the integration of tsung-mi and chinul

7/27/2019 The Integration of Tsung-Mi and Chinul

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-integration-of-tsung-mi-and-chinul 1/15

THE JOURNAL

OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIES

E D I T O R - I N - C H I E F

Roger Jackson

Dept. of Religion

Carleton College

Northfield, MN 55057

E D I T O R S

Peter N. Gregory

University of Illinois

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Alexander W. MacdonaldUniversite de Paris X

Nanterre, France

Steven Collins

Concordia University

Montreal, Canada

Ernst Steinkellner

University of Vienna

Wien, Austria

Jikido TakasakiUniversity of Tokyo

Tokyo,Japan

Robert Thurman

Columbia University

NewYork,NY,USA

Volume 12 1989 Number 2



CONTENTS

I . ARTICLES

1. T h e In tegrat ion of Ch 'an/Son and T h e Tea chings (Chiao/

Kyo) in Tsung-mi and Chinul , by Peter N. Gregory 72 . Chinul 's Ambivalent Critique of Radical Subitism in

Korean Son by Robert Buswell 20

3 . Controversy O ver Dharmakaya in India an d Tib et : A N ew

Interpretation of Its Basis, Abhisamaydlamkdra,

Chapter 8 , by John J. Makransky 4 5

4. Jhdna and Buddhist Scholasticism, by Martin Stuart-Fox 79

II . B O O K R E V I E W S

1. Rationality and M ind in Early Buddhism, by Frank

J. Ho ffman (Roger Jackso n) 111

2. J.W . de Jo ng 's review of Jeffrey Ho pkin s ' Meditation on

Emptiness: An excha nge 123

I I I . E R R A T A

Err ata to Vol. 10.2 130

E rra tu m to Vol. 12.1 131

L I S T O F C O N T R I B U T O R S 13 2



The Integration of Ch'an/Son andThe Teachings (Chiao/Kyo) in

Tsung-mi and Chinul*

by Peter N. Gregory

The f i rs t impression that someone a lready famil iar with

Tsung-mi ' s work has wh en read ing C hin ul is of the pe rvasiveness

o f t he impac t tha t Tsung-mi 's t ho ug h t h ad on Ch in u l . O the r

s imilari t ies s tand out as wel l . Not only did Chinul adapt signif-

icant e lements of Tsung-mi 's theory of Ch'an pract ice in his own

synthes i s of Son and The Teachings {kyo), but, in i ts broad fea

tures , Chinul ' s pe rsona l i ty and sp i r i tua l deve lopment a l so bear

a nu m b er of s t riking para l le ls to Tsun g-m i 's. Sure ly such pers on al

aff ini ty must have been one of the reasons Chinul found a ready

m od el in Tsun g-m i . A no the r factor im po r tan t for assaying the

inf luence of Tsun g-m i on C hin ul was Chinul ' s pe rcept io n tha t

Tsung-mi was re sp on d ing to p rob lem s tha t we re fundam enta l ly

similar to those he saw in his own historical si tuation in twelfth-

c e n t u r y K o r y o B u d d h i s m .

Within the brief compass of this paper, I would l ike to takea s tep in the direc t ion of assessing the gene ra l scop e of Tsung-m i 's

inf luence on C hin ul by looking at the prob lem of the re la t ionship

be tween Ch ' an /Son and The Doc t r ina l Teach ings (chiao/kyo).

There i s no doubt tha t Tsung-mi ' s approach to the i ssue , which

has cus tomari ly been charac te r ized as the correspondence of

The Teach ings and Ch ' an (chiao-ch'an i-chih), provided a forma

tive e lem ent in Chinul ' s cons t ruc t ion of a uniqu e ly Korean Bu d

dhis t synthesis . But Tsung-mi 's posi t ion is more complex thanis usua l ly acknowledged, and the re a re impor tant a spec ts of the

way in which Tsun g-m i connec ts C h 'an to T h e Teachings tha t

we re no t ado p ted by Ch inu l . T hu s , r a the r t han mere ly focus ing

7



8 J IABSVOL. 12N0 .2

on those aspects of Tsung-mi 's thought taken over by Chinul , I

would also l ike to pay at tention to those aspects of Tsung-mi 's

thought ignored by Chinul . Such a tack should help clar i fy the

differences in the historical contexts in which each of these greatEast Asian Buddhis t th inkers operated. I t should also suggest

som e of the ways in which C hinu l 's tho u g h t is distinct ively h is

o w n .

Both Tsung-mi (780-841) and Chinu l (1158-1210) were

Ch 'an /Son men whose major re l ig ious exper iences d id no t , as

on e m igh t expec t , occur while rap t in me di ta t ion o r as a su dd en

ins ight in response to the turning words of a master ; ra ther ,

thei r experiences were the di rect resul t of thei r encounter wi th

Buddhis t t ex t s . Such exper iences were no t on ly tu rn ing-po in t s

in thei r own personal development but a lso lef t an indel ib le

s tamp on thei r subsequent wri t ing. In the case of Tsung-mi , h is

in i t ia l enl ightenment experience was precipi ta ted by his f i rs t

enc oun t e r w ith t he Yiian-chueh ch ing (Scripture ofPerfect Enlighten

ment) while a t the home of a lay pat ron somet ime not long af ter

he took the tonsure under the Ch 'an mas ter Tao-y i ian in 804 .

