenhui
(668-760) in the decline of Northern Chan, we have a very simple explanation of why
the stories are only found in Chan histories composed after (and including) the
late eighth century. To put it bluntly, the Chan writings of the late eighth
century and later reflect the effort on the part of the advocates of the more
recent Southern Chan to justify their new approach and message. The effort took the
form of rewriting the early history of Chan, especially the history of the early
patriarchs. (13) Since the stories about the lives of the first four generations of
the school are entirely absent from reliable sources and are only found in the
writings composed after the Southern school had established its dominance over the
Northern school, it is very plausible that the details added to the lives of the
early patriarchs are the invention of the followers of the newer school with the
purpose of affirming the legitimacy of their new approach. In other words, the
stories are better understood as the result of a projection of the methods and
thinking of the new school into the early history of Chan. If this is indeed the
case, then we must treat the method depicted in the cases, together with whatever
philosophical insight that gave rise to it, strictly as the property of the newer
school. 
That this must be the case is partly borne out by the wide use of the Bodhidharma
method in the decades following the replacement of the Northern school by the
Southern school. Unlike the stories about the early patriarchs, most of the stories
told about the great masters of the period lasting from the late eighth century to
the tenth century stand a better chance of being historical fact. Among them are
the well-known Chan masters Nanyang Huizhong (Jpn: Nan'yo Echo), one of the
foremost direct disciples of the great sixth patriarch Huineng (d. 775), and
Yunmeng Wenyi (Jpn: Hogen Bun'eki) (d. 949), founder of the House of Yunmeng, and
many others. The Wu-deng-hui-yuan records one instance of use of the Bodhidharma
method by Huizhong and two instances of its use by Wenyi: 
<blockquote>
 [Someone] asked [the master Nanyang Huizhong]: "What is the 
 character of the real [lit., "the filled"] dharma?" The master 
 said: "I will show you the real [dharma] if you first bring me the 
 unreal [i.e., the unfilled]." The person said: "The unreal is not 
 to be had." The master said: "If you can't have the unreal, what 
 is the meaning of asking for the real?" (WDHY, p. 101) 
 
 A student asked [the master Yunmeng Wenyi]: "How does one escape 
 life and death when they come?" The master said: "Bring me your 
 life and death" [or, "You owe me a show of life and death"]. 
 (WDHY, p. 929) 
 
Pgina 4
DeshengZong.txt
 The master ascended the lecture hall and said: "... You people are 
 hopeless. As soon as you hear someone talk about the patriarchs 
 and the masters, you start asking about going beyond the
patriarchs 
 and masters. What is it that you call patriarchs and masters? ... 
 [A]s soon as you hear someone talk about the triple world, you 
 start asking how to get out of it. What is it that you call the 
 triple world? How about bringing me that which you call 'the
triple 
 world'...." (WDHY, p. 927)
</blockquote>
The same source contains many other instances of use of the same method by Chan
masters of this period. They are too numerous to cite here. The one thing we can
say at this point is that this method saw continued use far into the tenth century
(and perhaps even later). (14) 
 
The Naming Game 
 
The expression "naming game" (variously called "naming test" and "the trial of
naming," below) is something I have coined for the purpose of this article. The
term is not found in any of the extant ancient Chan literature. There could be
little doubt that this is a method of teaching and testing widely used in Chan
circles in the golden age of Chan. In terms of frequency of use and effectiveness,
few other Chan methods are its equal. The real purpose of the game is the testing
of a Chan follower's ability (or the lack thereof) to break a dilemma set up with
the help of a name, usually of some ordinary object. Here are some typical examples
of the use of this method:
<blockquote>
 
 [The master] held up the shippei [a staff of office carried by an 
 abbot] and asked the monk: "If you call this 'shippei' you commit 
 to the layman's view; if you do not call it 'shippei' you go 
 against it. Without speaking or keeping silent, answer me: How do 
 you call it? Quick! Quick!" (WDHY, p. 141) 
 
 The Chan master Huanglong Zuxin would often hold up his fist and 
 ask his students: "If you call this a 'fist' you are attached to 
 the conventional truth; if you do not call it a 'fist,' you go 
 against it. So how do you call it?" (WDHY, p. 1111) 
 
 In the lecture hall the master often used the whisk as a means of 
 instructing the congregation. [He would often say:] "To call this 
 a whisk is a mistake; but if you do not call it a whisk, I do not 
 know how you will call it." (WDHY, p. 1175) 
 
 A monk came to attend the master. The master pointed at the fire 
 and asked: "This is fire. But you cannot call it 'fire,' for I 
Pgina 5
DeshengZong.txt
 just did." The monk could not answer. (WDHY, p. 203) 
 
 [The master] held up the staff and said: "Where do you people 
 think I got this? If you call this a staff, you are one whose eyes 
 do not see. If you say it is not a staff, you must be one with no 
 eyes." (WDHY, p. 1063)
</blockquote>
The idea, to anticipate a bit, is that he who knows will know how to answer the
question without breaking the rule that has been laid down (e.g., one must not
speak and yet must not keep silent). So one's ability to find a way out of the
dilemma is taken to be a sign of the degree of one's spiritual progress (one's
understanding of the Chan teaching, that is). As we will presently see, the answers
come in a wide variety, ranging from simple verbal responses to acrobatics. 
 
