"Never an Institutionally Separate Chan School..."

[Dgj]

"The reader should bear this point in mind: In contrast to the independent denominations of Soto and Rinzai that emerged (largely by government fiat) in seventeenth-century Japan, there was never any such thing as an institutionally separate Chan "school" at any time in Chinese Buddhist history"
Mcrae "Seeing Through Zen"

What does this mean? That people in, for example, the Tang dynasty, wouldn't even know what the Chan school was? Wouldn't know a single person denoted as a Chan Master? Are all Chan labels and persons only known as such in retrospection?

If so, then why are the schools accepted as Chan fore runners more or less fixed? If Chan was never defined at all, what stops people from seeing many different schools as forerunners? If there was no such thing as a separate Chan institution, what stops people from throwing other names and groups from history into the Chan school?

Further, what about the Song dynasty, in which Chan became extremely popular, it was still not a separate institution?

What about the Tang, in which Shenxiu was recognized by the emperor? Did they just call him a Buddhist monk and the titles denoting that he was a Chan Master of the Chan school were given many centuries later?

Clearly I am misinterpreting something here. Can anyone clear this up?

[Wayfarer]

I'm not familiar with the book, but have found it online (here, for those interested). Bear in mind, it's a critical, historical analysis of Zen Buddhism, written from the standpoint of a scholarly analysis of the literature, so it might differ somewhat from the accounts that Zen provides of its own history and tradition. I think I would have to read considerably more of it to evaluate his claim, but I have read the preface to the book, and his credentials surely seem impressive. Perhaps someone who has read the book might care to comment.

[Astus]

What does this mean? That people in, for example, the Tang dynasty, wouldn't even know what the Chan school was? Wouldn't know a single person denoted as a Chan Master? Are all Chan labels and persons only known as such in retrospection?

'the entire lineage prior to the Song is best understood as a mythical construct, a sacred history that served to legitimize the Song Chan school and its claim to possess a special transmission. Even in the Song, the Chan lineage was subject to constant manipulation and reinterpretation in order to legitimize the lineages of certain masters and their descendants or to bolster polemical and religious claims.
In any case, the only clearly defining characteristic of a Song Chan master was that he or she was recognized as holding a transmission in the Chan lineage. Only such a person was a member of the “Chan school.” As T. Griffith Foulk has pointed out, there was no special category of “Chan monastics” in the Song, because there was no special Chan ordination. In China, unlike in Japan, all monastics were, and still are, ordained into the general Buddhist order and not into a particular sect. The vast majority of monks and nuns did not aspire to membership in the Chan transmission family or any of the other transmission families that appeared in the Song. Those who did, however, typically underwent decades-long training in special public monasteries, and only then would they receive the transmission and become members of their master’s lineage.
However, among the Song secular elite, just like in modern popular understanding, Chan was considered distinctive not so much for its lineage as for its unique literature and its depictions of iconoclastic Chan masters.'
(How Zen Became Zen by Morten Schlütter, p 15)

[Dgj]

What does this mean? That people in, for example, the Tang dynasty, wouldn't even know what the Chan school was? Wouldn't know a single person denoted as a Chan Master? Are all Chan labels and persons only known as such in retrospection?

'the entire lineage prior to the Song is best understood as a mythical construct, a sacred history that served to legitimize the Song Chan school and its claim to possess a special transmission. Even in the Song, the Chan lineage was subject to constant manipulation and reinterpretation in order to legitimize the lineages of certain masters and their descendants or to bolster polemical and religious claims.
In any case, the only clearly defining characteristic of a Song Chan master was that he or she was recognized as holding a transmission in the Chan lineage. Only such a person was a member of the “Chan school.” As T. Griffith Foulk has pointed out, there was no special category of “Chan monastics” in the Song, because there was no special Chan ordination. In China, unlike in Japan, all monastics were, and still are, ordained into the general Buddhist order and not into a particular sect. The vast majority of monks and nuns did not aspire to membership in the Chan transmission family or any of the other transmission families that appeared in the Song. Those who did, however, typically underwent decades-long training in special public monasteries, and only then would they receive the transmission and become members of their master’s lineage.
However, among the Song secular elite, just like in modern popular understanding, Chan was considered distinctive not so much for its lineage as for its unique literature and its depictions of iconoclastic Chan masters.'
(How Zen Became Zen by Morten Schlütter, p 15)

Interesting, thanks! So this author agrees with Mcrae?

