The Dilun Dunhuang texts and the Qixin lun are creative representatives of Sinitic attempts to capture and reformulate key aspects of pramān4a, tathagathāgarbha, and Yogācāra texts. By the time a Chan “rhetoric of immediacy” began to assert itself, Chinese Buddhists had had several centuries to delve into many of these texts and produce their own voluminous commentaries. A key question animating all this effort may still be relevant in some circles: is unmediated direct perception the “true nature” of the illusory “psychosophic closure” of subjective inferential processes?
In Shenhui’s records and in the Lidai fabao ji, we are able to see work-in-progress to craft new methods of pointing to nondual direct perception. To be honest, their rhetoric often seems rather awkward and unnecessarily pugnacious. It is easy to scapegoat the self-serving nature of their polemical “dialogues.” However, that should not deter us from recognizing the importance of this awkward struggle, then as now.
The pivoting discourse necessitated by the rules of nondual rhetoric was necessarily relativist and dynamic, such that there was always the danger of reification of its antinomianism and iconoclasm. Subsequent Chan masters developed elegant literary techniques to try to keep indeterminism in play. While an ethics of sudden awakening as a basis for gradual cultivation became more or less institutionalized, challenge and interrogation were also assiduously cultivated. Through it all, the direct perception of a buddha remained a stable gold-standard, even though kicking away its scaffolding became a signature Chan practice.
Chan-style pramān4a is its rhetorical insistence that xinyanliang 信言 量 (testimony) and jiaoliang 教量 (teaching) are im-mediately actualized
in ordinary/nondual perception (xianliang 現量). In the Lidai fabao ji, Wuzhu emphasizes that this is both “lively like a fish jumping” (huo popo 活鱍鱍鱍鱍)65 and unborn (busheng 不生). Here we see the birth of the signature claim that Chan is both the way mind is and the mind of the Way, ordinary/buddha. The challenge is still alive and kicking, is it not?
Notes 1 Lin 2015.
2 Lin 2015: 187; citing Aoki 2010. For editions of the texts, see Aramaki 2013
& Ikeda 2012.
3 “Consciousness-only” should be understood to indicate epistemological process (consciousness is all we can investigate), rather than an ontology (consciousness is all there “is”).
4 Lin 2011.
5 Lin 2015: 187; trans. 208-209.
6 Lin 2015: 189. Lin also notes a link with a bodhisattva path scheme in an apocryphal text that may have been Dilun-influenced; Funayama Tōru pointed out that these four types of pramān4a are analogized with the four stages in the bodhisattva path in the Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經 (Sūtra of the Acts that Serve as Necklaces for Bodhisattvas); T. 1485, 24; see Funayama 2000.
7 Ibid., p. 191.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., p. 192.
10 P. Chin 2832 bis; Lin 2015: 193-194. For an edition of the text, see Aoki 2012.
11 T. 1851, 44: 837a 5 -7. Full passage:
為化差別不等。或土隨身。如彌陀佛未成佛前國土鄙穢。成佛後國界嚴淨。
彼佛現居。不定境故。如是一切。或身隨土。
It is because of transformation that the differentiations are inconsistent. If there is land [of a certain nature] there follows body [of a certain nature]. For example, before Amitābha became a buddha his
land was coarse and uncouth, but after he became a buddha his realm was magnificent and pure. The locations that other buddhas manifest are indeterminate in their conditions. It is all like this: if there is a body [of a certain nature] there follows a land [of a certain nature].
12 Lin 2015: 195.
13 Ibid., p. 197.
14 Ibid., p. 198.
15 Ibid., p. 199.
16 Ibid., p. 203 (minor typos corrected).
17 Ibid., p. 204-205.
18 Ji liang lun 集量論; see Katsura 2014: 101 for textual notes.
19 Katsura 2014: 103-104.
20 Ibid., p. 104.
21 Ibid., p. 105.
22 Ibid., p. 107. Similarities as well as differences with Derrida’s notion of différance have been noted by others; see for example Mou 2013.
23 Katsura 2014: 118-119.
24 Focus on discrimination is prominently featured in the Lidai fabao ji section on Wuzhu’s debate with Treatise masters; see Adamek, trans., 2007: 395-397.