The first thing to be said about this method is its history. It is not entirely
clear what its origin was. The earliest record that I have managed to find that
might be an instance of this method is a short passage in the Leng jia-shi-zi ji,
where it is attributed to none other than the first patriarch Bodhidharma. The
record is as follows: 
<blockquote>
 The master [Bodhidharma] often used ordinary objects in 
 instructing students. He would often point at something and ask: 
 "How do you call this?" He would do this using every available 
 object, often switching the names in formulating a question.
(15)
</blockquote>
This particular record is not found in any of the other early Chan writings. It
is not found, for example, in Daoxuan's Xu-gao-seng-chuan (early seventh century)
or in the Chuan-fa-bao-ji (mid-eighth century). Strangely, it is not found in any
of the later Chan writings, either, despite the fact that it is in these writings
that we see the full blossoming and virtual explosion in the use of this method.
 
 
This fact is itself significant, perhaps in more than one way. I will focus on
only one aspect of it here. A discussion of the teachings of Bodhidharma usually
focuses on meditational techniques (such as the so-called "wall-gazing dhyana"),
the doctrine of "two entrances and four practices," and the role of the Lankavatara
Sutra in his teaching. But if we believe this record of the Leng jia-shi-zi-ji, and
if we believe that what the book is referring to here is the same method of naming
that is under discussion in this section, then we have reason to believe that we
have just unearthed a missing piece in the puzzle about the role of Bodhidharma in
the rise of Chan Buddhism. The puzzle, roughly, is this. Numerous researches
conducted since Stein's discovery of the Dunhuang manuscripts have drilled into our
minds an image of Bodhidharma as a practitioner of wall-gazing meditation and the
above-mentioned "two entrances and four practices." Yet there is very little that
Pgina 6
DeshengZong.txt
is "Chan-like" in these things. (16) No matter what degree of significance scholars
want to attach to this aspect of Bodhidharma' teachings, it just does not add up to
what would amount to the legacy of a man credited with the founding of the Chan
movement. There is, you might say, a missing link. The naming game, on the other
hand, is authentically Chan. If the invention of this method can indeed be
attributed to him, this will at least partly explain the prominent place given to
him in Chan literature." 
 
A second item of note about the naming test is that it is a method used by nearly
all schools of Chan Buddhism. A perusal of the Wu-deng-hui-yuan, for example,
readily reveals that this is a method used by all five houses of Chinese Chan. In
this sense, the naming test is truly the royal road to Chan, for while methods such
as the Five Ranks of the House of Cao Dong or the Four Ways of Subject and Object
of the House of Linji are used only by members of these particular houses,
respectively, this one is embraced by all schools. 
 
A third item of note concerning the naming test has to do with the names of the
objects that are used in setting up the dilemma. These consist largely of names of
simple objects that a Chan monk would have around him. Chan literature contains
stories of playing the naming game using the names of household objects such as a
chair, pillow, water jar, whisk, tea cup; the names of the four compass directions;
the names of animals; and the names of fruits such as a water chestnut. There are
also cases of using abstract terms such as "dream" in these trials. It has often
been pointed out that Chan practice in the golden age had a distinctive modern
flavor to it, in that philosophical issues were tackled in a way that entirely
bypassed doctrines and systems and dealt directly with ordinary things and
situations. 
 
Another thing that the Chan records have made clear is that the naming trial is
not the exclusive prerogative of a master. Although, as the stories above
illustrate, the master is usually the one who uses the method on his students, it
is not uncommon to see students try the same thing on their own masters. For
example: 
<blockquote>
 When the Chan master [Jingging Daofu] first became a master 
 himself, there arrived a traveling monk who, walking in slowly and 
 seizing the fly whisk, held it up and said: "I call this a 'fly 
 whisk.' How does the master call it?" (WDHY, p. 414)
</blockquote>
A fourth notable feature is the informal nature of the method. The naming test is
not an item on a fixed schedule of instruction; there are no rules about how and
when it is to be used. One can have such a test put to one at almost any time of
the day under all sorts of circumstances. For example, it can be put to one as one
is doing something as routine as receiving a water jar from someone: 
<blockquote>
Pgina 7
DeshengZong.txt
 [Master Guishan] tried to pass the water jar to Yangshan. As 
 Yangshan was reaching out to receive it the master suddenly drew 
 back his hand and asked: "What is it?" (WDHY, p. 520)
</blockquote>
If one lets one's guard down, or if one is not one of those who have reached a
level of spiritual progress that allows them to respond flawlessly to unexpected
tests, one can flunk the test when it is put to one at a time when one is least
expecting it: 
<blockquote>
 The Prime Minister Pei came to visit the master [Shishang 
 Qingzhu]. Qingzhu seized and held up the Minister's hu [a short 
 staff carried by state officials as a symbol of office] and asked: 
 "This object is called gui when it is in the hand of an emperor, 
 [and] it is called hu when in the hand of a state official. I 
 wonder what one calls it when it is in the hand of an old monk?" 
 Minister Pei could not answer the question. The master kept the hu 
 himself. (WDHY, p. 287)
</blockquote>
But the method is also frequently used on serious occasions, such as in scheduled
lectures given by a Chan master: 
The master [Huanglong Huinan] ascended the lecture hall ... [;] holding up the
whisk, he said: "People! If you call this a whisk, you are a dead man lying on the
ground; if you do not call it a whisk, you have no understanding of Chan." The
master then hit the couch with the whisk and descended the lecture hall. (The
Recorded Sayings of Chan Master Huanglong Huinan, in Taisho Tripitaka, no. 1993)
 
