Conference: From Chinese Ch’an to Contemporary Meditation
The Historical Formation and Thought Construction of East Asian Ch’an (and Zen) Buddhism
Academic Paper (17.6.2021)
Translator’s Note: It is important that the world outside of China understands the depth of knowledge and ongoing academic analysis of Ch’an Buddhism happening within China. This conference paper was the result of a symposium involving Chinese and Japanese scholars during 2021, designed to discuss Ch’an as perceived by the Chinese, Japanese and Western peoples. Although no Western scholars were physically present, a number of their works were included, discussed and assessed. More of this type of clear and concise Chinese scholarship has to be made available in the West, if Western scholars and practitioners are to be made aware of where the debate currently is within the country where Ch’an took-root and spread outward into the world. It is hoped that Indian scholars, with their deep and ancient traditions of spiritual and material science will also find this paper interesting, and spark an urge to participate in any similar future projects in China. It would be beneficial if Indian scholars could ‘prove’ the existence of ‘Dhyana’ in India and specify ‘how’ it spread to China to move forward from the current (logical) academic position that Ch’an developed separately in China from a particular strand of Indian Buddhism – and that ‘Bodhidharma’ is a myth. My personal feeling is that ‘Bodhidharma’ was a real person whose life has become the stuff of legends! The central point of this paper is that the reader keeps an ‘open-mind’ and considers the issues from more than one viewpoint. As regards the titles of ‘gong-an’ (koan) - I often find the existing translations in the English-language to be slightly out of focus when I check this data with the original Chinese-language ideograms. This is because when these translations were first made (around 50 or 100-years-ago), the knowledge-base regarding the understanding of Chinese culture and history was not as developed as it is today – although mistakes are still made due to assumptions and misunderstandings. Furthermore, Chinese cultural assumptions and realities are not always easy to understand, penetrate or replicate. An example of the subtlety this issue requires may be gleamed from this ‘gong-an’ (koan) title ‘拈花微笑’ (Nian Hua Wei Xiao) translated and presented below. Quite often, this is translated to something like this; ‘Lifting a Flower a Smile Manifests’, or variants of this. As this is often viewed as the ‘essence’ of Ch’an (as the Buddha raised a flower and only Mahakasyapa ‘smiled’ in recognition) the first ideogram ‘拈’ (Nian2) is of vital importance. The left-hand particle is comprised of ‘扌’ (shou3) which denotes an open hand (with the fingers spread-out). The right-hand particle is ‘占’ (zhan1) which carries the meaning of ‘to divine’; ‘to observe’ and ‘to versify’, etc. The top-particle of ‘占’ (zhan1) is ‘卜’ (bu3) - which denotes a ‘crack’ in a bone (an ox scapula or a tortoise-turtle plastron under-shell) used for ‘divining’ within ancient Chinese culture. The human-hand would apply a ‘hot-poker’ (made of metal) to a bone or shell that had a ‘question’ etched onto it. As the poker ‘touched’ the bone – the message would be carried up into the ‘divine-sky’ by the resulting ‘smoke’ raising upwards – and an ‘answer’ would be received by the cracks forming in the bone or shell caused as a result of the intense heat (and pressure) with which the hot poker was applied. This is why the lower-particle of ‘口’ (kou3) represents an ‘open-mouth’ announcing what the ‘cracks’ in the bone ‘mean’ and the implications of the ‘answer’ received. This answer would then be etched below the already existing question upon the bone or shell concerned, and it would be stored away so that a data-base was built-up that could be quickly accessed by State officials serving the ‘King’, etc, without necessarily having to initiate the entire divining ritual (which was time consuming, difficult and could only be practiced by the ruling house). This data-base of divination would eventually serve as the foundation of the ‘Zhouyi’ (周易) - or ‘Zhou Change’ - although this text of 64 hexagrams is more commonly known as the ‘Yijing’ (易經) - or ‘Change Classic’. In the West, and due to a number of inconsistent translation conventions, this text is known commonly as the ‘I Ching’ (possibly due to the German translation of ‘I-Ging’ being literally transliterated into English). Therefore, the ideogram ‘拈’ (Nian2) today, has acquired all kinds of subsidiary meanings such as to ‘pick-up’ with the fingers, to ‘twirl’ or to ‘twist’ with the fingers, and ‘weigh’ in the hand! This ideogram can also refer to the act of ‘drawing’ and ‘casting’ lots for divination purposes (a set of meanings much closer to its original or intended meaning). When all this is known, what did the Ch’an masters of old mean when they carefully selected the ideogram ‘拈’ (Nian2) as the beginning of the title of probably the most important and defining ‘gong-an’ regarding the beginning (or ‘source’) of the Ch’an tradition? The flower is not merely ‘picked-up’ (like a common object) because it is not just any ordinary flower! This flower is comprised of ‘void’ and ‘form’ and is not limited to any particular geographical place or time-space manifestation. This flower is both ‘here’ and ‘not-here’ because it is simultaneously ‘somewhere else.’ The human-mind must ‘weigh’ all this up if a very slight smile is to manifest. The smile, I suspect, is indicative of a ‘crack’ appearing in the divination bone. Why is this the case? It is because the ‘crack’ in a shell or bone quite literally ‘links’ this world to the ‘next’, or serves as a ‘portal’ between this plane and an ‘unseen’ plane. Within the context of Ch’an Buddhism, this ‘smile’ indicates the doorway that ‘unites’ and ‘integrates’ form and void and acts as the ‘great mirror samadhi’ found in the Surangama Sutra. When this particular flower was ‘raised’ or ‘offered’ with the correct state of mind – the entire reality of existence was transformed! Indeed, the title of this vitally important ‘gong-an’ could be rendered into English as ‘The Divined Flower Which Elicits a Faint Smile’!
ACW (6.2.2022)
ACW (6.2.2022)
When the term ‘Buddhism’ became a buzzword throughout the world, Chinese Buddhism was not included within its apparent ‘catch-all’ definition and was treated as if it does not a) existentially, or b) historically exist. As a result of this omission, not much genuine knowledge exists outside of China (and throughout non-Chinese cultural communities) regarding the true or genuine nature of Chinese Buddhism. Although Japanese ‘Zen’ is well-known throughout the world, the Chinese Ch’an from which it has spread and developed remains something of a vague subject for most non-Chinese people. From this darkness, however, and certainly over the last ten years or so, a number of notable (primary) developments have emerged into the international academic space. These developments have taken the form of multi-disciplinary intervention and cooperation. In addition to the study of traditional Buddhist philosophy - history and philology, sociology, human geography and other disciplines have participated - thus opening up a substantial analytical space that can serve as the fertile soil for a greater cultivation of co-operative understanding. The second manifestation is the broadening and deepening of the distribution of issues. This entire process allows for the discussion of many topics not discussed within the academic community in the past. One area that has seen a growth in both the quality and quantity of knowledge is the history of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism throughout the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties. A third important development has seen a rejection of old and outdated modes of interpretating Chinese Ch’an by both teachers and students alike, which has seen a movement toward developing new and innovative ways of interpretating the history and practice of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, and modifying the manner in which Ch’an methodology is interpretated, discussed and conveyed.
These cutting-edge explorations detailed above, undoubtedly require Chinese Ch’an historians to abandon the habit of “working behind closed doors”, effectively participate in international dialogues, and conduct solid and detailed discussions (on specific issues) with researchers from different academic cultural traditions. In particular, this policy should be reflected in dialogue with Japanese and North American scholars. Based on this, the 2019 "Ch’an History Research" workshop was held in Guangzhou (Sun Yat-sen University, Xichang Hall) on November 9-10 - organized by the Buddhist Research Centre of the Department of Philosophy - examining the relevant aspects of “Thought Construction". The workshop was chaired by Professor Gong Jun (龚隽) and Professor He Yansheng (何燕生), together with ten other Chinese scholars who built a cutting-edge, short, intensive and efficient "academic dialogue" platform involving three Japanese scholars including Takashi Ogawa, Taisuke Tsuchiya, and Kanya Ryuu. This workshop was divided into two parts: "Paper Publishing" and "Symposium on Ch’an History". The attending scholars conducted fruitful and quite novel explorations on a series of focal topics involving different research methodologies. Here, the first priority was to sort-out the publication of the relevant papers (and related discussions) for the academic community.
What is "Chinese Ch’an?"
This arrangement will be based on the context and time coordinates of Ch’an history. First of all, what is "Chinese Ch’an", and what is the relationship between Chinese Ch’an and "Meditational Sitting"? With the deepening of research, the academic circles have furnished quite special answers to the fundamental nature and characteristics of the various Chinese "Ch’an Schools". It seems that the study of Ch’an history needs to constantly return to the examination of the essential nature of Chinese "Ch’an" and what this means for the definition of "Ch’an lineages". Professor Takashi Ogawa - of Komazawa University - is known as the most important scholar in the study of Zen Buddhism in Japan (especially quotations), who has given a new answer to this question. In the paper "Characteristics of Ch’an Buddhism in China: Genealogy, Purity Rules, Questions and Answers" - Professor Ogawa does not refer to "Meditational Sitting" as a characteristic of Ch’an. In his view, other sects of Buddhism (and even many other non-Buddhist religions and thought communities) also emphasize "meditation", so Ch’an cannot be regarded as a religion exclusively specialising in the practice of meditation. The characteristics of Chinese Ch’an can be defined by three other aspects: genealogical religion, a religion of pure rules and a religion of questions and answers. Ch’an monks jointly believe in the genealogy of the teaching as conveyed within a certain sutra, which is passed down from "mind to mind". Just as there is no one specific "founding" patriarch (there are many at the head of each lineage), there is no single absolute sutra (as each patriarch emphasises a different sutra). In this way, Ch’an monks live in "imagined communities" of genealogical consciousness, and believe that their enlightenment has the same value as that as the patriarch they follow. As they are convinced that they can obtain the same enlightenment as experienced by the historical Buddha, they believe in their literal ability to also become a Buddha. The beginning of Ch’an Buddhism in China began with the sharing of consciousness by the Indian Buddhist monk Bodhidharma who is considered the first Ch’an ancestor in China. Secondly, in addition to the precepts transmitted from India, Ch’an Buddhism also created a new independent norm called the "Rules of Purity", and developed a unique group (lifestyle) practice premised upon it. Traditional Buddhism does not allow farming and digging, because it will hurt the small life in the soil, and yet Chinese Ch’an Buddhism especially encouraged productive labour and manual labour in the wild, which is "Bodhisattva Activity" and "virtuous endeavour". Ch’an masters believe that the ability to perform labour is identical with the ‘essence’ of Buddhist practice. In Yu Yingshi's (余英时) view, the ‘Purity Rules’ of Ch’an is the source of the spirit of "inner-worldly asceticism" as experienced within modern China. Finally, during the Tang and Song dynasties, quotations or "questions and answers" were the mainstream. On the surface, these "questions and answers" appear as "ridiculous" general intractable features. Since most of the quotations were written in the spoken language after the Middle Tang Dynasty and even the Five Dynasties, Ch’an scholars have only been able to make some general and vague explanations about this pre-history. Since the second half of the last century, Yoshitaka Iriya in Japan has created a tradition of philological interpretation from quotations. They regard Ch’an quotations as Chinese classical documents presenting specific situations, and carry out accurate and precise interpretations from the perspectives of linguistics and philology. It was they who moved the study of Ch’an quotations from the field of Buddhism to the field of Sinology, so that the reading and interpretation of quotations generated an interpretive method. Here, Mr. Takashi Ogawa cites the most famous Ch’an "question and answer", "the meaning of the ancestors from the west", and thoroughly interprets it according to the quotations within the literature.
Chinese Ch’an, however, is a sect that uses the term "Ch’an" (meditation) as its self-identification, and yet a central text utilised within the Ch’an tradition – the ‘Altar Sutra’ (坛经 - Tan Jing) - continuously criticises the ‘attachment’ to the practice of ‘seated meditation’ (坐禅 - Zuo Ch’an) and the fanatical (one-sided) striving for the attainment of ‘Ch’an samadhi’ (禅定 - Ch’an Ding) through the practice of ‘seated meditation.’ This attitude is represented in other quotations originating after the middle of the Tang Dynasty. From then onwards, this attitude became associated with the ‘Southern Sect’ (南宗 - Nan Zong) and is incorporated in the Dunhuang version of the ‘Altar Sutra’ which criticises those who ‘sit still’ for hours on end, hoping to perceive the essence of the mind! A fanatic who perseveres and who is attached to ‘seated meditation’ and gets nowhere! Therefore, ‘Shenhui’s (神会) method of discerning right from wrong is denied by the ancestors! This practice of generating pure action on the outside of the mind (in the body only) whilst turning the attention inward does not guarantee the perception of the pure essence of the mind. In the "Ancestral Hall Collection" (祖堂集 - Zu Tang Ji) the Ch’an monk ‘Jue Duo San Zang’ (崛多三藏) also believed that this method of meditation as practiced by the disciples of Shenxiu (神秀) is nothing less than "the inferior method practiced by foreigners outside of the Western world". This attitude opposing the literal practice of ‘seated meditation’ was also expressed throughout the Song Dynasty and is found in such texts as the ‘Jingde Transmission of the Lamp’ (景德传灯录 - Jing De Chuan Deng Lu). The term ‘Jingde’ (景德) or ‘Bright Virtue’ is an ‘era name’ attributed to part of the reign of the Northern Song Dynasty emperor - Zhenzong (真宗) - which corresponds to the Western-years 1004-1007 CE the time this text is believed to have been compiled.