It sounds like this author fleshed out what Mcrae probably hoped to say by implication: Chan was never an institutionally separate school at any time in Chinese Buddhist history before the Song.

Could the pre Song Chan masters just as easily be claimed by another school, or seen as independent, and unrelated to Chan? What about all the famous Tang masters? Were they all part of some type of group that worked and taught in the same system at least? Or were they totally unconnected, and were teachers of different schools, re labeled as teachers all in one lineage only post humously?

How and why did this happen? Someone out of nowhere, said: Let's make up a school, call it Chan, and say that all these Buddhist monks from history were members of this school? Surely it cannot be that simple and guileful?

Clearly I am mixing something up and incorrect here!

Are these questions answered in the Schlutter book? Mcrae covered a lot of ground but left me with a lot of questions!

[Astus]

It sounds like this author fleshed out what Mcrae probably hoped to say by implication: Chan was never an institutionally separate school at any time in Chinese Buddhist history before the Song.

Chan was never an institutionally separate school, full stop. What developed during the Song was the system of Chan lineages to legitimise the superiority of a small group of elite monastics that made them seemingly more qualified to lead monasteries than other candidates. But just because the abbot belonged to a Chan lineage, that did not have to affect the lives of the monks themselves, and it did not change the ordination process, nor the financial matters of the monastery.

Could the pre Song Chan masters just as easily be claimed by another school, or seen as independent, and unrelated to Chan?

There isn't that much information about most of the Tang era masters, apart from what was written centuries later about them or in their names. Guifeng Zongmi, for instance, is regarded not only as a Chan teacher but also as the fifth patriarch of Huayan.

What about all the famous Tang masters? Were they all part of some type of group that worked and taught in the same system at least? Or were they totally unconnected, and were teachers of different schools, re labeled as teachers all in one lineage only post humously?

Chan was not and is still not a unified organisation.

How and why did this happen? Someone out of nowhere, said: Let's make up a school, call it Chan, and say that all these Buddhist monks from history were members of this school? Surely it cannot be that simple and guileful?

You should definitely read Schlütter's book, plus others like:
The Northern School and the Formation of Early Chʻan Buddhism by John R. McRae
The Power of Patriarchs: Qisong and Lineage in Chinese Buddhism by Elizabeth A. Morrison
Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China by Jiang Wu
Readings of the Platform Sutra by Morten Schlütter, Stephen F. Teiser
Monks, Rulers, and Literati : The Political Ascendancy of Chan Buddhism by Albert Welter
The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy: The Development of Chan's Records of Sayings Literature by Albert Welter

[Dgj]

It sounds like this author fleshed out what Mcrae probably hoped to say by implication: Chan was never an institutionally separate school at any time in Chinese Buddhist history before the Song.

Chan was never an institutionally separate school, full stop. What developed during the Song was the system of Chan lineages to legitimise the superiority of a small group of elite monastics that made them seemingly more qualified to lead monasteries than other candidates. But just because the abbot belonged to a Chan lineage, that did not have to affect the lives of the monks themselves, and it did not change the ordination process, nor the financial matters of the monastery.

Could the pre Song Chan masters just as easily be claimed by another school, or seen as independent, and unrelated to Chan?

There isn't that much information about most of the Tang era masters, apart from what was written centuries later about them you. their names. Guifeng Zongmi, for instance, is regarded not only as a Chan teacher but also as the fifth patriarch of Huayan.

