CHAPTER 2 The Fourth Patriarch Daoxin’s Chan Thought

Song Lidao 宋立道

1 Daoxin’s Chan Thought in Relation to Earlier Lanka Masters

In discussing Master Daoxin 道信 (580–651), this essay seeks to reevalu- ate and recognize the importance of Lanka masters in earlier stages of the development of Chan Buddhism. Its conclusion assesses the significance of those Chan masters labeled “South India One Vehicle School” (Nan Tianzhu yisheng zong 南天竺一乘宗) as the foundation of early Chan Buddhism. If we accept this Southern School as the mainstream of Chinese Chan Buddhism, then it follows that its establishment must have begun after the time of Heze Shenhui 荷澤神會 (668–760). This Dharma line came to be largely accepted after Shenhui’s numerous speeches and sojourns across China during his later years. During the mid-eighth century, Shenhui was called upon by the Court, as the An Lushan 安祿山 Rebellion provided him an opportunity to serve in the Court: this is an example of a Buddhist master’s contribution to the Court during times of turmoil or difficulty—due to his endeavors at these times, the Southern School flourished in China. The Southern Chan possesses a different style to styles earlier Chan Buddhism, which was mainly based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra—when studying the teachings of those Chan masters before Daoxin’s time, we may find clues of early Chan Buddhism. Nevertheless, it requires further elaboration, regarding consistency from earlier to later times, to truly recognize the establishment of a tradition. The Chan masters, from Bodhidharma to Hongren 弘忍 (602–675), regarded the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as the essential principle of the school. This scripture itself is predominant as the doctrine of Tathāgatagarbha of pure self- nature. On this basis, this sūtra proposes that it is an illusion to explain phe- nomena without words, and, meanwhile, urges practitioners to train their self-mind. Their self-mind is the mind of buddhas in their original state, the Buddha-mind. The Sūtra says, “Among the approaches of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the mind of buddhas is the first one” (Dasheng zhu dumen, zhufo xin diyi 大乘諸度門, 諸佛心第一). Following this line, the South India One Vehicle School is the “Buddha-mind School.” However, how do ordinary people dem- onstrate, or discover, their innate pure mind? The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra mentions Tathāgata Chan, which guides practitioners to enter the Tathāgata domain,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789047427971_004 38 Song performing self-awakened holy omniscience and three pleasant dwellings. The so-called “three pleasant dwellings” refers to achieving three types of enlight- ened state: that of emptiness, formless and non-wish. In this sūtra, Tathāgata Chan is the most advocated and encouraged. Below it, there are three other types—“Chan as practiced by foolish men,” “Chan practice for observing char- acteristics [of phenomena]” and “Chan practice for attaching to suchness.” These three types of meditation are meant to be antidotes to self-attachment, Dharma-attachment and, when these are overcome, further resolving the attachment to self-emptiness and Dharma-emptiness. These three types did not gain their names through any difference in meditation approaches; rather, they reflect practitioners’ goals of meditation—hence, the object aiming to be corrected decides the name of the meditation. For this reason, it is likely that Chan masters since Bodhidharma shared similar ideas of the contents of Chan method in their minds. In other words, regarding the technical aspects of Chan teachings, a minimum of explanation was needed, because everyone was already aware of teaching aims and methods. This meditation method had been transmitted between masters and disciples from India to China. The methods taught were more or less similar in both countries: either the eyes observe the nose, or the nose observes the mind. Regarding the Indian schools, if there were any debates amongst them, most were limited to a theo- retical level. Hence, the difference between Indian and Chinese teachinsg only existed in perceptions of meditation method, as well as how to spell them out in Buddhist theories. In particular, Bodhidharma’s Chan teachings are tightly connected with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. We can divide meditational practice into two steps. First is the meditational skill of “calming” (zhi 止), which fixes the mind in one place so as to, in effect, tranquilize the mind. Second is the contemplation and observation of oneself in a composed state, which is usually called the technique of “discernment” (guan 觀). The difference in the Chan teachings of Mahāyāna and Hinayāna does not lie in the techniques, but on the object of contemplation. Of course, later Chan Buddhism, especially that of the Southern School, focused on one’s transformation of worldview; true view; the philosophical standing point. This was, however, no longer the traditional teaching from India. Hinayana teachings of meditation emphasize “calming and discernment for returning to purity” (zhiguan huanjing 止觀還淨). It adopts a mental approach to physical objects to achieve “returning to purity,” by comprehending impermanence and non-self. According to their objects, this meditation divides into methods of: a) observation of impurity, i.e., observing the decaying and destruction of a corpse; b) observation of compassion, i.e., loving all sentient beings and erasing hatred; c) observation of causal relations, i.e., understanding the principle of