Dharma eye (2001.4) draft

The True Transmission of Buddha Dharma and Chinese Chan in the Southern Sung Dynasty
What Kind of Zen Did Dogen Create from Chinese Chan?

Introduction

The Five Houses (五家, goke) of the Chinese Chan school, which arose and grew in popularity during the Tang (唐, 618-907) dynasty, were unified into Yang-ch'i branch of the Rinzai/Linchi House (臨済宗楊岐派) because dominate during the Southern Sung dynasty (南宋, 1127-1279). However, Chinese Soto/Ts'ao-tung House (中国曹洞宗) was at the same time continuing its lineage as 'Silent Illumination Chan' (黙照禅, Mokusho Zen). This Zen/Chan style was fully developed by Tan-hsia Tzu-ch'un (丹霞子淳: 1064-1117) and his disciples.

　Dogen (道元禅師, 1200-1253) had observed these two streams of Zen/Chan since he had gone to China to learn continental Chan Buddhism in the 1220's. Then, he decided to belong not to the Rinzai/Linchi lineage, but to the Soto/Ts'ao-tung lineage, even though the fact that the Rinzai/Linchi House was the most mainstream at that time.
Dogen's Shisyo (嗣書: The Record of Transmission) indicates that his linage was as follows:

Fu-jing Tao-chieh ― Tan-hsia Tzu-ch'un ― Chen-hsieh Ching-liao ― T'ien-t'ung Tsung-chueh ― Hsueh-tou Chih-chien ― T'ien-t'ung Ju-ching ― Dogen

　This list shows us that Dogen definitely belongs to the Chinese Soto/Ts'ao-tung lineage. However, Dogen disliked calling his Buddha dharma the 'Soto School'. For example, in the Shobogenzo-butsudo (正法眼蔵仏道, Treasury of the True Dharma Eye, The Way of Buddha), his main work, he writes,

"This name, Soto School, is foolishly used by pseudo-masters proclaiming it as their equivalent to true dharma."

　Why did Dogen make this assertion?
I would like to compare Dogen's Zen to Chinese Chan in the Southern Sung dynasty, and clarify the solution to the above question.

Silent Illumination Chan (黙照禅, Mokusho Zen) and Dogen Zen

Not only the lineage to which Dogen belonged, but also in many features of his thought, Dogen's view on sitting practice has affinities with Chinese Soto/Ts'ao-tung Chan, i.e. Silent Illumination Chan, though they are not exactly the same.

　Silent Illumination Chan was one form of Chan practice style, fully developed by Chen-hsieh (真歇, Shinketsu), included in the above list, and one of his fellow disciples, Hung-chih Cheng-chueh (宏智正覚, Wanshi Shogaku, 1091-1157).
The character 'silent' (黙) means 'cross-legged sitting practice (zazen)'. The character 'illuminate' (照) means 'the enlightened state' (satori).
The characteristics of this form of Zen/Chan practice could be summarized as follows:

(1) Emphasis of the innate pure self
(2) Denial of the feeling of attained enlightenment,
(3) Emphasis of sitting practice as the activity of the innate Buddha.

That is to say, 'Silent Illumination Chan' insisted on 'one's original Buddha nature' and that 'one's original pure nature may become active only during one's sitting practice'. In this view, there is no room to be possessed by enlightened state as a special experience. This view is expressed in Hung-chih's remark, "The truth becomes active just as one sits calmly and silently penetrates one's nature."(宏智録, Hung-chih lu )

　Here I would like to show the resemblance between Silent Illumination Chan and Dogen's view on zazen practice.
First of all, both of them denied the perception of becoming a Buddha, or the experience of attaining enlightenment. Dogen said in Bendowa (弁道話), "My self-cultivation in my life is finished." However, he had never called it 'satori' (the enlightened state). As you know, he called his final stage 'shinjin-datsuraku' (身心脱落, casting off both body and mind).

　Second, Dogen emphasized 'shikan-taza' (祇管打坐, just sitting) in daily religious practice. Since this concept was based on his particular view of 'zazen as Buddha', it would correspond with the third characteristic of Silent Illumination Chan. Moreover, 'original pure nature' is a traditional idea in Zen/Chan, established by the Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng(六祖慧能, Rokuso Eno).

　In this sense, we cannot object to the idea that Dogen's Zen basically inherited the teachings of the main figures in Silent Illumination Chan.

　However, recently Dr. Shudo Ishii made the point that Dogen's Zen did not directly inherit Silent Illumination Chan, or several other aspects of Chinese Chan in the Southern Sung dynasty. Hence, I would like to introduce his assertion by offering an excerpt from his book, Dogen Zen no Seiritsu-shi-teki Kenkyu (A Historical Study of the Establishment of Dogen Zen, 道元禅の成立史的研究1991, Daizo-shuppan Japan), which demonstrates the difference between Silent Illumination Chan and Dogen's Zen.