With regard to the conflict involving the differences in ‘name’ (theory) and ‘form’ (practice) - the scholar Gong Jun (龚隽) [(Sun Yat-sen University, "The Concept of "Sitting Meditation" in the History of Chinese Ch’an Studies - Centred on the History of Early Ch’an")] has discovered that the concept of "meditation whilst sitting" (in both history and thought) has actually undergone a rather complex process of "paradigm shifts", so that a number of different meditational concepts (or ‘types’) have emerged. The teachers of the Northern School - which was mainly active before and after the reign of Tang empress ‘Wu Zetian’ (武则天) [690-705 CE] - placed a great emphasis upon the correct technique of ‘sitting in meditation’ as the primary means through which a practitioner could enter the ‘Dao’ (道) or spiritualised ‘Way’. This view is supported in such classical texts as the ‘Record of the Masters and Disciples of the Lankavatara Sutra’ (楞伽师资记 - Leng Jia Shi Zi Ji), ‘Transmission of the Dharma-Jewel Record’ (传法宝纪 - Chuan Fa Bao Ji) and the ‘Past Dynasties Dharma-Jewel Record’ (历代法宝记 - Li Dai Fa Bao Ji). All these texts advocate the physical-body ‘sitting’ in seated meditation – whilst the aspirant ‘looks’ into the mind to gain an understanding of its (deep) true-nature and (surface) functionality as it interacts with the material world (which includes the human-body). Having made all this clear, however, after the prominence of the Northern School and the influence of ‘Maozu Daoyi’ (马祖道一) [709-788 CE], the criticism ascribed to formal ‘seated meditation’ as expressed by some later Ch’an monks cannot be simply viewed as a ‘rejection’ of this practice in the literal sense, and a deeper and more profound interpretation must formulated. This philosophical attitude cannot be taken as a ‘denial’ of the effectiveness of ‘sitting meditation’ as a Buddhist practice. Rather, this philosophical approach to interpretating reality is nothing short of deploying the ‘Mind Dharma’ (心法 - Xin Fa) in all circumstances and situations, and represents the Buddhist practice of ‘non-attachment’ during the performance of any or all physical activities. Meditation, despite its effectiveness as a portal into the ‘Dao’, nevertheless, is a physical activity like any other which must be abandoned when its job is done or function completed. This Ch’an attitude rejects ‘attachment to process’ rather than signifying a ‘rejection’ per se of the process itself. This is an important point that needs to be understood. It is the ‘criticism’ of the ‘attachment’ to sitting meditation – rather than an attack upon the act of ‘sitting’ to ‘meditate.’ Nuance is everything when attempting to understand and convey this essential issue of Ch’an history and ideology.
Indeed, Manjusri – speaking in the Mahaprajna Paramita Sutra – states clearly that the act of ‘seated meditation’ (坐禅 - Zuo Ch’an - or ‘Zazen’ in Japan) is to be considered ‘sacred’ (神圣 - Shen Sheng), and considered the only legitimate doorway to entering (and attaining) ‘unifying-practice samadhi’ (一行三昧 - Yi Xing San Mei). This is a samadhi which achieves perfect unity of body and mind in all activities (ekavyūha-samādhi). This sutra states that ‘emptiness’ (空 - Kong) must be understood to be the underlying essence of the mind itself – AND all phenomena in the universe! This is a practice achieved through the medium of ‘seated meditation’ or ‘chanting the Buddha’s name’ (称名念佛 - Cheng Ming Nian Fo) - as both methods are equally effective. This concept had a profound impact on the Buddhist teachings during the Six Dynasties period (220–589 CE), and can be observed as influencing the philosophical development of the Tiantai, Pure Land and Ch’an Schools. Japanese scholars Shiina Hiroo and Kobayashi Enzhao - as well as French-American scholar Bernard Faure - have all had in-depth discussions about this subject. The Chinese scholar – Gong Jun – has also examined the complexities surrounding this issue and has concluded that ‘unifying-practice samadhi’ cannot be limited to an ‘essentialist’ interpretation when viewing the development of Ch’an thought. Rather, this concept should be viewed from the perspective of ‘many families sharing the same (single) origination’ (家族类似 - Jia Zu Lei Si) - so that its numerous manifestations (as branches) can be contextualised through being traced-back to a single root. This paper examines ‘Early Ch’an’ (初期禅 - Chu Qi Ch’an) which we define as emerging from the time of Fourth Ch’an Patriarch - ‘Daoxin’ (道信) [580-651 CE] and the Fifth Ch’an Patriarch - ‘Hongren’ (弘忍) [601-675 CE] - with the following being examples of how ‘unifying-practice samadhi’ is conceived within each of these branches of Ch’an.
Interestingly, even within the Northern School, it is clear that the strict sutra-definition of ‘unifying-practice samadhi’ is only given lip-service, and that the teachers were dissatisfied with it. Instead, they advocated the concept of ‘对峙’ (Dui Zhi) or ‘correct positioning’ - whereby a ‘balance of power’ was both expected and attained between the interaction of master and disciple (like a deep and peaceful valley running between bases of two opposing mountains). In-turn, this preference led to the development of ‘dialectical’ or ‘interplay’ samadhi (游戏三昧 - You Xi San Mei) which advocated a structured interaction – or ‘language game’ – between master and disciple. This served the function of calming and clearing the surface mind of all distractions so that the empty essence of the deep (subjective) mind could be observed and continuously kept in focus regardless of the extent to which the conditions of the objective (outer) world changed. This attitude (and practice) went on to define many of the daily activities that are now considered uniquely associated with the Ch’an School. Therefore, this ‘interplay samadhi’ created the conditions for the development of a new and associated concept of ‘moving Ch’an’ (动禅 - Dong Ch’an). The body (and environment) might be in a state of flux – but the perceived essence of the subjective mind remains completely ‘still.’ Furthermore, all physical activities performed by a Ch’an practitioner who has successfully cultivated ‘interplay samadhi’ are ‘enthused’ with this permanent sense of ‘emptiness’ and elevated to a new height of artistic interpretation, cultural value and spiritual impression. This development is unique to Chinese Ch’an culture and differs radically from how the concept of ‘interplay samadhi’ is interpreted within Indian Buddhist texts, where it tends to be exclusively associated with the acquisition (and manifestation) of supernatural powers after the realisation of enlightenment - divorced from the limitations of the material universe. Only in the Chinese Ch’an School is ‘interplay samadhi’ transformed into a practical acquisition that permeates all material existence and which can be manifest or expressed in the simplest or the most difficult of activities known to humanity without having to ‘break’ the boundaries of material reality.
Within the Chinese Ch’an School, an awareness of a permanent ‘emptiness’ that permeates all material reality does not have to ‘contradict’ that material reality to be a) present, or b) transformative. This shift in emphasis denotes how the Chinese mind interpreted an ‘impractical’ (trans-material) Indian Buddhist philosophy in a ‘practical’ (material) manner. On the contrary, advanced Ch’an practitioners living within the heart of society developed a free and easy artistic ability that appeared to transcend the boundaries of everyday ability without contradicting the material world that appeared to define those perceived limitations of mind-body expression. This Ch’an attitude to life cannot be explained simply by a laissez-faire preference to reality, but is aimed at dismantling the traditionally formed procedural (or formulaic) systematic laws that have been used to define ‘reality’ and return to the understanding (and perception) of the ‘self’ or ‘empty essence’ of the mind. This is how a Ch’an practitioner could live in the strictly regulated and hierarchical society of feudal China – and yet remain completely ‘free’ of its limitations whilst doing so. This ‘interplay samadhi’ is further observed influencing how a Ch’an practitioner interprets the association between ‘sitting meditation’ and the practice of upholding the ‘precepts.’ Here, the observer of Ch’an culture must read very carefully so as to not jump to conclusions. Although it is correct to say that many Ch’an monastics have been strict disciplinarians (and have advocated upholding the precepts) - this does not necessarily mean that the precepts should be viewed as merely prohibitions that regulate physical behaviour on the material plane, as such an idea is mistaken. Simply ‘upholding’ a set of physical precepts is not enough. Indeed, a Ch’an monk may uphold hundreds of precepts but fail to realise enlightenment because his surface mind is focused upon external modes of behaviour and not upon observing the ‘empty’ essence of his deep mind. Therefore, this type of ‘precept’ upholding is viewed as being of no worth for the Ch’an practitioner. Chinese Ch’an emphasises the integration of upholding the (external) precepts that regulate bodily behaviour with the realisation of the ‘self-nature’ (自性 - Zi Xing). The emphasis, however, is upon the realisation of ‘self-nature’ rather than the upholding of (external) precepts. The Ch’an monastic must realise the empty mind ground whilst pulling the (external) precepts into line with this realisation. It is the realised ‘inner’ emptiness and not the ‘outer’ movement which defines Ch’an practice. Outer behaviour must conform with the inner realisation of the ‘self-nature’ which is the ‘empty mind ground.’ For the honourable precepts to be relevant for Ch’an practice – they must ‘reflect’ this inner (enlightened) terrain and make their presence felt in the (external) world of delusion. Finally, only a profound realisation of the empty mind ground reflected in the practice of the precepts will generate the kind of ‘interplay’ (between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’) which is needed for the development of advanced Ch’an practice.
However, we also see the following facts: Ch’an is a sect that came into being hundreds of years after Buddhism was introduced into China (Buddhism is believed to have arrived in China during the 1st century CE whilst Ch’an arrived during the 6th century CE – a time difference of around 500-years). Prior to this, there are a number of different texts which mention ‘meditation’ (禅 - Ch’an), such as Huijiao’s (慧皎) text entitled ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’ (高僧传 - Gao Seng Chuan) and Daoxuan’s (道宣) text entitled ‘Continued Esteemed Monk Transmission’ (续高僧传 - Xu Gao Seng Chuan) - both of which contain chapters entitled ‘How to Meditate’ (习禅篇 - Xi Ch’an Pian) etc. A large number of monks who are famous for their meditation practice are recorded, and they all existed prior to the formation of the Ch’an School. Generally speaking, academic circles refer to this field of study as the early Ch’an of China, which constitutes the "pre-history" of the Ch’an School. In this regard, Xueyu [学愚] (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Paradigm Transformation of Early Chinese Zen Expressions), states that when considering the "Paradigm Shift" within early Ch’an studies in China (before the establishment of the Ch’an School), there is a process that sees an emphasis upon ‘supernatural’ attainment transition into the field of Prajna-metaphysics and wisdom acquisition. This author views the early Ch’an literature as including An Shigao’s (安世高) translation of the Sanskrit ‘Ānāpānasmṛti Sūtra’ (Breath-Mindfulness Discourse) - which he named ‘安般守意经’ (An Ban Shou Yi Jing), or ‘Breath Observe Intent Sutra’, and the ‘Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (‘Encountering Buddha Samadhi in the Present Moment Sutra’) translated into the Chinese language by the Kushan Buddhist monk known as ‘支娄迦谶’ (Zhi Lou Jia Chen), or ‘Lokaksema’ - and rendered as the ‘般舟三昧经’ (Ban Zhou San Mei Jing) or ‘Stabilising Vehicle Samadhi Classic’, etc. This genre includes Kumarajiva’s translation of the ‘Seated Meditation Samadhi Classic’ (坐禅三昧经 - Zuo Ch’an San Mei Jing) extant within the Sarvāstivāda School, the ‘Ch’an Classic Preface’ (禅经序注 - Ch’an Jing Xu Zhu), the ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’, the ‘Continued Esteemed Monk Transmission’ and the texts explaining ‘How to Meditate’, etc. This material reflects the content spread throughout the early Chinese Mahayana and Theravada Classics, and is particularly prevalent in the Theravada ‘不净念’ (Bu Jing Nian) literature, which warns against the arising of ‘impure thoughts’ (caturarakkha-bhavana). This is closely related to the ‘安那般那念‘ (An Na Ban Na Nian), or the ‘mindfulness of breathing’ (Ānāpānasati) teachings, and the teachings regarding the cultivation of ‘two kinds of nectar’ (二种甘露 - ‘Er Zhong Gan Lu’). There are also the ‘Four Brahma Abodes’ (四梵住 - Si Fan Zhu) of "kindness’ (慈 - Ci), ‘compassion’ (悲 - Bei), ‘joy’ (喜 - Xi), and ‘equanimity’ (舍 - She), and the ‘Four Mindfulness Practices’ (四念处 - Si Nian Chu) of ‘body’ (身 - Shen), ‘feeling’ (受 Shou), ‘mind’ (心 - Xin) and ‘Dharma’ (法 - Fa). Most crucially of all for this study, there is also the ‘Five Mind-Stilling' (五停心 - Wu Ting Xin) practices. A similar emphasis is reflected in the Mahayana work associated with ‘Guṇabhadra’ (求那跋陀罗 - Qui Na Ba Tuo Luo), involving such texts as the four-volumed ‘Lankavatara Sutra’ (Leng Jia Jing), particularly the second-volume which contains chapters such as ‘Walking Meditation for Ordinary People’ (愚夫所行禅 - Yu Fu Suo Xing Ch’an), ‘Observing Analysing Phenomena Meditation’ (观察义禅 - Guan Cha Yi Ch’an), ‘Ascent Through Meditation’ (攀缘如禅 - Pan Yuan Ru Ch’an) and ‘Tathagata Ch’an’ (如来禅 - Ru Lai Ch’an’, etc. These methods are summarised within Tantric Buddhism as the four methods of ‘External Path Meditation’ (外道禅 - Wai Dao Ch’an), ‘Ordinary People Meditation’ (凡夫禅 - Fan Fu Ch’an), ‘Small Vehicle Meditation’ (小乘禅 - Xiao Cheng Ch’an) and ‘Large Vehicle Meditation’ (大乘禅 - Da Cheng Ch’an). In modern times, Hu Shi (胡适) has used early Chinese translations of Ch’an texts, in particular the ‘Seated Meditation Samadhi Sutra’ (坐禅三昧经 - Zuo Ch’an San Mei Jing), etc, as the object of focus. From this analysis, it is obvious that the practice of meditation was transmitted from India to China during the earliest days of Buddhist interaction. This emphasis upon the practice and use of meditation can be divided into five categories such as 1) ‘Impurity Observation’ (不净观 - Bu Jing Guan)’, 2) ‘Compassionate Mind Observation’ (慈心观 - Ci Xin Guan), 3) ‘Cause and Effect Observation’ (因缘观 - Yin Yuan Guan), 4) ‘Focus Breath Observation’ (Nian Xi Guan), and 5) ‘Freeing the Mind’ (散心观 - San Xin Guan) Through ‘Chanting the Buddha’s Name’ (念佛观 - Nian Fo Guan) and practicing ‘Stilling Meditation’ (定心观 - Ding Xin Guan).
