Three places of mind-transmission: the polemical application of mind-transmission stories in korean son buddhism.
in medieval China, Chan Buddhists established a unique image of their tradition to represent its difference from and superiority to other forms of Buddhism, particularly scholastic Buddhism. This image portrayed Chan as the vehicle by which the supreme mind-dharma had been transmitted separately from the scriptural vehicle. Chan Buddhists even attempted to legitimize that image by developing special episodes, episodes that attribute its origin to the Buddha Sakyamuni's transmission of the mind-dharma to his disciple Mahalagyapa. As previous scholarship has shown, these episodes came in for criticism not only from Chan's archrival, the doctrinal (C. Jiao; K. Kyo) school, but also from within the Chan school itself. (1) Nonetheless, they were believed to be historical or quasi-historical facts by most Chan adherents and even tacitly accepted by some doctrinal exegetes. These episodes thus succeeded in justifying the Chan claim to the legitimacy and authority of its own lineage and served as a basis for the privileges the Chan school enjoyed during the Song dynasty (960-1279). (2)
This article explores polemical aspects of the so-called "mind-transmission episodes," in particular, the Korean interpretation of those episodes within the context of the Son (C. Chan) internal rivalry. The episodes of mind-transmission involved issues of Chan/Mil self-definition in terms of the relationship between Chan/Son and doctrinal studies, including the questions of how Chan/Son followers looked at their own tradition and how they presented it to others, especially to the rival Jiao /Kyo doctrinal school. These episodes inevitably generated tension not only within the Chan/Son school but also between the Chan/ Min and doctrinal schools. With respect to Chan/SU internal conflict, the fact that several mind-transmission episodes were circulating in medieval East Asia deserves our attention. Textual records show that in China this fact did not receive much consideration in relation to the internal polemics of Chan. Instead, the evidence suggests that it was in Korea that those episodes were treated collectively through the introduction of the concept of samch'o chonsim, the concept that mind-transmission from the Buddha to Mahakagyapa occurred in three different places. This notion, which became widely known in Korea after it first appeared late in the Koryo era (918-1392), raised an important question that inevitably arose from accepting more than one transmission episode or theory: did the Buddha transmit in three different places (1) the same mind or (2) different minds or levels of the mind? This article explores the Korean application of mind-transmission episodes to intra-Son polemics by examining how important SU masters such as Kagun (fl. 13th century) and Paekp'a (1767-1852) answered this question. Thereby, it reveals a unique aspect of Korean Son development that was distinct from the Chinese Chan tradition.
DEVELOPMENT OF MIND-TRANSMISSION EPISODES IN CHINA
Mind-transmission episodes went through a long and complex process of development in medieval China. They appeared in various Chan texts to support the Chan claim that the supreme mind-dharma of the historical Buddha had been transmitted along the direct and unbroken line of the Chan lineage. The variety of Chan texts in which mind-transmission episodes were found included recorded sayings (yulu), such as the Chuanxin fayao of 857; genealogical histories (denglu). such as the imperially ratified Jingde chuandeng lu of 1009 and the Tiansheng guangdeng lu of 1036; and gong' an anthologies, such as the Zongmen tongyao ji of 1093, the Chanzong songgu lianzhutong ji of 175, and the Wumen guan RN of 1228. As Griffith Faulk points out, "viewed chronologically," the transmission episodes in these texts became "bolder and bolder in the claims they make concerning the separate transmission of the formless Chan dharma and the Buddha "alcyamuni's role in initiating it." (3) Some of the episodes in their final form explicitly stated that the Buddha had entrusted the "treasury of the true dharma eye" (C. zhengfayan zang) to Mahalasyapa and, depending on the episode in question, asked him to preserve it for future generations.
Probably two of the most famous transmission episodes are known as the "sharing the seat in front of the Stupa of Many Sons" (C. Duozi ta qian fenban zuo) and the "World-Honored One holding up a flower" (C. Shizun). The representative versions of these episodes are as follows:
The first episode, also known as "sharing the seat" (C. fenban zuo), originates from an avadana, which was translated into Chinese in 207 under the title Zhongben qijing. (6) The second episode, also called "holding up a flower and [making] a subtle smile" (C. nianhua weixiao) or "holding up a flower" (C. nianhua), first appears in the Tiansheng guangdeng lu. Although the origins of these two episodes were different, they took the form of a Chan transmission-episode by the eleventh century. About two centuries later in the thirteenth century, they became well known not only to Buddhist clerics in general but also to the literati class, since they were recorded in famous Chan gong'an texts such as the Zongmen tong yao ji and the Wurnen guan. (7)
Along with these two episodes, other transmission episodes or theories circulated in the Song period for the same purpose of establishing Chan as a separate transmission outside scriptural teaching. Those stories, however, do not seem to have been as popular as the "sharing the seat" or "holding up a flower" episodes; they are not found in full-fledged form in any Buddhist text. Some of them are never even alluded to in Chan texts, and in fact it was a Tiantai text that confirmed the existence of such episodes or theories. The Song Tiantai master Fadeng (fl. 1194) introduced them in the context of criticizing the Chan claim of separation from and superiority to the scriptural tradition in his Yuandunzong yan:
Some say, "At the assembly on Vulture Peak, the World-Honored One held up a flower and Kagyapa smiled subtly; that is the mark [of the dharma transmitted]." But that theory has no basis at all in Indian scriptures and must be considered merely a metaphor created by people of later times. Some say, "When [in the fourth of the five periods] the Buddha taught the Prajna sutras, that was the transmission of dharma." But that theory still does not specify the mark of that which is transmitted. Moreover, in the Prajna sutras it is Subhuti and Sariputra who are directly infused [with the Buddha's wisdom], not Kasyapa. Some say, "The Tathagata transmitted the dharma everywhere he went; how could it be restricted to a single time and single place?" But that theory is vague and unfocused in the extreme. According to some explanations, when the World-Honored One transmitted the robe, that was the transmission of dharma. Others say, "When the World-Honored One entered nirvana, Kasyapa arrived later and the Buddha displayed both his feet; that was the transmission of dharma." When we examine these two explanations, however, they only have to do with external signs. How could I these signs] possibly be the mark of the dharma that is transmitted? (8)
In his critique, Fadeng demonstrated that the issues caused by these episodes revolved around the question of whether the Chan lineage had carried a special dharma that could distinguish Chan from the scriptural tradition. After this statement. Fadeng argued that the dharma transmitted along the Chan lineage was not different from the dharma recorded in the scriptures. (9) As a Tiantai scholar, he even went to say that this dharma was revealed in its entirety only in the teaching of the Saddharmapundarikasutra (Lotus Sutra), the central scripture of the Tiantai school. (10)
Myriads of followers rain [from the sky]. [They became] various adornments and offerings. This was indeed at the assembly on Vulture Peak. How could it be different from in front of Stapa of Many Sons ... Some praised and some complimented all wondrous functioning. (13)
Huaishen here suggested that the Buddha had transmitted the same mind in front of the Stupa of Many Sons and on Vulture Peak--in other words, that the complete mind-transmission had taken place in both places. What Huaishen, along with many other Chan experts of the time, failed to address are the questions raised earlier: if the Buddha transmitted the same mind to Kasyapa in those different places, what reason or need would there be for the Buddha to do so? (14) If not, what different minds or different levels of the mind did the Buddha transmit to Kagyapa in each place?