　First, I will cite a passage in the Hung-chih lu (宏智録) to clarify the problem Dr. Ishii addresses.

He needs neither practice nor enlightenment, as he has 'it' originally. He has never been polluted, but is completely clear and pure from the beginning.

This passage should be interpreted as Hung-chih's assertion based upon the virtue of sitting practice. That is, the subject of this passage, 'he', refers to, 'the person doing sitting practice'. This is because Hung-chih always focused on sitting practice in his teachings.

　However, if we interpret this passage literally, without talking sitting practice as its premise, it reflects an emphasis on the idea that 'all persons are enlightened from the beginning' (本証, honsho). In this sense, the necessity of practice never arises. In other words, there is a strong possibility that this passage ignores the necessity of any kind of religious self-cultivation. Silent Illumination Chan emphasized the doctrine of original pure nature much more than any other form of practice. Some practitioners of Silent Illumination Chan said that practice has not necessary, thereby distorting this doctrine.

　Dogen had misgivings about this emphasis on 'denial of practice (or self-cultivation),' no doubt. Those who rest on their own pure nature could never perform any activities positively, because they would lack in religious motivation to work at self-cultivation. Hence, Dogen insisted on 'practice as Buddha' (妙修, myoshu). Dogen asserted that all beings should practice as the activity of their own pure nature. Since this 'nature' equals Buddha, all beings have no alternative but to practice as Buddha. To put it another way, Dogen asserted that Buddha nature surely works through sitting practice and other self-cultivating activities.

　As I mentioned above, 'original pure nature' is a traditional doctrine established by Hui-neng. Hence, I can say that Dogen adopted the basic idea of original pure nature, and practice, without changing their definitions. This is one of the prominent characteristics of Dogen Zen.

　Dogen called this particular view 'True Transmitted Buddha Dharma (正伝の仏法, shoden-no-buppo)".
This phrase comes out of his confidence that he had surely inherited Shakyamuni's true dharma and practice leading to enlightenment.

　Finally, I am sure that this is the reason Dogen refused to call his Buddha dharma the 'Soto School' or even the 'Zen/Chan School'. He did not want to put his 'True transmitted Buddha Dharma' into the small frame of sectarianism.

As I mentioned above, Koan Contemplation Chan emerged during the Southern Sung dynasty along with Silent Illumination Chan. It was established by Ta-hui Tsung-kao (大慧宗杲, Daie Soko 1089-1163) for criticizing Silent Illumination Chan. As you know, Dogen strongly objected to Ta-hui's views.

　Now, I would like to talk about a prominent feature of Koan Contemplation Chan, to clarify the nature of Dogen's critiques.
First, Koan Contemplation Chan rejected the non-practical inclination of Silent Illumination Chan. In this sense, Ta-hui had the same criticism of Silent Illumination Chan as Dogen. However, Ta-hui and Dogen adopted quite different methods to overcome this tendency.

　Ta-hui dared to assert that all people were in a deluded state in the present, though all could attain Buddhahood eventually. For this purpose, he required trainees to contemplate koan/kung-an in their daily activities. He also insisted that they have an experience of awareness as a result of gradual practice. That is, he aimed to re-emphasize the necessity of practice, both mental and physical, and the motivation to attain enlightenment by relying on the notion of 'shikaku' (始覚, entering into the enlightened state). This view is the opposite of traditional Chan thought, which focuses on 'hongaku' (本覚, original enlightenment).

　Because it was so easy to understand, Ta-hui's Koan Contemplation Chan was accepted not only by the clergy but also by the laypeople, and prospered greatly, nearly sweeping over the whole Chan scene in Southern Sung China.
Why, then, did Dogen disagree so strongly with Ta-hui's style of practice?

　Now, I would like to show you one passage in the Shobogenzo Jisho-zanmai (正法眼蔵自証三昧, Treasury of the True Dharma Eye , The Self-awakened Samadhi):

Ta-hui did not understand 'self-attainment, self-awakening,' much less did he completely understand other koans in his lifetime. Moreover, all Ta-hui's disciples were even less educated than he, so who knew the real meaning of 'self-attainment'?

In this passage, Dogen criticizes Ta-hui for changing the definition of enlightenment from 'original Enlightenment' to 'entering into the enlightened state'. Dogen insists, therefore, that all monks in Ta-hui's lineage did not understand 'real' attainment. Dogen saw Ta-hui's view as a departure from the true transmission of Buddha dharma. Dogen, like Ta-hiu, attempted to re-construct the practice of Zen/Chan, but he never changed the basic doctrine of 'original pure nature'. Hence, Dogen felt a need to criticize Ta-hui.

