CHAPTER 2 ZEN BUDDHISM
2.2 The Fundamentals of Huineng’s Southern School of Zen
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2. The Fundamentals of Huineng’s Southern School of Zen
In this chapter we will discuss the central ideas of Huineng’s Zen School. In contrast to some other Zen teachers, Huineng did not place any emphasis on sitting meditation,94 and also did not teach practitioners to empty their minds of thoughts.
He also made light of the idea that words were unimportant or empty (even though much is made of his supposed illiteracy). In a way, this all seems very un-Zenlike based on common preconceptions of Zen practice. So what exactly did Huineng teach?
In this chapter we thus examine the main aspect of Huineng’s teaching, which consists of the doctrines of prajñā (bo re 般若), samādhi (chan ding 禪定), no-thought (wu nian 無念) and non-dwelling (wu zhu 無住), and the self-nature (zi xing自性).
Wisdom and Samādhi
We begin with the all-important Zen teaching of prajñā. Huineng describes prajñā as follows:
Prajñā is wisdom. At each moment of experience, let your thoughts be free of foolishness and constantly practice wisdom—this is the practice of prajñā. At any moment a delusory thought arises, prajñā is nowhere to be
94 Sitting meditation however is mentioned in passing in PS 53: “如吾在日一種，一時端坐,” but in most other places it is deemphasized. See PS 14, 18, 19, and Huineng’s famous poem in the Zongbao edition (T48n2008_p0358b24-5): 生來坐不臥，死去臥不坐， 元是臭骨頭，何為立功過。 “While alive one sits but does not lie / In death one lies but does not sit / Either way there’s nothing but stinky bones / How can this called establishing a practice?”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
found; and if at any moment a ray of wisdom shines, prajñā is generated.95
Therefore, prajñā is the practice of wisdom, which has neither “form nor appearance.”96 Prajñā is not objective knowledge, but rather it occurs when the mind comes into a state of concentration or attentiveness in which “delusory thoughts do not arise.” In other words, it is a way of viewing phenomenon in which vexing thoughts are prevented from entering the mind; one does not suppress any thoughts that are already there (since the thought to do that would itself be delusory!). But before we spell out what constitutes a “delusory thought,” we will first observe how Huineng equates prajñā-wisdom with being in a state of meditative absorption. This wisdom is said to be identical to samādhi-like concentration, meaning that one does not concentrate to find wisdom and neither does wisdom lead to concentration. The two occur simultaneously, and are neither separable nor identical:
Meditative concentration and wisdom in actual fact are not one, and not two. Meditative concentration is the substance of wisdom and, and wisdom is the function of meditative concentration.97
To help clarify the relationship between the two, Huineng uses the example of a lamp and its light. The lamp is the substance of the light while the light serves as the function of the lamp. Huineng concludes that “although they have two different names, in their essence there is no duality.”98
95 PS 26, 般若是智慧。一時中念念不愚，常行智慧，即名般若行。一念愚即般若絕，一念智即
般若生。
96 PS 26, 無形相
97 PS 13, 慧定體不一不二，即定是慧體，即慧是定用。
98 PS 15, 名即有二，體無兩般。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Moreover, in an exposition of “sitting in meditation” or zuochan 坐禪 (Jp: zazen),”
Huineng says,
To give rise to no thoughts about external objects is what we call sitting; to see the original nature and remain unperturbed is what we call meditation.
What is meditative concentration? To remain transcendent of forms externally is called meditation; to remain unperturbed internally is called concentration.99
“Delusory thoughts” are here equated with “thoughts about external objects,” which for Huineng means thoughts stained by attachment.100 Also seeing the self-nature, or one’s original nature, is identified as “meditation.” “Sitting” is used metaphorically here to describe this state of mind, not the physical act. This metaphorization of traditional Zen concepts is a very characteristic feature of Huineng’s thought.101 Additionally, this state of concentrated awareness of thought is alternately referred to as direct mind (zhi xin 直心) and “one-act samādhi” (yixing sanmei 一行三昧).102 Direct mind can, according to the text, be practiced at anytime regardless of whether one is “walking, standing, sitting, or lying down”103 This last part is important since even in Huineng’s day, the idea of meditation normally brought to mind the stereotypical form or image of recluses sitting in temples or caves for extended periods of time. Even Bodhidharma, the first Zen Patriarch, is said to have meditated
99PS 19, 念不去為坐，見本性不亂為禪。何名為禪定？外離相曰禪，內不亂曰定。
100 PS 17.
101 For further examples, see Huineng’s interpretation of the Trikaya (20), the Three Refuges (23), and Discipline-Samadhi-Wisdom (PS 41)
102 PS 14.
103 Ibid.
‧
in a seated position for nine consecutive years!104 Huineng, however, disagreed with the interpretation of samādhi as a state of in which the mind is absent of all thoughts.