A statement by Yuanwu Keqin (1063-1135) in his Xinyan is one of the rare references that seems to have recognized the significance of multiple transmission episodes:
By sharing his seat [with Kasyapa] in front of the Stupa of Many Sons, Sakyamuni already transmitted this seal secretly. Thereafter, he held up a flower. This is a second-level gong'an! (15)
Yuanwu provided little explanation of this statement made in his letter to his student Faji (fl. 12th c.). The two mind-transmissions in this statement, however, do not seem qualitatively different. Although Yuanwu contributed to the spread of two different approaches to Chan in medieval China, i.e., the "dead word" (C. siju) and the "live word" (C. huoju), these two mind-transmissions in the statement do not correspond to the two different approaches. (16) In fact, Yuanwu never mentioned these approaches in the letter, nor did he show any interest in explaining the relationship between the two episodes. Rather, he was critical of regarding them as "special episodes" that generated "five houses and seven schools" (C. wujia qizong), (17) and he instead emphasized the importance of accomplishing the "great man's task" (C. dazhangfu shi), or enlightenment. (18) Yuanwu treated the two episodes between the Buddha and Kasyapa as nothing different from other mind-transmission cases between Chan masters and their disciples. For him, each of these two episodes served as a gong'an case. In his statement, the term "level," a translation for the Chinese word chong, implies a difference of order rather than a difference of quality between the two episodes. Thus Yuanwu argued that the "sharing the seat" episode was the first of the two sequential gong'an cases, and the "holding up a flower" episode the second. As we have seen, in medieval China there were few serious attempts to take a polemical perspective on the existence of several mind-transmission episodes for the Chan internal rivalry. There was virtually no Chan claim against another Chan group, school, or even different vision of Chan that treated multiple mind-transmission episodes collectively for such a purpose.
KOREAN APPLICATION OF MIND-TRANSMISSION EPISODES TO SON POLEMICS
The mind-transmission episodes developed in China also became very well known in Korea. However, the Korean Son community diverged from the Chan context in their reception of these Chinese imports. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, some Korean Son masters sought the meaning of the existence of more than one transmission episode from a Son polemical perspective, due to the historical context of different visions of Son competing for dominance.
Samch'o chonsim (Three Places of Mind-Transmission)
During the late Koryo (918-1392) period, a few centuries after Son was first introduced to Korea in the eighth century, Korean Son Buddhists became divided over two different visions of Son in terms of the relationship between Son and doctrinal studies (K. Kyo). By the mid-Koryo, a harmonious approach to the relationship between these two strands of Buddhism prevailed in the Korean Buddhist community. This trend resulted chiefly from the dominance of monks affiliated with the Fayan (K. Poban) school during this period. In particular, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, with the support of the royal court, a number of Son monks travelled to China to study with renowned Chinese Fayan masters such as Yongming Yanshou (904-975) and Longce Xiaorong (920-990), and then returned to Koryo. For example, Chogyon Yongjun (932-1014) and Won'gong Chijong (930-1018), who received dharma from Yanshou, spread the Fayan vision of the harmony between Chan and Tiantai to Koryo as a state preceptor. (19) Later, many Koryo Man monks joined the ecumenical Ch'ont'ae (C. Tiantai) school founded by the monk Uich'on (1055-1101), who was a son of Koryo King Munjong (r. 1046-1083). (20) During this period, it was not merely Man monks who had this integral vision. Hyejo Tamjin (fl. 1076-1116), who studied with the Chinese Linji master Jingyin Daozhen (1014-1093), also advocated this harmonious understanding of the relationship between Son and Kyo. Tamjin's descendants T'anyon (1070-1159) and Chiin (1102-1158) also shared this view.2I Although there were some monks, such as Hagil I(1052-1144), who emphasized differences between Son and Kyo, a more balanced approach was dominant during the first half of Koryo. (22)
It was Pojo Chinul (1158-1210) who brought to the Koryo Buddhist community a more radical vision of Son. Although for most of his career Chinul advocated a harmonious view of So'n and Kyo, accepting the Heze Chan master Zongmi's (780-841) practical schema of "sudden awakening/gradual cultivation," late in his career Chinul radically gravitated toward the more exclusive brand of the Linji kanhua (K. kanhwa) Chan practice, which he himself introduced to Korea for the first time. Influenced by this practice, he expressed a negative view of Kyo in his posthumous work Kanhwa kyorui ron: (23)
In the Son approach, all these true teachings that derive from the faith and understanding of the complete and sudden school [i.e., the Huayan scholastic school], which are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, are called "dead words" because they induce people to create obstacles of understanding. (24)
Chinul's negative view of Kyo, along with his emphasis on Son, in particular, kanhwa technique was intensified by his successor Chin'gak Hyesim (1178-1234), who compiled the first Korean kongan (C. gong'an) collection Sonmun yomsong. In his recorded saying Chin'gak kuksa orok, the first Korean recorded sayings that followed the Chinese yulu style, Hyesim taught his students with the paradoxical and irrational rhetoric that was typical in Chan texts, and he established kanhwa technique as the principal Buddhist practice in his Son community. (25) Further, he rarely mentioned Zongmi, whom Chinul had focused on in his earlier career to advocate for a harmonious view of Son and Kyo. Hyesim instead criticized "sudden awakening," an experience that could be triggered by doctrinal studies in Zongmi's practical schema, for generating mental defilements, and he rejected the integrative approach to Son and Kyo. (26) Thus by the late Koryo there existed two different visions of Son in terms of the relationship between Son and Kyo, one vision of Son that advocated the unity of these two strands of Buddhism and another that emphasized Son over Kyo. It was in this context that a new interpretation of the theories of mind-transmission emerged.