As he recounts i t , af ter only reading two or three pages , he had

an expe r ience w hose in tens i ty so overw helm ed h im tha t hefou nd himself uncon trol lably da nc ing for joy.1 Tsung-mi 's sec

on d m ajor re l ig ious ex pe rien ce occ urre d in 810 w he n he f irst

became acquain ted wi th Hua-yen Sutra t h rough h i s encoun t e r

w i th th e c o m m e n t a r y a n d s u b c o m m e n t a r y of C h ' e n g - k u a n ( 7 3 8 -

839) , an exper ience whose p ivo ta l impor tance he compared to

his m ee t ing of Tao -yt ian .2 In a sub sequ en t l e t t e r to Ch 'e ng -ku an ,

he l ikened th is experience to "coming across sweet dew when

thirsty or finding a wish-fulfi l l ing jewel when impoverished."His "he ar t leapt wi th joy" and he "held [ the books] u p reverent ly

in bo th hands and danced ." The l e t t e r goes on to descr ibe how

Tsung-mi then sequestered himself for a per iod of in tense s tudy

and medi ta t ion , fo rge t t ing to ea t and s leep whi le he poured

th rough t he two works . 3

As is well kno w n, Chinu l ' s thr ee m ajor re l ig ious e xpe rienc es

likewise cam e about th rou gh h i s en co un ter wi th Bud dhis t t ex t s .

His f i rs t enl ightenment experience was catalyzed by his readingof the Platform Sutra dur ing h i s s t ay a t Ch '6ngwon-sa somet ime

betw een 1182 an d 1185; h is second occ urre d at Po m un-sa in

1188 whi le read ing Li T 'ung-h s i i an ' s co m m en tary to the Hua-yen



I N T E G R A T I O N O F C H A N / S O N 9

Sutra; and his third was a resul t of his encounter with Ta-hui ' s

Records somet ime shor t ly a f te r he came to Sangmuju-am in

1197.4

We may p re su m e tha t the fact tha t texts played such a crucialro le in the sp ir i tua l deve lopm ent of Tsung -mi an d Ch inul would

have disposed them towards opposing a faci le reject ion of the

study of Buddhist texts characteris t ic of much of Ch'an/Son

rhetor ic . Indeed , bo th men were expl ic i t ly concerned wi th over

coming the r i f ts that divided the Buddhist world of their day,

and both perceived the most serious r i f t as that separat ing the

s tudy of Buddhis t doc t r ine and the prac t ice of medi ta t ion .

One of the major reasons Tsung-mi gives for wri t ing theCh'an Preface (Ch'an-yuan chu-ch'iian-chi tu-hsii), a wo rk frequen t ly

cited by Chinul, is to overcome the often fractious divisions that

ren t the Chinese Buddhis t world of the la te e igh th and n in th

century . H e de l inea tes the co ntou rs of those sp li ts as be ing draw n

along two fronts: the f i rs t , and more general , between doctrinal

scholars and tex tua l exegetes , on the one hand , and Ch 'an prac

t i tioners , on the o ther , an d the second, and m ore narrow, a m on g

the var ious co nte nd ing t rad i t ions of C h 'an themselves . T h e synthe t ic approach tha t Tsung-mi adopts in the Ch'an Preface is thus

addressed to two complexly interrelated issues that are usual ly

lumped toge the r under the rub r i c o f t he co r respondence o f The

Teach ings and Ch ' an (chiao-ch'an i-chih), which is often cited as

on e of the ha l lmarks of h i s tho ug ht . How ever , in or de r to un de r

stand what is going on in the Ch'an Preface, and to clarify how

Tsu ng-m i's ap pr oa ch differs from C hin ul 's, i t is useful to dist in

guish between them. In cal l ing at tent ion to this dist inct ion, Iam following the lead of Yoshizu Yoshihide, who in his excellent

study, Kegonzen no shisoshi-teki kenkyu, argues tha t the rubr ic of

chiao-ch'an i-chih oversimplif ies the complexi ty of the Tsung-mi 's

t h o u g h t .5

In t he f i rs t case (relat ing to the spl it betw een textua l e xeg etes

an d C h 'an prac t i t ioners) , Tsun g-m i genera lly avoids the te rm

chiao (Teachings ' ) and uses the idea of T h e teachings in a br oad ,

gener ic sense to re fer to Buddhis t sc r ip tures (ching; sutra) a n dtreatises (lun; sastra)—"the word of the B ud dh a" ifo-yen; buddha-