The article argues that the early Buddhist literature often emphasised supernatural powers (or miracles) to motivate the individual's realization of enlightenment through the use of meditation. Meditation and supernatural powers complement each other and thereby satisfy both self-interested and altruistic tendencies. Eminent monks involved throughout the history of early Chinese Buddhism, such as An Shigao (安世高), Fo Tucheng (佛图澄), Zhi Xuan (支谶) and Kang Senghui (康僧会), etc., each had their own achievements in the three aspects of precept-upholding, concentration and wisdom, and all possessed supernatural powers. Supernatural power is not only presented as the natural product of meditation, but also the preferred form of meditational acquisition. The use of supernatural powers as a means to exhibit meditational skills not only gives meditation a sense of mystery and sacredness, but also reveals the function of meditation in the Buddhist cultivation system and the activities of promoting the Dharma and benefiting the living. The expressions of these supernatural powers include subduing outsiders, subduing demons and exorcising ghosts, predicting the future, divination, calling for wind and rain, healing and praying for blessings, evacuating from disasters, and resurrecting the dead. In the Chapter pertaining to meditational practice in the ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’ text, there is little about meditational methods leading directly to the attainment of enlightenment, and more about the link between meditation and supernatural powers. The exception is ‘Hui Shi’ (慧思) - a famous Ch’an master active during the times of early Buddhism in China, who discussed in detail how the mind should be developed through a careful meditation practice, with a particular emphasis upon following the breath and how this relates to acquiring the six-powers. However, there is another trend that can be discerned, particularly within the ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’ and ‘Continued Esteemed Monk Transmission’ texts - which sees the development of a different metaphysical language used to describe Ch’an meditational concepts and achievements - as borrowed from the School of Philosophical Daoism (道家 - Dao Jia). This suggests a general shift in attitude with regards to the subject of supernatural powers, and a reorientating of perspective. This change may be due to the metaphysical attitudes common throughout the Eastern Jin Dynasty (317-420 CE), and the attitude of ‘Yili’ (义理) or the Confucian principle governing ‘moral behaviour’ - that is ‘right’ because it is ‘correctly regulated’ - which became prevalent throughout the Sui Dynasty (581-618 CE) and the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE). These changes led to people retaining social order through keeping a ‘quiet’ attitude during interaction which was assumed to be ‘happy.’ Daoist metaphysics implied that there was a sublime mystery at the centre of the universe, and this attitude became associated with Ch’an practice and descriptions of enlightened attainment. When a Ch’an monastic attained enlightenment – they were said to attain to the Daoist status of ‘True Men’ (真人 - Zhen Ren). Attainment in (Indian) Buddhist meditation became viewed as success in refining ‘breath’ (气 - Qi) and the strengthening and expanding of ‘spirit’ (神 - Shen). Indeed, Daoist metaphysical language infiltrated the Ch’an School and redefined how the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds were to be interpreted. This transition can be summarised as a shift from an Indian spiritual ‘art’ (术 - Shu) to a Chinese Daoist ‘science’ (道 - Dao).
About ‘Early Ch’an’
An important part of this paper is a discussion about ‘early’ Ch’an. In the genealogical consciousness of the "imagined community" of Ch’an monks, Bodhidharma is recognized as the first ancestor of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism and the twenty-eighth ancestor of the Indian ‘Dhyana’ tradition. Bodhidharma transmitted the ‘mind-to-mind' (以心传心 - Yi Xin Chuan Xin) method of India, which literally translates as ‘by the mind – the mind is transmitted.’ This is considered the unique aspect of Indian Dhayana Buddhism and the agency through which it is to be transmitted to and through China. However, historical documents pertaining to Bodhidharma are very vague and include many legendary properties. If we look at this gap in history in a positive sense, its importance and ambiguity can be thought of as creating a fictional and extended space. Facing this fundamental issue in the field of Chinese Ch’an history, Jiang Hainu [蒋海怒] (Zhejiang Sci-tech University, "The Four Lives of Bodhidharma: A Case Study of Imagination in the History of Ch’an Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty"), on the basis of a careful examination of the century-old research history of Bodhidharma in the international academic community, this article takes "Imagining Bodhidharma" as the perspective, and provides an outline of the four images of Bodhidharma created by the Sangha in the Tang Dynasty: "Wandering Monk", "author" of a large number of Ch’an texts, The "Patriarch" of China and India, and the "mind" which is the basis of liberation. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the "Imagined Bodhidharma" promoted the development of Ch’an thought and Ch’an history in the Tang Dynasty in different ways, not only in "imagination" but also in the "ideology" of Ch’an history, both of aspects of which were eventually “intellectualised” as if they were real facts in the concrete world. The above article points out that when Daoxuan (道宣) wrote the biography of Bodhidharma in the ‘Continued Esteemed Monk Transmission’, he was actually faced with a series of materials that were problematic from the perspective of historical origin, texts such as the "Luoyang Qie Lan Ji" (洛阳伽蓝记) and the literary notes contained associated with the concept of ‘recollection history’ as contained in the text entitled ‘Two Entrances – Four Paths Discourse’ (二入四行论 - Er Ru Si Xing Lun). There is also the purpose and nature of each text being considered, for instance, why was it written? The main purpose of writing texts such as ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’, is not to provide faithful records of characters, but to provide some "idealized monkish concept" based on the "religious paradigm" of "high monks" rather than "famous monks", "Continued Biography of Emerging Monks" also faces the problem of "how to shape Bodhidharma". The primary purpose of such texts as the ‘Esteemed Monk Transmission’ and the ‘Continued Esteemed Monk Transmission’ is to paint the figure of Bodhidharma in a particular light. He is presented as an ‘esteemed’ or ‘high’ monk rather than a monk who is well-known or is famous! This is not the recording of verifiable history, but rather a contextual effort focusing on ‘how to shape Bodhidharma’ in the general imagination. Daoxuan’s narrative, however, presents Bodhidharma in such a way that the connection between the practice of ‘meditation’ and ‘monastic discipline’ is hidden from view, as are the connections between ‘meditation’ and ‘Tiantai’, and ‘Bodhidharma’ and ‘monastic practice’, etc. This was a ‘confrontational’ style of writing which saw the early writers of Ch’an move away from (and ‘defy’) the dominance of the Chinese Classical texts and develop ‘new’ texts to express their inner understanding and meditational achievements – projecting both onto a constructed Bodhidharma image. Indeed, these texts can be grouped together as forming a type of ‘Bodhidharma Ch’an’ literature. This ‘Bodhidharma Ch’an’ which only exists on paper, did indeed enrich the depth and texture of Ch’an thought during the Tang Dynasty, as well as shaped the development of many different but related directions of Ch’an thought. Furthermore, shaping of Bodhidharma's thought goes hand in hand with the shaping of the expected or typical Patriarchal-image. The Buddhist monks of the Tang Dynasty continued to add various elements to the image of Bodhidharma (and the image of the Patriarch) according to their own needs, whilst revering Bodhidharma as the first Patriarch of China and the twenty-eighth Patriarch of India. Until the era of Ch’an Master ‘Qi Song’ (契嵩) [1007-1072] of the Northern Song Dynasty, the interpretation of Bodhidharma was politicized and enthused with ethics so that he became the ‘perfect monk.’ Not only had he come from a royal family – he also sympathized with the well-being of all beings, he has become a metaphor for the great righteousness of the Chinese emperor's Dharma. He preferred the life of a hermit detached from politics – whilst caring about the state of politics. He educates his disciples to be good teachers and fine examples to others – and when he died – there was much sadness and grief. It was the Ch’an monastic Sangha which generated this image. This image of an ethical Bodhidharma was also used to politicize Buddhism during the Song Dynasty.
