all-at-once enlightenment (wu) or “being buddha”
(jifo). After Shenhui, Chan lineages favored the latter,
although some accused Shenhui of intellectualizing
the process. It was agreed, as in the Platform Sutra,
that samadhi (ting) and prajña(hui) are indivisible,
an idea reinforced by the NIRVANA SUTRA,which
stated that “because the samadhi and prajñaof the
buddhas are equal, they clearly see the buddha-
nature.”
The search for ethical conduct or precepts suitable
to Mahayana in sixth- and seventh-century China was
not meant to replace the VINAYAprecepts of main-
stream Buddhism, but to supplement them. Some
thought bodhisattva precepts to be the true spirit of
Buddhism. The Nirvana Sutraattracted Chan’s inter-
est by stating that only recipients of the bodhisattva
precepts could see the buddha-nature. The bodhisattva
precepts advocated intention rather than formal ob-
servance, such that KARUNA(COMPASSION) could over-
ride a basic Vinaya precept like that against lying. They
therefore inspired Chan. The Platform Sutrapreached
the “formless precepts” and the nonexistence of trans-
gression in the (pure) mind. One’s own (buddha-)
nature is thus the nature of the precepts.
Chan tradition claims that the first monastic code
of conduct for Chan was issued by Huaihai (749–814)
on Mount Baizhang. His reputed saying, “A day with-
out work is a day without food,” encapsulated three
themes: the antiformalism derived from the bod-
hisattva precepts; the preexisting Chinese monastic
custom of monks doing physical labor despite Vinaya
prohibitions; and agrarian self-sufficiency. Although a
distinctive Chan canon or “pure rules” (Chinese, qing-
gui) may have only appeared in the eleventh century,
general procedures for the operation of the monastery
on Mount Baizhang probably took form over hun-
dreds of years, giving Chan a sense of institutional
independence as an order within the SAN ̇GHA. This de-
velopment did not make Chan a separate sect or
denomination, for its clergy still obeyed the Vinaya
and precepts, and their practices overlapped with
those of other schools. They often inhabited the same
monastery with non-Chan clergy. Yet as early as the
850s, the visiting Japanese Tendai (Chinese, Tiantai)
monk, Enchin, characterized them as maintaining
“this mind is the buddha as their theme, the mind with
no attachments as their practice, and the dharmas are
empty as their meaning. They transmit the robe and
bowl from the time of the Buddha, which things are
passed from master to disciple” as symbols of the con-
firmation of enlightenment.
Developments in China
As Chan gained a larger following, it developed a spe-
cialized literature and branch lineages that tended to
use differing techniques and contrasting styles. The
subtlety, ambiguity, and lack of set forms in Chan
teachings required an audience with a sophisticated
grasp of Buddhism for it to be understood. Despite
their rhetoric, Chan monks were well educated in Bud-
dhist scriptures, as required for the state certification
of monks that was commonly imposed in East Asia.
They encouraged a liberal or meditative interpretation
of the scriptures, despising scholastic literalism.The earliest Chan texts were mostly treatises (lun)
on topics such as expedient means and the mind, com-
mentaries on popular sutras, hagiographical collec-
tions, hymns, and apocryphal sutras. These forms all
merged in the Platform Sutraof the 780s, which incor-
porated a pseudo-hagiography of Huineng, sermons, a
genealogy, dialogues, and verses of transmission. Ini-
tially controversial, it became the principal Chan scrip-
ture during the Song dynasty (960–1279).The figure of Huineng became a crux, for two lin-
eages from him, via DAOYI (MAZU; 709–788) and
Shitou Xiqian (700–791), led to two branches that sub-
sumed or superseded all other lineages. Daoyi taught
the immanence of “this mind is the buddha,” in which
enlightenment could occur amid everyday happen-
ings, and so “the ordinary mind is the Way.” Daoyi’s
heirs spread across China and even into Korea. The
Mazu style, later dubbed patriarchal Chan (zushi
Chan) to contrast with the intellectual TATHAGATA
Chan (rulai Chan) of Shenhui, was distinguished by
shouts and blows, sharp repartee, and the use of
everyday events as opportunities for enlightenment.
This was epitomized by Linji YIXUAN(d. 866), an heir
to the style, who demanded a critical attitude, even
toward Buddhism and his own teachings, and self-
confidence to act upon that attitude: “If you meet the
Buddha, kill him.” For Yixuan, enlightenment was an
urgent necessity of the current moment.Xiqian’s branch tended to eremitic austerity and po-
etic expression of sophisticated doctrine. This branch,
including the Caodong house of Dongshan Liangjie
(807–869) and Caoshan Benji (840–901), expressed
stages of understanding and enlightenment in dia-
grams, often circles, to illustrate the dialectical progress
toward complete enlightenment in a return to the
source, the untrammeled mind. These evolved into the
popular OXHERDING PICTURES. An intellectual codifi-
cation of Chan practice was even introduced into theCHANSCHOOL