Hyesim's disciple Kagun (fl. thirteenth century) attempted to answer the question that arose from the existence of multiple transmission episodes in his Sonmun yomsong sorhwa, a commentary to Hyesim's Sonmun yomsong. In so doing, Kagun developed the notion of samch'o chonsim (three places of mind-transmission). In the commentary, Kagun employed samch'o chonsim as an umbrella term for the following three episodes, which had long circulated in Song China. The Sonmun yomsong version of these episodes is as follows:
1) When the World-Honored One preached to human and heavenly beings in front of the Stupa of Many Sons, Kasyapa arrived late. The World-Honored One then shared his seat with him. (Another version says that the World-Honored One shared his seat with Kasyapa and draped him in a golden robe.) The audience was puzzled. (27) 2) When the World-Honored One preached on Vulture Peak, four kinds of flowers rained from the sky. The World-Honored One held up one of the flowers to show the congregation. Kasyapa smiled. The World-Honored One said, "I have the treasury of the true dharma eye, which I entrust to Mahakasyapa!" (Another version says that when the World-Honored One looked back at Kagyapa with his blue-lotus eyes, Kagyapa smiled.) (28) 3) Seven days had already passed after the World-Honored One entered nirveiva beneath the twin gala trees. Mahakasyapa arrived late and circumambulated the coffin three times. The World-Honored One stuck his feet out of the coffin. Kasyapa bowed down. The audience was puzzled. (29)
After tying these three episodes together under the term "samch'o chonsim," Kagun tried to give historical authenticity to the term. To serve this purpose, he looked to Yuanwu's statement that we have discussed earlier:
Samch'o chonsim [Three places of mind-transmission] is a notion widely known throughout the world. It is .not a theory created by any one person. Yuanwu gave a dharma talk to the head monk Sung (Sheng), saying, "By sharing his seat [with Kasyapa] in front of the Stupa of Many Sons, Sakyamuni already transmitted this seal secretly. Thereafter, he held up a flower. This is a second-level gong'an," and so forth ... How could [Yuanwu as] a legitimate descendant of Linji falsely say an unreliable word without any evidence? (30)
Kagun here attempted to dispel any doubt that samch 'o chonsim was historically valid and was not created by a single person by presenting it as a "notion widely known throughout the world" (K. chonha chi kongnon and claiming the authority of Yuanwu, who, in fact, had neither mentioned the term nor treated those three episodes together as a transmission episode. Kagun then went on to comment on each of the episodes, employing the enigmatic rhetoric that was typical of the Chan and Son gong'an (K. kongan) texts.
When the World-Honored One in front of the Stapa of Many Sons preached the dharma to human and heavenly beings, [he] transmitted the false to one person and the real to tens of thousands of people. Since Mahak5gyapa arrived late, he should have been alert. It is wrong that the World-Honored One shared his seat [with Kagyapa]. This is as if to say that the "single-edged sword that kills people" is needed to kill people. Negligences are indeed many.... When the World-Honored One was on Vulture Peak, four kinds of flowers rained from the sky. A petal, two petals, a thousand petals, and ten thousand petals fell. It was wrong that the World-Honored One held up a flower to show the congregation. This is as if to say that the "double-edged sword that gives life to people" is needed to give life to people. Therefore, disorders are indeed many.... "When the World-Honored One was under the twin gala trees, and so on" means, "Ah, heaven! Ah, heaven!" "Mahakagyapa arrived late and circumambulated the coffin three times" means that the track of the seal was. created. If ancestors are not clear, disaster will befall their descendants. It was really wrong that the World-Honored One stuck his feet out of the coffin! (31)
It is not clear why Kagun selected the episodes of "sharing the seat," "holding up a flower," and "displaying the feet" as constituting samch'o chonsim, and in particular why he selected the "displaying the feet" episode as the third of the three episodes, given that the first two episodes appeared together in some Chan texts. One of the reasons for his selection could be related to the issue of the historical validity of the term as well as of all the transmission episodes. The mind-transmission episodes were mostly criticized as being historically dubious. The historicity of these episodes was questioned even within Chan itself. For instance, the Song Chan master Qisong (1007-1072) cast doubt on the historical authenticity of the episodes of "sharing the seat" and "holding up a flower." (32) Even an apocryphal scripture titled "Da Fantianwang wenfo jueyijing" appeared to respond to such criticism. (33) As shown in Fadeng's criticism, however, these episodes of the transmission of the mind-dharma remained subject to historical criticism. Kagun, therefore, may have been motivated to provide a stronger case to legitimize the historical validity of samch'o chonsim and the transmission episodes: he may have added the "displaying both feet" episode as the third transmission episode because it appears in various Chinese renditions of the famous Indian scripture Mahaparinirvanasutra and thus its historicity was difficult to challenge. (34)
Although Kagun provided few reasons for his selections, his explanation of the episodes of samch'o chonsim has important implications for the polemical power of the term. In the passage cited above, he implied that the Buddha had transmitted different levels of the mind in these three or at least two different places. (35) According to Kagun, the mind-transmission in front of the Stupa of Many Sons was connected to the "single-edged sword that kills people" (K. sarin to), while that on Vulture Peak, to the "double-edged sword that gives life to people" (K. hwarin koma). These two analogies of the "single-edged sword" and the "double-edged sword" often appear in conjunction with each other in Chan texts. (36) Though never fully explained, each symbolizes different aspects of wisdom. With its single edge, "the single-edged sword that kills people" represents one-dimensional functioning of wisdom that would only "kill defilements" on the basis of the truth of emptiness. (37) On the other hand, with its extra edge, the "double-edged sword that gives life to people" represents the two-dimensional functioning of wisdom that would not only remove all defilements but also allow one to live and act freely in accord with conditions without attachment. Kagun, therefore, in introducing the term samch'o chonsim to substantiate the idea that the Buddha had transmitted the different levels of the mind in different places, argued that the first transmission in front of the Stupa of Many Sons was partial, transmitting only the "killing" aspect of the mind, while the second on Vulture Peak was full and perfect, transmitting the "giving life" aspect. It is clear that Kagun created the term in response to the situation that Korean Son Buddhism faced during his lifetime, in which two different visions of Son were competing for dominance. Although he did not connect his samch'o chonsim directly to the two visions, he implied that the later vision, i.e., his master Hyesim's more exclusive brand of Son, was superior to the earlier one by arguing that the second mind-transmission was more complete than the first.