 
Finally, the method is sometimes used to help make decisions as serious as the
appointment of the head of a new sect (or congregation). The story of Yangshan
Huiji (Jpn: Kyozan Ejaku) nicely illustrates this. It is recorded in the
Wu-deng-hui-yuan that when Guishan Lingyou (Jpn: Isan Reiyu) was still a student of
the great master Baizhang (Jpn: Hyakujo Ekai), a monk named Sima Toutuo came to see
Baizhang. Sima reported his discovery of a great mountain in Hunan and suggested
that Baizhang establish a new monastery there by appointing one of his high
disciples as the head of the new place. Baizhang was inclined to appoint Guishan
Lingyou. But the head monk was not happy, and he contested the decision. Thereupon
Baizhang suggested the following solution, and the issue was resolved to
everybody's satisfaction: 
<blockquote>
 [H]e [Baizhang] pointed at the water jar and said to both Guishan 
 and the head monk: "If one of you can provide a satisfactory 
 answer to my question, the mountain will be his." He pointed at 
 the water jar and asked the head monk: "If you cannot call it a 
 'water jar,' how else might you call it?" The head monk said: 
Pgina 8
DeshengZong.txt
 "Whatever you call it, you cannot call it a 'wooden peg!"' When 
 Baizhang put to Guishan the same question, Guishan kicked over the 
 jar and walked out. "You have just lost the mountain to Guishan," 
 Master Baizhang said to the head monk. (WDHY, p. 520-521)
</blockquote>
The Four Ways of Ju and Yi 
 
In the biography of the Zen master Yexian Guisheng in the Wu-deng-hui-yuan we
find the following: 
<blockquote>
The master
ascended the lecture hall. He first paused for a long time, then spoke thus: "You
traveling Chan monks! Here is something you all need to be aware of: if you
want to get closer and not to be led astray by what's going on around you, then you
must have the right eye in your study and your understanding. How shall one go
about this? [There are four kinds of situations you need to know:] There is the
case of ju arriving but yi failing to show up. This refers to a situation where
imagined things are taken to be real and false distinctions are made on that very
ground. There is the case where yi is there but ju fails to arrive. This refers to
a situation where what is being talked about is not unreal, but different people
are focusing on different aspects of the thing [so they end up talking past each
other]. There is the case where both ju and yi arrive. When this happens, great
illumination is produced, breaking the vast empty space. Finally there is the case
where both ju and yi fail to arrive. We may liken this to the case of a blind man
striding haphazardly ahead and falling in a deep pit. (18) (WDHY, p.
689)
</blockquote>
 What is intriguing
about this passage is that it contains a discussion of two terms, ju and yi, (19)
which are apparently used here as terms of art, four possible situations involving
the two concepts, and an explanation of the meaning of each of the four
combinations. Nothing like this has been mentioned in the Wu-deng-hui-yuan up until
this point. The exact interpretation of the passage need not concern us here. All
we need to keep in mind at this juncture is that the man who is discussing the
issue, the Chan master Yexian Guisheng, was a direct disciple of Shoushan Shengnian
(Jpn: Shuzan Shonen) (d. 993), who was himself one of the foremost disciples of the
great master Linji (Jpn: Rinzai Gigen) (d. 866), founder of the famed House of
Linji (Jpn: Rinzai). 
 
The second time the Wu-deng-hui-yuan mentions the four ways of ju and yi is in
volume 19, which records two more cases of the ju-yi quartet, one in the biography
of the Zen master Zhaojue Keqin (Jpn: Engo Kokugon) (d. 1135) and one in the
biography of the Zen master Kaifu Daoning (Jpn: Kaifuku D6nei) (d. 1152):

<blockquote>
 The master [Kegin] gave a speech to the congregation: "... There 
Pgina 9
DeshengZong.txt
 are times when ju arrives but yi fails to follow up, and there are 
 times when yi arrives but ju fails to follow up. Ju can eradicate 
 yi, and yi can also eradicate ju. When yi and ju run past each 
 other, that's when you know a Chan monk is clueless." (WDHY, 
 p. 1257) 
 
 Someone asked: "What is meant by ju arriving but yi not following 
 up?" The master answered: "An auspicious herb that has no root is 
 used carelessly." "What is meant by yi arriving but ju not 
 following up?" The master said: "The buyer has his attention 
 focused on the goods on the scales rather than on the readings." 
 "What is meant by yi and ju both arriving?" The master said: "The 
 Bodhisattva of Great Compassion [Avalokiteshvara] does not reach 
 out, though he has eyes all over." "What is meant by yi and ju 
 both failing to arrive?" The master said: "You and I go in 
 different directions." (WDHY, p. 1264)
</blockquote>
Both Keqin and Daoning were disciples of the well-known master Wuzu Fayan (Jpn:
Goso Hoen) (d. 1104). The three men played an important role in reviving the Chan
movement, which was rapidly declining amid the strong trend toward secularization
in the society of the time. Again, all three are masters belonging to the House of
Linji. 
 
The last record of the four ways of ju-yi in the Wu-deng-hui-yuan is found in
volume 20. The discussion occurs in a lecture given by the Chan master Wuju Daoxing
on a visit to the famed Guoqing Temple on Mount Tientai. Tientai was one of the
sacred Buddhist centers of the time; it was once the headquarters of the doctrinal
Tientai school. The lecture goes as follows: 
<blockquote>
 There are times when one needs to extirpate both the yi and the 
 ju. On these occasions, one just has to be determined and 
 steadfast and must not let anything pass. There are times when one 
 will approve both the ju and the yi. Though one still needs to be 
 firm and steadfast in holding on to what is right, it does not 
 hurt to leave the ju and the yi as they are. There are also times 
 when one must both approve the ju and the yi and not approve them. 
 There are also times when one must extirpate the ju and the yi as 
 well as not extirpate them.... (WDHY, p. 1314)
</blockquote>
Wuju Daoxing was a fifth-generation master after the great Yangqi Fenghui (Jpn:
Yogi Hoe) (d. 1049). That makes him another authentic master in the House of Linji.
 