What about all the famous Tang masters? Were they all part of some type of group that worked and taught in the same system at least? Or were they totally unconnected, and were teachers of different schools, re labeled as teachers all in one lineage only post humously?

Chan was not and is still not a unified organisation.

How and why did this happen? Someone out of nowhere, said: Let's make up a school, call it Chan, and say that all these Buddhist monks from history were members of this school? Surely it cannot be that simple and guileful?

You should definitely read Schlütter's book, plus others like:
The Northern School and the Formation of Early Chʻan Buddhism by John R. McRae
The Power of Patriarchs: Qisong and Lineage in Chinese Buddhism by Elizabeth A. Morrison
Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China by Jiang Wu
Readings of the Platform Sutra by Morten Schlütter, Stephen F. Teiser
Monks, Rulers, and Literati : The Political Ascendancy of Chan Buddhism by Albert Welter
The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy: The Development of Chan's Records of Sayings Literature by Albert Welter

What about simply what these people were called? Were Linji and Chou Chou known as Chan teachers/practitioners in their time? Or were they probably known as members of some other school until the word "Chan" started to be applied to them after the fact?

I think I was conflating the idea of a separate institutional school with use of the term at all.

Perhaps a better question is: when did people start to be known as Chan masters and Chan students with the word Chan meaning a specific subset of Buddhism as opposed to simply it's literal meaning: meditation (Chan=Dhyana=meditation)?

For example, as you said above, in the Song they did use Chan to delineate certain people in said lineage. One could become a Chan lineage holder and lead monasteries. What about pre Song: was there any such delineation?

If not, how were the pre Song Chan masters picked and labeled as such and when and why did this suddenly become a thing? Who first invented Chan and who decided to posthumously name unrelated teachers as Chan lineage holders?

Is it something like if someone today said:

"I'm part of the Green Hat Club and so was Thomas Jefferson, Marie Antoinette and Shakespeare. Our first patriarch was Alexander the Great. Our lineage goes back that far."

While in reality the Green Hat Club had zero existence until this person made it up and they picked ancient people they liked as their suposed forebears in their imaginary lineage.

Is it like that?

[Wayfarer]

While in reality the Green Hat Club had zero existence until this person made it up and they picked ancient people they liked as their supposed forebears in their imaginary lineage.

Is it like that?

I don't think it's simply made up in that manner. You're not allowing for the religious imagination, which presents inexpressible ideas in symbolic and mythical form. Nowadays we think 'hmmph, myth, simply made up stories', but the mythical has another dimension which is vividly alive and vividly real in the traditions in which it is embedded.

[Astus]

What about simply what these people were called? Were Linji and Chou Chou known as Chan teachers/practitioners in their time? Or were they probably known as members of some other school until the word "Chan" started to be applied to them after the fact?

'Chan does not define itself as being one among a number of Buddhist schools based on a particular scripture (such as the Tiantai [Tendai] school with its emphasis on the Lotus Sutra, for example). Instead, Chan texts present the school as Buddhism itself, or as the central teaching of Buddhism, which has been transmitted from the seven Buddhas of the past to the twenty-eight Indian patriarchs, the six Chinese patriarchs, and all the generations of Chinese and Japanese Chan and Zen masters that follow. (Bodhidharma occupies a pivotal position as both the twenty-eighth Indian and first Chinese patriarch.) It took several centuries for this entire schema to be developed; the earliest building blocks appeared at the very end of the seventh century, and the complete system was published perhaps as early as 801 but certainly by the year 952.'
(Seeing Through Zen by John McRae, p 4)

What a Chan teacher is is defined by what we mean by Chan, and Chan in general is defined by lineage. McRae's, like many of those of other scholars who studied Chan history, discusses the development of the idea of lineage, so for clearer details you might want to look into them.
As for what these people were called, as monks they were venerable teachers, respected abbots, and many of them quite influential. On the other hand, what appears in later works as radical Chan rhetoric and behaviour, that is mostly the work of Song era writers, while what they possibly said and did were fairly standard Mahayana.