25 See McRae 1986 & 1987; Faure 1988.
26 Faure 1991.
27 McRae 1987: 256.
28 Faure 1991: 77; see pp. 53-78.
29 Lidai fabao ji, T. 2075, 51: 185b14-18.
東亰荷澤寺神會和上毎月作壇場、為人説法、破清浄禅立如来禅。立知 見_ 、立言説、為戒定恵不破言説。云、「正説之時即是戒、正説之時即 是定、正説之時即是恵。」説无念法、立見性*。
*立見性 added interlinearly.
30 See Nanyang heshang dunjiao jietuo chanmen zhiliao xing tanyu 南陽和上 頓教解脫禪門直了性壇語; Hu Shi, ed., [1958] 1970: 229-230.
31 Lidai fabao ji, T. 2075, 51: 185b19-20.
32 The Putidamo nanzong ding shifei lun has been dated to ca. 745. The
Dunhuang manuscripts P. 2045 (part 1), P. 3047 (part 2), and P. 3488 (part 1) were collated and edited in Hu Shi, ed., [1958] 1970: 260-314.
33 Putidamo nanzong ding shifei lun, Hu Shi, ed., [1958] 1970: 276. Based on the Nirvān4a-sūtra, T. 12 (374) 372b26-27.
34 Putidamo nanzong ding shifei lun, Hu Shi, ed., [1958] 1970: 277. This translation is based, with modifications, on McRae, forthcoming, Part II, 2, Definition of the Truth (ms. pp. 285-286).
遠法師問，為是比量見？為是現量見？和上答，比量見。又責〔問〕，何 者是比，何者是量？和上答，所言比者，比於純陀。所言量者，等純陀。
遠法師言，禪師定見不? 和上答，定見。遠法師問，作勿生見？和上答，
無作勿生。遠法師則默然不言。和上見默然不識此言，更不徵問。
35 McRae discusses the symbolism of Shenhui’s use of Cunda as a model, arguing that there is an implied homology between Shenhui himself as Cunda, and Huineng as the Buddha; see McRae 2002: 141-142 and forthcoming, Chapters II & III. Notably, there is a “Great Master Cunda”
(純阤大師) who appears in the chronological pictorial representation of the transmission of the robe in the Dali scroll. In the scroll, he appears as the third patriarch after Shenhui; Li Lin-ts’an 1982: 95, panel 52 & 53.
36 I recognize that this claim is considered problematic, an issue that I address in my Practicescapes and the Buddhists of Baoshan (2020).
37 Lidai fabao ji, T. 2075, 51: 185b28-c8.
又問、云何為見為復眼見、耶耳鼻等見耶？會答、見無尒許多_ *、見只 没_ **、見只没*見。又問、見等純阤否？會答、比量見、比即比於純阤、[量 即] ** 量等純阤、不敢定斷。
*尒 許 多 is colloquial, meaning an indeterminate number; Yanagida 1976: 161.
*只没 is a colloquial compound with the same meaning as 只, “only.”
Yanagida 1976: 161.
*It was necessary to add these two characters in order to replicate the meaning of the Putidamo nanzong ding shifei lun passage.
38 “Destiny” here is a reference to the ways the early Chan texts (like the Platform Sūtra and the Lidai fabao ji) used the trope of a disciple destined to meet his master and receive the special transmission. On the one hand
the “immediacy” of buddha-nature is on display, and Huineng and Wuzhu are both portrayed as instantly getting the point. But the stories of their connections with Hongren and Wuxiang, respectively, are also told in a way that suggests karmic connection, or even the indigenous Chinese notion of fate in the sense of Heaven’s mandate (天命) -- as John Jorgensen (2005) pointed out in his book on Huineng.
39 These disciples are otherwise unknown. Their master is possibly Fochuan Huiming 佛川慧明 (697-780), for whom there remains an inscription, Tang Huzhou Fochuan si gu Dashi taming 唐湖州佛川寺故大師塔銘 (Stūpa Inscription for the Former Great Master of Fochuan Monastery in Huzhou, Tang dynasty), Quan Tang wen (917), and a biography in the Song gaoseng zhuan, T. 2061, 50: 876a23-c5. In the former it is said that he was a co-disciple of Yongjia Xuanjue 永 嘉 玄 覺 and Shenhui, and in the latter it is said that he had three disciples, Huijie 慧解, Huimin 慧敏, and Ruzhi 如知. Fochuan monastery is in the northern part of Huzhou (Zhejiang province, Wuxing 吳興 district). Yanagida 1976: 237.