Samch'o chonsim and Doctrinal Taxonomy
The term samch'o chonsim appears again in the works of the Choson Son masters Pyoksong Chiom (1464-1534) and Ch'ongho Hyujong (1520-1604) in a way that suggests how it could serve as a polemical tool. Under the section titled Samch'o chonsim in his Hunmong yoch 'o, Chiom mentioned the three episodes as follows:
What is particularly interesting in this passage is that Chiom's remark appears immediately after his summary of the two major doctrinal taxonomies, the Tiantai fourfold and Huayan fivefold taxonomies. Chiom first introduced the Tiantai taxonomy, giving it a different reading from that found in traditional descriptions. He connected the "four types of teaching in contents" (C. huafa sijiao; K. hwahop sagyo) to the "five teaching periods" (C. wushi; K. osi) of "Sakyamuni Buddha. He linked (1) the tripitaka teaching to the Agama period; (2) the common teaching to the Vaipulya period; (3) the distinct teaching to the Prajna period; and (4) the perfect teaching to the Huayan period. (39) Chiom then presented the Huayan fivefold taxonomy. He accepted the same five categories from the third Huayan patriarch Fazang's Ma (643-712) taxonomy but matched the list of the scriptures to each category differently: (1) the lowest of the five, the teachings of the lesser vehicle, corresponded to the teaching of the Agama Sutras: (2) the elementary teaching of the great vehicle corresponded to that of the Yogacara teaching of the Samdhinirmocanasutra; (3) the advanced teaching of the great vehicle to the tathagatagarbha teaching of the Lotus Sutra and Nirvana Sutra; (4) the sudden teaching to the teaching of the Lankavatra ra Sutra and the Yuanjue jing; (5) the perfect teaching to the teaching of the Huayan fing. (40)
This sequential enumeration of samch'o chonsim and doctrinal taxonomy is also found in Hyujong's Son' ga kwigam. (41)
When the World-Honored One was in front of the Stupa of Many Sons, he shared his seat. This is the first place. When the World-Honored One was on Vulture Peak, he held up a flower to show the congregation. This is the second place. When the World-Honored One entered nirvana, he stuck his feet out of the coffin. This is the third place. (38) The three places where the World-Honored One transmitted the mind is the import of Son. Everything that he said during his lifetime is the approach of Kyo. Therefore it is said, "Son is the Buddha's mind; Kyo is the Buddha's words." Regarding the three places, the Buddha sharing the seat in front of the Stupa of Many Sons is the first; the Buddha holding up a flower on Vulture Peak is the second; the Buddha sticking his feet out of the coffin under the twin gala trees is the third. This is what is meant by "Mahakagyapa separately transmitted the lamp of Son." The Buddha preaching for forty-nine years throughout his life refers to the five teachings. The teaching of human and heavenly beings is the first; the teaching of the lesser vehicle is the second; the teaching of the great vehicle is the third; the sudden teaching is the fourth; the perfect teaching is the fifth. The -so-called ocean of the teachings that Ananda unleashed are these. (42)
Here, Hyujong placed samch'o chonsim and doctrinal taxonomy in sequence as the explicit and concrete content of Son and scriptural teachings.
Although Chiorn and Hyujong never raised any of the questions pertaining to the existence of several transmission episodes, their serial positioning of samch'o chonsim and a doctrinal taxonomy gives the impression that samch.'o chonsim could be interpreted in the same way as doctrinal taxonomies. A doctrinal taxonomy supposes that the Buddha taught different levels of teachings in different periods over his career: his teaching was gradually refined and it culminated in the final period, at which point it was considered a full and perfect revelation of his wisdom. From this premise, doctrinal exegetes organized the teachings of various scriptures into one single system and placed the teaching of a particular scripture, associated with their doctrinal positions, into the final and highest place. In so doing, they promoted their own positions over all other doctrinal stances. Samch'o chonsim could provide the same type of premise for the SU polemical claims. Just as the Buddha taught a more profound level of teachings later in his career, he transmitted a more complete mind-dharma of Son later. Thus, in order to promote his own vision of Son, a Son expert would only have to put it later in samch'o chonsim. This polemical implication of the term samch'o chonsim that Chiom and Hyujong suggested in their sequential enumeration of the term and a doctrinal taxonomy went on to be articulated explicitly by the late Choson Son master Paekp'a.
Samch'o chonsim and Son Taxonomy
Paekp'a Kungson (1767-1852) applied the term samch'o chonsim to his Son taxonomy in the unique situation Choson Buddhism faced during the latter half of the dynasty. During this period, Korean Son Buddhists made efforts to restore their lineages, which had been interrupted during the early period of the dynasty when the Confucian state enforced severe anti-Buddhist measures. Even Hyujong, who revived the Korean Buddhist tradition, did not recount his entire lineage. After the Japanese and Manchurian invasions in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, however, Hyujong's descendants, who dominated the Buddhist order in late Choson, presented the complete lineages by producing several genealogical texts such as the Pulcho wollyu of 1764. Most of these texts established T'aego Pou, who had received dharma from the Chinese Linji master Shiwu Qinggong (1272-1352), as the founding patriarch of their lineages and defined Korean Son as the Imje (C. Linji)lineage. (43)
During this period, Korean Imje lineage monks developed the practical schema of "Relinquishing Kyo and entering into Son" (K. sagyo ipson [??]), which emphasized the Linji kanhua technique, assigning a limited role to Kyo doctrinal studies." According to Hyujong, in this schema a student first engaged in doctrinal studies, which could give him an initial understanding of the nature of enlightenment and cultivation; he then abandoned his attachment to doctrinal teachings and moved on to kanhwa technique, which would lead him to final enlightenment. Here, Kyo was regarded as producing mental defilements and served only as a preliminary step for kanhwa Son practice. (45) Many Son masters of this period cultivated themselves and guided their students according to this approach. (46)
Certain SOn monks such as Ch'oili Oisun [??] (1786-1866) and Chinha Ch'ugwon [??] (1861-1925) posed a challenge to this Son trend, a trend that was characterized by claiming Kyo's subordination to son and the superiority of the Linji schoo1.47 In particular, Ch'oui advocated the unity of all types of son, as well as son and doctrinal studies." He argued that various Son schools are only different in their styles of teaching and there is no hierarchy between them because they all carry the Buddha's wisdom. Ch'orii, then, applied the same rationale to the relationship between son and Kyo, arguing that these two strands of Buddhism were not different from each other because they had the same origin, Sakyamuni Buddha. (49) Ch'oili also denied any exclusive importance of the Linji kanhua practice in Son training by suggesting that other practices such as reading scriptures and reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha also led to enlightenment. (50)
Ch'oili's contemporary Paekp'a, who was well aware of this challenge, justified the superiority of the Linji schoo1.51 As part of his broader argument, he presented a threefold taxonomy of Chan, which employed the notion of samch'o chonsim as a rationalizing tool. He built his taxonomy on the Dasheng qixin lun [??] Based on the well-known framework of the mind in the Chinese apocryphal treatise, Paekp'a argued that the mind has two different aspects, immutability and conditionality. (52) The former refers to the unchanging aspect of the mind, which is originally empty and tranquil, while the latter refers to the diverse phenomenal appearances of the mind that arise in accord with conditions. Paekp'a employed various alternative polarities to this paradigm of immutability and conditionality: on the one hand, essence, nature, principle, calmness, stillness, nirvana, true emptiness, and killing; on the other, function, sign, phenomena, wisdom, contemplation, bocthi, wondrous-existence, and giving life. (53) These sets of immutability and conditionality became the primary criteria for his threefold taxonomy (see Table 1).