 
What shall we make of all this? There seems to be little doubt that what we are
dealing with here is a self-consciously employed philosophical method of some sort.
Pgina 10
DeshengZong.txt
The way in which the two terms ju and yi are used in these cases, in particular in
the careful spelling out of the four possible logical combinations of the two
terms, is all too neat to be an accident. Furthermore, the four records quoted
earlier suggest that this is not a one-time throw-together but is rather a
well-crafted method supported by certain assumptions. This has to be so because,
even if we just focus on the records we have here, we are talking about a time span
of five generations at the least (that is, assuming Yexian Guisheng was the first
to employ the method and Wuju Daoxing the last). Without the assumption that this
method is a tradition handed down from one generation to the next in the House of
Linji, it would be difficult to explain the continuity here. 
There is another important fact. As far as I know, there is no mention of the
four ways of ju and yi in any other schools of Chan in the Chan literature. (20)
This suggests that it might very well be a method used by no other schools of Chan
but the House of Linji. For convenience of discussion, let us call it "the four
ways of ju and yi." 
 
The name of the founder of the House of Linji is often associated with the use of
shouting in teaching. Thus the saying "the cane of De Shan and the shouts of Linji"
(De Shan was a master who used caning in instructing students). The House of Linji
is also known for the use of other famous methods, such as the "Four Ways of
Sorting", the "Four Ways of Host and Guest" the "Four Ways of zhao (understanding)
and yong" (practice), the so-called "Three Mysteries and Three Keys", and the "Four
Ways of the Subjective and the Objective". All this is familiar stuff to students
of Chan. However, if I am right, to this familiar line of Chan methods of the House
of Linji we must now add another, heretofore forgotten, method: the four ways of ju
and yi. 
 

Making Sense of the Methods 
 
Our concern up until now has been mainly historical. I have not said much, if
anything, about the meaning and philosophical significance of these methods. That
is the subject of this section. 
 
The Bodhidharma Method 
 
All cases involving the use of this method share the following feature: the
student asks a question about some property P of a certain object O, and instead of
answering the student's question about P, the master demands of the student that he
bring (or show) him the O first, to which the student would answer that he had
tried but had found nothing. Thereupon he is told that that is the answer. 
Clearly, the working of the method depends partly on the following assumption:
that in order for a concern about some property P of some object O to be possible,
there has to be an O in the first place; if it cannot be shown that there are such
things as O, then a concern about P is a concern about nothing. In other words, it
is a false issue. In the case of Huike, for example, the issue that he brought to
the master was the restlessness of his mind (the sinfulness of the mind in the
Pgina 11
DeshengZong.txt
second case mentioned in the second section above). But in order for there to be
such an issue as the restlessness of mind, there has to be a mind in the first
place. 
 
But what is equally clear is that, for the method to work, there has to be
another assumption, one that is far more substantial than the first one. Suppose I
ask you about some property P of O, and you tell me to forget the whole thing,
because for there to be an issue of P, there has to be O in the first place, and
there is no such thing as O, you say. But suppose instead of just giving up, I ask
you why you think there is no such thing as O. Obviously, you must go beyond the
early assumption, mentioned above, if your answer to this question is to satisfy
me. Moreover, even if you can come up with an answer (say a theory about O to which
you are committed), it is still possible for me to reject it. 
 
This leads us to a third feature about the Bodhidharma method. That is, for the
method to work, both the party that uses it and the party on whom it is used must
already be committed to the truth of the underlying ontological theory or
principle. That this must be the case is borne out by the way students respond to
their masters' answer in most cases involving the use of this method: they
typically do not go on to ask why it is that not being able to bring the things to
their master the way they could regarding, say, a water jug is a reason for
rejecting the reality of the concept or entity in question. They do not, for
example, go on to ask why one's inability to point out mind (sin, life and death,
the triple world, and so forth) in the same way that one points out a rotten apple
in a barrel is a reason for rejecting the reality of mind (sin, life and death, and
so forth). We can bring out the point better in yet another way: imagine trying the
Bodhidharma method on someone who embraces a Platonic ontology; any attempt to use
the method on such a person can only lead to further disputes and arguments. (21)
 
 
So far we have identified three key things that seem to characterize all cases of
use of the Bodhidharma method: an assumed conceptual truth, a supporting
metaphysical doctrine, and a shared belief by both parties in the metaphysical
doctrine or doctrines. This result, however, leads to a puzzle: what could the
point of such a method be if both parties in a situation where the method finds its
use already share, or are already committed to, the same view or principle? The
purpose cannot be that of inducing in the student a belief about the conceptual
truth, for that trivializes the method. Nor can it be to get the student to believe
the metaphysical principle, for the student already believes it. Thus the question:
why the Bodhidharma method? 
 
The key to answering this question, I believe, lies in the third feature of these
cases. Let us examine this point more carefully. If the teacher knows that his
student believes what he himself believes, and yet feels the need to instruct him
further, that may well be because the teacher sees some problem with the way the
beliefs are held by the student. But what can possibly go wrong when a person
believes in some thesis or proposition? There are all sorts of possibilities, but
let us here focus on just two of them. Speaking of believing something, a person
Pgina 12
DeshengZong.txt
may be related to what she believes in one of two ways: the notional way and the
direct way. Let us say that a person's belief in some proposition is notional if
the person is only capable of answering semantic questions relating to the
linguistic (and mental) symbols that express the proposition. On the other hand, a
person who understands a proposition in the direct sense is someone who is capable
of answering semantic questions relating to the proposition as well as other types
of questions. To illustrate: suppose you overhear a person in the next room say
"You are to blame!" Assuming that you understand the language, then, in the
notional sense, you understand what the remark says here: it says that the
addressee is to blame for something that happened earlier. But unless you also
happen to know who the addressee in this particular case is, you do not have direct
understanding of what is said here. Your belief is merely notional. 
 
