History of Chinese Zen Thought—From the 6th to the 9th Century

Author: Ge Zhaoguang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: Zen Buddhism is the most Chinese of Buddhist sects, which has had a profound impact on China's thought, culture, and history. As a result, it has been highly valued by scholars both within and outside China, and many fruitful achievements have emerged in this field. Among them, Ge Zhaoguang's History of Chinese Zen Buddhism is a notable and impressive work, with the following characteristics.
First, advanced methodology and clear reasoning. In the Introduction, Ge uses the sharp insight of a modern scholar to review the history of Zen studies in China and abroad since Hu Shi, questioning and debating these research methods from his unique perspective. Ge argues that whether it is Hu Shi's empirical research, which reveals the evolutionary trajectory of Zen thought, or D.T. Suzuki's interpretation of Zen's rational critique using modern philosophical concepts, both rely on modern knowledge to look back at the past, and it is highly questionable whether they can truly reconstruct the actual thought processes of ancient people. Therefore, Ge advocates for "telling the story in the same way," which means getting as close as possible to the ancients and describing their thought processes using their own logic, striving to recreate the historical reality of a specific time and place in our minds. It can be said that maintaining an objective attitude and empathetic understanding is the conscious choice of scholars since Mr. Tang Yongtong in the field of religious studies. Only with empathetic understanding can one delve into the subject matter, truly experiencing its feelings. At the same time, only with an objective attitude can one step back, distinguishing it from faith-based research, and making people aware of the position and role of a specific religious thought in the intellectual world of that time. Here, Ge seems like a skillful photographer, cleverly using the methods of "wide-angle lens" and "long-term perspective" to restore as much historical truth as possible, which was distorted, twisted, or concealed by close-up research methods, and to genuinely reproduce the internal logic and external development of Zen thought.
Second, rich materials and meticulous textual criticism. Research on Zen thought primarily relies on three types of materials. The first is a large number of Linglu (Zen records) and canonical texts, which are rich in content but inevitably contain embellishments and inaccuracies due to their formation within the Zen sect. The second is Dunhuang manuscripts, which are advantageous in being relatively original and unaltered by later revisions, but they are not firsthand materials either, and their survival was largely accidental. The third are inscriptions on steles and stone tablets, as well as related materials scattered in official histories, collected works, and commentaries on scriptures. These are mostly written by people directly connected to the events, though they may contain biased or concealed statements, their credibility is still strong. Ge cross-references and critically examines these three types of historical materials, striving to eliminate falsehoods and preserve the truth. His exploration of the internal logic of early Zen and Northern Zen thought is largely based on Dunhuang manuscripts, while his analysis of the external development of Zen thought in the late 7th and early 8th centuries and beyond relies on inscriptions and related materials in official histories and commentaries. For example, in distinguishing the three early Zen schools, he primarily uses Biographies of Eminent Monks and Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, as Huijao and Daoxuan were not Zen masters and recorded the information based on hearsay, making their credibility relatively strong. As for the decline of the second school and the rise of the Da Mo school, Ge cites the theory of "two entrances and four practices" from Records of Zen Masters and Their Lineage. Regarding the Northern Zen situation after Shen Hui, Ge mostly uses inscriptions. All these demonstrate Ge's rigorous and realistic spirit in delving into the history of Zen.
Third, original perspectives and innovative insights. Ge's book offers profound insights into Northern Zen and Huohe sect. The former, having been defeated in its confrontation with the Southern School, has almost no trace in later Linglu and is often depicted as insignificant in research works. The latter, though also neglected by Linglu, has gained special favor from scholars since the discovery of Dunhuang manuscripts, with its status and role repeatedly exaggerated. Ge, with meticulous attention,s information about Northern Zen from limited materials and interprets it, bringing light to this dim corner of Zen thought. The so-called "Huohe Revolution," which was highly praised by Hu Shi and others, is revealed in Ge's wide-angle and long-term perspective as having a more realistic appearance. Neither the Haitai Conference nor the Shuiquan Coin holds the significance that researchers had estimated. In Ge's view, while there are significant differences between Northern Zen and Huohe sect, these differences are merely like those between being fifty and one hundred years old. Huohe sect did indeed flourish after the decline of Northern Zen, but ultimately, like Northern Zen, it served as a transitional link in the transformation of Chinese Zen thought. Ge meticulously analyzes the emphasis on sudden enlightenment in Northern Zen, clarifying the false accusation of the Southern School that Northern Zen was "Southern sudden enlightenment and Northern gradual enlightenment." As for the Huohe sect distancing itself from the Hongzhou sect and gradually aligning with Northern Zen, it truly reveals an insight into the course of Zen thought. Traditionally, it has been argued that the Southern School had a greater impact on Chinese intellectual history. Ge challenges this view, pointing out that the Northern School's thought is more similar to Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, especially the Cheng-Zhu school. It can be said that Northern Zen thought is part of the mainstream intellectual tradition in Chinese history, which emphasizes cultivation, pursuit, and restraint, while the radical dissolution of the Southern School is merely a necessary supplement for scholars to relieve their mental tensions. As a religious sect, Northern Zen also had a strong commitment to religious belief and the necessity of cultivation. When the free and easy Zen style of Ma Zu swept the land, the rampant had already posed a significant challenge to the existence of Buddhism. Baizhang Huihai's establishment of the Qinggui (Rules of Purification) and emphasis on preservation can be seen as a return to Northern Zen. In this sense, as a tangible sect, Northern Zen no longer exists, but its thought has gradually been absorbed by the Southern School, exerting a lasting and profound influence on the history of Chinese Zen thought.
Of course, Ge's views also have points worth debating. For example, he argues that "the mind is Buddha" was the early teaching of Ma Zu, while "the mind is not Buddha" was his later teaching, and he proves from an internal perspective that "the mind is not Buddha" is a more ultimate teaching than "the mind is Buddha." In my humble opinion, the materials Ge cites cannot conclusively prove that these two teachings must have a chronological order. Instead, they may both be dialogues that Ma Zu used to adapt to different situations. Although the former is stated with a affirmative tone, it is no different from the latter in emphasizing the importance of internal experience over the formal and external aspects of scriptures. The teaching of "the mind is not Buddha" can serve as a basis for free and easy practice, while "the mind is Buddha" can also lay the foundation for a theory that pleases the mind. "The mind is not Buddha" may dissolve the attachment to "the mind is Buddha," but after this dissolution, "the mind is Buddha" can also establish tranquility and freedom. Ma Zu's permission for "plum ripening" lies in this very point.
Fourth, elegant language and high readability. Many academic monographs, despite their profound insights, rigorous reasoning, and meticulous arguments, often suffer from dry, stiff, and lifeless language, making them difficult to read. Ge's book, though a highly specialized academic work, is written with vivid and elegant language, clear reasoning, fluent expression, dynamic writing, and strong readability. The materials Ge selects and cites are quite typical, and his grasp of details in intellectual history often involves a historical analysis and macroscopic review from the perspective of the entire Chinese intellectual history, even human intellectual history. The author, with incisive analysis and delicate insight, meticulously dissects the thought world of Zen practitioners, striving to capture their essence and meaning, making readers feel as if they are immersed in the scene, understanding the hearts of others, being refreshed by Zen's influence, and finding peace from worldly troubles, all while enjoying a reading experience that feels ancient, profound, and serene, as if existing in harmony with the universe. The ancients often said, "If words lack elegance, they cannot travel far." I believe that if writing can be as balanced, accessible, and elegant as Ge's, what reason is there for academic monographs not to "travel far"?