40 The Treatise on One Hundred Dharmas refers to Xuanzang’s translation of the Dasheng baifa mingmen lun 大乘百法明門論 (Mahāyānaśatadharma prakāśamukha-śāstra), T. 1614, 31. This is an abbreviation based on Vasubandhu’s division of all dharmas into five classes of one hundred dharmas in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, T. 1579, 30. Many people were lecturing on the Baifa lun at that time, one frequently sees it mentioned in monks’ biographies; Yanagida 1976: 237. Wuzhu depreciates it again in Section 37, T. 2075, 51: 194c16-17.
41 From the Lan4kā-sūtra, T. 672, 16: 631c23; also in the Zhujing yaochao, T.
2819, 85: 1197a6-7.
42 From the Lan4kā-sūtra, T. 672, 16: 631a7.
43 From the four-fascicle Lan4kā-sūtra, T. 670, 16: 505b8-9.
44 Zuomei sheng 作没生: 没 is used colloquially in Dunhuang texts in the way that me 麼 would later be used. Zhimei 只没 in the next line is thus equivalent to zheme 這麼; see Jiang [1959] 1988: 515. The Taishō version has zuo wu sheng 作勿生, the same colloquial phrase that is used in the Ding shifei lun to question Shenhui’s mode of perception.
45 It is possible that the Pusa jie meant here is Zhiyi’s commentary on the Fanwang jing, the Pusa jie jing shu 菩薩戒經疏, T. 1811, 40; Yanagida 1976:
238.
46 Adamek, trans., 2007: 371-373; S. 516:
有義浄師、處黙師、唐蘊師、並是恵明禅** 師第子。来欲得共和上同住。
和上問、「闍梨解何経論？」唐蘊師答、「解百法論、曽為僧講。」和上請説。
唐蘊答、「内有五箇无為、外有五箇有為、惣攝一切法。」和上引楞伽経云、
「无智恆分別有為及无為。若諸脩行者、不應起分別。経経説妄想、終不 出於名。若離於言説、亦无有所説。」唐蘊語義浄師、「請闍梨更問。」義
浄即問和上、「禅師作沒生坐禅？」和上答、「不生、只没禅。」義浄自不會、
問處黙、「此義云何？」處黙亦不會。更令義浄師別問。和上知** 不會、
遂問義淨、「闍梨** 解何経論？」答、「解菩薩戒、曽為僧講。」和上問、「戒
已何為體、以何為義？」其義浄无詞可對、便出穢言、「非我不解、直為 試你。如似你禅、我嫌不行。」處黙連聲、「我嫌你鈍不作、我嫌悶不行、
我嬾嫌** 不作、我慵嫌** 不入！」
* 禅 added interlinearly.
* 知 added interlinearly.
* 闍梨 added interlinearly.
* 嫌 added interlinearly. 嬾嫌 should be reversed to 嫌嬾, as in the previous verb-object examples.
* 慵嫌 should be reversed to 嫌慵, as above.
47 Adamek, trans., 2007: 372; Lidai fabao ji, T. 2075, 51: 191a20-22.
48 Zheng wunian zhi shi, wunian bu zi 正無念之時無念不自.
49 Adamek, trans., 2007: 392-394.
50 Trans. ascribed to Dharmaraks4a 竺 法 護 (ca. 265-313), but possibly early 5th cent. T. 325, 12.
51 This is Dan Lusthaus’s useful gloss for vijñaptimātra, pointing to the mutually conditioning loop between consciousnesses and their sense-spheres as a form of cognitive closure that has no corresponding independent reality. (Lusthaus 2002: 35-36). “Closure” refers to imputation of independent externality to things, imputation that is only supported by constant cognitive self-referencing gestures or loops of intentional appropriation. These closed loops karmically shape perception, because
one perceives in the manner in which one has habituated oneself through the self-perpetuating processes of appropriation.
52 Lusthaus, trans., 2002: 465.
53 Adamek 2007: 224, 280.
54 T. 2075, 51: 194b13; used in the subtitle as 破壞一切心, T. 2075, 51: 179a4.
See Adamek 2007: 280-281, 300, 393.
55 Qixin lun, T. 1666, 32: 577b22–23. Quotations in the Lidai fabao ji occur at T. 2075, 51: 189c15, 193b15, and 194b24; see Adamek 2007: 281, 365, 387, 394.