For Huineng, “sitting in a motionless posture and eliminating deluded thoughts without invoking a false mind” is, he wryly points out, “not different from being an inanimate object.” The person who practices samādhi does so by actively participating in the world. There is no separation from daily activities; in fact it may be said that it can only be fully realized within activity. Huineng quotes from the Vimalakīrti Sūtra to make just this point: “Externally he is skilled at distinguishing all the various forms of existence, while internally he remains unmoved in the First Principle.”105 This verse from the Vimalakīrti Sūtra is also an indicator as to why the distinction between lay and ordained life ceases to be of fundamental importance. The monk in earlier traditions had access to the proper environmental conditions necessary to cultivate both mental and physical stillness. But if such conditions were truly the prerequisite of enlightenment, the person in the work-a-day world would of course stand little chance of becoming enlightened. However, once internal stillness becomes the only requirement, anyone now who was willing to put in the practice could in fact become a Buddha. Moreover, “practice” for Huineng is contemplating and reflection on Zen principles in the context of one’s everyday experience. Thus, Huineng says, “If you wish to practice, it is possible even as a lay disciple; it has nothing to do with life in a monastery.”106 Finally, we should also observe that Huineng also never sees
“enlightenment” as a one-time affair, something that is attained for once and for all. It is from the beginning a moment-to-moment process and will depend on one’s state of the mind at any given time: “If you are deluded during a thought, you are an ordinary
104 Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism, 141.
105 PS 17,《維摩經》云：「外能善分別諸法相，內於第一義而不動。」
106 PS 36, 若欲修行，在家亦得，不由在寺。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
person; if you gain understanding with the following thought, you are a Buddha.”107
No-Thought and No-Dwelling
Of utmost importance in Huineng’s interpretation of samādhi is non-attachment to thoughts in the mind while not attempting to eliminate thoughts from the mind. The self-nature can only be seen when thoughts are allowed to freely come and go, or perhaps we may say that it is seen when thoughts come and go freely. A delusory thought is any thought which proceeds from a state of attachment. In the following passage, Huineng outlines the three core aspects of his teaching:
This doctrine of mine has from the beginning set up “no-thought” as the guiding principle, no-mark as the essence, and non-dwelling as the foundation, for both sudden and gradual methods.108
These three principles all may be said to describe the same experience, although from different perspectives. “No-thought” emphasizes the state of being unattached to thoughts; “no-mark” is non-attachment as it relates to one’s environment, and non-dwelling emphasizes the activity of thought-flow. Despite the negative formulation of these doctrines, they are not meant to imply nihilism, which seems to have been a very common misinterpretation even in Huineng’s day. Thus, Huineng warns his listeners:
But if you take this [teaching of no-thought] to mean having no
107 PS 26, 前念迷即凡，後念悟即佛。
108 PS 17, 我自法門，從上已來，頓漸皆立無念為宗，無相為體，無住為本。
‧
conscious experience at all and eradicating all thoughts from your mind, this will only amount to dying when give up the last thought.
Thus you will be reborn somewhere else.109
As to what no-thought actually is, Huineng explains in paradoxical fashion that
“No-thought is to be without thought even when the mind is engaged in thought.”110 Now on the face of it the notion of being without thought while in the midst of thinking might seem quite absurd. But such phraseology, as McEvilley notes, represents the “flamboyant” nature of many Zen expressions,111 most of which have more tamed characterizations. And this is for true for Huineng as well; “no thought”
is defined elsewhere as simply “To be unstained by external conditions.”112 Moreover, Huineng says that when the deluded “place thoughts upon objects,” these thoughts give rise to perverse views.113 Again, Huineng is not implying that there is something wrong with having the idea of say, a stone. Rather, he defines the problem of attaching a fixed conception or interpretation to the stone. It is not the object per se that taints the mind, but the attachment created by the mind when it clings to an idea it has placed upon that object. It is possible for a stone, from a particular human perspective, to be construed either positively or negatively, as for example a “bridge”
or an “obstacle.” However, the stone, in essence has not been shown to be either.
Thus, when an attachment rises to either perspective, the mind becomes “stained”
109 PS 17: 莫百物不思，念盡除卻。一念斷，即無別處受生。
110 PS 17. 無念者，於念而不念。“No-mark” is in fact defined in an identical way: 無相者, 於相而 離相。 (Ibid.). The doctrine of “no-mark” (Skrt: animitta) appears first in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It describes the state of nirvana in which the 10 marks (matter, sound, smell, taste, contact, birth, stability, differentiation, male and female) are absent. Huineng interprets this less literally as intends for his listeners simply to loosen their attachments to these marks while not attempting to dispense with them altogether.
111 McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought, 482.
112 PS 17, 於一切境上不染，名為無念。
113 Ibid., 迷人於境上有念，念上有邪見。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(ran 染) by that perspective. One should not let various interpretations of the stone leave any harmful imprints on the mind, thus not allowing ideas about the stone, if you will allow the pun, to become “set in stone.” And the process by which thoughts become, if you will, set in stone is called “dwelling.” The awakened mind, on the other hand, does not come to “rest” on any particular thought or perspective.