I want to suggest that an appreciation of something similar to the difference
between the notional and direct understanding of what one believes might very well
be what motivated the invention of the Bodhidharma method. This does not mean that
the inventor of this method must have conceived the difference between the two the
way we have formulated it. A person does not need to possess the concept of
notional understanding in order to appreciate the difference between, say, a person
who knows in a direct way the referent of "you" in "you are to blame" and someone
who does not. But this is all it takes for the invention of a method such as the
one under discussion here. If we accept this, we have a very simple explanation of
the Bodhidharma method: it is designed to force upon the student an awareness of
the two ways a person may hold a belief in a proposition. The use of the method is
simple and straightforward: just as you can forcefully make someone realize the
notional nature of their belief in "you are to blame" by forcefully asking the
question "Bring me (describe to me, point out to me, and so forth) the person you
hear called 'you' and I will do such and such about him/her," you can force someone
to realize the notional nature of their belief in some proposition (say the
proposition "Mind is empty") by forcefully asking the person: "Bring me (point it
out to me) what you here call 'mind' and I will do such and such about it for you."
 
 
That a realization of the distinction between object of belief and ways of
believing must be what informed the Bodhidharma method gains support from another
Chan method to which we now turn. 
 
The Four Ways of Ju and Yi 
 
Although not much detail is given in the four texts cited in the third section
above about the purposes and underlying principle of this method, with the help of
what is contained in these passages and comparison with the other types of "four
ways" (some of these are relatively well understood), an illuminating picture can
be pieced together about the method, a picture that provides further support for
the claim I made at the end of the last subsection. 
 
Of the four passages on the four ways of ju and yi, the one found in the
biography of the master Kaifu Daoning is the most accessible. According to Daoning,
Pgina 13
DeshengZong.txt
a man of Chan must be aware of four types of situations when the use of language is
involved: (1) the use of sentences without accompanying understanding; (2)
understanding unaccompanied by the use of sentences; (3) the use of sentences and a
corresponding understanding going hand in hand; and (4) no use of sentences nor an
appearance of understanding. Daoning also makes it clear that case 3 is the only
case of which he approves. (22) 
 
What are we to make of all this? The answer would seem to lie in the key word
"understanding." Unlike the concept of meaning, which is a semantic concept, the
concept of understanding has more to do with psychology than with metaphysics/
semantics. So, at least on the face of it, the four ways of ju and yi looks like
another Chan method whose purpose is to enable Chan followers to better evaluate
their own situations (if one is a student) or those of others (if one is a teacher)
when it comes to the understanding of Buddhist teachings (recall the distinction
made earlier about the difference between the direct versus the notional way of
believing a proposition). If this is indeed what the four ways of ju and yi are
about, we have a straightforward explanation of Kaifu Daoning's assertion that case
3 is the only commendable case. The reason is simple: while case 3 is the only case
in which notional and direct understanding go hand in hand, the other cases all
fail to pass this test. 
 
(1) Case 1 is problematic because the mere ability to utter a (grammatically
correct) sentence only indicates the appearance of a notional way of believing
something; it does not necessarily entail the appearance of a direct understanding
of the thing said by the uttering of the sentence. A story recorded in the life of
Yunmen Wenyan may serve as an illustration: when Wenyan was on his way to see the
great master Xuefeng Yicun he met a monk who was also traveling for the same
purpose. "Please deliver a word to the master on my behalf," said Wenyan to the
monk, who was leaving early. "But do not tell him it's my word." The monk arrived
in Yicun's lecture hall and made the following remark: "You are in shackles; why
don't you shake them off!"-which was what Wenyan had told him to say. Upon hearing
the monk's remark, Yicun came down and grabbed him by the chest, saying: "Say
something, quick!" The monk could not say a word. Yicun pushed him to the side,
saying: "That's not your word." When the monk insisted that the remark was indeed
his own, Yicun called out: "Aide, bring me the rope and the cane!" Frightened, the
monk immediately revealed the truth (WDHY, p. 922). In this story, although the
monk had transmitted the word correctly ("You are in shackles"), he had little idea
of what it meant. 
 
(2) Case 2 is problematic because, without some kind of notional representation,
which comes only with the use of language, the issue of direct understanding in
many cases does not even arise. A sentence such as "Mind is empty of self-nature"
is an example: if I had never heard such a sentence uttered (perhaps by a Buddhist
monk), the idea that it might be a good thing to gain a true (direct) understanding
of it would not occur to me; if it never did, I would never stand a chance of
acquiring a direct understanding of such a thing as the emptiness of mind. 
(4) Case 4 is probably the worst of the four, for there is not only a lack of any
notional way of believing something, but no direct understanding of whatever kind
Pgina 14
DeshengZong.txt
is involved. Yexian Guisheng used the example of "a blind man striding haphazardly
ahead and falling into a deep pit," but a modified version of this example
illustrates the point more clearly: suppose a person is both deaf and blind from
birth, and has never heard of the word "snow" or come into contact with any sample
of it. It would follow that the person would lack a notional ("the stuff that is
fluffy, flaky, cold and damp") as well as a direct understanding of snow (the stuff
itself). 
 
Clearly, the realization that what one believes and how one believes it are two
entirely different things is the fundamental insight that informs the Bodhidharma
method and the four ways of ju and yi. Equally important is the fact that the
insight was not used in erecting theoretical edifices but was rather employed in
addressing actual utterances of sentences and instances of beliefs in individual
language users. Chinese Buddhist philosophy, and Chinese philosophy in general, had
not seen anything like it. The rise of Chan Buddhism is, of course, a complicated
social and cultural phenomenon having multiple causes, but the great vigor and
excitement that so characterized this new religious movement must have had a lot to
do with the methods that formed the intellectual cornerstone of Chan's daily
practices. 
 