Table 1. Two Aspects of the Mind Immutability Conditionality essence (ch 'e [??]) function (yong [??]) nature (song [??]) sign (sang [??]) principle (i [??]) phenomena (sa [??]) calmness (dhylina) wisdom (prajlia) stillness (iarnatha) contemplation (vipasyanti) extinction (nirvema) awakening (hodhi) true emptiness (chin 'gong [??]) wondrous existence (myoyu [??]) killing (sal [??]) giving life (hwal [??])
In terms of the level of understanding the truth of the mind, Paekp'a categorized the six main lineages of Chan, which originated from the sixth patriarch Huineng [??] (638-713): the Heze (K. Hat'aek) school and the so-called five Chan houses (C. wujia [??]) of the Linji (K. Imje), Yunmen (K. Unmun), Guiyang (K. Wiang), Fayan (K. Man), and Caodong (K. Chodong) schools. According to Paekp'a, the Linji and Yunmen schools ranked highest since they fully realized the two aspects of immutability and conditionality. He asserted that both schools' understanding of the truth of the mind was so perfect that it left no trace of misunderstanding, just as a seal stamped on the air leaves no trace. (54) Paekp'a placed the Guiyang, Fayan, and Caodong schools in the middle rank because they only understood true emptiness, which is the immutable aspect of the mind. Paekp'a commented that these three schools' level of realization of the mind still left a trace of such partial enlightenment or delusion just as a seal stamped on the surface of water leaves the briefest trace. (55) The Heze school he located in the lowest rank of his Son taxonomy. According to Paekp'a, the Heze masters were attached to "words and letters" (C. wenzi [??]), never seeing the truth transmitted through them. Therefore, in their approach to Buddhist teachings, they only produced intellectual defilements. Paekp'a compared the Heze masters' attachment to a seal stamped on clay leaving a trace. (56)
Paekp'a justified this threefold Chan taxonomy with the notion of sanich' o chonsim, thereby accepting Kagun's position that the Buddha had transmitted different levels of the mind in different places. In particular, Paekp'a argued that the different transmissions had occurred at least in the first two of the three places. According to him, the Buddha's mind was transmitted partially in the first place but only transmitted fully in the second place. He said,
Of the three transmission places, the first, "sharing the seat," is true emptiness and the "single-edged sword that kills people."... Since this only transmits the immutability of true suchness, it only involves killing, not giving life. ... The second place of "holding up a flower" is wondrous, .existence and the "double-edged sword that gives life to people." ... [This represents] the three essentials of base (killing) and function (giving life), as well as true emptiness ... and wondrous existence of leading upward ... [This second transmission] is endowed with both killing and giving life. (57)
Here Paekp' a established the following correspondences: For the first transmission, which was partial, he applied only the immutable side of the polar sets that represent the two aspects of the mind: sharing the seat, true emptiness, the single-edged sword that kills people, immutability, and killing. For the second transmission, which was full and perfect, he applied both immutable and conditional sides: holding up a flower, true emptiness and wondrous existence, the double-edged sword that gives life to people, immutability and conditionality, and killing and giving life. Paekp'a then correlated these correspondences to the five Chan houses.58
"Sharing the seat" is a reference to the "seat of the teaching of emptiness"; this is the tenet of the three schools of Fayan, Caodong, and Guiyang. ... "Holding up a flower" is a reference to "wondrous existence"; this is the tenet of the two schools of Yunmen and Linji. (59)
With this taxonomy of Chan, Paekp'a promoted his Son lineage by placing the Linji school in the highest position. Although he put the Yunmen school at the same level with the Linji school in this taxonomy, he asserted that there was a hierarchical difference between these two schools. (60) Paekp'a, according to Ch'orii, argued that the Linji school is superior to the Yunmen school because the former could explicitly explain "base" and "function," the two aspects of the mind, while the latter could not, though both schools fully realized the truth of the mind.61 This correlation is charted in Table 2. In the table the second set of correspondences is superior to the first.
Table 2. The Mind-Transmissions and Son Taxonomy first transmission second transmission sharing the seat holding up a flower immutability immutability and conditionality true emptiness true emptiness and wondrous existence single-edged sword double-edged sword that gives life to people that kills people killing killing and giving life Fayan, Guiyang, Caodong Linji, Yunmen
Paekp'a's connection of samch' o chonsim to his Chan taxonomy was not without problems. For example, Paekp'a took a rather ambiguous position on the third transmission. On the one hand, he associated it with both "killing" (K. sal ga) and "giving life" (K. hwal the same qualities he attributed to the second transmission. On the other hand, he suggested that the third transmission was superior to the second by arguing that the third had been cut off after the sixth patriarch and thus those who came after the patriarch could no longer be entitled to the title "patriarch" (K. dzosa; C. zushi [??]). (62) However, in most of his writings, when Paekp'a correlated samch'o chonsim with his Chan taxonomy, he merely omitted the third transmission and treated the second transmission as the transmission of the supreme Son.
Paekp'a also provided scant explanation for the correlation charted in Table 2, in particular, why "sharing the seat" should be placed in the column of immutability while "holding up a flower" stands in that of both immutability and conditionality, rather than the other way around. He simply added that "sharing the seat" was the "seat of the teaching of emptiness" while "holding up a flower" was "wondrous existence." (63) To expand on Paekp'a's comment, the first transmission, "sharing the seat," can be seen as true emptiness since the Buddha shared with Kagyapa his own seat, the seat only for someone who realized the teaching of emptiness, the immutable aspect of the mind. On the other hand, "holding up a flower" can be considered wondrous existence because this episode shows the Buddha's wisdom in his wondrous and spontaneous act of holding up a flower, which could be achieved by understanding both immutable and conditional aspects of the mind.