Perhaps a better question is: when did people start to be known as Chan masters and Chan students with the word Chan meaning a specific subset of Buddhism as opposed to simply it's literal meaning: meditation (Chan=Dhyana=meditation)?

'In a sense, a Chan sayings record created its Chan master, rather than the other way around.'
(J. L. Broughton, in Zongmi on Chan, p 40)

It's the 'sayings record' (yulu) genre of the Song era that created the image of the Chan master that we still have today.

For example, as you said above, in the Song they did use Chan to delineate certain people in said lineage. One could become a Chan lineage holder and lead monasteries. What about pre Song: was there any such delineation?

The first lineages (descending from Bodhidharma) appeared in the early 8th century, but those were meant to emphasise the superiority of a single line of transmission rather than a whole school. In the 9th century works of Guifeng Zongmi there is the idea of a more complex Chan school with several lineages.

If not, how were the pre Song Chan masters picked and labeled as such and when and why did this suddenly become a thing? Who first invented Chan and who decided to posthumously name unrelated teachers as Chan lineage holders?

It was an organic development over several centuries. But in terms of firsts, it's Faru's epitaph that is the first record of a lineage from Bodhidharma to Faru himself as an heir of Hongren.

Is it something like if someone today said:

Establishing a specific lineage can happen in several ways. What makes Chan a single school is how the various lineages agree on a single source, in this case the Indian patriarchs and the first six Chinese patriarchs. Such a single source itself took time to develop. And then it was also a process how the works delineating the various Chan lineages appeared (see e.g. Lineage and Context in the Patriarch’s Hall Collection and the Transmission of the Lamp by Albert Welter in Zen Canon, p 137-179).

[Dgj]

Thanks. So, for example, Hongren in his time wouldn't have been known as a part of something called Chan as a unique meaning for the word signifying, at least, a lineage from Bodhidharma? He would have been called a member of the East Mountain teaching, or just a Buddhist master? He would have likely seen himself as an heir to Bodhidharma, but had no such label as Chan in mind? But then after Faru the label Chan was starting to be used as such?

So Shenxia, Huineng and Shenhui would have, in their day, been known as Chan masters and heirs to Bodhidharma?

Or was it later that it started to be applied to people while alive and not just post humously?

[Dgj]

While in reality the Green Hat Club had zero existence until this person made it up and they picked ancient people they liked as their supposed forebears in their imaginary lineage.

Is it like that?

I don't think it's simply made up in that manner. You're not allowing for the religious imagination, which presents inexpressible ideas in symbolic and mythical form. Nowadays we think 'hmmph, myth, simply made up stories', but the mythical has another dimension which is vividly alive and vividly real in the traditions in which it is embedded.

Thanks. I assume it was some kind of development. I was giving an extreme hypothetical for contrast, based on the most extreme possible interpretation of Mcrae's statement.

[Dan74]

Some of this seems a giant overreach.

Firstly, as far as I can tell (and I am an outsider) historical-textual analysis is far from an exact science and relies on the currently available evidence and tools. Therefore its conclusions should all come with the proviso 'as far as we can tell with the modern methods from the currently available evidence'.

Secondly, we should not rush to reconstruct 'how it actually happened'. I don't believe the Chan tradition is a fraud. That would just be too incredible. That this sublime body of Buddhadharma is an invention of a fraudster is much more fanstastical and implausible that all the Buddhist mythos combined.

And thirdly, while it may suit the modern temperament to be sceptical about a lot of things, it behoves one to also be sceptical about this sceptical modern attitude, ask what lies behind it, look within and use it as a practice opportunity. Whatever conceptual and physical borders and boundaries we impose on Dharma practice are there to be seen and seen through. The Dharma is here for us - a precious opportunity. We can take it or waste it.