During the middle and late Tang Dynasty, the early stages of Ch’an slowly transformed into that of classical Ch’an. During this process, the consciousness of "imagining Bodhidharma" carried-out by the Ch’an monks was expressed as asking ‘the meaning of the ancestor coming from the west.’ In this on-the-spot situation, as a historical Bodhidharma, his appearance, family background, teacher inheritance, and deeds of wandering are no longer important to the practice of Ch’an. These concerns were replaced with an obsession about the inherent and spiritual meaning of Bodhidharma coming from the West – and how the ancestors in India would have behaved. What is of particular importance is the development of the awareness of the ‘existential moment’ that envelopes within itself all elements of the past and the future. This renders the past and the future as ‘unimportant’ and subsumes both into the present. This is why the historicity of Bodhidharma is viewed with little interest as it no longer matters. Bodhidharma’s legitimacy stems from his realisation and occupation of the ‘eternally present’ moment. The ‘mind’ (心 - Xin) becomes the conduit through which this reality is accessed and comprehended. As the mind is the supreme ‘portal’ through which enlightenment is realised (or glimpsed), the concept of the ‘mind’ itself (and not just the act of ‘meditating’ or ‘developing’ the mind), became synonymous with that of ‘Dharma’ (达 - Fa) both in ‘practice’ and ‘concept.’ Whilst the mind became ‘one’ with Dharma, the mind also became ‘one’ with body and environment – unifying the (immaterial) mind with the (material) body and surrounding physical existence. This ‘existential’ view of Bodhidharma generates a total and complete perception of the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ body. This is why Chinese Ch’an came to represent an emphasis upon the ‘mind-to-mind' transmission. For a long time, the fragmentation and complexity of Classical Ch’an texts - such as ‘Ancestral Hall Collection’ (祖堂集-Zu Tang Ji) - has brought confusion and ambiguity to many researchers and scholars operating in this field. In the Ch’an quotations of that era, a large number of hitherto ‘obscured’ teachings gradually became apparent often involving Ch’an masters and supernatural powers, as well as Ch’an and the role of women, etc. As far as the latter is concerned, the relationship between women and Buddhism is a hot and controversial issue in the international Buddhist community. In theory, the ‘non-duality’ principle of traditional Mahayana Buddhism implies equality between men and women. In fact, in the life of the Sangha, nuns are still lower than monks. The relationship between women and Buddhism is characterized by ‘symbolic and religious violence.’ Corresponding to the traditional East Asian society taking various forms to exclude women from public life, traditional Buddhism has also imposed various prohibitions on women for a long time, including nuns and women from the lower classes. Similar problems exist in the ‘Classical Ch’an" stage of Ch’an history. Xuan Fang (宣方) provided the Conference with a very important paper (Renmin University of China, ‘The Old Lady and the Wife in Ch’an: An Ambiguous Page in the History of Ch’an Buddhism in the Tang and Song Dynasties"), he is of the opinion that a special grouping of broader Buddhist quotations extent during the Tang and Song Dynasties single-out the ‘older woman.’ Their excellent monastic experience is not dissimilar to that of male cultivators, with examples of some men being intimidated by the spiritual and physical dimensions of these women. However, within the writings recording Early Ch’an history, it is often the case that such experiences are ‘omitted’ either accidently or on purpose. An exception to this rule is evident within a number of pro-women gong-an (公案) cases, the most famous of which all seem to cluster around the reputation of a single Ch’an master and include: ‘Zhaozhou Observes an Old Woman’ (赵州勘婆 - Zhao Zhou Kan Po), ‘An Old Woman Burns a Nunnery’ (婆子烧庵 - Po Zi Shao An), ‘An Old Woman Points Directly to the Centre of the Heart-Mind' (婆子点心 - Po Zi Dian Xin), ‘Yantou Dances with a Paddle’ (岩头舞棹 - Yan Tou Wu Zhao), ‘Linji Encounters a Wife’ (临济遇婆 - Lin Ji Yu Po) and ‘Touzi Predicts an Ox’ (投子卜牛 - Tou Zi Bu Niu) - in the above-mentioned gong-an cases, these women – who were or had been ordained Buddhist nuns - all used their outstanding experience in meditation to confuse the male monastic counter-parts. With a little attention, it is not difficult to find that most of these outstanding female Ch’an practitioners lived in the late Tang Dynasty. If we take into account the wife and daughters of Layman Pang (庞), and Buddhist nuns such as ‘Deng Yinfeng’ (邓隐峰) - as well as other well-known women practitioners – then the time period can be pushed-back to the middle-Tang. These portraits, however, become far more sober and less flamboyant in their content. Why was there such a group of outstanding female Ch’an practitioners in the late Tang Dynasty, especially around Ch’an master Zhaozhou (赵州) [778-897]? During the ‘Huichang’ (会昌) persecution of Buddhism (841-845 CE), the town where Zhaozhou resided during the Late Tang Dynasty refused to carry-out the imperial edict ordering the persecution of the Buddha’s teaching (Dharma) and Buddhist monastics, etc. Indeed, regardless of this country-wide persecution – this area still maintained a respectful attitude toward Buddhism and the Buddhist (ordained) Sangha. This explains why a number of these outstanding women surrounding Zhaozhou were Buddhist nuns who had been ‘returned’ to lay-life from elsewhere in China, and who had found a place to continue their practice in Zhaozhou’s temple. (This temple was rich in resources because Buddhism had been supported in that area by past imperial governments). An interesting point to consider is that although women are occasionally presented in a positive manner within Early Ch’an (as in the above selected gong-an), it is also common to see women used as a platform for the reflection of the (assumed to be) ‘superior’ understanding of the men practicing Ch’an around them. As a consequence, the lives of these women are not recorded and are treated as not being worth recording. It is further worth considering that all these records are made by the hands of men in the Buddhist community, and that the narrative presented is viewed (and interpreted) from a male perspective. Especially thought provoking is that although endless lines of ‘male’ transmissions are recorded – not a single ‘female’ lineage exists in the many Ch’an records. Women were seldom presented as being ‘important’ and their lineages not worth recording. They simply appear scattered randomly here and there in the records, as disparate individuals whose presence is used to ‘make a point’ about something relevant to male practice. When they are portrayed as exceptional (like a shooting star traversing the sky) - it is because they are ‘copying’ or ‘mimicking’ male behaviour and is never in their own right. Their brilliance does not belong to their gender. This attitude reflects the Chinese society at the time – where only husbands have a say, make plans and carryout endeavours, etc. These examples should direct the reader to reflect upon gender inequality within feudal China, but more to the point, this is an attitude prevalent throughout the Buddhist community, as well as Chinese society as a whole. Why are women treated this way? Why are women occasionally permitted to appear to be effective Buddhists? Why do male Ch’an masters quite literally ‘sing’ about the ‘oneness’ and ‘equality’ of all-beings – and yet exclude women from this pronouncement? Why are women practitioners not recorded being asked for their advice and guidance? Why are women practitioners from the Tang and Song Dynasties predicted as ‘deferring’ to their male counter-parts? It is obvious that women within Early Ch’an are not considered ‘equal’ to men despite adhering to a religion that is premised upon the ‘equality’ of all-beings. Women are excluded from the records of teachers and their lineages (which must have existed) are written-out of the history books. On occasion, a woman might be allowed a very limited voice and given a small role on the stage of Ch’an practice – but this is a rare occurrence.
Li Tong [李瞳] (Shenzhen University, "Writing at Night in the Ch’an Lamp Records") also examined the Ch’an Lamp Records. The author believes that these Ch’an Lamp Records contain many stories that happened at night, and they are often related to monks' awakening or teaching when it is dark. The Ch’an transmission is literally a ‘lamp in the dark.’ For the characteristics of Ch’an Buddhism "spreading outside the teachings", enlightenment and teaching are very core behaviours, and the special time background of night further highlights their mystery. Among the vast and complex texts left by Ch’an Buddhism, the number of night writings is not very large, but they show the techniques of Ch’an historians to construct Ch’an history and shape Ch’an imagery. Different from the use of magical elements in traditional Buddhist historiography, Ch’an historians use the special time of night to express the secret of Ch’an masters' awakening and accepting the translated law, and in this way highlight the characteristics of Ch’an Buddhism ‘establishing transmission outside the teachings.’ For example, in the ‘Altar Sutra’, the element of night plays an important role in the development of the plot which sees an elaboration of the ‘unknown.’ The conflict between Huineng (慧能) and Shenxiu (神秀) over the inheritance of the Dharma was carried out in secret, and it was the background of the night that served as the special time which made this secret operation possible. The division of day and night separates the characters in the story into two camps, namely Hongren (弘忍) and Huineng on one side - and Shenxiu on the other - who are the parties disputing the transmission of the Dharma, whilst ordinary disciples are merely marginal characters. These marginal characters define the achievements of the main characters, and serve to illustrate the ‘special’ and ‘secret’ nature of the Ch’an transmission. During the entire process, these marginal characters can only see the appearance, but cannot touch the essence, whilst the main characters can act secretly from the essence-level, hiding their true ability and depth of insight from all those around them. Whether it was Shenxiu and Huineng's verses (in different versions), or Hongren's private conversation with the two, or the manner in which Hongren ‘transmits’ the Dharma to Huineng, it all happened at night, and ordinary disciples did not know about it, just as they are unable to touch the core of the Dharma-transmission event from beginning to end. This also illustrates a certain degree of elitism within Ch’an Buddhism due to its advocacy of ‘spreading the teachings outside the sutras.’ This is despite Ch’an Buddhist philosophy stating that anyone can realise enlightenment, and anyone can become Buddhas. When describing specific events, however, Ch’an history writers are good at shaping the opposition between the main characters and the marginal characters, so that only a small number of people can comprehend the Chan method. The research focus of this article then shifted to Chan practice during the Song Dynasty. The author believes that ‘Transmission of the Light’ literature uses the facility of ‘night writing’ as a manifestation of Ch’an Buddhism's use of rhetorical historical writing, as a means to shape its own image during the Song Dynasty. The number of ‘night writing’ incidents in the ‘Transmission of the Lamp’ is negatively correlated with the relationship between the author of the text concerned, the imperial power and the power of the author's sect: The closer the sect is to imperial power and the more prominent the sect is, the less ‘night writing’ appears in the book. The reason for this phenomenon may lie in the fact that the characteristics of a "separate transmission outside the sutras" as advocated by the Ch’an School has a strong mystical and anti-traditional spirit. This is very different from other forms of Buddhism. This mystical and iconoclastic spirit did assist Ch’an Buddhism to stand out and attract many scholar-bureaucrats, but as Ch’an grew closer to the centre of secular power, it was unlikely to be accepted by the rulers themselves.
The "Renaissance of Ch’an Studies" During the Ming and Qing Dynasties and Japanese Zen
There is a common misconception in the academic world - and it is also a common view held by many scholars from the West and Japan – which suggests the creativity of Chinese Ch’an declined and disappeared after the Song Dynasty. This is historically incorrect. In fact, from the mid-Ming Dynasty, Ch’an learning slowly recovered, until it grew into the "Renaissance of Ch’an Learning" during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, where it had a further impact on the development of Zen in Japan. And if we examine it from the perspectives of Buddhism and society and Buddhism and politics, we can see many new aspects of the development of Ch’an Buddhism during this period. Among the older generation of scholars, Mr. Chen Yuan (陈垣 ) has done a lot of research on this topic. In overseas academic circles, this period has also become the research object of some scholars (such as Wu Jiang - 吴疆). In recent times, domestic academic circles (in China) have also made new explorations on this period of Ch’an history based upon the analysis of newly discovered documents, Cheng Qing [成庆] (Shanghai University, "Tiantong Straight Talk" [天童直说 - Tian Tong Zhi Shou] - Miyun Yuanwu [密云圆悟] [1566-1642] and Hanyue Facang [汉月法藏] [1573~1635] - Treatise Re-Examination"). Through the newly discovered ‘Tiantong Straight Talk’ text written by Miyun Yuanwu, this author attempts to clarify the process through which Hanyue Facang and Miyun Yuanwu ‘changed places’ as master and apprentice. Miyun Yuanwu, as the representative of Linji (临济) orthodoxy in the late Ming Dynasty, tried to ‘envelop’ and ‘eclipse’ the ‘Three Peaks’ (笼络 - San Feng) system as advocated by Hanyue Facang. Miyun Yuanwu disagreed with Hanyue Facang’s assertion that the aim of the Linji School was no different to the objective of the ‘Teaching’ (教 - Jiao) School of Sutra-based Buddhism. ‘Tiantong Straight Talk’ contains Miyun's correspondence between himself and Hanyue (the latter being in his later–years). Cheng Qing pointed out that Hanyue's letter to Miyun Yuanwu in the seventh year of Chongzhen (崇祯) - or ‘1634 CE’ - was the key turning point in the final break between Hanyue and Miyun. The ‘post-script’ included in ‘Tiantong Straight Talk’ presents some historical details of the developing differences between Miyun and Hanyue. In the last stage of his life, Hanyue defended the ‘Five Schools Lineage Purpose’ (五家宗旨 - Wu Jia Zong Zhi) Position, and did not hesitate to completely break with Miyun Yuanwu and the Linji orthodoxy he represented. From the point of view of the history of Ch’an thought, this placed the ‘Three Peaks One Gate’ (三峰一门 - San Feng Yi Men) School into a very embarrassing moral predicament that gave the imperial government a reason to interfere in Tiantong affairs. This was directly caused by the stubborn attitude of this monk. The ideological predicament of the Ming Dynasty Ch’an Buddhism (as represented by Hanyue) could not be considered and openly discussed, whilst Qing Dynasty Ch’an was still typified by the concepts of ‘opposing words’ (反对文字 - Fan Dui Wen Zi) and the Ch’an monastic forest tradition and its ‘Stick Shout’ (棒喝 - Bang He) method.