Paekp'a did not provide much evidence for his statement that "sharing the seat" was the tenet of the three Chan schools of the Fayan, Caodong, and Guiyang, while "holding up a flower" was that of the Yunmen and Linji schools. Although Paekp'a presented a few examples of the rhetorical differences in this distinction, this line of reasoning seems inconsistent and even self-contradictory. (64) In fact, Paekp'a's correlation of the two transmissions to the five Chan schools was ultimately a polemical claim. His hierarchical interpretation of mind-transmissions gave his taxonomy the same rationale used in various doctrinal taxonomies. By arguing that the Buddha transmitted the higher levels of the mind later in his career, and applying this notion to his new taxonomy, Paekp'a achieved the same goal as the doctrinal school counterparts had done: the Linji school, with which his lineage claimed to be associated, was promoted to a higher level above other Chan schools, in which the mind of the Buddha holding up a flower had been transmitted.
Various mind-transmission episodes between the Buddha alcyamuni and his disciple Mahakagyapa appeared in medieval China to justify the self-declaration of Chan as a separate transmission outside the written scriptural tradition. It is not clear why several such episodes were created for the same purpose. One may surmise that more historically verifiable episodes were needed to respond to the repeated challenge to the historical authenticity of the episodes, which came not just from the scriptural school but also from within the Chan school itself.
Some Korean Son masters explored the religious meaning of the existence of the multiple number of transmission episodes regarding the son inner polemics. The Koryo Son master Kagun substantialized the idea that the Buddha had transmitted different minds in different places throughout his career. He introduced the term samch'o cheinsim, a term that for the first time in Chan and Son history treated the three transmission episodes of "sharing the seat," "holding up a flower," and "displaying the feet" collectively, and applied these transmission episodes to the intra-son polemics. The ChosOn Son masters Chi Om and Hyujong suggested a way in which the term could function as a polemical tool by placing samch'o chonsim and doctrinal taxonomy in sequence. In the late Choson, Paekp'a employed the term to legitimize his threefold Son taxonomy, intended to promote the Linji/lmje school. He argued that the Buddha had transmitted the mind-dharma fully and perfectly to Mahakagyapa on Vulture Peak by holding up a flower, and that the transmission of this highest truth of the mind had been eventually carried over to the Chinese Linji and Korean Imje lineages. With little theoretical explanation, Paekp'a's taxonomy basically served as a polemical assertion for the priority of the Linji/Imje school with which his lineage masters claimed to be associated. In this taxonomy-samch'o chonsim was thus employed as a rationalizing tool.
Nonetheless, the polemical application of the term samch'o chonsim was not the main trend of interpretation in Korea. The term became widely used to exemplify and legitimize the son separation from the scriptural tradition. However, such an application of the transmission episodes in son internal polemics represented a distinctive aspect of the Korean Son Buddhist community, in that it actively utilized--whether transformed or expanded--a Chinese Chan import in response to its religious needs rather than merely being a passive recipient of it.
(1.) Griffith T. Foulk, "Sung Controversies concerning the 'Separate Transmission' of Ch'an," in Buddhism in the Sung, ed. Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz, Jr. (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 1999), 220-94, and Albert Welter, "Mahiikasyapa's Smile: Silent Transmission and the Kung-an (Man) Tradition," in The Kijan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism, ed. Steven Heine and Dale S. Wright (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 75-109.
(2.) Morten Schliitter, How Zen Became Zen (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 2008), 13-17.
(3.) Foulk. "Sung Controversies," 285.
(4.) Mallen guan, Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo (CBETA edition, hereafter T) 2005.48.293c13-c16.
(5.) Zongmen tongyao ji. in Zengaku tenseki sokan. ed. Yanagida Seizan and Shiina Koyu (Tokyo: Rinsen shoten, 1999), 729-11.
(6.) Zhongbenqi jing 2, T196.4.161a18--a25: this episode was first connected to the Chan image of independence from the scriptural tradition in the Chuanxin fayao, the recorded sayings of Huangbo Xiyun (d. 850) (T2012A.48.382b03-b09).
(7.) For a detailed analysis of the development of these two episodes, see Foulk, "Sung Controversies," 220-94.
(8.) Yuandunzong van, Xu zangjing (CBETA edition, hereafter X) 0958.57.92c13-19; the translation is taken with minor alterations from Brook Ziporyn, "Anti-Chan Polemics in Post-Tang Tiantai," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17.1(1994): 56.
(9.) Yuandunzong yan, X0958.57.93a02-06.
(10.) Ibid., X0958.57.93a12-14.
(11.) Foulk, "Sung Controversies." 285.
(12.) For example. texts such as the Tiansheng guangdeng lu, the Zongnzen tongyao ji, the Chanzong songgu lianzhutong ji, and the Da Fantianwang wenfo jueyi jing all record these two episodes.
(13.) Cishou Shen heshang guanglu, X1451.73. I 22b06-08.
(14.) Foulk introduces an interesting interpretation of the relationship between the two episodes not connected directly to the Chan internal rivalry. Foulk argues that the "sharing the seat" episode was a real transmission that was secret and private while the "holding up a flower" episode was an "outward sign" of the real one. He goes on to say that the Chan claim to the separate and superior transmission required positing "real one" and "outward sign" because that claim had two contradictory needs: it needed not only to pin down the time and place of the Chan dharma-transmission historically, but also to locate the transmission beyond the realm of historical verification. Foulk then concludes that the two episodes were often connected because of the tension created by these two contradictory needs (Foulk, "Sung Controversies." 286). However, Chan Buddhists of the time seem to have paid more attention to providing historical or scriptural evidence to that Chan claim than to solving this "subtle" tension, because both episodes were criticized most often for lack of evidence, as shown in Qisong's (1007-1072) criticism. They either presented (or forged) a scriptural record of a mind-transmission episode or created other episodes that have more solid scriptural support (see the section on Kagun below). Moreover, many Chan texts do not treat these two episodes together, but simply mention one of the two episodes. Even in the majority of cases where both episodes are discussed, these episodes simply appear together without implying the interpretation suggested by Foulk, as we see in Huaishen's recorded sayings and also in Mengshan Deyi's (1231-1308) preface to the Liuzu dashi fabao tanjing (T2008.48.0345c08-11).
(15.) Foguo yuanwu zhenjue chanshi xinyao X1 357.69.457a24-b01; Yuanwu's statement is also recorded in the Yuanwu Foguo chanshi yulu 16, T1997.47.786c22-23, and the Sonmun yomsong sorhwa 2, Han'guk pulgyo chonso (hereafter HPC) 5, 050c17-20.