vacana) as he sometimes terms to i t . In this case he is concerned

to show how Ch 'an in genera l corresponds to the word of the

buddhas (who preached the scr ip tures) and bodhisattuas (who



10 J I A B S V O L . 1 2 N 0 . 2

wrote the t reat ises) as preserved in the Buddhist canon. Yoshizu

suggests that Tsung-mi 's approach in th is case might be more

accurately character ized as ch'an-ching i-chih ( th e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e

of Ch 'an an d the c an on ) . I t is only in the secon d case ( relat ingto the in tramural d ivisions within Ch 'an) thatTsung-mi explici t ly

and consistent ly uses the term chiao. A nd in th is case chiao refers

to the specif ic categories of teaching that occur in his doctr inal

classification (p'an-chiao) scheme . Here Tsung-mi i s conce rned

to show how the dif ferent Ch 'an t radi t ions (tsung) of his t ime

correspond to the d i f fe ren t teach ings (chiao) within his doctr inal

classification scheme. Yoshizu accordingly suggests that the ap

proach Tsung-mi adopts in the second case might be more ap t ly

charac ter ized as tsung-chiao i-chih ( the co r r e spondence o f the

Ch'an Tradit ions and Doctr inal Teachings) . The two issues are ,

of course, connected. I t is precisely because Ch 'an in general

can be shown to cor respond to the canonica l teach ings tha t

Tsung-mi is able to l ink specific Teachings (chiao) with specific

Ch 'an t rad i t ions (tsung).

J. The Correspondence ofCh 'an and the Canon (ch'an-ching i-chih)

In the beg inn ing of h is Ch'an Preface, Tsung-mi c la ims tha t

there is no confl ic t be tween th e en l ig h te nm en t t ransm it ted by

the Ch 'an pa t r ia rchs an d the conte n ts o f the Bud dhis t sc r ip tures

as both the scr iptures and patr iarchal t ransmission der ive f rom

Sakyamun i Buddha . "The sc r ip tu res (ching) a re the Buddha ' s

words ," he wr i tes , "and Ch 'an i s the Buddha 's in ten t (i). T h e

minds and mou ths o f the buddhas cer ta in ly cannot be cont rad ictory." Such a sent iment must have struck a sympathet ic chord

in Chinul, for we find it echoed in his Hwaom non choryo:

What the World Honored Ones said with their mouths are TheTeachings (kyo). W hat the patriarchs transm itted with their m indsis Son. T he m ouths of the buddhas and the minds of the patriarchscertainly cannot be contradictory. How can [students of s6n and

kyo] not plumb the fundamental source but, instead, complacentin their own training, wrongly foment disputes and waste theirtime?

6

Tsung -mi goes on to a rg ue tha t the or ig ina l un i ty o f the Bu ddh a 's



INTEGRATION OF CHAN/SON 11

teaching was gradual ly lost as la ter generat ions began to special

ize in dif ferent aspects of Buddhism. I t was only in China, how

ever , that the problem became severe. Real iz ing that the Chinese

were over ly a t tached to words , Bodhidharma "wanted to makethem aware that the moon did not l ie in the f inger that pointed

to i t. " H e consequent ly " jus t used the m ind to t ransmit the m ind

(i-hsin-ch'uan-hsin) without re ly ing on wr i t ten words" (pu-li wen-

tzu). Tsung-mi exp la in s tha t Bodh idha rma adop ted such an ap

proach in o rder " to make the essen t ia l meaning c lear and break

a t t achm en ts , an d tha t it does no t m ean tha t [Bo dh id ha rm a]

taug ht tha t libera tion t ransc end ed w r i tten words ." Tsung-m i

m ain ta in s , however , tha t s ince Bu ddh is ts o f h is day do n o t un de r stand how this expression came about , " those who cul t ivate their

minds take the scr iptures and treat ises to be a separate t radi t ion

(tsung), and those who elucidate [ the texts] take Ch 'an to be a

separa te teach ing {fa)." Even though the te rminology used by

textu al scholars an d C h'a n m asters is qu i te dist inct , they m us t

bo th be und er s too d in t e rm s o f the same fundam en ta l conce rn s .

Exeg etes "do not realize tha t the cult ivat ion a nd real izat ion [ that

they d iscuss] a re tru ly the fund am enta l conc erns of C h 'an ," an dCh 'an prac t i t ioners "do no t rea l ize tha t the mind and Buddha

[ tha t they emphasize] a re t ru ly the fundamenta l meaning of the

scr ip tures and t rea t i ses ."7

T h e appr oac h taken by Tsung-m i in th is passage prov ided

Chinul with a framework in which to reconcile Son and kyo, as

the quotat ion from his Hwamnon Choryo suggests . Indeed , th is

passage from the Ch'an Preface is often cited as the basis for

Tsung-mi 's theory of the cor re spo nd enc e of T h e Teachings an d

C h ' a n (chiao-ch'an i-chih).H

In a passage ju st before th is on e,

Tsung-mi had def ined The Teachings (chiao) as "the scr iptures

(ching; sutra) and treat ises (lun; sastra) left behind by the buddhas

a n d bodhisattvas" and "Ch'an" as "the sayings and verses passed

down by the good fr iends (shan-chih-shih; kalydrLamitra). W h a t

is important to note , however , is that the term "Teachings" is

here used in the gener ic sense of the canonical texts and not in

the sense of the specific p'an-chiao ca tegor ies tha t Tsung -mi la te r

connects with the dif ferent Ch 'an t radi t ions.