[Astus]

Thanks. So, for example, Hongren in his time wouldn't have been known as a part of something called Chan as a unique meaning for the word signifying, at least, a lineage from Bodhidharma? He would have been called a member of the East Mountain teaching, or just a Buddhist master? He would have likely seen himself as an heir to Bodhidharma, but had no such label as Chan in mind? But then after Faru the label Chan was starting to be used as such?

Faru's epitaph is the first to connect Bodhidharma and Huike to Hongren, and it is Shenxiu who claimed to be a representative of the East Mountain teaching. So likely Hongren had no such idea of being a member of some exalted lineage, but his disciples elevated their stature through being heirs of something extraordinary (cf. Seeing Through Zen, p 48).

So Shenxia, Huineng and Shenhui would have, in their day, been known as Chan masters and heirs to Bodhidharma?

The term "meditation teacher" (chanshi 禪師) was a general one for anyone with a focus on meditation. In the Gaoseng Zhuan (高僧傳) from around 520 there are 32 monks (6.4%) mentioned as meditation specialists out of 499, then the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan (續高僧傳), from 667, lists 134 (19%) of 705 monks, while the Song Gaoseng Zhuan (宋高僧傳), from 988, gives 132 (20%) meditation specialists out of 656 eminent monks (see: Monks, Rulers, and Literati, p 42-43), showing a clear trend of the rising position of the meditating monk (for more on these three collections see: The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography by John Kieschnick), and in the third collection a large number of them are monks of the Chan school (from Hongren to Caoshan Benji, 103 Chan masters in all plus 29 appended). So, while the idea of a Chan school (禪宗) - and here the word 'zong' (that is usually translated as school here) should be recognised to carry the meaning of lineage - certainly existed in the 9th century, it was identified generally with the descendants of Bodhidharma in the Song era.

[Astus]

I don't believe the Chan tradition is a fraud.

What do you understand the Chan tradition to be? Is it an unbroken lineage of mind-to-mind transmission directly from teacher to disciple? Or is it something else? If it is something else, something sublime beyond historical events, then it has little to do with historical scholarship.

[Dan74]

I don't believe the Chan tradition is a fraud.

What do you understand the Chan tradition to be? Is it an unbroken lineage of mind-to-mind transmission directly from teacher to disciple? Or is it something else? If it is something else, something sublime beyond historical events, then it has little to do with historical scholarship.

I take it as an unbroken lineage. But primarily I don't presume to be able to grasp the Chan tradition, so the question is pretty much irrelevant.

[Dgj]

Thanks. So, for example, Hongren in his time wouldn't have been known as a part of something called Chan as a unique meaning for the word signifying, at least, a lineage from Bodhidharma? He would have been called a member of the East Mountain teaching, or just a Buddhist master? He would have likely seen himself as an heir to Bodhidharma, but had no such label as Chan in mind? But then after Faru the label Chan was starting to be used as such?

Faru's epitaph is the first to connect Bodhidharma and Huike to Hongren, and it is Shenxiu who claimed to be a representative of the East Mountain teaching. So likely Hongren had no such idea of being a member of some exalted lineage, but his disciples elevated their stature through being heirs of something extraordinary (cf. Seeing Through Zen, p 48).

So Shenxia, Huineng and Shenhui would have, in their day, been known as Chan masters and heirs to Bodhidharma?

The term "meditation teacher" (chanshi 禪師) was a general one for anyone with a focus on meditation. In the Gaoseng Zhuan (高僧傳) from around 520 there are 32 monks (6.4%) mentioned as meditation specialists out of 499, then the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan (續高僧傳), from 667, lists 134 (19%) of 705 monks, while the Song Gaoseng Zhuan (宋高僧傳), from 988, gives 132 (20%) meditation specialists out of 656 eminent monks (see: Monks, Rulers, and Literati, p 42-43), showing a clear trend of the rising position of the meditating monk (for more on these three collections see: The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography by John Kieschnick), and in the third collection a large number of them are monks of the Chan school (from Hongren to Caoshan Benji, 103 Chan masters in all plus 29 appended). So, while the idea of a Chan school (禪宗) - and here the word 'zong' (that is usually translated as school here) should be recognised to carry the meaning of lineage - certainly existed in the 9th century, it was identified generally with the descendants of Bodhidharma in the Song era.