The Naming Game 
 
Despite its wide use and long history, no clear explanation of this method is
available to us. The Chan writings of the ancients are silent on this; no ancient
masters have been recorded explaining the meaning of the method. We can only
examine the cases and try to make reasonable conjectures. 
 
There is little doubt that names (natural-kind terms, mass terms, and names of
artifacts) are the central concern in all these cases. It is natural to think,
given the role that names play here, that this must be a method that is designed to
teach the student the appropriate way to handle the issue of reference within the
context of Buddhist practice. The larger concern, of course, is the appropriate
understanding of the Mahayana notion of emptiness. This assumption will guide my
discussion here. 
If things are empty of that which makes a real thing real, then names do not
refer. If they do not refer, then you violate the Buddhist teaching of emptiness
when, following the person in the street, you call a spade a spade. This seems to
be a natural conclusion to draw. And Chan masters sometimes encourage this type of
thinking. This would explain stories such as the one cited above, where the master
clearly tells the student that to call the fist a "fist" or a staff a "staff" or
fire "fire" is committing to the layman's view and is a violation of the Buddha's
teaching. In view of cases like this, one is tempted to draw the lesson that
perhaps the proper way is to not use language the way it is used by the person in
the street. But Chan masters have made it clear that this is also wrongheaded. The
following story shows this: 

<blockquote>
 On
Pgina 15
DeshengZong.txt
one occasion the zazen was led by a lay disciple. The master 
 asked: "What does a man who understands the meaning of zazen call 
 east?" The lay disciple said: "Whatever he may call it, he doesn't 
 call it 'east.'" The master blasted out: "You stinky donkey! How 
 else are you going to call it if you don't call it east?!" (WDHY, 
 p. 238)
</blockquote>
To add to the student's confusion, masters would often approve of the "calling a
spade a spade" type of answer to the naming test. Consider the well-known story
about the founders of the House of Gui and Yang: 
<blockquote>
 While walking with Yangshan on one occasion, the Chan master 
 Guishan asked, pointing to a cypress tree: "What's that ahead?" 
 Yangshan said: "A cypress tree." Master Guishan then turned to a 
 nearby farmer plowing and put to him the same question. "A cypress 
 tree," answered the farmer. Master Guishan exclaimed: "Here is 
 another future master of a congregation of five hundred!" (WDHY, 
 p. 523)
</blockquote>
So what is the appropriate way to handle the relation between a name and the
named? Based on the cases considered so far, it seems that the only proper
conclusion to draw is that an all-or-nothing attitude is not the right approach.
Instead, whether one has acted appropriately in using (not using) some bits of
language is an issue to be decided on the basis of whether certain conditions are
satisfied. What conditions? Answering this question, no doubt, is a daunting job.
But there are clues. Consider the following cases: 
<blockquote>
 [The master] held up the shippei and asked the monk: "If you call 
 this 'shippei' you commit yourself to the layman's view; if you do 
 not call it 'shippei' you go against it. Without speaking nor 
 keeping silent, answer me: How do you call it? Quick! Quick!" The 
 monk said: "I shall answer the master's question if he would 
 please first put down the shippei." Just as the master was putting 
 down the shippei the monk shook out his sleeves and walked out of 
 the lecture hall. The master said to the attending monk: "Take 
 good notice of this monk!" (WDHY, p. 1278) 
 
 Once the master [Joshu] folded his fingers and said to the 
 students: "I call this a 'fist.' What about you people? How do you 
 call it?" A monk replied: "How can the master direct we students' 
attention to external things!" The master said: "I do not direct 
 your attention to external things. If that was my intention, I 
 would be misleading you." The monk said: "But still, what should 
 one do regarding this [the fist that is]?" Holding his hands in 
Pgina 16
DeshengZong.txt
 the way a Buddhist monk does when he takes leave, the master got 
 up and left. (Gu-zun-su-yu-lu, vol. 14) 
 
 [Master Guishan] was passing the water jar to Yangshan. As 
 Yangshan was reaching out to receive it the master suddenly drew 
back his hand and asked: "What is it?" Yangshan said: "What is it 
 that Master still sees?" Guishan said: "If that's how you see the 
 matter, why did you bother reaching out to me for it just now?" 
 Yangshan said: "That being the case, still it's a disciple's duty 
 to carry the water jar for his master." Guishan then passed the 
 water jar to Yangshan. (WDHY, p. 520)
</blockquote>
These are all approved cases. If we can find out why they are approved, we will
have discovered the message, or at least something very close to it. Is there some
common thread that runs through all these cases? I believe there is, and I think
the following saying nicely summarizes it: "Where it doesn't itch, don't scratch."
Put another way, the lesson is that the correct way to handle the issue of
reference is the way that does not make an issue out of the issue of reference. All
three cases allow an easy interpretation along this line. 
 
Take the second case first. Is it a fist, or do you call it something else, the
student wants to know, when you hold up your hand like that. But what the student
fails to realize is that, without a fixed context, there can be no fixed answer.
For why should one refuse to call it a fist, since it is a fist? But on the other,
why call it a fist, since it can be something else as well? A hand with fingers
folded that way is a fist, but it is also a hand with fingers folded (and therefore
to be called "hand with fingers folded"). It could also be, say, a bunny's head, a
hammer, or a grenade to be thrown out (when acting on stage, for example). So there
are dozens of things a folded hand can be, depending on the circumstances. So, is a
folded hand a fist, or is it not a fist? Now master Joshu did not give a direct
answer to that question. Instead, he did something with his folded hands in a
situation where that act is most appropriate: he felt it was time that he left, so
he held up his hands, folding them the way an ancient Chinese monk would when he
takes leave of someone, and took his leave. In doing this, not only did he answer
the student's question and show the student the proper way to handle the issue, he
did so without creating a disturbing ripple in the flow of one's daily life. 
 