I t is because the m ind t ransm it ted by the Ch 'an pa t r ia rchs

cor re spo nds to the m ea nin g of the canonica l tex ts tha t Tsung-m i

is able to defend Ch'an against i ts scholastic crit ics who denied

tha t it was valid form of Bu dd his m beca use i t was extracan onic al .



12 J I A B S V O L . 1 2 N 0 . 2

At the sam e t ime he a lso es tabl ishes the im po r tan ce of sc r ip ture

aga ins t C h 'an iconoc las t s w ho c la imed tha t Ch 'an en l igh ten m en t

was beyond any textual authori ty . In fac t , Tsung-mi goes on to

a rgue tha t the sc r ip tures provide a s tandard by which to gauge

the genu inenes s o f C h ' an en l ig h ten m ent . H e wr i te s , "T he sc r ip ture s a re like a m arking - l ine to be used as a s tan dar d to de te r m in e

tru e an d fa lse ." Ju st as a m ark ing- l ine m us t be app l ied by a

ski l led c ra f t sman, so " those who t ransmi t Ch 'an must use the

sc r ip tures and t rea t i ses as a s tandard ."1 0

Tsung-mi develops this point further in his discussion of

the three sources of val id knowledge (liang; pram ana): infe rence

(pi-liang; anumdna), di rec t pe rcept ion {hsien-liang; pratyasksa),

and th e word of t he Bu dd ha ifo-yen; buddhavacana). H e c o n t e n d sthat a l l three sources must coincide .

If one just depe nds on the sayings of the B uddh a an d does notinfer for himself, his realization will be no more than a matterof baseless faith. If one just holds on to direct perception, takingwhat he perceives for himself to be authoritative, and does notcompare it to the sayings of the Buddha, then how can he know

whether it is true or false? Non-Buddhists also directly perceivethe principles to which they adhere and, practicing according tothem, obtain results. Since they maintain that they are correct,how would we know they were false [without the word of theBuddha]?

11

Tsung-mi concludes that , s ince the various Ch'an t radi t ions for

the most pa r t only make use of infe rence and d i rec t pe rcept ion ,

they must be veri f ied by the scriptures and t rea t ises in order to

fu l f i l the requi rements of the three sources of knowledge .Tsung-mi ' s ins i s tence on the correspondence of Ch 'an and

the canonica l t ex ts impl ies an approach to Buddhis t cu l t iva t ion

that ca l ls for both textual s tudy and medi ta t ion pract ice . Such

an ap pro ach para lle ls h is em pha s is on the inseparabil i ty ofprajnd

a n d samddhi. T h at th e inseparabil i ty ofprajnd a n d samddhi clearly

con no ted the in t eg ra t ion o f doc t r ina l s tudy and m ed i t a t ion p rac

t ice for Tsu ng-m i is bo rn e ou t in an autobiog raph ica l co m m en t

in the Ch'an Preface. There he notes tha t for a ten-year pe r iodhe " l e f t t he mul t i t udes beh ind to en t e r t he moun ta ins" t o "de

ve lop my concent ra t ion (samddhi) and ha rmonize my wisdom

iprajM)"12

Except for a two-year h ia tus (828-829) when he was



INTEGRATION OF CH'AN/SON 13

summoned back to the capi ta l by an imper ia l ed ic t , he spent

821—832 a t di fferent s ites on Mt. C h u n g -n an . As Tsu ng-m i re

veals in other works, this was a period of intense medi ta t ion,

s tudy, and produc t iv i ty ; he not only read through the canon,

bu t a lso w rote a n u m b er o f his major works, inc lu din g his various

commenta r i e s and subcommenta r i e s t o t he Yilan-chiieh ching.13

T h e Ch'an Preface passage goes on to contrast his balanced ap

proach of tex tua l s tudy and medi ta t ion prac t ice , prajnd a n d

samadhi, to the one-s ided approach of " the ignorant Ch 'an of

those who vainly mainta in s i lence or the mad wisdom of those

who merely follow texts."1 4

It is on this basis that Tsung-mi

establ ishes his own personal authori ty to bridge the gap that

d iv ided exege tes and Ch 'an prac t i t ioners .