(16.) According to Ding-hwa Evelyn Hsieh, "dead word" refers to investigating the meaning of a Chan text that focuses on conceptual and rational analysis, while "live word" refers to investigating the word itself that transcends the dualistic processes of thought. For details on these definitions, see Hsieh, "A Study of the Evolution of K'anhua Ch'an in Sung China: Yuan-wu K'o-ch'in (1063-1135) and the Function of Kung-an in Ch'an Pedagogy and Praxis" (PhD diss., Univ. of California, Los Angeles. 1993), 153-64.
(17.) Foguo yuanwu zhenjue chanshi xinyao, X1 357.69.0457b02-06.
(18.) Ibid., X1357.69.457b09.
(19.) Kim Tu-jin, "Koryo Kwangjong tae Pobanjong ui tungjang kwa ku songkyok." in Koryo ch'ogi pulgyosawn, ed. Pulgyo hakhoe (Seoul: Minjoksa, 1986), 273-360, and Yi Chin-wol, "11 segi Han'guk pulgyogye ui Sonjong sanghwang kwa t'ukching," Pulgyo hakpo 56 (2010): 93-95.
(20.) Approximately two-thirds of roughly a thousand monks who joined Uich'on's Ch'ont'ae school were affiliated with the Man school. See Kim Sang-yong, "Koryo sidae Sonmun yon'gu" (PhD diss., Dongguk Univ., 2007). 105-13.
(21.) Ibid., 114-26, and Chong Su-a, "Hyejo kuksa Tamjin kwa Chonginsu," in Yigibaek sonsaeng kohui kinyom Han'guk sahak nonch'ong sang, ed. Kanhaeng wiwonhoe (Seoul: Ilchogak, 1994), 616-39.
(22.) Hoping to preserve the way of Son patriarchs, Hagil refused to join the Ch'ont'ae school, founded by Uich'on, who was critical of the Son claim of its separation from the Kyo scholastic tradition. See Ho Hung-sik, Koryo pulgyosa yon'gu (Seoul: Ilchogak, 1986), 464-69.
(23.) Because of the dramatic change in Chinul's view of Kyo in the Kanhwa kyorui ron, Pak Kon-ju even argued that the text was in fact forged by Hyesim, who advocated the exclusive brand of Son. See Pak Kon-ju, "Pojo Son e taehan Chin'gak Hyesim ui Kanhwa Son wijo." Chhidan hakpo 113 (2011): 33-56.
(24.) Kanhwa kyoruiron, HPC 4, 733a15-19; the translation comes from Robert E. Buswell, The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 1983), 240.
(25.) Chin' gak kuksa orok. HPC 6,01a01-49c11.
(26.) Pak Chae-hyon, "Hyesim ui Son sasang kwa kanhwa." Ch'orhak 78 (2004): 29-49; Chong Yong-sik, "Pojo Chinul kwa Chin'gak Hyesim e mich'in Chungguk Son ui yonghyang," Han'guk minjok munhwa 28 (2006): 264-67; Kwon Ki-jong, "Hyesim ui Son sasang yon'gu," Pulgyo hakpo 19 (1982): 201-17; and Kang Song-gyu, "Choson hugi Chin'gak kuksa Hyesim yon'gu" (PhD diss., Chungang Univ., 1986), 13-14. There is a minority opinion on Hyesim's view of Son and Kyo. For example, based on some examples of Hyesim's citation of scriptures in his work and his relationship with a few Kyo-related monks, Kim Ho-song argues that Hyesim in fact held the harmonious view of these two strands of Buddhism (Kim Ho-song, "Hyesim Son sasang e issoso kyohak i ch'ajihanun uimi," Pojo sasang 7 [19931: 103-31).
(27.) Sonmun yomsong sorhwa I, HPC 5,012c17-013a02.
(28.) Ibid., HPC 5,014a03--a07.
(29.) Sonmun yomsong sorhwa 2, HPC 5,050a09--a12.
(30.) Ibid.. HPC 5. 050c16-051a01.
(31.) Ibid.. HPC 5. 051a03-23.
(32.) Foulk. "Sung Controversies," 258.
(33.) One of the earliest references to this scripture is the Renian yanmu of 1188. The scripture is recorded only in the Japanese canon of Dainihon zokuzokyo in two versions without the name of a translator or the date of the translation. See Zengaku daijiten, ed. Komazawa daigaku daijiten hensanjo (Tokyo: Daishukan shoten, 1978). 816d--17a.
(34.) Examples of such texts include the Da banniepan jing 3, T7.1.206c22-26 and the Fo bannihuan jing T5.1.173c16-174b11.
(35.) It is unclear why Kagun provided an ambiguous explanation of the third transmission of the mind. Paekp'a is also ambiguous about this transmission. However, he attempted to clarify his ambiguity, connecting the third transmission to the Chan transmission after the sixth patriarch. See the section on Paekp'a below.
(36.) The analogies of these two types of swords were well known in the Song Chan community. They are recorded with little explanation in many recorded sayings of eminent masters of this time such as Yuanwu, Dahui Zonggao (1089-1163), and Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157), as well as in gong'an collections such as the Biyan lu and the Wumen guar.
(37.) The analogy of wisdom as the sword of "killing or destroying defilement" is often used in Buddhist texts. For example. see the Vimalakirtinirdesasutra 3, T475.14.554b21-22 and the Abhidharmavibhasa T1546.28.360a01.
(38.) Hunmong yoch'o. HPC 7. 387c04-06.
(39.) Ibid., HPC 7, 387a08--b05. For the traditional interpretation of the Tiaritai taxonomy, see Chanju Mun, The History of Doctrinal Classification in Chinese Buddhism: A Study of the Panjiao Systems (Lanham: Univ. Press of America, 2006), 123-68.
(40.) Hunmong yoch'o, HPC 7, 387b11--c02. On Fazang's Huayan taxonomy, see Mun, The History of Doctrinal Classification. 315-403. 41. The Hunmong yoch'o and the Son'ga lovigam were intended to impart the basic teachings of both Son and Kyo to Chiorn's and Hyujong's students. It is likely that by the mid Choson the notion of samch'ci chonsim was well known in the Korean Buddhist community.
(42.) Son'ga kwigatn, HPC 7, 635b09-17: in translating this passage 1 have consulted Robert Buswell, "Buddhism under Confucian Domination: The Synthetic Vision of Sosan Hyujong," in Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, ed. JaHyun Kim Haboush and Martina Deuchler (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Asia Center. 1999), 152, and Hyon Gak. The Mirror of Zen (Boston: Shambhala. 2006), 10-11.