56 T. 1666, 32: 575b8-11.
57 T.1666, 32: 577b17-23.
是故三界虛偽唯心所作，離心則無六塵境界。此義云何？以一切法皆從 心起妄念而生，一切分別即分別自心，心不見心無相可得。當知世間一 切境界，皆依眾生無明妄心而得住持，是故一切法，如鏡中像無體可得，
唯心虛妄。以心生則種種法生，心滅則種種法滅故。
58 This of course brings to mind the famous “tree in the courtyard” line by Zhaozhou 趙 州 in Case no. 37 of the Wumenguan (Mumonkan) 無 門 關;
Hirata, ed. 1973: 133.
59 Nanyang heshang dunjiao jietuo chanmen zhiliao xing tanyu, Hu Shi, ed., [1958] 1970: 241.
60 Loosely based on the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, T. 475, 14 : 546a23-24.
61 Adamek, trans., 2007: 358 & 361; Lidai fabao ji, T. 2075, 51: 189a27-b3.
(Quotation from the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra, T. 273, 9: 369a23-24.)
和上答、「此見聞覺知、是世間見聞覺知。維摩経云、「『若行見聞覺知、
是即見聞覺知。法離見聞覺知。』無念即无見、无念即无知、為衆生有念、
假説无念、正*无念之時、无念不自。」又引金剛 * 三昧経云、「『尊者大 覺尊、説生无念法。无念无生心、心常生不滅。』
*正 added interlinearly.
* Gang written with 罡 instead of 岡 on the left.
62 Jingde chuandeng lu, T. 2076, 51: 220c14-23.
63 Jingde chuandeng lu, T. 2076, 51: 234b10-235a7. The Fozu lidai tongzai version of 1341 closely follows the Jingde chuandeng lu; see T. 2036, 49:
600b9-601a3.
64 Jingde chuandeng lu, T. 2076, 51: 234c 2 -9.
于時庭樹鴉鳴。公問。師聞否。曰聞。鴉去已。又問。師聞否。曰聞。
公曰。
鴉去無聲云何言聞。師乃普告大眾。佛世難值值正法難聞。各各諦聽。聞
無有聞非關聞性。本來不生何曾有滅。有聲之時是聲塵自生。無聲之時 是聲塵自滅。而此聞性不隨聲生不隨聲滅。悟此聞性則免聲塵之所轉。
當知聞無生滅。聞無去來。
65 See T. 2075, 51: 190c21; 191c11-12; 194c14; 195a27-28.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED Primary Sources
Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, Discourse on the Theory of Consciousness Only). By Xuanzang 玄 奘 (ca. 602-664);
translation and synthesis of commentaries on Vasubandhu’s Vijñaptimātratātrim4śika (Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only). T.
1585, 31.
Cheng weishi lun shuji 成唯識論述記 (Commentary on the Discourse on the Theory of Consciousness Only). By Kuiji 窺基 (632-682). T. 1830, 43.
Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (Mahāparinirvān4a-sūtra, Great Final Passing of the Buddha Sūtra). T. 374, 12, 40 juan, trans. ca. 420-431 ascribed to Dharmaks4ema 曇無讖 (385-433).
Dasheng baifa mingmen lun 大 乘 百 法 明 門 論 (Mahāyānaśatadharma prakāśamukha-śāstra, Treatise on One Hundred Dharmas), T. 1614, 31.
Trans. ascribed to Xuanzang 玄奘 (ca. 602-664).
Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 (Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna). Sixth-century apocryphon, attributed to Aśvaghos4a 馬 鳴.
Possible authors include Tanyan 曇延 (516-588) and Paramārtha 真諦 (499-569). Trans. ascribed to Paramārtha, T. 1666, 32.
Dasheng yizhang 大 乘 義 章 (Chapters on the Meaning of the Mahāyāna). By Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523-592) and Huixiu 慧休 (547-646). T. 1851, 44.
Fozu lidai tongzai 佛祖歷代通栽. (Comprehensive Register of the Buddhas and Patriarchs through the Ages). 1341, by Nianchang 念常. T. 2036, 49 Jin’gang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經 (Vajrasamādhi-sūtra). T. 273, 9. Apocryphon
compiled in the late 7th century.
Jingde chuandeng lu 淨 德 傳 燈 錄 (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp [compiled in] the Jingde era). 1004, by Daoyuan 道原. T. 2076, 51.