The para l le l to the inseparabi l i ty of prajnd a n d samadhi re

calls Chinul's early efforts to establish a society for the joint

practice of prajnd a n d samadhi in 1182, as well as his Kw6n su

chdnghye kydlsa mun of 1190. T h e reform ist spir it be hin d Ch inul 's

vision of his ideal community not only entailed a rejection of

the corrupt ion tha t marked the Buddhism of the capi ta l but

a lso included the means for reconci l ing the two major divis ions

that spl i t Koryo Buddhism in the la te twelf th century.

/ / . The Correspondence of the Ch'an Traditions and Doctrinal Teachings

(tsung-chiao i-chih)

I t is because Tsung-mi i s ab le to de m on st ra te the corres pon

de nc e of Ch 'an an d the canonical texts that he is able to l ink

the different Ch'an t radi t ions (tsung) of his t im e with the differen t

categories of Teachings (chiao) within his classification scheme.Doctrinal classification (p'an-chiao) was one of the major

s t ra tegies devised by Chinese Buddhis t s to ha rmonize the wide

discrepancies evident in the Buddhis t texts with which they were

familiar. It offered C hin es e B ud dh ists a br oa d an d flexible

methodology for systematica l ly organiz ing the Buddha 's teach

ings into a coherent and se lf-consis tent whole . By adopt ing the

not ion of updya (fang-pien) p'an-chiao was able hierarchically to

classify the variou s teachings on a gra die nt of exped iency, beg inn ing wi th the most e lementa ry and culmina t ing in the most

profound. Such a methodology enabled Chinese Buddhis t s to

integra te a l l of the Buddha 's teachings within a s ingle doctr inal



14 J I A B S V O L . 1 2 N 0 . 2

framework. I t a lso provided the di fferent Chinese Buddhis t t ra

dit ions with a rat ionale for assert ing their own sectarian claims

agains t those of o ther t radi t ions .

In addi t ion to the general i ssue of the relat ionship of Ch 'an

pract ice to textual s tudy, the Ch'an Preface is a lso co nc ern ed to

reconci le the confl ic t between di fferent Ch 'an t radi t ions . Tsung-

mi points out that the di fferent t radi t ions (tsung) of Ch 'an al l

profess different principles (tsung).

Som e take em ptiness as the true basis of reality while othe rs takeawareness (chih) as the ultimate source. Some say that tranquilityand silence alone a re tru e, while others say that [o rdinary activities

such as] walking and sitting are what it is all about (shih). Somesay that all everyday discriminative activities are illusory, whileothers say that all such discriminative activities are real. Somecarry out all the myriad practices, while other reject even theBuddha. Some give free reign to their impulses, while othersrestrain the ir m inds. Some take the sutras and vinaya as authoritative, while others take them to be a hindrance to the Way.15

Tsung-mi goes on to comment that such di fferences are not

merely a mat ter of words . Each "adamant ly spreads i t s own

tradi t ion and adamant ly disparages the others . Since la ter s tu

den t s c l ing to the i r words and are de luded about the i r meaning ,

in thei r emot ional v iews they obst inately contend wi th one

ano the r and canno t r each ag reemen t . " 1 6 It is not that the differ

en t t each ings emphas ized by the d i f fe ren t Ch 'an t rad i t ions a re

wrong or heret ical . The problem is that each takes i t sel f to be

the party in exclusive possession of what is r ight (tan yuan ko

chieh tang wei shih) and cri t icizes the others as wrong, a s i tuat ionTsung-mi l ikens to the famous parable of the bl ind men and the

elephant . 1 7 Tsu ng-m i conclud es that the views of the di fferent

t rad i t ions mus t be b rought in to harmony , someth ing tha t can

only be do ne by unco ver ing a m ore com preh ens iv e f ramework

in which such apparently confl ict ing views can al l be validated

as in tegral par ts of a manifold whole—in which the t runk, leg ,

side, and so for th are a l l seen to belong to the same elephant .

"vSince the supreme Way is not an extreme and the ul t imatemeaning does no t l ean to one s ide , one mus t no t g rasp on to a

s ing le b iased v iewpoin t. T h u s we m us t b r ing the m back to ge ther

as one , making them a l l per fec t ly concordan t (yuan-miao)"ls




P'an-chiao pres en te d Tsung-mi wi th jus t the k ind of com

prehen sive f ramework he nee de d . Ju s t as it had prov ided

Chinese Buddhists with a viable methodology for reconci l ing

doct r ina l d iscrepancies among the Buddha 's teach ings , so thesame methodology could be used to reconci le the dif ferences

among the var ious Ch 'an t rad i t ions . In the Ch'an Preface Tsung-

mi thus correlates the three Mahayana teachings within his doc

trinal classification system with three different types of Ch'an.

