In medieval Chinese Buddhism, the scriptures functioned as chief sources of religious authority. They provided standards for adjudicating the authenticity and orthodoxy of different doctrines and practices. Throughout the period of division and into the Tang era, the translation and exegesis of Indian scriptures and treatises were major concerns of Chinese Buddhists, and leading translators and exegetes were among the most esteemed members of the clergy. Canonically sanctioned traditions shaped virtually all aspects of Buddhist life and praxis, including rituals, ethical observances, monastic mores, and institutions.
The exalted status of canonical texts did not preclude their creative use (and misuse) by thinkers eager to lend scriptural support to the new forms of religious and philosophical discourses they were creating as participants in the ongoing Sinification of Buddhism.48 As they were formulating tenets that reflected native intellectual concerns and
monks such as Zhiyi (of the Tiantai school) and Fazang (of the Huayan school) bolstered their interpretations with copious quotations from canonical texts. They made considerable efforts to find scriptural support for their creative philosophical formulations, even when they were moving in directions not envisaged by the canonical texts.
In the case of the Huayan school, its complexdoctrinal system was supposedly meant to elucidate the essential meaning of the Huayan Scripture, while the Tiantai school made similar claims concerning the Lotus Scripture (Miaofa
lianhua jing). Starting with Zhiyi, the emphasis in scriptural exegesis shifted from literal interpretation toward an
exploration of the texts' “profound meaning” (xuanyi). An example of this tendency is Zhiyi's Fahua xuanyi (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Scripture), which supposedly provides exegesis of the Lotus Scripture. In fact, much of Zhiyi's lengthy discussion consists of exhaustive interpretation of the five characters that constitute the title of the Chinese translation of the Lotus Scripture. In his explanation of the scripture's subtle meaning, Zhiyi enters into all sorts of philosophical speculations that—although of great significance in the intellectual history of Chinese Buddhism—have little connection with the original text of the scripture.49 Similarly, when he developed his ingenious scheme of
interpreting the four noble truths in four different ways, Zhiyi claimed that he was following the Mahāparinirvāṇa
Scripture.50
The same reverential attitude toward the Buddhist canon was characteristic of early Chan, even if scriptural exegesis was not a major concern of Chan teachers.51The tradition's early history was marked by a tendency to legitimize Chan
practice by recourse to the canonical tradition. An eagerness to co-opt scriptural authority can be seen in the appropriation of the Laṅkāvatāra Scripture (Lengqie jing) as a symbol for the transmission of Chan, initially advanced by the followers of Hongren and retroactively imputed back to Bodhidharma.52The choice of the scripture as a symbol
for the Chan transmission was a logical step in the Chan school's search for legitimacy. As Faure has suggested, the
Laṅkāvatāra was probably transmitted in the early Chan school more as a talismanic text than as a doctrinal scripture,
as there is little evidence that its doctrines were of great interest to Chan monks.53Lengqie shizi ji, the earliest text that
makes the connection, goes as far as to recognize Guṇabhadra (394–460), the Indian monk who produced the first Chinese translation of the scripture, as a Chan patriarch who directly preceded Bodhidharma, even though he had no connection with the Chan school, which in any event did not exist at the time.54
Another example of the symbolic use of a canonical text is Shenhui's employment of the Diamond Scripture (Jin'gang jing) to buttress his claims to orthodoxy and authority. His recourse to the Diamond Scripture as a symbol for the Chan transmission was a response to the Northern school's appropriation of the Laṅkāvatāra. Shenhui claimed that all Chan patriarchs, from
Bodhidharma until Huineng, advocated and transmitted the Diamond Scripture, not the Laṅkāvatāra.55 A similar
emphasis on the Diamond Scripture is evident in the Platform Scripture, which might point to Shenhui's influence on this text. There Huineng is recorded as saying: “With only the one volume of the Diamond Scripture you may see into your own nature and enter the samādhi of prajñā.”56In these instances, we can see how scriptures were used as tokens of
authority in conflicts over orthodoxy. In effect, the scriptures became symbols of authenticity and tools of legitimization appropriated by different monks and factions within the early Chan movement.