Similar things can be said about the other two cases. Take the case about
shippei. The master wants to test a visitor's understanding of Chan. A challenge is
issued: "You can't call this a shippei, and you can't keep silent, either. So what
do you call it?" What the visitor did next is most remarkable: he used the very
word which he is told not to use; but the word is used to make a remark the effect
of which results in the arousing of an expectation in the audience for something
yet to come. Because of the heightened expectation to see the imagined drama to
follow, the visitor is able to get away with the use of the forbidden word, since
everyone's attention now is on the drama to come. But there is no drama to come. To
the visitor, the use of the very name-by himself a second before-was the real magic
Pgina 17
DeshengZong.txt
itself, a magic that repeats itself every day in our lives: one utters it, an
understanding takes place in someone, an act is performed and something gets done.
An instance of a miracle, but not through the conscious effort of any of the
parties involved! In essence, this is a drama that is over before it even begins.
The visitor's walking out after he made the remark is a silent answer to the
audience's false expectation: "The real show is over. What else are you expecting?"
The depth of the visitor's understanding impressed the master so much that he
immediately ordered his attending monk to "make sure this good monk gets taken care
of!" 
 
In all of these cases, not making an issue out of an issue is achieved by putting
the use of language back in its ordinary context, in the natural flow of one's
daily activity. In that context, there are no names that do not have their proper
job, including the job of referring. In contrast, the condemned cases all involve
using words out of context, involving creating an issue where there is none. Take
the lay disciple who says that the enlightened one will not call east "east." Why
would the enlightened refuse to call east "east"? What reason would he have for
refusing to do that? The lay disciple's answer suggests that our ordinary practices
are doubly at fault: they are at fault when they employ a name that does not fit
the case; second, they are also at fault for failure to acknowledge a property that
the compass direction "east" is said to possess: that is, the property of being
unnamable. In the view of Chan, this is much ado about nothing at its worst. (23)
 
 
Conclusion 
 
It is an assertion routinely made by many who study Chan Buddhism that the rise
of Chan represents a new stage in the development of Chinese Buddhism, that Chan is
highly original and refreshing. But there can be no philosophical breakthrough
without the discovery of new conceptual tools or perspectives. So what are the
conceptual breakthroughs that brought about Chan as a philosophy? Or, put another
way, wherein lies Chan's originality? A great number of suggestions have been made,
and yet there is always something unsatisfactory about these answers. (24) 
 
If what I have said here is correct, part of the originality must be sought in
methods of the type explored here. These methods are vital to our understanding of
Chan Buddhism, not only in the sense that their applications constituted a ma jor
part of a Chan person's daily life in the golden age of Chan, but also because the
ideas and approaches that made these methods possible are so drastically different
from anything Chinese philosophy had seen up until that point. If we are to have a
better understanding of this philosophical legacy, more meticulous attention must
be paid to the analysis of language-related methods, of the type discussed here.

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
 
Notes 
Pgina 18
DeshengZong.txt
 
This essay makes heavy use of original sources in the Chinese language.
Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. Some of the material used here
is taken from a related paper that I presented to the Department of Philosophy and
Religion at Central Michigan University in April 2002. I wish to thank Professor
Guy Newland for some very helpful comments he made on that occasion. I am also
greatly indebted to an anonymous reader for this journal whose comments greatly
helped me in improving this essay. 
 