The teach ing tha t negates ob jec ts by means of consc iousness

(chiang-shih p'o-ching chiao—i.e., Fa-hsiang Yogacara) corre

sponds to the type of Ch 'an that cul t ivates the mind by el iminat

ing de lus ion (hsi-wang hsiu-hsin); the teach ing of h idden in ten ttha t negates phenomenal appearances in o rder to revea l the

n a t u r e {mi-i p'o-hsiang hsien-hsing chiao—i.e. , the Madhyamaka

teaching of emptiness) corresponds to the type of Ch 'an that is

u t te r ly wi thou t sup por t (min-chiieh wu-chi); and the teach ing tha t

directly reveals that the m ind is the n at ur e {hsien-shih chen-hsin

chi hsing chiao—i.e, the tathagatagarbha teach ing) cor responds to

the type of Ch 'an that d irect ly reveals the mind as the nature

(chih-hsien hsin hsing). Moreover, the first type of Ch'an is repre

sen ted by the nor thern l ine of Shen-hs iu (606P-706) and h is

disciples; the second, by the Oxhead l ine of Fa- jung (594-654)

and his d isciples; and the th ird , by the southern l ine of the

Ho- tse l ineage of Shen-hui (684-758) and the Hung-chou

linea ge of M a-tsu Tao-i (7 09 -7 88 ). Tsu ng-m i's system of classifi

cat ion can be represented in tabular form as fol lows:

TEACHING

1. Negation of Objectsby means of Consciousness

2. Hidden Intent that NegatesPhenom enal Appearances inorder to Reveal the Nature

3 . Direct Revelation thatMind is the Nature

T Y PE O F C H A N

Cult ivates Mind by .

El imina t ing Delus ion

Ut te r ly Wi thout

S u p p o r t

Directly Reveals

Mind as Nature

LINEAGJ

N o r t h e r n

Line

O x - H e a d

Line

S o u t h e r n

Line

The under ly ing assumpt ion beh ind Tsung-mi ' s syn the t ic ap

proach is that the var ious Ch 'an l ineages, when viewed in isola

t ion f rom one another and outside of their overal l context of



16 J I A B S V O L . 1 2 N 0 . 2

the Buddha 's teachings, are wrong in their self -absolut izat ion.

When understood within that context , however , each wil l be

seen to be t rue . As Tsu ng-m i com m en ts, "I f taken in isolation

(chiung chih), each of them is wrong (chi chiehfei). But if taken

t o g e t h e r (hui chih), each of them is valid (chi shieh shih)"19 T h i s

s ta te m ent succ inc tly encaps u la tes Tsung-mi ' s basic m ethod olog y

for dea l ing wi th d iscrepancies wi th in Buddhism. Whether they

l ie in the formulat ion of scholast ic dogma or the divergent ap

proaches to pract ice advocated by the dif ferent Ch 'an t radi t ions

of his day, Tsung-mi's characteristic tendency is always to articu

late a co m pre hen siv e f ram ewo rk in which such disc repa nt per

spec t ives can be harmoniously subsumed. Such a comprehensive

framew ork no t only provides a larger conte xt in which th e divergent perspectives can be validated as parts of a whole; i t also

provide s a new an d hi gh er perspe ct ive that is su pe r io r to the

others because i t succeeds in sublat ing them within itself.

The doct r ina l cor respondences tha t Tsung-mi es tab l i shes

thus enable him to place the var ious types of Ch 'an in a hierar

chical order. His use of p'an-chiao in the Ch'an Preface is not so

m uch conc ern ed wi th prov id ing a herm ene ut ica l f ramework in

which the dif ferent teachings can be systematical ly in tegratedas i t is co nc er ne d with develo pin g a f ram ew ork in which th e

different types of Ch 'an can al l be included. The doctr inal ap

para tus Tsung-mi presen ts in the Ch'an Preface migh t thus more

accurately be descr ibed as a p'an-ch'an.20

The d i f fe ren t teach ing (chiao) with which each Ch'an t radi

t ion (tsung) is con ne cted provides a cr it ical con text for e valu at ing

it on a hierarchical scale . W hile the professed at te m pt of Ts ung -

mi's p'an-ch'an is to resolve the schisms that split Ch'an intocontending fac t ions and p i t ted Ch 'an adepts aga ins t doc t r ina l

exegetes, i t also serves to elevate his own version of Ch'an to

the s up rem e po si t ion . T h e cri tici sm tha t Tsu ng-m i leve ls aga ins t

var ious doct r ina l teach ings a re ex tended to the i r cor responding

type of Ch 'an , and the o ther types of Ch 'an a re accord ing ly

revealed to be infer ior to that of h is own H o-tse t radi t io n. Tsun g-

mi's p'an-ch'an thus revea ls the same ambiva lence inheren t in

p'an-chiao: its s im ultaneo usly ecum enic al an d sectar ian character .