The academic study of Ch’an history in the modern sense was born in the twentieth century. When we look from the perspective of intellectual history, returning to the development of Ch’an itself in the twentieth century, we will be amazed to find the prosperity of Ch’an Buddhism in the East and the West during this century. Furthermore, within the scope of Ch’an Studies itself, Suzuki Dazhuo is undoubtedly a central figure. Suzuki spread a certain Ch’an philosophy with a strong personal touch to the West. He was surrounded by passionate people and inspired a new type of ‘Zen’ called ‘European and American Zen.’ With the huge influence in Western society, Suzuki's Zen thought has returned to Japan and China after the 1980s, and it still flourishes today. Suzuki himself set the stage with regards to how the West viewed ‘Japan’ and ‘China’ - and directed how Westerners viewed Japanese ‘Zen’ as if it were the only legitimate manifestation of Chinese Ch’an. Between the "self" and the "other", what are their respective sociological positions of knowledge? To raise this question undoubtedly requires a very complex analytical vision. Therefore, when Lin Peiying [林佩莹 ] (Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan; Imagination of Religious Communities through Zen Rationalities: The Case of D. T. Suzuki) reported the results of her recent research on Suzuki Dazhuo, a heated discussion among the participating scholars was sparked. Her discussion is based upon a text that has not yet received widespread attention in the academic world, that is, the collection of essays by Suzuki Dazhuo edited by Kansho Ueda as the object of analysis. The paper argues that Suzuki's Zen thought has gone through four stages: the Protestant imagination of Zen, the contrast between "experience" and "science" shaped by the imagination, the interpretation of the so-called universal truth, and the so-called Japanese ‘atheism’ tradition. Furthermore, the philosophical framework of ‘Suzuki Zen’ is based upon a series of binary opposites, which are embodied in ‘West/East’, ‘Reason/Wisdom’, ‘God/Sage’, Intelligence/Emotion’, ‘Truth’/’Lies’ and ‘Science/Experience’, etc. This brings us to a comment made by Robert Sharf: In his ‘Theory About Japanese People’, Suzuki Dazhuo is revealed as first creating a strange image of the East and West – and then letting them fight one another for dominance! As neither image is real – this process lacks any connection with the reality it claims to represent. In other words, the thinking of Suzuki Dazhuo is ‘false.’ Lin Peiying's further analysis showed that three groups had different responses to Suzuki's Dazhuo Zen thought. (1) Suzuki himself and his contemporaneous or later Japanese scholars' groups, including Kitaro Nishida, Okakura Kakuzo, Hisamatsu Shinichi, and others, and (2) Supporters of Suzuki thought, including Chinese scholars Li Zehou (李泽厚), Ge Zhaoguang (葛兆光), and (3) The position of complete exclusion, including Hu Shi (胡适), Fan Wenlan (范文澜) and their students. In the discussion that follows, this paper attempts to analyse the respective interpretations of Zen Buddhism by these three intellectual groups, as well as the modes of "representation" and "self-representation" of "China" expressed in such interpretations. That is to say, when different groups engage in self-imagination, they unconsciously use ‘imagination’ (divorced from material reality) as a medium to position themselves as a group possessing a special ‘knowing’, where they will express what ‘they’ are and what they think the ‘other’ is. The author intends to express the following thoughts: Scholars explore the world, often in their minds, rather than addressing socio-religious facts. Moreover, the genealogy associated with ‘knowing’ is established from the cultural-imaginative space. In terms of methodology, it can be said that this paper is based on the ‘post-Suzuki Dazhuo era’ and conducts a "history of effect" review of Suzuki's Zen thought. In a subsequent response, Gong Juan (龚隽) pointed-out that Suzuki Dazhuo did not propose to use ‘Zen’ to criticize Western thought from the very beginning, and in fact, Suzuki first engaged in the use of ‘Mahayana Buddhism’ to oppose the Theravada Buddhism popular in Europe since the nineteenth century. Suzuki's translation of the ‘Mahayana Awakening of Faith’ and his writing of the ‘Outline of Mahayana Buddhism’ showed this purpose. Moreover, Suzuki Dazhuo put forward the concept of ‘Oriental Buddhist’ - but by this term he did not mean the ‘Buddhism of East Asia’ - but rather only the ‘Buddhism of Japan.’ Indeed, Suzuki's standard position has always been Japan, whilst in his East-West theories, the so-called "East Asian Mind" that he attaches such importance to actually refers only to the Japanese mind as it practices Zen – and only then pertaining to the Rinzai tradition.
‘Imagination’ and ‘Meditation’
So far, we have also found that "Imagination" has become the "keyword" of this conference, and several scholars have unexpectedly used this concept to describe the over-subjective content in the historical formation and thought construction of Ch’an Buddhism. Xuan Fang (宣方), however, reminded the conference that we should limit the use of the word "imagination" to the point of view of the semantic structure of belief - in fact, some ‘imagination’ survived within Ch’an history, whilst other types of ‘imagination’ has been abandoned. The reasons for this should be analysed in detail and cannot be dealt with simply. The influence of Ch’an and Zen on the eastern and western worlds in the twentieth century is especially striking in the ‘Meditation’ movement active within contemporary mass life culture. This reflects the fact that religion often has a key influence on the course of social history. However, we also saw the other side, that is, religion is often used in order to meet the needs of society. This dual purpose often also means that the structure of religion changes as society and culture are changed by religion. Therefore, as far as religious practice is concerned, although it has always been used as an important resource for solving physical and mental problems - its application in physical and mental healing in modern society is reflected in the drawing of resources away from religion – an ongoing process that tends to ‘alter’ or ‘change’ the very structure and fabric of the religion itself. On the other hand, despite societies making an obvious use of religion and religious teachings – the trend has also been toward the movement ‘away’ from religion playing any ‘active’ or ‘direct’ role within society itself. Therefore, the application of "meditation" in modern Eastern and Western mass societies is also subject to certain historical, temporal and spatial social needs and ideological trends. However, it also contains a serious misunderstanding of the basic principles of Buddhism. Deng Weiren [邓伟仁] (Taiwan Dharma Drum College of Arts and Sciences, “Reflections on the Modernization of Buddhist Meditation Traditions") centred on the phenomenon of ‘meditation’ in contemporary society, reflecting upon the transformation and even alienation of Buddhist traditions caused by Buddhist modernization, and examine the ‘Buddhist modernism’ that caused this shift. During the above research, the author also raises questions such as whether the Buddhist values of birth and accession are still intact and differentiated, and whether the nature of Buddhist practice produces alienation and other issues. The author sees the following facts: After nearly two decades of promotion and research, the utility of Buddhist ‘meditation’ in physical and mental healing has almost become an unquestionable consensus. A search for the words "mediation" and "healing" on the Amazon.com e-book store will yield thousands of search results for related books. Even if the search criteria are limited to ‘Buddhist meditation’ and healing, there are nearly a thousand examples of such materials. If combined with the presentation of library bibliography, academic journals, non-academic journals, music, videos and other multimedia, the literature and reports on meditation and healing are also found in ample numbers on the shelves of large supermarkets. After carefully combing Sanskrit-Pali and other related classics, the author clarifies the basic concepts of Buddhist meditation and believes that meditation is the core teaching method of the Buddha. Therefore, in the ‘Four Noble Truths’, the core teaching of the Buddha, the main practice of seeking the ‘Way of Truth’ (道谛 - Dao Di) - or the way to end suffering - is meditation. If the Buddhist sutras are ignored, it makes no sense to talk of the ‘meditative’ healing of mind and body. This article argues that the general discussion of the application of Buddhist meditation to physical and mental healing tends to fall into the trend of the so-called ‘Buddhist modernism’ meditation movement. That is to say, the promotion and application of meditation practice on the one hand, enables the Dharma to be more widely used and provides the benefits of the Dharma to more diverse beings, but on the other hand, this kind of ‘user-friendly’ meditation (regardless of religious belief, gender, age) suggests that the universalization of meditation will inevitably lower the threshold for the use of meditation, involving the removal of foundational teachings, the Buddhist cosmology, and the original purpose of meditation practice. The ‘new meditation’ brought by the emerging meditation movement, such as life meditation, fruit meditation, photography meditation, relaxation meditation, etc., is a ‘convenient method’ for busy modern people who are pursuing simple and practical results. But we need to remind the process of Buddhist modernization not to confuse the means for the ends. Is the ‘convenience method’ replacing the real purpose? Will Buddhism, which wears a ‘modern coat’ in order to stay close to modern society, ever be able to take it off? This is a question worth thinking about. Furthermore, it emphasizes ‘the help of Buddhist meditation for physical and mental healing’, it is easy for us to simply keep our mind and body healthy, in particular, the physical and mental health in the sense of modern medicine is regarded as the goal, but for the Buddhist meditation tradition, physical and mental health in the sense of modern medicine is merely a ‘convenience’ of practice. The real purpose of Buddhist practice is instead to recognize the defects of our body and mind in samsara: that is to ‘identify’ and ‘uproot’ dukkha (suffering) from the mind and body (as in greed, hatred and delusion) – as well as removing the ‘ignorance’ that is ‘attached’ to the illusion that ‘separates’ the mind and body! Therefore, on the one hand, we are happy to see that Buddhist meditation can benefit all sentient beings under the general trend of ‘Humanistic Buddhism’, and be applied in various fields such as mental health healing, alleviation or treatment of diseases, and even help education, business and sports, etc., military training and other secular professional developments – but on the other hand, it should also be pointed out that the universalization, medicalization, commercialization and globalization of Buddhist ‘meditation’ may obscure traditional meditation and make it indistinguishable from non-Buddhist meditation. The correct distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist meditation is not a matter of labelling or pseudonymous attachment.
When we examine the historical evolution of Ch’an Buddhism from an ideological point of view, its characteristics that span regions, countries, and cultural traditions are naturally revealed. In fact, whether it is the development of Ch’an in all parts of China and various ethnic groups, or even the spread to East Asian regions such as the Korean Peninsula, Japan, and Vietnam, and even the growth of Ch’an and Zen in the Western world in the twentieth century, its spiritual transcendence is not hindered by cultural differences or geographical boundaries. Therefore, when we study Chinese Ch’an, we must especially examine it in the context of East Asia and even the world. As for researchers, they come from all over the world. The connection of various types of Ch’an in the dimension of space is especially close to the cultural exchange between China and Japan. From the Tang Dynasty to the Song Dynasty, to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the diffusion of Chinese Ch’an classics and sectarian thought to the East has at least three observable peaks. Among the transmitters - Yonghei Daoyuan (永平道元) - or ‘Eihei Dogen’ in his native Japanese - is a pinnacle figure. Dogen transmitted the Caodong (曹洞) line of the Patriarchs to Japan. He has had a great influence on the transmission Eastward. During the twentieth century, Westerners come into contact with Japanese Zen, with most of them regarding the thought of Dogen as the most precise and profound, whilst from the perspective of comparative philosophy and the study of Zen thought, such derivatives arose such as Dogen and existentialism, Dogen and mysticism and Dogen and the Kyoto School, etc. It is a pity that, perhaps due to the limitation of vision and language, or because of lack of interest, the study of Dogen has always remained in a lonely place in the field of Chinese Buddhism. However, this does not mean that Dogen is of little significance to the study of Chinese Ch’an thought. On the contrary, Dogen Ch’an and Zen can become an important perspective for us to observe the history of Chinese Ch’an in the Song and Yuan Dynasties. Dogen’s criticism of the malpractice of certain aspects of Chinese indigenous Ch’an thought even played a role in defining the focal point for us.