Jueding pini jing 決定毘尼經 (Vinayaviniścaya-Upāliparipr4cchā-sūtra, Sūtra of the Inquiry of Upāli Regarding Determination of the Vinaya). Trans.
ascribed to Dharmaraks4a 竺法護 (ca. 265-313), but possibly early 5 th cent.
T. 325, 12.
Lengqie jing 楞伽経 Lankā[vatāra]-sūtra (Sūtra of the Appearance of the Dharma in Lan4kā). T. 672, 16.
Lidai fabao ji 曆代法寶記 (Record of the Dharma Treasure Through the Generations). Ca. 780. T. 2075, 51.
Pusa jie jing shu 菩薩戒經疏 (Bodhisattva Precepts Commentary). By Zhiyi 智 顗 (538-597). T. 1811, 40.
Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 (Sūtra of the Original Acts that Serve as Necklaces for Bodhisattvas), a.k.a. Pusa yingluo jing. Chinese indigenous scripture, early 5th c. T. 1485, 24.
Quan Tang wen 全唐文 (Complete Prose of the Tang Dynasty). 1814, by Dong Gao 董誥, et al., eds. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983.
Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 (Song Dynasty Biographies of Eminent Monks).
988, by Zanning 贊寧. T. 2061, 50.
Weimojie suoshuo jing 維摩詰所說經 (Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, On the Expositions of Vimalakīrti). Trans. ascribed to Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344-413), T. 475, 14.
Yuqie shidi lun 瑜伽師地論 (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Treatise on the Stages of Yogācāra Practice). Attributed to Asan4ga. Trans. ascribed to Xuanzang. T.
1579, 30.
Zhujing yaochao 諸經要抄 (Digest of Scriptures). T. 85 (2819).
Secondary Sources
Adamek, Wendi L. (2007). The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and Its Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press.
_ (2020). Practicescapes and the Buddhists of Baoshan. Hamburg: University of Hamburg Press.
Aramaki Noritoshi 荒牧典俊, ed. (2013). “Jiaoli wenxian jicheng 教理文獻集成 S.
613 (Doctrinal Literature Compendium S.613).” In Aoki Takashi 青木隆 et al., eds., Changoe chinonjong munhǒn chipsǒng sokjip 藏外地論宗文獻集成 續集 (Continued Collection of the Extra-canonical Literature of the Dilun School), pp. 39-92. Seoul: Ssiaial.
Faure, Bernard (1988). La volunté d'orthodoxie dans le bouddhisme chinois.
Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
_ (1991). The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Funayama Toru 船山徹 (2000). “Jironshū to nanchō kyōgaku 地論宗と南朝教学 (The Dilun School and Scholasticism in the Southern Dynasties).” In Aramaki Noritoshi 荒牧典俊, ed., Hokuchō Zui Tō Chūgoku bukkyō shisōshi 北朝隋唐中国仏教思想史 (History of Chinese Buddhism in the Northern Dynasties, Sui and Tang), pp. 123-153. Kyoto: Hōzōkan.
Hirata Takashi 平田高士, ed. (1973). Mumonkan 無門關 (Gateless Barrier). Zen no goroku 禅の語録, no. 18. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.
Hu Shi 胡適 [1958] 1970. Shenhui heshang yizhi 神會和尚遺集 (The Surviving Works of the Venerable Shenhui). Taibei: Hu Shi jinian guan.
Ikeda Masanori 池田將則, ed. (2012). “Jiaoli wenxian jicheng 教理文獻集成 S.
4303 (Doctrinal Literature Compendium S.4303).” In Aoki Takashi 青木隆 et al., eds., Changoe chinonjong munhǒn chipsǒng 藏外地論宗文獻集成 (Collection of the Extra-canonical Literature of the Dilun School), pp. 199-255. Seoul: Ssiaial.
Jiang Lihong 蔣禮鴻 [1959] 1988. Dunhuang bianwen ziyi tongshi 敦煌變文字義 通釋 (Comprehensive Explanations of the Meanings of Characters in Dunhuang Bianwen). Shanghai: Shanghai guji.
Jorgensen, John (2005). Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch: Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch’an. Leiden: Brill.
Katsura Shōryū (2014). “The Theory of Apoha in Kuiji’s Cheng weishi lun Shuji.” In Lin Chen-kuo and Michael Radich, eds., A Distant Mirror:
Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism.
Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, pp. 101-120.
Li Lin-ts’an (1982). A Study of the Nan-chao and Ta-li Kingdoms in the Light of Art Materials Found in Various Museums. Taibei: National Palace