(43.) Kim Sang-hyon, "Sosan mundo ui T'aego popeongso1," in T'aego Pou Kuksa, ed. Taeryun pulgyo mun-hwa yon'guw6n (Seoul: Taeryun pulgyo munhwa yon'guw6n, 1998), 727-67: Pak Hae-dang, "Chogyejong ii popeongsol e taehan pip'anjok komeo," Ch'Orhak sasang 11 (2000): 51-74: and Kim Yong-Cae, "Choson hugi pulgyo ui Imje popeong kwa kyohak chont'ong" (PhD diss., Seoul National Univ., 2008), 105-21.
(44.) Kim Yong-t'ae, Chas6n hugi pulgyo, 122-25.
(45.) Buswell, "Buddhism under Confucian Domination," 150-57. and Sin Pob-in. "Hyujong i sagyo ipson kwan." Han'guk palgyokak 7 (1982): 123-42.
(46.) Chongbom, "Kangwon kyoyuk e kkich'in Pojo sasang," Pojo sa.vang 3 (1989): 101-3.
(47.) Chinha Ch'ugwon, along with Udam Honggi W/itat: (1822-1881), criticized Paekp'a's position from Ch'oili's standpoint. For details, see Han Ki-du, Han'guk Son sasang yon'gu (Seoul: Ilchisa, 1991), 567-96, and Kim PyOng-hak, "Choson hugi pulgyo Son suhaeng nonjaeng e kwanhan yon'gu" (PhD diss., Won'gwang Univ., 2008), 92-106.
(48.) Chsoiii argued for this ultimate unity. criticizing Paekp'a. Many modern scholars agree that Ch'oiii's criticism of Paekp'a focused on the latter's claim of the superiority of the Linji school and of the Son superiority to Kyo. For example, Kim, "Choson hugi pulgyo sonsuhaeng nonjaeng e kwanhan yon'gu"; Pak Chae-hyon, "Han'guk pulgyo ui kanhwa sOn choneong kwa chongeongsong hyOngsong e kwanhan yon'gu" (PhD diss., Seoul National Univ.. 2005); and Han Ki-du, "ChosOn hugi son nonjaeng kwa Ica sasangsajok ditii," in Kasan Yi Chi-kwan minim hwagap kinyorn nonch'ong: Han'guk pulgyo munhwa sasangsa, sang kw6n, ed. Nonch'ong kanhaeng wiwonhoe (Seoul: Kasan mun'go, 1992), 1307-28.
(49.) Pak Mun-gi. "Ch'ogi Oisun tii suhaengpop kwa Son ii ponjil," Han'guk pulgyohak 36 (2004): 19-50; Pak Chong-ho. "Ch'oiii ui ijong sOn ilgo," Pulgyo Hakpo 40 (2003): 7-27; and Han Ki-du, "Ch'otii Qi Sabyon manO," WOn'gwangTaehakkyo nonmunjip 5 (1970): 45-65.
(50.) Ch'oui sigo [??] 2. HPC 10.863c18-20.
(51.) Paekp'a recognized the opposition to the Linji-centrism in the Korean Buddhist community. In fact, he even debated with the Confucian literatus Kim ChOng-hi [??] (1786-1856), who was influenced by Ch'oili in his view of Buddhism, on issues regarding the Linji/Imje oriented view of Son and Kyo. For details of the debates, see Kan Chang-w. "Kim Chong-hi 01 pulgyo insik kwa sonhak nonbyon," Chonggyo wa munhwa 14 (2008): 95-119; Kim Pyting-hak, "Choson hugi Paekp'a wa Ch'usa Oi sOn nonjaeng." Won'gwang Taehakkyo taehagwon nonmuniip 37 (2006): 77-102; and Yi Chong-ik, "ChOngdap Paekp'aso nh Conghae pon Kim Ch'usa Oi pulgyo kwan," Pulgyo hakpo 12(1975): 1-22.
(52.) This framework was often used not just in Chan/SOn but also in the scholastic tradition. For Tiantai usage, see Brook Ziporyn, Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000), 230-35; for Zongmi's usage, see Peter Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Simfication of Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawari Press, 2002), 232-34.
(53.) Suson kyolsa mun iUC, HPC 10,532a I 6-19.
(54.) Sonmun sugyong JLHPC 10,515b 1 5-19 and 519c17-18.
(55.) Paekp'a argued that the three schools of Guiyang. Fayan, and Caodong all realized only the immutable aspect of the mind, though the first two schools were rather different from the third in terms of its understanding of this point (ibid.. HPC 10,515b20--c02 and 520b01-02).
(56.) Ibid., HPC 10.5 1 6a11-15.
(57.) Sonmun sugyting, HPC 10, 520b10-16.
(58.) Paekp'a argued that the Heze brand of Chan could not belong to the "outside-the-format Chan" (C. gewai Chan, [??] K. kyog'oe Son), a type of Chan which the term samch'o chansim represented.
(59.) S'Onmun sugyong, HPC 10, 519c13-18.
(60.) S6runun sugyong, HPC 10. 520b05; Paekp'a provided no explanation for the reason he put the Yunmen school at the same level with the Linji school in his taxonomy. In my opinion, his favor for the Yunmen school probably was influenced by the early Song Chan situation in which both the Linji and Yunmen lineages were influential in the gong'an Chan movement and in which the latter died out before any serious rivalry arose between the two lineages. On the relationship of the two lineages and their involvement in the gong'an Chan movement, see Hsieh, A Study of the Evolution of K'an-hua Ch 'an, 109-64.
(61.) Sonmun sabyan mono [??], HPC 10, 823c18-20.
(62.) Sonmun sugyOng, HFC 10, 520c18-20: one of the earliest records on the prophecy of the decrease or extinction of the transmission of the supreme dharma after the sixth generation of Chan is the Zutang ji. In the Zurang ji Bodhidharma foretells the decrease of his dharma after the sixth generation (K 45.245a16-17).
(63.) Sonmun sugyong, HPC 10, 519c 13 and c18.
(64.) Paekp'a gave "Mountains are mountains; waters are waters [??] as an expression of the second transmission in the Sonmun sugyong but for the first transmission in the Susan kvolsa mun. He also said that Fayan's statement "If you see all forms are not forms, then you do not see Tathugata [??] was an expression of the second transmission. However, in his taxonomy he classified the Fayan (K. POb'an) school (whose founder was Fayan) as one of the three schools representing the first transmission. For more expressions for the two types of Son presented by Paekp'a, see Sunmub kyolsa mun, HPC 10, 534c10-c17. and Sunmun sugyong, HPC 10, 519c04-12.
SEONG-UK KIM WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN SAINT LOUIS
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Legends and transcendence: sectarian affiliations of the ekottarika agama in chinese translation.|
|Next Article:||Baal, son of dagan: in search of baal's double paternity.|