He Yansheng [何燕生] (Wuhan University & Koriyama Women's University, Japan, "Dogen's Inheritance and Criticism of Chinese Ch’an") argues that when compared with his contemporaries ‘Nichiren’ (代的日莲 - Dai De Ri Lian) and Qinluan (亲鸾) - he stands-out in as much as he entered China during the Song Dynasty in-search of the genuine Dharma. However, when we read Dogen's writings, we find that some of his remarks about Chinese Ch’an are often dismissed as ‘evil’ or ‘heretical’ views, which do not fully comprehend the depth of Chinese Ch’an thought. Overtime, the process of selecting and rejecting ended with Dogen finally ‘accepting’ Chinese Ch’an as being legitimate. The author believes that Dogen's religious experience in seeking the Dharma in the Song Dynasty requires that when we examine his thought, on the one hand, it needs to be placed in the historical background of Chinese and Japanese Ch’an-Zen thought - and discussed using the method of thought history – whilst on the other, there must be a concrete analysis of specific problems and that interpretation must not stop at surface concepts or be limited to just a few sayings. This process should also involve the perspective of how Dogen understands Chinese Ch’an thought in his native Japanese language, whilst discussing Dogen's ‘transformation’ and ‘interpretation’ of Japanese thought from the perspective of ideological language; It is only through the study of history, language and thought that this subject can be adequately studied, and a reliable objective viewpoint formed. This method can be practically applied to the analysis of three ‘gong-an’ (koan), namely ‘Immediate Mind is Buddha’ (即心是佛 - Ji Xin Shi Fu), ‘All Evil Non-Manifested’ (诸恶莫作 - Zhu E Mo Zuo) and ‘Raised Flower Faint Smile’ (拈花微笑 - Nian Hua Wei Xiao). These three ‘gong-an’ or ‘koans’ are not only scattered throughout various Chinese Ch’an documents, but also serve as the topics that Dogen specifically discusses in his classic Japanese-language book entitled ‘Shobogenzo’ (正法眼藏 - Zheng Fa Yan Cang), or ‘True Dharma Eye Depository’ (that is, a ‘Depository’ of ‘sacred’ or ‘invaluable’ Buddhist texts – sometimes rendered a ‘Treasury’ or ‘Store’ in the English-language). We found that for ‘Immediate Mind is Buddha’, Dogen did not understand whether ‘mind’ is Buddha or whether ‘mind’ should be regarded as ‘present’ (现在 - Xian Zai) ‘mind’ or ‘original’ (本来 - Ben Lai) ‘mind’ as the Chinese Ch’an masters taught. Rather, Dogen taught that it should be understood in the context of whether or not an individual should practice meditation (that is ‘mind is meditation’). This breakthrough interpretation refreshes the previous theory of ‘immediate mind is Buddha’ with an inward-looking tendency, and establishes the concept (and convention) that to ‘practice’ meditation is to align the individual with the reality that this ‘immediate mind is Buddha.’ With regards to the gong-an ‘All Evil Non-Manifested’, Dogen prefers to separate this statement into ‘all evil’ and ‘non-manifested’ as a means to bring-out the inherent meaning. Dogen considers these ‘sections’ to be ‘gong-an’ in their own right. For the ‘non-manifested’ part, Dogen is of the opinion that this refers to the ‘non-movement' (or ‘stillness’) [莫动着 - Mo Dong Zhe] that resides at the epicentre of all ‘material reality’! Whilst for the ‘all evil’ element – Dogen’s viewpoint is that this is in ‘essence’ nothing but the ‘Immediate Mind is Buddha’! Not sticking to the original meaning of the Chinese language completely destroys the original meaning of the ideograms used, and its interpretation is quite innovative. Concerning the ‘Raised Flower Faint Smile’ ‘gong-an’, Dogen did not interpret this ‘flower’ as the ‘lotus’ as is a common assumption. Instead, he viewed this object as being nothing less than a manifestation of the ‘Udumbara’ (优昙 - You Tan) Flower. The Udumbara Tree flowers very rarely – perhaps once in every 3,000 years – and it is the tree the Buddha sat under when he attained enlightenment. Such an understanding can be regarded as a pioneering work in the history of Zen Buddhism; this ‘non-lotus phenomenon’ reflects the uniqueness of Dogen’s thinking, and can also be regarded as a criticism of Chinese Ch’an thought. In this light, the above paper explains that Dogen did inherit the genuine Chinese Ch’an tradition, but he did not completely conform to all of its strictures, and criticised certain aspects whilst rejecting others. Dogen indeed, brought his own innovative understanding that reinterpreted the Ch’an-Zen tradition. Dogen did not merely ‘inherit’ in a mechanical manner, but ‘questioned’ every facet of the Chinese Ch’an teaching. On the other hand, neither is Dogen’s interpretation entirely ‘original’, as he borrowed from a broader tradition of world Buddhism, whilst being very careful not to make any ‘incorrect’ or ‘misunderstood’ assumptions pertaining to Buddhist thinking. Whilst taking all this into account, we must mention a certain point of observation. Twenty years ago, Professor He Yansheng published ‘Dogen and Chinese Ch’an Thought’, which had a great influence on Japanese religious circles, whilst He Yansheng himself became the ‘first person’ to a make a serious study of Dogen within Chinese Buddhist circles. However, since that paper was published, 20-years have passed, and Professor He Yansheng is still the ‘only person’ to make a serious study of Dogen from within Chinese Buddhist circles. When we face this fact, there is a mixed emotional response combining ‘regret’ on the one-hand and ‘motivation’ (to rectify this situation) on the other. We believe that discussing the history and construction of Ch’an-Zen Buddhism in East Asia, scholars need to suitably prepare their minds and its intellectual approach so that any such studies can be meaningful and fruitful. The ancients once said that ‘if you want to guarantee victory – first learn how to achieve it.’ That is, as far as research and writing about Chinese Ch’an history is concerned, after absorbing and ingesting the important writings of Japanese and Western scholars, we can participate effectively in the core dialogues defining the intellectual direction of international academic circles, only then can research into the history of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism be formed whilst attaining a real cumulative academic effect. Prior to achieving an ‘international’ overview of this subject – it is important not to fall into the trap of making or forming ‘subjective’ or culturally ‘one-sided’ viewpoints or assumptions that are mistakenly presented as ‘authoritative’ statements! In other words, we must avoid a ‘limiting’ and ‘insular’ mind-set – like a ‘monarch ruling over a small house’! Furthermore, simply ‘writing’ copious amounts of words on paper (and on the internet) does not necessarily add any meaningful ‘weight’ to the subject at hand! Although China is undoubtedly the cultural epicentre of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, and given that this strand of Indian Buddhism is now augmented (as ‘Chinese Ch’an’) by Daoist and Confucian influence, nevertheless, Ch’an and Zen are now ‘worldwide’ and ‘international’ phenomenon, (which should also take into account the Ch’an transmissions to Korea and Vietnam, etc), and it is only through embracing this reality (East and West) that the history, development and spread of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism can truly be understood. Only by making more efforts in the three aspects of ability, structure and quality can we gradually usher in a new era in the study of (contextualised) Chinese Ch’an historical research together with East Asian Zen history - whilst establishing an exemplary and significant (modern) academic discipline.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2022.
