icylake wrote:in fact after 8-9th centuries, in Chinese buddhism, the "school" lost it's importance. only chan and pure land remained as distictive schools. and even those two schools were assimilated each other.
Chan as a school with its own organisation did not exist before the Song dynasty, but even then it just meant that a "Chan monastery" is a public monastery led by an abbot who is affiliated to the Chan lineage, but beyond that the monks' lives were as in any other monastery in the kingdom. Pure Land never had its own organisation, except for certain lay devotional communities. Tiantai was the major rival lineage, but again, it is an administrative issue rather than actual difference in daily monastic life. Strong distinct schools as in Japan never existed in China, because of the difference in regional and imperial government.
yes, i agree. "the school' i used here is just reffering unorganized "trend" in a wise sense. but incorrect..
and it's very interesting that Korea had had distinctive buddhist sects from Koryo dynasty up to early Joson dynasty also(From Zen, Avatamsaka up to esoteric buddhism), but it's not owing to fudalism like Japan, to the contrary, because of national official exam by centralised government.
the government released licenses, and registered the supreme temple of every sect. it's very different from China's situatuion. even though they had had the monk license(du die) and administrative institutions, but helding nation-wide exam , like confucianist one-was very rare. so even now(after unification and assimilation of each sects after 16th century), we can clearly classify the chantings used in korean services into some sectarians. as Avatamsaka, Zen,(although, after the purification in 1960, most Avatamsaka ceremonies and prayers were discarded) it' funny the seemingly simmilar results came from totally different cause.