Okay, I think I'm getting it so I'm going to make a timeline and please correct me if I'm wrong:

500's CE: Bodhidharma comes to China, teaches Buddhism, is not known as a "Chan master" where "Chan" means a subset of Buddhism, but rather as a "Chan master" where "Chan" means "Dhyana".
Bodhidharma teaches Huike
Huike teaches Sengcan

600's CE Sengcan teaches Daoxin
Daoxin teaches Hongren
Hongren teaches Faru, Faru is the first to be known as a "Chan master" where "Chan" denotes a certain subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma.

After that, "Chan" takes on the meaning of: A subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma. While not a separate institution, it is a word that has now taken on new meaning and is used to denote people involved with a specific lineage of Buddhist teaching going back to Bodhidharma.



Is this correct? If not, when did "Chan" stop meaning simply "Dhyana" and first take on the meaning: A subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma?

[Astus]

Faru is the first to be known as a "Chan master" where "Chan" denotes a certain subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma.

Not exactly. It is Faru's epitaph that is the first known instance where the connection between Bodhidharma and Hongren is claimed to exist.

If not, when did "Chan" stop meaning simply "Dhyana" and first take on the meaning: A subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma?

Chan still means dhyana in Chinese, that's not changed. When and who was the first to use the term chanzong (禪宗) to indicate what we now understand as the Chan school, I don't have a clear answer for that, but Zongmi (780–841) did use the term as such.

[Dgj]

Faru is the first to be known as a "Chan master" where "Chan" denotes a certain subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma.

Not exactly. It is Faru's epitaph that is the first known instance where the connection between Bodhidharma and Hongren is claimed to exist.

If not, when did "Chan" stop meaning simply "Dhyana" and first take on the meaning: A subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma?

Chan still means dhyana in Chinese, that's not changed. When and who was the first to use the term chanzong (禪宗) to indicate what we now understand as the Chan school, I don't have a clear answer for that, but Zongmi (780–841) did use the term as such.

Was chanzong used in the Song, once Chan started to become more known as such?

[Dgj]

Faru is the first to be known as a "Chan master" where "Chan" denotes a certain subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma.

Not exactly. It is Faru's epitaph that is the first known instance where the connection between Bodhidharma and Hongren is claimed to exist.

If not, when did "Chan" stop meaning simply "Dhyana" and first take on the meaning: A subset of Buddhism that denotes a lineage to Bodhidharma?

Chan still means dhyana in Chinese, that's not changed. When and who was the first to use the term chanzong (禪宗) to indicate what we now understand as the Chan school, I don't have a clear answer for that, but Zongmi (780–841) did use the term as such.

Also, if there was no specific delineation of a Chan school, what was Shen Hui preaching about when he spoke of Northern and Southern schools?

[Astus]

Was chanzong used in the Song, once Chan started to become more known as such?

Very much.

Also, if there was no specific delineation of a Chan school, what was Shen Hui preaching about when he spoke of Northern and Southern schools?

Shenhui made the claim that Huineng was the sixth patriarch and not Shenxiu.

[Dgj]

Was chanzong used in the Song, once Chan started to become more known as such?

Very much.

Also, if there was no specific delineation of a Chan school, what was Shen Hui preaching about when he spoke of Northern and Southern schools?

Shenhui made the claim that Huineng was the sixth patriarch and not Shenxiu.

The sixth patriarch of what, though? If there was no delineated Chan school, then what was he talking about?