Elipsometría

By the mid-Tang period, the Chan school had established its identity as a distinct tradition within Chinese Buddhism, even if the contours of that identity were not rigid and its key elements were still evolving. The precise connotations of the term “Chan school” and the lines of demarcation between it and the rest of Buddhism were not without ambiguities.69_{“Chan school” was an umbrella designation that included a number of groups, sometimes with tenuous}

connections among them as members of a single movement. Nonetheless, texts from the Tang period, especially epigraphic sources, reveal a clearly identifiable awareness among a segment of the monastic order of belonging to a distinctive Chan movement. The formation of this religious identity was anchored by a common acceptance of the notion of dharma inheritance—in which Bodhidharma was recognized as a key patriarchal figure—and the loose adoption of common frames of reference, including shared religious attitudes, doctrinal tenets, and terminology.70_At

subsumed within the larger Buddhist tradition, and its evolution as a discrete subset of Chinese Buddhism did not imply institutional independence.71

Stele inscriptions from the mid-Tang period, including those of Dayi, Baizhang, Huaihui, and Weikuan (and to a lesser degree Mazu), reveal a concern with spiritual lineage (pai) that helps us understand the manner in which monks associated with the Hongzhou school constructed their identity as a distinct religious group.72 _{Such a concern is not}

surprising, since the notion of lineage—already evident in early Chan texts such as Lengqie shizi ji and Lidai fabao

ji—was a centerpiece of the Chan school's emerging ideology and a potent tool in the construction of its identity. At

the time, the manufacture of spiritual genealogies also took place in other Buddhist schools, such as Tiantai, in part as a response to developments in the Chan school and perhaps indicative of increased emphasis on the teacher-disciple relationship within Chinese Buddhism.73

The notion of dharma transmission was thus evolving as a principle of religious affiliation and identity that mapped the parameters of orthodoxy. Even so, it is worth noting that the terse statements found in Tang texts do not give a complete picture of the full range of meanings and sentiments associated with the notion of spiritual lineage. The term doubtless implied real (or in some cases forged or imagined) connections between individuals, related to each other as teachers and students, conveying a sense of membership in a larger tradition. Nevertheless, we should be wary of reading into it the full-blown Song conception of lineage. The Song construct was part of a complexideology that encompassed a pseudo-historical vision of the Chan school's past and determined the allocation of prestige and distribution of power in Buddhist ecclesiastical structures and Song society. It might be best to read statements about lineage affiliation during the mid-Tang period primarily as indicative of personal connections that highlighted an individual monk's spiritual pedigree. In that sense they are somewhat analogous to contemporary statements that, for example, Professor X was a student of Professor Y from Z University, a founder of the U school of social anthropology, which establishes Professor X's personal connection with his mentor and situates him within the larger intellectual and institutional contexts.

It is not clear whether Mazu's disciples employed the term “Hongzhou school,” but since it appears in the writings of Zongmi, we know it was in vogue during the early ninth century.74 _{Regardless of whether they used the exact name,}

early texts, such as the stele inscriptions mentioned above, indicate that Mazu's disciples were aware of being members of a distinctive group that was part of the larger Chan movement. The term “Hongzhou school” is simply a convenient way to refer to Mazu and his disciples as a confraternity of monks with a shared vision of the Buddhist path. The notion of Dharma lineage, in which Mazu was a key patriarchal figure, buttressed their group identity.

Monks associated with the Hongzhou school thus shared several overlapping identities. They were followers of Mazu and members of his lineage, which also made them members of the broader Chan tradition. (We can also insert an intermediate layer between these two identities, that of representatives of the Southern school of Chan.) At the same time, they were monks whose religious identities were shaped by the cumulative wisdom and lore of Buddhism. As such, they accepted the core tenets, mores, and institutions of the larger Buddhist tradition. The boundaries between these identities—members of Mazu's lineage, the Chan tradition, and the Buddhist saṅgha—were porous, overlapping, and flexible. The Buddhist notion that all identities are provisional reinforced the manner in which such open-ended, adaptable, and context-sensitive attitudes and identities were constructed. The weight placed on specific identities was thus contextual, and they were not antithetical to each other.

Explicit mention of lineage affiliation and membership in the Chan school appears in a number of inscriptions for monks associated with the Hongzhou school. For example, Baizhang's inscription presents his spiritual genealogy, stating that he was a ninth-generation representative of the Chan school in China. The inscription starts by introducing Chan as a singular tradition or school of Buddhism (channa yi zong) that leads to salvation from the cycle of birth and death. It then traces Baizhang's lineage back to Huineng via Huairang and Mazu, without implying that his connection with Mazu was unique in relation to other prominent disciples.75

Weikuan's inscription also highlights his lineage affiliation. It includes a genealogical outline of the Chan lineage in India and China up to and including Weikuan.76 _{This lineage is unusual because it is based on a genealogical chart that is at}

variance with the prevalent scheme of twenty-eight Indian and sixChinese patriarchs, formulated by the authors of

Baolin zhuan just over a decade earlier. Bo's inscription presents a different line of transmission, according to which

Bodhidharma was the fifty-first patriarch and Weikuan the fifty-ninth,77_{based on a transmission lineage found in a text}

composed some three centuries earlier by Sengyou (445–518).78_{The reasons for Bo's choice of this lineage is not clear,}

but its existence indicates that at the time the account of the transmission of Chan formulated in Baolin zhuan was not unanimously accepted as the orthodoxversion. Bo's inscription suggests that during the early ninth century the situation was quite fluid. There were still competing accounts about the exact contours of the early Chan lineage, even if the notion of lineage transmission was established as an organizing principle in the construction of the Chan school's religious identity.

An important development evident in the Hongzhou school's records is the multilinear conception of lineage. While the earlier part of Chan's genealogical schema was a singular line of transmission, from the mid-Tang period onward the Chan lineage after the sixth patriarch was depicted as multitude of

branches stemming out from a single trunk. This pluralistic view of the Chan lineage is evident in Baolin zhuan: although the text ends with Mazu as the main figure of his generation, it also acknowledges Shitou and other Chan teachers of the preceding generation, including Xingsi, Huizhong, and Shenhui.79 _{Such an ecumenical stance was a}

reflection of the Hongzhou school's previously noted tolerant attitude toward other schools and lineages, which contrasts with Shenhui's sectarian stance and his insistence on the notion of unilinear transmission. While this open and inclusive outlook may not have been unique to the Hongzhou school and may reflect wider changes in mid-Tang Chan, its adoption by Mazu and his disciples greatly contributed to its becoming an article of faith in the Chan movement from that point onward.