/ / / . Differences from Chinu l

Although the h i s tor ica l s i tua t ion Chinul faced bore some

gen eral s imilari ty to that co nfr on ted by Tsu ng- m i, th er e werealso significant differen ces, wh ich g o a lon g way tow ard clarifying

both the scope and l imit of Tsung-mi 's influence on Chinul . For

Chinul the major cr is is in the Buddhis t world lay in the host i l i ty

an d susp ic ion tha t divided Son from the scholastic schools , esp e

c ia lly H w a6m . From th e be gin nin g of its in t ro du c t ion in to K orea ,

Son seems to have taken a combat ive and uncompromis ing a t

t i tude toward the older scholast ic sects . Both Toui (d. 825) and

Muyom (799—888) emphasized the qual i ta t ive superiori ty of S6nover the scholast ic teachings. By the e leventh century the l ines

sep ara t in g the two branc hes of the sarigha h a d b e c o m e h a r d e n e d .

The f i rs t to a t tempt to mend the r i f t was Uich 'dn (1055-1101).

U n d e r t h e b a n n e r oiKyogwan kydsu (joint cult ivation of doctrinal

s tudy and medi ta t ive pract ice) , he t r ied to uni te the Son and

scholastic schools toge the r u n d e r the aegis of a revived C h'6 nt 'a e

school. But his efforts seem to have been largely unsuccessful,

and , a s Rober t Buswel l has noted , he mere ly ended up c rea t ing

an oth er school in an a l ready c rowded sec ta r ian a rena . M oreover ,

his ant i -S6n biases only further a l ienated the S6n schools from

the scholastic schools.2 1

In regard to the broad issue of the spl i t be tween Son and

kyo, Ch inul was able to ad ap t m uch f rom Tsu ng-m i . How ever ,

unl ike Tsung-mi, Chinul did not face serious intramural confl ic t

am o n g the different Sdn schools . T h e Sdn of the so-called N ine

Mounta ins d id not d i sp lay the d ivers i ty so apparent among the

var ious C h 'an t rad i t ions d i scussed by Tsu ng-m i . Not only may

Uich '6n 's abort ive effort a t unif ica t ion have encouraged them

to c lose ranks, but the Nine Mountains were largely of the same

l inea l s tock , wha t Tsung-mi had re fe r red to as the Hung-chou

l ine . In de ed , "seven were fo un de d by disc iples of f i rs t -genera t ion

successors of Ma-tsu."2 2

Not only did Chinul not have to deal with the intersectarian

problem of reconci l ing the different S6n t radi t ions of his day,

an d con seq uen t ly wo uld have had l i tt le ne ed for Tsun g-m i 's p'an-ch'an, but the fac t tha t the Korean Son t radi t ions were most ly

assoc ia ted wi th the Hung-chou l ine posed fur the r problems for

adopt ing Tsung-mi ' s equa t ion of the va r ious Ch 'an t rad i t ions



18 J IABSVOL. 12 N 0. 2

with different categ ories of do ctr in al teac hing s. T hi s was esp e

cially true in reg ar d to Tsun g-mi 's cr it ical assessm ent of th e

Hung-chou l ine , f rom which Chinul ' s own Sangul-san l ine was

descended. Moreover , by Chinul ' s t ime the Ho- tse t radi t ion hadd ied ou t and the Hu ng -cho u l ine , tog e the r wi th tha t d escen ded

f rom Ch ' ing-y i ian Hs ing-ssu , had eme rge d as the do m ina n t

form of Ch 'an in the Sung (960-1279) .

In addit ion to the his torical demise of the Ho-tse l ine, the

problem for Chinul was that Tsung-mi 's cr i t ical evaluation of

th e different C hin ese C h'a n l ines could n ot be so easi ly sep ara ted

from the whole fabr ic of h is thought . Tsung-mi 's thought i s

remarkable for i t s sys temat ic in ternal coherence. Each s t rand isintegrally interwoven with every other s trand in complexly inter

relate d ways. T h u s th e s truc tur e of his app licat ion of p'an-chiao

to the different C h' an trad it ion s is co nn ec ted with his vision of

the n atu re an d course of B ud dh is t pract ice , which is based on

his theory of the process of phenomenal evolut ion by means of

which be ings became ensnared wi th in sarpsdra, which is

gr ou nd ed on h is theory of m ind , an d so on an d so for th . Tsung -

mi 's cr i t iqu e of H un g- ch ou C h'a n is th us ref lected in bo th hisontology and soter iology. I t is thus impossible for Chinul to

purge Tsung-mi 's cr i t ique of Hung-chou Ch 'an wi thout a lso af

fecting other aspects of his system. This fact accounts for some

of th e s trains evid ent in Ch inul 's ad ap tat io n of Tsung -mi 's the ory

of Ch 'an practice in his Popchip pyorhaeng nok choryo pyongip sagi—

especial ly in the tension between the two models of Ch'an prac

t ice refer red to as su dd en a wa kenin g/grad ual cul t ivation (tun-xuu

chien-hsiultono chomsu) an d sud de n awa ken ing /sudd en cu lt iva t ion

(tun-wu tun-hsiultono tonsu) as is explored in the following article

by Robert Buswell . In good Buddhis t fashion, Chinul is forced

to call upon the ever-versati le notion of updya to explain away

the d iscrepancies between the sudden awakening/sudden cul t iva

t ion model of Ch 'an pract ice representa t ive of the Hung-chou

line (as well as the short-cut approach of the hwadu tha t he took

over f rom Ta-hui) an d the mo re conservat ive sudd en awake ning/

gradual cult ivation model character is t ic of the Ho-tse l ine with

which Tsu ng-m i identif ied.