Thoughts should, in Huineng’s words, “succeed one another without dwelling; past thoughts, present thoughts, and future thoughts all succeed one another without discontinuance.” Huineng also says in this regard that “During each thought, do not dwell supported in any dharma whatsoever. If you dwell in one thought, you will dwell in all thoughts. This is called being fettered.”114 Therefore, even one attached thought is one thought too many. This is because every thought is inextricably connected to an infinity of other thoughts and cannot exist in isolation from the whole.
Thus clinging to one thought thus necessarily involves clinging to all. Being
“un-fettered” means complete non-attachment to all thoughts, not merely a reduced number, for it is a mathematical impossibility to subtract from infinity!
The Self-Nature
Huineng essentially taught that all individuals possess a self-nature that is none other than the universal Buddha-nature (fo xing 佛性). The whole of Huineng’s teaching may therefore be summed up in four Chinese characters: 見性成佛 (jian xing cheng fo):115 “See the self-nature and become a Buddha.” To quote mysticism scholar Robert Forman: “In wu-nien [無念] one directly realizes that one is, in one’s core, not
114 PS 17, 一念若住，念念即住，名繫縛。
115 PS 27.
‧
this or that perception, but transcendental to it.”116 There is neither “Northerner nor Southerner” in the Buddha-nature as Huineng famously said.117 And this not seeing one’s self as this or that perception is to see one’s real nature. On the other hand, by
“self-nature” Huineng also has in mind is the notion of an all-encompassing center of being that excludes nothing! There is no conflict here, since philosophically speaking, there is little if any difference between a nature that contains everything and a nature that contains nothing. Or as the late Robert Solomon put in his The Rise and Fall of the Self (in the context of 18th century Continental philosophy), “Between the Self as absolute spirit and the self as nothing at all there is, it turns out, very little difference…”118 Thus, the self-nature might be interpreted not only as a true self a part from all perceptions, but also that which equally includes all perceptions as part of one’s very own nature.119 For the latter reason, Huineng describes the self-nature as “great”:
Great is the nature that contains all dharmas. All dharmas are the self-nature.
See all things human and non-human, evil and good, evil dharmas and good dharmas without rejecting them or being stained by them. Because the nature is like empty space, it is called great. This is the practice of mahā.120
Thus, when one contains all without being stained or rejected, this is to see the self-nature practice the art of non-dwelling. Nothing is rejected, even the act of
116 Robert K.C. Forman, Mind, Mysticism, and Consciousness (New York: State University of New York Press, 1999), 158.
117 PS 3, 人即有南北，佛性即無南北。
118 Robert Solomon, Continental Philosophy Since 1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 202
119 See PS 20, 24, 30.
120 PS 25, 性含萬法是大，萬法盡是自性，見一切人及非人，惡之與善，惡法善法，盡皆不捨，
不可染著，由如虛空，名之為大，此是摩訶行。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
dwelling, and neither is anything attached to, including the art of non-dwelling. Thus, dwelling/non-dwelling and other pairs of opposites find their existence in the great space of the self-nature.
‧
Though at least 30 known versions of the Platform Sūtra are in existence, there are essentially two main texts used by practitioners when referencing the teachings of Huineng, the Dunhuang version (敦煌) and the Zongbao version (宗寶).121 The Zongbao version, containing about 20,000 Chinese characters, was first appeared in 1291 (and is nearly identical to Deyi’s version which we mentioned in the introduction) whereas the much shorter Dunhang version (12,000 words) is usually dated around 780 AD.122 This thesis will rely mainly on quotes from the earlier Dunhuang version though there is in fact little doctrinal difference between the two.123 The Dunhuang goes by the long title: The Southern School of Sudden Enlightenment, The Supreme Mahāyāna Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, The Platform Sūtra Preached by the Sixth Patriarch Huineng at Dafan Temple in Shaozhou, One Scroll. The question of authorship of the Platform Sūtra, however, is a complex one, and it will not concern us here.124 Following the title it is stated that the Platform Sūtra is a sermon of Huineng recorded and compiled by the otherwise historically unknown disciple Fahai (法海). However, scholars are not in consensus as to who actually authored the text, and there are currently seem to be no prospects for finding anything resembling a
121 The Zongbao version is listed in the canon as follows: Taishō Tripitaka Vol. 48, No. 2008 (六祖大 師法寶壇經).
122 Philip Yampolsky, trans. The Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 98.
123 PS 53 reads: 淫性本身淨性因，除淫即無淨性身。 “The lustful nature is in essence the cause of the pure nature. If you get rid of the lustful nature, there is no pure nature.” Compare this with T48n2008_p0362a16 which says: “婬性本是淨性因，除婬即是淨性身”. “The lustful nature is the cause of the pure nature. Getting rid of the lustful nature is the pure nature.” The first statement accords perfectly with Huineng’s philosophy of the opposites as seen in other verses whereas the second reading demonstrates the desire to get rid of one half of the dichotomy, which is alien to Huineng’s thought generally.
124 See Morten Schutter’s “Transmission and Enlightenment in Chan Buddhism Seen Through the Platform Sūtra (Liuzu tanjing 六祖壇經).” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 20 (2007): 379-410, for a detailed examination of the issues surrounding the authorship of the Platform Sūtra.