Original Chinese Language Article:
https://baike.baidu.com/tashuo/browse/content?id=a46e4d356080bf03fffb9c83
作者 澎湃新闻|发布:2021-06-17 00:48:45 更新:2019-11-21 14:00:58
阅读 58赞 0
当“佛系”一词成为流行语,汉语佛学并未藉之以遣兴;在天下说禅的时代,禅宗史的研究却依旧显得波澜不惊。然而在潜移暗化之中,十余年来的禅宗史研究也出现了一些颇应注目的方面,表现之一是多学科介入与合作,除了传统的佛教义理学、史学和文献学外,社会学、语文学,人文地理学等学科也参与进来,从而开辟出不少可堪耕耘的解析空间。表现之二是议题分布的宽化和深化,触及到许多学界前此未曾讨论的方面,这个特征尤其彰显在宋代禅和明清禅史领域。表现之三是部分学者开始拒绝或不太满足于陈旧思考模式下的,类似学生作文的套话式繁衍,意欲在禅史材料解读、视域、写法等方面做出创新。
上述这些前沿性探索无疑需要禅宗史学人抛弃“闭门造车”习惯,有效参与国际对话,与来自不同学术文化传统的研究者就具体问题进行扎实、细致地讨论,在当前学术生态情况下,这种讨论尤其应体现为与日本和北美学者进行对话。基于此,2019年度“禅史研究”工作坊于11月9-10日在广州(中山大学·锡昌堂)召开,由中山大学哲学系佛学研究中心承办,主题是“东亚禅宗的历史形成与思想建构”。本次工作坊由龚隽教授和何燕生教授主持,10位中国学者,与小川隆、土屋太祐及柳幹康等3位日本学者搭建了一个前沿、精短、密集和高效的“学术对话”平台。本次工作坊分为“论文发表”和“禅宗史座谈”两个环节,学者们在一系列焦点议题和研究方法论方面进行了富有成效和相当新颖的探索。在此,我们先整理出论文发表及相关讨论部分以飨学界。
什么是“中国禅”
本次整理将依据禅宗史的自身脉络和时间坐标进行。首先,什么是“中国禅”,中国禅与“禅坐”的关系是什么,随着研究的深入,学界对这些“禅宗”的根本性质与特点也进行了颇为殊致的回答。看起来,禅宗史的研究需要不断地回到此类“禅”和“禅宗”的本质问题。
被誉为当前日本禅宗(尤其是语录)研究最重要学者、驹泽大学的小川隆教授对此给出了新答案。在论文《中国禅宗的特征:系谱、清规、问答》里,小川教授并未将“禅坐”视为禅宗的特质,在他看来,佛教的其他宗派乃至非佛教的其他许多宗教和思想也强调“静坐”,故禅宗不能被视为坐禅的宗教。中国禅的特征可从另外三个方面来界定:系谱的宗教、清规的宗教和“问答”的宗教。禅僧共同信奉某一经“以心传心”传递开来的传法系谱,没有具体的“开宗”教祖,也没有唯一绝对的圣典,他们共享的只是系谱意识。藉此,禅僧生活在系谱意识的“想象的共同体”(imagined communities)里,并认为自己开悟与祖师有同价值的内涵,因为确信自己可以获得与佛陀一样的开悟经验,所以能够成佛。禅宗的开始就是以菩提达摩为初祖的意识的共享开始的。其次,禅宗在印度以来的戒律之外,新创“清规”这一种独自规范,且基于它而过着独特集团修行生活。传统佛教不允许种地和挖地,因为会伤及泥土里的小生命,而禅宗尤其鼓励在野外进行生产劳动和体力劳动,这就是“普请”和“作务”。禅师们认为,劳动现场就是佛教修行的现场。在余英时看来,禅门清规是中国近世“入世苦行”(inner-worldly asceticism)精神的源流。最后,唐宋禅宗以语录或“问答”为主流。表面上看,这些“问答”呈现为“谜语”一般的难解特征。由于语录大多是用中唐以后乃至五代口语书写,禅宗学者前此只能做一些大致笼统性和模糊性解释,而自上个世纪下半叶始,日本入矢义高开创了从语录的语文学解释传统,他们把禅宗语录当作具体情境里的中国的古典文献,从语言学和文献学的角度进行精确性的研读。正是他们把禅语录研究从佛学领域挪到汉学领域里,语录读解才获得了有径可循的方法。在此,小川隆先生拈举出“祖师西来意”这一最著名的禅“问答”,并根据语录文献对之进行透彻读解。
然而在禅宗这样一个以“禅”为自我标识的宗派里,对“坐禅”或“禅定”的批评却不绝如缕地呈现在《坛经》和中唐以后各种语录里,渐续导向有意识地批判解消禅坐的传统,这是典型的“南宗”思想,在他们的经典如敦煌本《坛经》就痛斥“有人教人坐,看心看淨,不動不起,從此置功。迷人不悟,便執成顛。”神会所谓的“定是非”思想也以祖师皆否定“凝心入定,住心看净,起心外照,摄心内证”为旗帜,《祖堂集》里禅僧崛多三藏亦认为神秀弟子所为静坐之法是“西天下劣外道所习之法”。此外,对坐禅的批判的声音响彻宋代的《景德传灯录》。
对于此种名实冲突问题,龚隽(中山大学,《中国禅学史上的“坐禅”观念——以初期禅史为中心》)发现,历史和思想里的“禅坐”观念实际上经历了相当复杂的“典范转移”的过程,故存在不同类型的坐禅观念。主要活跃于武则天当政前后的北宗都重视以坐禅入道的方式来体悟禅法的根本,他们的经典文本如《楞伽师资记》、《传法宝纪》和《历代法宝记》皆坐如是观,而南宗乃至马祖道一以后的禅僧世界里对“坐禅”的批判不能简单理解为对坐禅的否定,而意在把禅坐从对外相的注意或形式主义的执着引向“心法”上来理解。与坐禅相联系的“神圣”观念是《文殊师利所说摩诃般若波罗蜜经》里的“一行三昧”观念,该经号召在“空闲”处端身正向的“称名念佛”。该观念对六朝佛典,以及天台、净土和禅宗产生深远影响。日本学者椎名宏雄和小林圆照,以及法籍美国学者佛尔(Bernard Faure)都对此皆有过深入讨论。龚隽也看到了这种意义的复杂性,认为对“一行三昧”不能作本质主义理解,而应该从“家族类似”的角度去理解其多重意义。该文集中审察了“初期禅”阶段里从道信、弘忍以下各支禅脉对“一行三昧”的解说。有意趣的是,似乎是不满足于对佛经“一行三昧”观念作胶柱鼓瑟般的阐解,南宗举扬出了带有“对峙”色彩的“游戏三昧”观念,后者偏向于在一切施为活动中去寻求安心,从而把禅引向了日常生活。从而,“游戏三昧”这个新观念更倾向于发明某种“动禅”的思想。在印度典籍里,“游戏三昧”往往指佛成道后无拘无束的神通变化,只有在禅宗这里,该观念才获得了更为精神性和去魅化的展开,特指某种自由自在的意境。中国禅的“游戏三昧”所蕴藏的玄机,并不能简单地从放任行为中去作解释,毋宁说是旨在拆解传统形成的程序化或公式化的系统法则,回到自性的悟解上来。“游戏三昧”所负载的冲击性诱使禅僧们来调整坐禅和“戒相”的关系,有的时候,禅僧给人的感觉是不以“破戒”为意,这其实是严重的误解。实际上, 中国禅重视的是戒律与自性的合一,其宗趣是要在内在化的精神层面作自我要求,而不重在外在形式中去加以表现。因此,尊戒与慢戒的区别就不住形式上的行为合辙与否,而在于自心对于戒法的觉解和持犯程度。
然而,我们也看到如下事实:禅宗是佛教传入中国数百年之后才产生的宗派。在此之前,也有大量文献提到了“禅”,慧皎《高僧传》和道宣《续高僧传》都有“习禅篇”,记载了大量以禅修闻名于世的僧人,他们基本上都生存在禅宗之前。一般来说,学界将此种范围的研究领域称之为中土早期禅学,它是禅宗的“前史”。就此而言,学愚(香港中文大学,《早期中国禅法表现形式的典范转换》)思考了禅宗成立前的中土早期禅学“典范的转换”(Paradigm Shift),这就是从神通向般若玄学化的过程。
作者看到,早期禅学经典包括安世高译《安般守意经》、支娄迦谶译《般舟三昧经》、鸠摩罗什译《坐禅三昧经》等、《禅经序注》,及《高僧传》和《续高僧传》的《习禅篇》等。早期中国大小乘经典中禅法,反映在小乘经典里“不净念”、“安那般那”等“二种甘露”,和“慈、悲、喜、舍”之“四梵住”,及“身、受、心、法”四念处,和五停心。反映在求那跋陀罗翻译的大乘经,即四卷《楞伽经》里卷二中的“愚夫所行禅”、“观察义禅”、“攀缘如禅”和“如来禅”。这些禅法在宗密则被概括为“外道禅、凡夫禅、小乘禅、大乘禅”四种。近代胡适以早期汉译禅经、特别是《坐禅三昧经》等为对象,介绍早期由印度传入中国的禅法,把它分为五类:不净观、慈心观、因缘观、念息观、念佛观、定心观、散心观。
该文认为,早期佛教文献则常用神通或神迹来呈现个人的禅修悟证,禅定与神通相映成晖,共同成就自利和利他事业。早期中国佛教历史上的高僧,如安世高、佛图澄、支谶、康僧会等,各自在自己的戒、定、慧三学方面各有建树,他们都具足神通。神通既是禅定修证产物,同时亦是禅定之呈现形式,而用神通来呈现禅定功夫,不但使禅定赋有神秘感和神圣色彩,同时亦揭示了禅定在佛教修证体系及弘法利生活动中的功能。这些神通的表达方式包括摧伏外道、降魔摈鬼、预知未来、占卜凶吉、呼风唤雨、治病祈福、避难禳灾、起死回生等。然而在《高僧传·习禅篇》里,却少习禅方法的介绍, 多禅定神通方面的表达。一个例外是慧思,这位早期中国佛教著名禅师,曾详细讲述禅定、特别是持息念与六通之间的关系。
在此之后,我们也可以看到另一个发展趋势,它反映在《高僧传》和《续高僧传》里,就是用道家或玄学语言来描述禅、禅定和禅思想,这样的变化透露出人们对神通观点的改变,而这样的改变或许与东晋时的玄学、隋唐的义理研究有关。人们越来越倾向于用逍遥幽寂、玄机高妙等道家或玄学语言,来形容禅或禅境,禅僧似乎亦成为得道之真人,修禅与炼气、安神、守一等同语。用玄学语言来描绘禅定/境,成为东晋及南北朝时禅学由 “术”至 “道”发展的一大特色。
有关于“初期禅”
本次工作坊提交论文也对“初期禅”进行了讨论。禅僧“想象的共同体”之系谱意识里,菩提达摩被公认为禅宗的东土初祖和西天二十八祖,这位“西来”梵僧是禅宗“以心传心”的媒介,被视为将印度佛教精神传播到中国的媒介。然而,历史文献里的菩提达摩记载非常模糊,带有许多传说的性质。如果从积极意义审视历史的缺口,可以认为其重要性与模糊性这两面搭建了虚构而极具延展的空间。面对这个禅宗史领域内基础性议题,蒋海怒(浙江理工大学,《菩提达摩的四种人生:唐代禅宗史里的想象力之案例分析》)在细致考察国际学界菩提达摩百年研究史基础上,该文以“想象菩提达摩”为视角,勾勒出唐代僧团创造出的四种达摩形象:“游化僧”、大量禅文献的“作者”、东土和印度的“祖师”,以及作为解脱依据的“心灵”。这篇论文力求去证明,“想象菩提达摩”如何以差异的方式推动着唐代禅思想和禅宗历史的发展,这不仅意味着禅史里“想象”的“思想性”,而且更进一步揭明了思想史本身的“想象性”。
该文指出,当道宣在《续高僧传》里为菩提达摩作传的时候,他其实面对着一系列从史源学角度看成问题的材料,包括《洛阳伽蓝记》的文学化笔记和《二入四行论》这样的“回忆史”作品。并从撰写目的和文本性质上看,“高僧传”之类的文本撰写目的主要不是为了给出人物的忠实记录,而是要根据“高僧”而非“名僧”这一“宗教范式”,提供某种“理想化僧人的概念”,《续高僧传》也面对着“如何塑造菩提达摩”的问题。道宣对菩提达摩的传叙隐藏着将“禅与律”、“禅与天台”、“达摩与僧稠”进行“对峙化”的书写策略;而当初唐以后禅的僧团感到“经典文本”和“思想资源”无法满足自身修行的时候,他们开始创作出许多托名菩提达摩的文本,这些数量众多的文本群筑构了某种向壁虚造的“达摩禅”。这种仅存在于“纸面”的“达摩禅”,确实丰富了唐代禅思想的内涵,或者说塑造出许多禅思想的发展趋势。对达摩思想的塑造是与对其祖师形象的描述同时进行的。唐代禅的僧团不断根据自身的需求,将祖师形象的各种要素添加到菩提达摩这位祖师身上,并把它尊崇为东土初祖和西天第二十八祖。直至北宋契嵩时代,对菩提达摩的阐释被政治化、伦理化了,菩提达摩成为一位模范出家人:他来自皇室而又悲悯众生,他喻示中国皇帝佛法大义,他有远离政治又关怀政治的隐士情怀,他教育弟子为人师表,他的去世备极哀荣。禅的僧团创造出这一形象,又藉此形象推动宋代佛教的政治化、伦理化趋势。中晚唐时代,初期禅慢慢向古典禅阶段转换,在此进程中,禅僧团“想象菩提达摩”意识被表达为追问“祖师西来意”。在此临场情境里,作为历史的达摩,他的容貌、家世、师承、游化事迹对于禅的修行而言已经不重要了,真正切己的是他的"西来意"(精神),亦即“祖意”。当这种追问落实于“当下的自己”时,修行者“心”就会与达摩之“心”合一,这种“合一”是“身心”、“物我”、“历史与当下”的统合。菩提达摩最终来到了每一位禅僧的心里——以恰如其分地满足禅宗“以心传心”宗旨的方式。
长期以来,《祖堂集》等古典禅文本的细碎性和复杂性将模糊性带给许多研究者。藉由该领域内部分学者的努力,那个时代的禅语录里大量未曾发掘的面相逐渐醒目,呈现为禅师与神通、禅与女性角色等议题。就后者而言,女性与佛教的关系问题是国际佛教学界的热点和争议性议题。理论上看,传统大乘佛教的“不二”(non-duality)原则暗示了男女平等。实际上,在僧团生活中,尼姑依旧低位于和尚。女性与佛教之间的关系具有“象征性宗教暴力”(symbolic and religious violence)特征。与传统东亚社会采取多种形式将妇女排斥在公共生活之外相应,传统佛教长期以来也将多种禁律加诸女性身上,既包括尼姑,也包括底层妇女。禅宗史的“古典禅”阶段也存在类似问题。宣方向会议提供了一篇重要的论文(中国人民大学,《婆子与老婆禅:唐宋禅宗史中暧昧的一页》),他认为,唐宋禅门语录当中有个特殊的群体——婆子,她们卓越的修道经验与男性修道者相比非但丝毫不逊色,甚至有时候成为令男性修道者望而生畏的狙击手,然而在禅宗史的书写里却被有意无意地忽略了。
婆子成为主角的最为著名的几则公案是:“赵州勘婆”、“婆子烧庵”、“婆子点心”、“岩头舞棹”、“临济遇婆”、“投子卜牛”。在上述公案中,这些女性修道者均以自己杰出的禅修经验而令男性修道者为之语塞。稍加留意即不难发现,这些杰出的女性禅者,大都生活在晚唐。如果把优婆夷如庞居士的女儿、比丘尼如邓隐峰之妹等身份明晰的女禅者也纳入视野,时段则扩展至中唐,但群像会更加醒豁。为什么在晚唐,尤其是赵州禅师的周边,会出现这样一批杰出的女性禅者?史书记载:会昌法难之际,在晚唐政治中举足轻重的燕赵州镇明确拒绝执行沙汰沙门的朝令,仍然尊崇和保护佛教。可能因为这个原因,那些被迫还俗的比丘尼附集在赵州院(此处因赵州禅师最受赵王崇信而资源富裕)附近,以便继续生存下去,并且在某种程度上继续她们的修行。