Dr. Shudo Ishii concludes in his book as follows:

Dogen did not adopt all the aspects of Silent Illumination Chan unquestioningly. He overcame the misconceptions of Silent Illumination Chan in a way different from that of Ta-hui, while resisting Ta-hui. He established his Zen as 'Pure United Buddha Dharma' (純一の仏法, Jun'itsu-no-Buppo), and made it prosper in Japan. Therefore, we should grasp Dogen Zen as 'Pure United Buddha Dharma', which transcended Chinese Soto/Ts'ao-tung Chan. (Dogen-zenn no Seiritsu-shi-teki kenkyu,)

Earlier, I mentioned the doctrinal relationship between Dogen Zen and Chinese Zen/Chan in the Southern Sung dynasty. Finally, I would like to mention another element of Zen/Chan practice that Dogen treated as true transmission from Chinese Chan.

　He placed great importance in the ancient Chinese monastic system, including its regulations, rituals, and even monastic architecture.

　Since Dogen's attitude toward his religious community rarely appears in the Shobogenzo, we Dogen scholars have overlooked them until recently. However, we can study this aspect of Dogen's Zen teachings in the Eihei-koroku (or Dogen-osho-koroku). This work of Dogen's was written in a Japanese form of literary Chinese (kanbun).

　In this particular work, Dogen claims to have imported many rituals, e.g. ceremonies for celebrating the Buddha's enlightenment (成道会, jodo-e, held on December 8th); many types of discourses, e.g. formal discourses in the dharma hall (上堂, jodo) and informal discourses in the evening (晩参, bansan); and even the structural equipment of Zen temples, referred to as the monks' hall (僧堂, sodo).
I will show you two instance of this claim:

(1)December 8th Jodo. [Dogen said] " [Our] Japanese ancestors have been holding ceremonies to celebrate the birth of Shakyamuni Buddha and commemorate his death from a previous age. However, they have not yet received transmission of the annual ceremony to celebrate his enlightenment. I, Eihei, imported it twenty years ago and held it. It must be transmitted in the future." (vol.5, no. 406 Jodo)
(2)Here, on Mt. Kichijo [Eihei-ji temple], there is a monks' hall. All Japanese may listen to its name, see its shape, enter it and sit in it, all for the first time. (vol.4, no.319 jodo)

As you know, Dogen was also the author of the Tenzo-kyokun (典座教訓), which was written with the intention to popularize the significance of the monastery cook, called the 'tenzo'(典座). In this book Dogen also declared that he was the first person who inherited the true manner of practice for the tenzo in Japan.
In any case, Dogen was confident that these monastic rules and activities were the truly transmitted ones. He treated them as the ideal forms for the monastery in which true Buddhists assemble.

　If we examine their historical background, we can see that these forms and traditions were not restricted only to the Chinese Soto/Ts'ao-tung House. They reflected the energetic movement of the early Chan School in the Tang dynasty. At that time, Zen/Chan established its original monastic style, and began to take its first independent steps forward.

　From this view, we can also see why Dogen refused to call himself a Soto monk.
Chinese Chan is said to have become an independent school during the 9th century C.E., transforming the traditional Indian monastic system based on the Vinaya into an emphasis on common daily activities as part of religious practice. Hence, we can say that the Chan School was a kind of innovative movement within the traditional Buddhist monastic system.

　Subsequently, the Chan school developed under the 'Five Mountains and Ten Temples System' (五山十刹制度,gozan-jissetsu system)' in the 12th century. This system had been imported into Japan in the Muromachu period (室町時代, in the 14th century). At this time, the Japanese Zen schools established a solid foundation. At the same time, this system was, no doubt, a political institution ruled by the government.

　Dogen, however, refused to have any relationship with political affairs. He attempted to establish an independent religious community centered at Eiheiji (temple) in Echizen, in central Japan.
The above citations from the Eihei-koroku clearly show us that this community system was based on early Zen/Chan monastic practices in during the Tang dynasty in China. Of course, Dogen did not directly experience Chan monastic life in the Tang dynasty. Therefore, he idealized them in his mind. In fact, however, he adhered closely to a traditional and original style of early Chan.

*

The concept of 'following the footsteps of tradition' sounds like a kind of formalism, an unquestioning adherence to an ancient lifestyle. But Dogen must not have had such a fixed notion of tradition. In this essay I have offered some evidence to support this claim.
In historical fact, Dogen Zen was a little bit different from both the Indian Buddhism and the Chinese Chan Buddhism he experienced. I believe that he wished to inspire to live energetic and flexible religious lives focused on ordinary daily activities.
Next year will mark the 750th anniversary of Dogen's death. As we begin the 21st century, this would be good occasion to reconsider his spirituality, activism, and flexibility.