Comparable attitudes toward canonical texts and traditions are discernble in the records of the Niutou school, whose teachings were influenced by the philosophical tenets of the Madhyamaka tradition, mediated by the doctrinal formulations of the Tiantai and Sanlun schools.57A penchant for invoking canonical authority is also evident in Lidai
fabao ji, the main record of the Baotang school. Notwithstanding the image of its leader, Wuzhu, as an iconoclast who
repudiated traditional doctrines and practices, the text starts with a list of Buddhist works popular at the time (thirty- seven titles in total). The list includes canonical texts such as the Nirvāṇa, Lotus, and Diamond scriptures, as well as apocryphal works such as Faju jing and Chanmen jing. These works are also quoted in the main body of the text, along with other Buddhist and non-Buddhist works.58 Early Chan also took the additional step of creating apocryphal
scriptures. One such example, probably originating in Korea, was the Vajrasāmadhi Scripture (Jin'gang sanmei jing), composed during the seventh century in order to lend scriptural support to the doctrines of the nascent Chan school.59
The method of “symbolic exegesis” is yet another example of the tendency to legitimize Chan practice by recourse to concepts and passages from canonical texts.60 Examples of it can be found in the Platform Scripture, the Northern
school manuscripts, the records of Shenhui, the Lidai fabao ji, and Dazhu's Dunwu yaomen.61 Its employment as an
exegetical strategy involved redefining traditional Buddhist practices and rubrics, which were reinterpreted as metaphors in a manner peculiar to the Chan school. One of the key objectives of this procedure was to establish a close connection between Chan meditation and ideas found in the scriptures. Here is an example from the Lidai fabao
ji, in which Wuzhu correlates the three propositions taught by Wuxiang (no remembering, no thought, and no
forgetting) with the traditional Buddhist rubric of the three trainings (observance of the precepts, concentration, and wisdom) and then collapses them all into the Chan formula of “no thought”:
The Minister [Du Hongjian (709–796)] asked: “Did Reverend Kim [Wuxiang] talk about no remembering, no thought, and no forgetting?” The Reverend [Wuzhu] relied: “Yes.” The Minister also asked: “Are these three propositions one or three?” The Reverend relied:
“They are one, not three. No remembering is [the observance of] precepts, no thought is concentration, and no forgetting is wisdom.” He also said: “Not giving rise to thoughts is the precepts, not giving rise to thoughts is concentration, and not giving rise to thoughts is wisdom. No thought is the complete perfection of the precepts, meditation, and wisdom.”62
The employment of symbolic exegesis as a kind of “expedient means” reflects early Chan's efforts to trace its doctrines back to the scriptures. This strategy developed as the Chan school was moving from the margins into the mainstream and aimed at demonstrating that its teachings were genuine expressions of the Buddhadharma.63If bizarre metaphors
and forced interpretations could help achieve that, Chan teachers apparently were quite willing to use them.
In the records of the Hongzhou school, there is little evidence of symbolic exegesis or the other strategies for bridging the gap between Chan and the canonical tradition noted previously. In fact, there are hardly any instances of explicit invocation of canonical authority. A rare exception is a passage that opens one of Mazu's sermons:
The Patriarch [Mazu] said to the assembly, “All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha. The Great Master Bodhidharma came from India to China and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahāyāna so that it can lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used the Laṅkāvatāra Scripture to seal the sentient beings' mind-ground. Therefore, in the Laṅkāvatāra Scripture, the Buddha stated that mind is the essential teaching, and the gate of nonbeing is the Dharma-gate.”64
This passage is remarkable because it indicates that Mazu accepted the connection between Chan and the Laṅkāvatāra
Scripture. It can also be read as implying his rejection of the link between the Southern school and the Diamond Scripture
promoted by Shenhui and his followers—which, in regard to this particular issue at least, places Mazu closer to the position of the Northern school.65 While this kind of explicit invoking of scriptural authority is atypical of the
Hongzhou school's records, that does not mean Mazu and his disciples rejected the canon or were immune to its influences. In fact, scriptural quotations and allusions fill their records, even though the full extent of their usage of canonical sources is not immediately obvious, as an example from one of Mazu's sermons shows:
Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything. Outside of mind, there is no other Buddha; outside of Buddha, there is no
other mind. Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil, without reliance on either purity or defilement, one realizes that the nature of offense is empty: it cannot be found in each thought because it is without self-nature. Therefore, the three realms are mind-only and all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma. Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form. Whatever you are saying, it is just a phenomenon that is identical with the principle. They are all without obstruction, and the fruit of the way to awakening is also like that.