该文提出一个值得省思的话题:除了少数个案(婆子烧庵、岩头舞棹)之外,这些杰出的女禅师,她们是作为更加杰出的男性禅师的陪衬和烘托而被书写,她们的个人事迹不被记录。进一步值得省思的是,所有这些记录都出自佛教共同体中的男性之手,并以男性的视角被审视和解读。尤其令人深思的是,与禅门文献中男性修道者绵延不绝的谱系相比,女禅师从来没有以连续的传承呈现,她们仅仅以个体出现在禅史中,仿佛流星般划过,她们的精彩不属于她们的性别群体,相反是因为“虽是个女人,宛有丈夫作略”,作为另类特例而被书写和解读。老婆禅者的历史际遇让我们省思性别正义之沉郁顿挫:性别正义在佛教共同体多数人的意识中,是否还只是奢侈品而非必需品?高唱众生平等的男性禅师们,是否真的愿意赋予女性禅师同样的尊重?甚至进而以法为重,折腰请教?唐宋以降的佛门女性是否自然倾向于认为男性禅师较同为“女流之辈”的女禅师更为权威?
老婆禅者的历史际遇让我们省思性别正义之实现途径:女性如果不能展开自己的佛教论述,主动丰富自觉的历史书写,乃至于建立自己的传承体系,那么,即使今天有更多的杰出女禅师出世,对于佛教史而言,百年之后她们仍如那些伟大的唐代女禅师一样,仅仅是作为耀眼的流星划过夜空,留供世人称道和缅怀,但女性修道者的大地仍会笼罩在岑寂和黑暗的夜幕之下。
李瞳(深圳大学,《禅宗灯录中的“夜间书写”》)也考察了禅宗灯录。作者认为,禅宗灯录中记载了许多发生在夜间的故事,它们往往与僧人的觉悟或传法等行为有关。对于禅宗“教外别传”的特点来说,觉悟和传法都是非常核心的行为,而夜晚这一特殊的时间背景则进一步突出了它们的神秘性。在禅宗留下的庞杂的文字中,夜间书写的数量并不算很多,但它们展示了禅宗史家构建禅史、塑造禅宗形像的手法。不同于传统佛教史传中对神异元素的运用,禅宗史家通过夜间这一特殊时段来表现禅师觉悟、受法行为的隐秘性,并以此来突显禅宗“教外别传”的特点。例如在《坛经》里,夜间这一元素都对情节的发展起到了重要的作用,那就是“不使人知”。慧能、神秀关于法嗣继承权的冲突,几乎全程是在秘密中进行的,而正是夜间这一特殊的时间背景让秘密行动成为了可能。日夜之分把故事中的人物划分成了两个阵营,即作为法脉之争当事人的弘忍、慧能和神秀,以及作为边缘人物的普通弟子。边缘人物的存在除了从文学的角度衬托主要人物在修行、知见上的过人之处以外,更重要的是反衬出禅宗传法的“秘密”的特点。在整个过程中,边缘人物只能看到表象,而不能触及实质,而当事人则能够隐秘地从本质层面行事,他们的行为可以隔绝众人的耳目。由于无论是(不同版本中的)神秀、慧能作偈,还是弘忍私下与二人的交谈,乃至弘忍付法慧能,都在夜间发生的,普通弟子对其毫不知情,所以他们自始至终都没有接触到传法事件的核心。这也说明了禅宗因主张“教外别传”而表现出的一定程度的精英主义倾向:尽管禅宗很好地贯彻了佛性论的哲学思想,认为众生皆可成佛,但在叙述具体的事件时,禅史作家却善长塑造主要人物与边缘人物的对立,使得仅有少部分人能够领悟禅法。
该文的考察点随之转移至宋代禅。作者认为,灯录对"夜间书写"的使用,是宋代禅宗运用修辞性的历史书写来塑造自身形像的表现。灯录中“夜间书写”的数量与灯录作者和皇权的关系以及作者所在宗派的势力呈负相关关系:越接近皇权、其宗派越显赫,则书中越少出现“夜间书写”。造成这种现象的原因可能在于,禅宗所标榜的“教外别传”的特点本身带有很强的神秘主义色彩和反传统的精神,其最初的目的是为了将南宗禅与北宗、以及其他佛教区别开来。这种神秘主义色彩和反传统的精神确实帮助禅宗独树一帜,吸引到了很多士大夫,但当禅宗愈发接近世俗权力的中心时,它却不可能被统治者接受。
明清之际的“禅学复兴”与日本禅
学界有一种相沿成习,同时也是许多来自西方和日本的学者的共同观点,就是认为中国禅在宋代以后创造力就基本消失了。实际上,自明代中期开始,禅学就慢慢恢复,直至成长为明清之际的“禅学复兴”,并对日本禅的发展产生进一步影响。而如果从佛教与社会、佛教与政治的视角来考察,可以透析出禅宗在此时段发展的许多崭新面相。在老一辈学者里,陈垣先生对此考掘颇深,在海外学界,该时段也成为一些学者(例如吴疆)的研究对象。在最近时期,国内学界基于新文献的发现,对此段禅宗史也做了新探索。
成庆(上海大学,《<天童直说>与密云圆悟、汉月法藏论诤再考》)通过新发现的密云圆悟撰述的《天童直说》,试图厘清汉月法藏与密云圆悟最终师徒反目的经过。密云圆悟作为晚明临济正宗的代表,虽然一方面试图“笼络”汉月法藏的三峰系,但是对于汉月所倡导的教、禅不离的“临济宗旨”则表示极为强烈的反对。《天童直说》中收录了密云在汉月晚年时期的通信,而成庆则指出汉月在崇祯七年写给密云圆悟的信是汉月与密云最终决裂的关键转折,《天童直说》中收录的“后录”呈现了密云与汉月决裂的一些历史细节片段,汉月法藏在生命的最后阶段为捍卫“五家宗旨”立场,不惜与密云圆悟及其所代表的临济宗正统彻底决裂,让三峰一门陷入了非常尴尬的道统困境,也埋下了皇权介入天童、三峰僧诤的远因。从禅学思想史角度而言,汉月揭橥的明代禅宗思想困境问题无法得到延续性的思考与讨论,而清代禅门则继续着“反对文字”与举扬“棒喝”的禅林传统。
现代意义上的禅史学术研究诞生于二十世纪,而当我们从思想史角度,重新返回禅学自身在二十世纪的发展时,我们会惊讶地发现这一百年禅学在东西方的枝叶扶疏的繁兴局面。在“禅学”自身范围内,铃木大拙无疑是个中心人物。铃木向西方传播某种带有强烈个人色彩的禅哲学,他为激情者所簇拥,激发出“欧美禅”这一“禅”的新类型。凭借西方社会的巨大影响,铃木禅思想又回流到日本以及上世纪八十年代后的中国,至今犹盛。铃木自身,以及他那个时代的拥趸和反对者是如何看待“中国”、“日本”和“西方”,以及这三个区域禅思想的,在此种多重镜像关系里,他们又看到了怎样的“自己”。在“自我”与“他者”之间,他们各自知识社会学立场又是什么,这一问题的提出,无疑需要开启异常复杂的分析视野。因此,当林佩莹(台湾辅仁大学;Imagination of Religious Communities through Zen Rationalities: The Case of D. T. Suzuki)报告其近期针对铃木大拙的研究成果时,遂引发了参会学者的热烈讨论。
她的讨论以一个尚未为学界广泛重视的文本,即上田閑照编辑的铃木大拙文集《東洋的な見方》为分析对象。该篇论文认为,铃木大拙禅思想经历了四个阶段:对禅宗的新教式的想象、想象塑造出“经验”与“科学”的对立、对所谓普世性的真理的阐释,以及其所谓日本“无神论”传统。进而,“铃木禅”义理架构是奠定在一系列二元对立模式基础上的,具体表现为“西方/东方”、“理性/智慧”、“上帝/圣人”、“知性/心境”、“真理/不二”、“科学/ 经验”等。这使我们联想到沙夫(Robert Sharf)的一个评价:铃木大拙在其“日本人论”里,他自己先设立一个怪异东方和西方的形象,然后让它们打架——而这两种形象都是非常奇怪的,并非真实的思想。
林佩莹的进一步分析展示出三类群体对铃木大拙禅思想的不同反应,这就是(1)铃木自己及与他同时代或稍后日本学者群体,包括西田几多郎、冈仓觉三、久松真一等人,和(2)铃木思想的支持者,包括中国学者李泽厚、葛兆光,及(3)完全排斥的立场,包括胡适、范文澜及他们的学生辈。
在接下来的讨论中,该文试图分析这三类知识群体各自对禅宗的解释,以及此类解释中所表达出的对“中国”的“再现”和“自我再现”模式。也就是说,当不同群体进行自我想象的时候,他们就不自觉地以“想象力”为媒介进行群体的自我定位,就会表达出自己是什么、对方是什么,中国、日本和西方各自又是什么。作者意欲表达出这样的思想:学者们探索的是往往是他们脑中的世界,而非社会宗教事实,并且,知识系谱乃是从文化想象空间出发而建立起来的。在方法论意味上,可以说这篇论文乃是立足于“后铃木大拙时代”,对铃木禅思想进行一次“效应史”的评议。
在其后的回应中,龚隽指出,铃木大拙并非一开始就提出用“禅”来批评西方思想,实际上,铃木一开始从事的是用“大乘佛教”来对抗欧洲十九世纪以来流行的南传上座部佛教,铃木翻译《大乘起信论》和撰写《大乘佛教纲要》的行为都表明了这种旨趣。并且,铃木大拙之后提出了“东方佛教徒”概念,这里的“东方佛教徒”不应该被学者误解为“东亚佛教”,其特定内涵实际上是日本佛教。实际上,在铃木大拙的本位立场一直是日本,在他的东西方论说中,所重视的所谓“东亚的心灵”其实也是指日本禅,尤其是日本临济宗思想。
“想象”与“禅修”
至此我们也发现,“想象”(Imagination)成为本次会议的“关键词”,数位学者不期而然地运用这个概念来描述禅宗历史形成和思想构建中那些过于主体化的内容。宣方提醒道,我们应该从信仰的语义结构角度对“想象”一词的使用加以限制——实际上,某些“想象”在禅史里留存下来,某些“想象”被抛弃了,此中原因应具体分析,不能简单处理。
禅对二十世纪东西方世界的影响,尤以当代大众生活文化里的“禅修”运动最为醒目。这反映出宗教对社会历史进程往往产生关键性影响的事实。然而我们也看到了另一方面,那就是宗教往往为了迎合社会需求,也随社会文化的变迁而改变自身,因而就宗教修行而言,虽然它一直被作为解决身心问题重要的资源,但其在现代社会身心疗愈应用一方面体现为从宗教汲取资源,另一方面却被逐渐“去宗教”化。因此,“禅修”在现代东西方大众社会的应用方式也受到特定历史时空社会需求与思潮而有所取舍或改变。然而,其中也包含着对佛教基本原理的严重误解。邓伟仁(台湾法鼓文理学院,《佛教禅修传统现代化的省思》)以当代社会“禅修”现象为中心,反思了佛教现代化对佛教传统产生转变甚至异化,以及审视造成这个转变的“佛教现代主义”。在进行上述研究中,作者还提出诸如佛教出世与入世价值是否仍然完整且有所区分,佛教修行的本质是否产生异化等问题。
作者看到如下事实:佛教“禅修”应用在身心疗愈上的效用,经历了近二十年来的推广与研究后,几乎成了毋庸置疑地共识。如果在亚马逊(amazon.com)电子书城搜索“禅修”(mediation)与“疗愈”(healing)二词,将产生上千笔相关书籍的搜素结果。即使把搜索条件限制在“佛教禅修”与疗愈,也有近千笔的资料。如果加上图书馆书目、学术学报以及非学术杂志、音乐、影片等多媒体的呈现,禅修与疗愈的文献与报导将可分门别类地摆满大型超市的商品架。而经由细致梳理梵文巴利文等相关典籍,作者厘清佛教禅修的基本概念,认为禅修是佛陀最核心的教法。因此在佛陀核心教法“四圣谛”中灭苦之道的“道谛”主要的修行就是禅修,如果离开这些佛教经典,而泛泛地谈论佛教禅修在身心疗愈的应用,是没有太大的意义。
该文认为,泛谈佛教禅修在身心疗愈的应用容易落入所谓的“佛教现代主义”下的禅修运动风潮。也就是说,禅修的推广应用一方面让佛法能更广泛地运用,为更多元的众生提供佛法的好处,但另一方面这种“user-friendly”禅修(指不分宗教信仰、性别、年龄,都同样容易上手的禅修)的普化,必然要降低禅修的使用门坎,例如去除教理,佛教宇宙观、禅法的修行次第等。新兴的禅修运动所带来的“新禅修”,例如生活禅、水果禅、摄影禅、放松禅等等,对于忙碌追求简易实效的现代人来说不失为一种“方便法门”。但我们需要提醒佛教现代化的过程中,手段与目的的混淆,“方便法门”会不会取代真正目的,为了贴近现代社会而穿着“现代外衣”的佛教会不会永远脱不下来,这是值得我们思考的问题。再者,强调“佛教禅修对身心疗愈的帮助”,容易让我们简单地把身心健康,特别是现代医学意义下的身心健康当成目的,但对佛教修证传统而言,现代医学意义下的身心健康反而是修行的“方便”,其真正目的反而是认识我们在轮回中的身心的缺陷:dukha (苦),去除对身心分别执取的无明。因此,我们一方面乐见佛教禅修在“人间佛教”的大势所趋下能利益所有众生,以及应用在心理健康疗愈、疾病的缓和或治疗等各种领域,甚至有助于教育、企业、运动、军事训练等世俗专业的发展。另一方面也应该指出,佛教“禅修”的普化、医疗化、商业化与全球化可能模糊传统的禅修,而无法与非佛教禅修区分。正确的区分佛教与非佛教的禅修,并非属于标签化或假名执着的问题。
当我们从思想角度考察禅宗的历史演变时,其横跨地域、国别、文化传统的特征自然被彰显出来。实际上,无论是禅在中国各地和各民族的发展,乃至向朝鲜半岛、日本和越南等东亚区域的传播,以至于二十世纪在西方世界的生长,其精神的超越性也都不受空间的限制。因而当我们研究中国禅的时候,尤其要放在东亚乃至全球语境中来考察。至于研究者,就更是来自五湖四海了。各种类型的禅在空间之维上的联结,尤以中日禅文化交流为密切,从唐至宋,及至明清之际,中国禅的典籍和宗派思想向东瀛的扩散至少表现为三次高潮。在其中,永平道元是一位巅峰性人物。道元将中国的曹洞宗法脉和思想传至日本,在东瀛产生了极大的影响。二十世纪,西方人接触日本禅,大都视道元思想为最精密和高深,并且多从比较哲学的视角来研究他的禅思想,衍生出诸如道元与存在主义、道元与神秘主义、道元与京都学派等议题。甚为可惜的是,或许来自视野和语言的限制,或许因为兴趣寡缺,道元研究在汉语佛学界一直停留在寂寞之地。然而这并不意味着道元对中国禅思想研究意义不大,相反,道元禅可以成为我们观察中国宋元禅史的重要视角。道元对中国本土禅思想弊端的批评,更起到替我们发现病灶的作用。何燕生(武汉大学 & 日本郡山女子大学,《道元对中国禅学的继承与批判》)论辩道,与同时代的日莲、亲鸾相比,道元的独特之处在于其入宋求法的体验。然而,当我们阅读道元的著作时,则发现道元对中国禅宗的某些言说常常斥之为“邪见”、“邪说”,并非全盘地接受中国禅学思想。接受与批判的简择,构成理解、接受中国禅学思想的过程中逐步自然形成的道元禅特色。
作者认为,道元入宋求法的宗教体验要求我们在考察他的思想时,一方面需要将其置于中日禅思想的历史背景中,用思想史的方法进行探讨,具体问题具体分析,另一方面不能仅仅停留在一些片言只语或者一部分文献的分析上,还应该从道元是如何用自己的母语日语理解中国禅思想的角度,从思想语言上探讨道元的日语“转换”与“诠释”;只有通过这种历史的和思想语言的考察,才能得出一个较为客观的把握。
这种方法可以具体实践于对“即心是佛”“诸恶莫作”和“拈花微笑”等三则“公案”分析上。此三则“公案”既散见于中国禅宗各类文献,同时也是道元在其日文著作《正法眼藏》中专门讨论的话题。我们发现,对于“即心是佛”,道元并未像中国禅师们那样从“心”是不是佛或将“心”究竟是否应该视为“现在心”或“本来心”等思路中去理解,而是结合修行有无的问题来把握,这种突破性阐释刷新了以前带有观念论倾向的“即心是佛”论,确立了以强调修行为特色的道元自身的“即心是佛”论。对于“诸恶莫作”, 道元将“诸恶莫作”分成“诸恶”和“莫作”来解释,将它们看做各具独立意思的词语,强调对一切存在“莫动着”,应该如实地去接受它,此即是“诸恶莫作”所要表达的真正含义。道元对“诸恶莫作”的这种理解,与前述“即心是佛”一样,未拘泥于汉文的原意,完全破坏了该词语的本来意思,其解释颇具新意。关于“拈花微笑”,道元并未将这里的“花”理解为所谓的“莲花”,而是理解为“优昙花”,这样的理解,在禅宗史上可以说是一个创举;这种“非莲花现象”反映了道元思想的独特性,也可以视为对中国禅思想的一种批判。因此该文认为,道元对于中国禅学,既有继承,同时也有扬弃与批判,有道元自身的创新与拓展,并非所谓“机械性地移植中国”,亦非所谓“道元独创”,更非所谓“误听”或“误读”。
由此我们需要提及一个事实:二十年前,何燕生教授出版《道元と中国禅思想》,在日本宗教学界产生极大影响,他自己也成为汉语佛学界道元研究“第一人”。然而二十年过去了,何燕生教授还是汉语佛学界道元研究“唯一人”。当我们面对这一事实,会产生某种兼具遗憾和激励的复杂情感吧。
我们认为,讨论东亚禅宗历史和思想的建构,需要学者自身培养开展此类研究的心理准备,乃至素质。古人曾言:“欲求超胜,必先会通”,即就中国禅史研究和撰述而言,也应该在吸收和消化日本与西方学者重要撰述后,有效地参与国际学术圈的核心对话,方能形成具有真正累积效应的中国禅宗史研究,在此之前,我们要切忌产生类似“小屋子里的君主”的学术自赏,或“与复印纸比重量”式的数字性扩增。只有在能力、格局、质量三方面多下功夫,我们才能逐渐迎来具有典范意义的中国禅史、东亚禅史书写作品。