(1) -- Wu-deng-hui-yuan (composed ca. 1252), p. 44. English translation, "A
Compendium of the Five Lamps"; Japanese, "Goto Egen." I rely heavily on this
particular source in this essay. For convenience of reference, the abbreviation
WDHY is used throughout. Unless indicated otherwise, all page numbers and quotes
are based on the original Chinese-language edition of this work (Beijing: Zhonghua
Shuju, 1984). 
(2) -- Zu-tang-ji, by Shijing and Shiying (late tenth century) (Loyan, Henan
Province: Zhong Zhou Publishing House, 2001), vol. 2. 
(3) -- Jing-de-chuan-deng-lu or Jing-de-lu, vol. 3, in Taisho Tripitaka, vol.
51, no. 2076, pp. 196-467. 
(4) -- Wu-men-kuan, Case 41, in Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 48, no. 2005. 
(5) -- H. Dumoulin's handling of the story is typical. See his well-known
work Zen Buddhism: A History, chap. 6, where he says that the story has Bodhidharma
and Huike "set up as models for the transmission of the Buddha mind" (p. 92), but
gives no explanation of what he means by this. 
(6) -- According to the Tian-sheng-guang-deng-lu, one of the five sources of
the Wudeng-hui-yuan, this person was Sengcan (Jpn: Sosan), who was to become the
third patriarch. 
(7) -- WDHY, p. 47; Zu-tang-ji, vol. 2; Jing-de-lu, vol. 3. There is a nice
discussion of the doctrine about and practice of repentance in Chan Buddhism in an
article by Zhan Ru that also makes a brief reference to this case. But the author's
concern there is quite different from what I am pursuing here. See Dharma Sound 3,
no. 151 (1997): 13. 
(8) -- WDHY, pp. 48-49; Zu-tang-ji, vol. 2; Jing-de-lu, vol. 3. 
(9) -- The last story does not exhibit this form as clearly as the first two,
but the general structural similarity of the stories is undeniable; they all share
the pattern of someone begging another person to relieve a certain problem. 
(10) -- Tao-xuan, Xu-gao-seng-chuan, in Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 50, no. 2050,
pp. 425-707. 
(11) -- Tufei, Chuan-fa-bao-ji, in Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 85, no. 2838, p.
1291. 
(12) -- For an account of these changes, including the role of Shenhui in all
this, see the various influential writings on the early history of Zen Buddhism by
Hu Shih. See in particular Pu-ti-da-muo-kao, in Hu Shih wen-can-san-ji (Shanghai,
1930), pp. 449-465; Leng-jia-zhi-zi-ji-xu, in Hu Shih lun-xue-jin-zhu (Shanghai,
1935), vol. 1, pp. 239-247; He-ze-da-shi-sheng-hui-chuan, in ibid., 1:248-290. 
(13) -- For the claim that such a reconstruction (or invention) of the early
history of Zen (up to the sixth patriarch Huineng) did take place, see Hu Shih's
important study concerning the Lankavatara school. But see in particular his
Pgina 19
DeshengZong.txt
Leng-jiazong-kao, in Hu Shih lun-xue-jin-zhu, 1:198-238. 
(14) -- Here are a few more examples, all found in WDHY: "bring me life and
death" (p. 419), "bring me the triple world" (p. 517), "bring me your illness" (p.
821), and "bring me your illness" (p. 826). The appeal of the Bodhidharma method
proved so powerful that even the anti-Buddhist Neo-Confucians found it hard to
resist. When, for example, a student of Wang Yangming complained to the latter that
selfishness is hard to uproot, Wang is reported to have given the man the following
answer: "Bring me your selfishness, and I will uproot it for you!" (Chuan-xi-lu,
vol. 1). The connection here is too obvious to miss. 
(15) -- Huiran (d. 746), Leng-jia-shi-zi-ji, in Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 85,
no. 2837, pp. 1283-1291. 
(16) -- Qisong (d. 1007), the author of the Chuan-fa-zheng-zong-ji, is the
earliest to raise this issue. He questioned the authenticity of the alleged legacy
of Bodhidharma, for example the "two entrances and four practices" and wall gazing.
In his view, even if these can be attributed to Bodhidharma, they cannot be "the
final teaching" of the patriarch. See Chuan-fa-zheng-zong-ji, vol. 5. 
(17) -- The Japanese Chan scholar Sekiguchi takes this record as a precursor
of koans of later Chan, and John McRae has also offered a cautious endorsement of
Sekiguchi's interpretation. See John R. McRae, "Antecedents of Encounter Dialogue
in Ch'an Buddhism," in Steven Heine and Dale Wright, eds., The Koan: Texts and
Contexts in Zen Buddhism (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 58. Certainly, whether
"koan" or McRae's own term "encounter dialogue" is the correct way to characterize
the method in question is a debatable issue, but there can be little doubt that
these two authors have touched on something significant here: a link between this
record and a certain type of later Chan practice. However, McRae has expressed
doubts about the plausibility of attributing the method to Bodhidharma. 
(18) -- This lecture is not found in the Tian-sheng-guang-deng-lu (composed
ca. 1029), one of the five sources on which the Wu-deng-hui-yuan is based. 
(19) -- A few words about the translation of the two words ju and yi. I think
we probably would not be too far off the mark if we interpreted the former to mean,
roughly, "uses of language at the level of sentences." In other words, the making,
issuing, or expressing of thoughts, statements, claims, reports, questions, and
orders. As for yi, although this Chinese word allows two readings, "meaning" and
"understanding" (or believing), I believe "understanding" is the better
translation, since it is the use of language, not language itself, that is the
concern here. 
(20) -- Besides what is cited here, I was also able to find one record of the
four ways in the Ren-tian-yan-mu (written in A.D. 1188 in the Northern Song dynasty
by a man of the House of Linji). 
(21) -- A few words need to be said here about the exact content of the
principle. That is, what is it that the two parties share in a typical instance of
the use of the method? Here we have two options. We can identify this principle
with the most general Mahayana thesis that all dharmas are empty (empty of what
makes a real thing real), or we can identify it with some specific ontological
doctrine of some sub-school in the Mahayana tradition, such as the ontological view
of the Cittamatra school, whose metaphysical views informed the Lankavatara Sutra,
which Bodhidharma is believed to have made the core of his teaching. My belief is
that the former is the better choice. This allows us to say that the method's
Pgina 20
DeshengZong.txt
intended audiences are those who believe in the Mahayana idea of emptiness,
regardless of their commitment to specific sectarian views on that notion. On the
other hand, if we take the latter option, we get the result that the method is only
applicable to followers of Cittamatra. The first option definitely sounds better.
 
(22) -- That Daoning would approve of only case 3 is not surprising. The
other types of "four ways" that the House of Linji and other schools employ also
identify one and only one case as the correct one. 
(23) -- The originality of this new approach to names and reference can
hardly be overemphasized. To see this, one need only compare the use of proper
names in the doctrinal schools of Buddhism of the time. An excellent example is Tu
Shun's (557-640) use of the name "pillow" in the Hua-yen-wu-jiao-zhi-guan (Tu Shun
is the founder of the Hua-yen school of Chinese Buddhism). The reader is urged to
consult that text. 
(24) -- The suggested explanations range from "discovery of the ineffability
of truth" (Fung Yu-Ian) to "agrarian mentality of the Chinese" (D. T. Suzuki). Most
of these suggestions suffer from two problems: either the suggested originality is
not at all that original, or the suggested key factor turns out to be too general
to play the role of the catalyst or mechanism in a philosophical revolution. I
address this issue in a separate paper.
</blockquote>
 
 
</blockquote>

</html>
Pgina 21

Daosheng

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Daosheng

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DeshengZong.

<!-- Mirrored from terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/DeshengZong.html by HTTrack Website

<body bgcolor="#666666" text="#ffcc99"

<!-- Mirrored from terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/DeshengZong.html by HTTrack Website

S-ar putea să vă placă și