NOTES

* This is a revised version of a paper delivered at the InternationalConference on the Historical Significance of Chinul's Thought held at



I N T E G R A T I O N O F C H A N / S O N 19

Song kw ang-sa in Korea, July 8-1 0, 1988.

1. See Yuan-chiieh ching ta-shu ch'ao, Hsu tsang ching 14.223a.

2 . See ibid. , 225a.

3 . See T 39 .577a.

4. For a discussion of the biographical context of Chinul ' s rapprochem en t betwe en S6n an d T h e Teac hings, see Rob ert E. Buswell , Jr . , "Ch inul ' s

Sys temat izat ion of Chinese Medi ta t ive Technique s in Korean S6n Bu dd hism "

in Peter N. Gregory, ed. , Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism ( H o n o l u l u :

University of Hawaii Press, 1986), pp . 20 1- 20 2. For a m ore ex ten de d discussion

of Chinul ' s biography, see idem, The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works

of Chinul (H on olu lu: Universi ty of Hawaii Press , 1983), p p. 17—36 an d H ee -

Sung Keel , Chinul: The Found er of the Korean So n Tradition (Berkeley : Berkeley

Bu dd hist Studies Series , 1984), pp . 1-55.

5. See Kegonzen no shisoshi-teki kenkyu (Tokyo: Dai to shuppansha, 1985) ,

p p . 3 0 7 - 3 0 8 .

6. Quoted from Buswell , "Chinul ' s Systematizat ion of Chinese Medita

t ive Tech nique in Korean Son B udd hism ," p . 202 .

7. See Ch'an-yuan chu-ch'uan-chi tu-hsii, T 48.400bl0—26; cf . Kamata

S h igeo , Zengen shosenshu top, Zen no goroku, vol . 9 (Tokyo: Chikuma shobo,

1971), p. 44 .p. In h is ann o ta t ed , mo der n J apa nes e t r ans l a ti on o f t he Ch'an Preface,

for example, Kamata Shigeo ent i t les this sect ion "kyozen i tchi no sei tosei"

(" the leg i t imacy of the correspondence of Ch 'an and The Teachings" ) .

9 . T 48 .399c 18-2 0; Kam ata , p . 3 3 .10. T 48 . 400c2 5-2 7 ; Kamata , p . 54 .

11. Ch'an Preface, T 48.401 a 14-18 ; Kamata , p . 57 .

12. T 48 . 3 99c 12 ; Kamata , p . 3 0 .

13 . See his sub co m m en tary to his preface to the Yuan-chiieh ching ta-shu.

14. 3 99 cl6 17; this ph ras e is rep ea ted by Ch inu l in his Kwdnsu chdnghye

kyolsa m un, translated by Buswell in The Korean Approach to Zen, p. 104.

15. T 48 . 4 00 c3 -7 ; Kam ata , p . 48 . C f. Ta- shu 119c7-12 .

16. T 4 8 . 4 0 0 c 7 - 9 .

17. T 48.40 2b4 ; Kam ata , p . 81 .

18. 400c 13-15 . Tsung-mi s t r ikes a s imilar note at the end of his prefaceto the Yuan-jen lun, s ee T 4 8 . 7 0 8 a l 3 - 1 8 .

19. 400c21-22 ; Kamata , p . 49 ; a v i r tual ly ident ica l s ta tement occurs a t

the beginning of the Chung-hua ch'uan-hsin-ti ch'an-men shih-tiu ch'eng-hsi t'u,

4 3 3 c 10-11 ; Kamata , p . 2 67 .

2 0 . As Jeffrey Br ou gh ton sugg ested in the preface to his disse rtat ion,

"Kuei - feng Tsun g-m i : T h e Conv erge nce of Ch 'an and the Teaching s" (Colum

bia University, 1975), p. iii.

21. My historical summary is based on both Buswell ' s excel lent introduc

tion to his The Korean A pproach to Zen and the first chapter of Keel 's Chinul.

2 2 . Buswell , The Korean Approach to Zen, p. 9. T h e Su mi-san school was

de sce nd ed from C h' ing-y l ian H sing-ssu (d. 740), from w hich the Ts 'ao-tu ng

l ine was eventual ly to em erg e. Even thou gh the o ldes t S6n t rad i t ion , Hu iyang -

san , was founded by Pdmnang, who had s tudied under Tao-hs in (580-651) in

Ch ina , by the t ime of Ch inu l it had be co m e affi liated with the H un g- ch ou l ine.

the integration of tsung-mi and chinul

Documents