If not familiar with classical Buddhist literature, one might at first assume that this passage expresses a viewpoint unique to the Chan school. After all, we are often led to believe that Chan teachings are unique expressions of sublime wisdom, unlike the teachings of other Buddhist traditions. Let us now present the same passage, but this time interpolating information about the canonical quotations and allusions in the text:
[The Vimalakīrti Scripture says] “Those who seek the Dharma should not seek for anything.” [As it is taught in the
Huayan Scripture,] Outside of mind, there is no other Buddha; outside of Buddha, there is no other mind. [As
taught in the Mahāsamnipata-sūtra and the Huayan Scripture,] Not attaching to good and not rejecting evil, without reliance on either purity or defilement, one realizes that [as explained in Foshuo Foming Scripture and other Buddhist texts,] “the nature of offense is empty”: it cannot be found in each thought because it is without self-nature. Therefore, [as explained in the Huayan and Laṅkāvatāra scriptures] “the three realms are mind-only,” and [as stated in the Faju jing] “all phenomena in the universe are marked by a single Dharma.” Whenever we see form, it is just seeing the mind. The mind does not exist by itself; its existence is due to form. Whatever you are saying, it is just [what Dushun's Fajie guanmen refers to as] “a phenomenon which is identical with the principle.” [As it is said in Huayan texts,] they are “all without obstruction,” and the fruit of the way to awakening is also like that.66
What at first sight appeared to be a paragraph of distinctively Chan teachings turns out to be a collection of canonical quotations, accompanied by comments that explicate or draw connections between the scriptural passages. This passage is by no means unique in that regard. Here is another example from Mazu's sermons:
[The Vimalakīrti Scripture says,] “Not obliterating the conditioned and not dwelling in the unconditioned.” The conditioned is the function of the unconditioned, while the unconditioned is the
essence of the conditioned. Because of not dwelling on support, it has been said [in the Huayan Scripture that it is] “like space which rests on nothing.” [According to Dasheng qixin lun,] the mind can be spoken of [in terms of its two aspects,] “birth and death, and suchness.” [As pointed out in early Chan texts,] The mind as suchness is like a clear mirror that can reflect images.67The mirror symbolizes the mind, while the images symbolize the dharmas.
If the mind grasps at dharmas, then it gets involved in external causes and conditions, which is the meaning of birth and death. If the mind does not grasp at dharmas, that is suchness.68
Rather than repudiating the scriptures or rejecting their authority, the records of Mazu and his disciples are full of quotations and allusions to a range of canonical texts. While this stands in contrast to traditional images of the Hongzhou school, their reliance on the canon should not come as a surprise when we take into account the religious milieu of Tang Buddhism. As we saw in part I of this volume, as members of the monastic elite the leaders of the Hongzhou school were well-read monks conversant with canonical texts and traditions. A number of them came from gentry families, received classical Confucian education in their youth, and dedicated their formative monastic years to scriptural study. A good example of such a monk is Baizhang. Born in the Wang clan of Taiyuan, one of the greatest aristocratic clans, after his ordination in 767 Baizhang dedicated himself to study of the scriptures.69 The records of
Baizhang's teachings reveal that the knowledge of the canonical tradition he acquired informed his religious outlook until the end of his life. The transcripts of Baizhang's sermons and conversations with disciples are full of scriptural quotations and allusions and reveal a monk at ease with both the contemplative and doctrinal aspects of Buddhism.