I can't conceal my interest, and I tell Chenguang that I know how earthshaking such a discovery would be regarded and sympathize with the idea of keeping it out of the public eye for a time. He seems nervous and now doesn't seem inclined to reveal any more information than he has already.
“What institution is in charge of the stele?” I ask.
He tells me there are several different groups involved, including the local Pukou government and the Nanjing cultural relic bureau. I know that I've already gotten more information than I'm entitled to know, so
I don't press my host to compromise himself any more than he has.
After some more polite conversation, I thank Chenguang for his hospitality and take my leave. I take a few more photos of recent excavation areas, then brace myself for the Mad Hatter ride back to the Pukou bus station.
DAOXUAN'S VIEW OF NANJING IN THE AGE OF BODHIDHARMA
In some general comments about the Zen school in the
Continued Biographies,
Daoxuan suggests clues that indicate Emperor Wu would have sought to meet Bodhidharma. For example, he describes the popularity of the Zen movement that spread in sixth-century China and offers information about the situation in Nanjing in particular:
In its initial stage of flowering and being established, Zen naturally reached the court of Emperor Wu. He looked everywhere to find those who studied mind, assembling them in the capital [Nanjing] and judging the strengths or weaknesses of their different arguments. Moreover, he utilized the upper and lower Samadhi Forest Temples on Bell Mountain, where he arranged for monks who practiced stilling the mind to reside and practice.
At that time, although Buddhism flourished, there was much learned argument, and the swords of words surged like towering waves. This led to an incalculable amount of contention for supremacy. One can say that these monks became very famous, and the result was a genuine belief in true mind.
If someone were to ask, I'd say that the Zen practiced and promoted [in Nanjing] was the true appearance of Buddha's teaching. Yet now, at this later time [about 125 years later], the threads of those arguments are no longer spoken of. Now we are in what is called the “Dharma-ending age,” in which adherence to the precepts is our practice. This [precepts practice] is now paramount. And if you ask me to explain this, then I must say that the true teaching that reached China due to the great function of those former [Nanjing] masters was
not understood or practiced correctly. As a result within the teachings there developed two types of believers. There was a division between those who are clever and those who are not. If we all could return to the source and experience the profound truth [of Buddha's teaching], then the virtue of those who study [mind] and the rest of the Buddha world could be unified, as in the true Dharma of the first thousand years [of Buddha's teaching]. And this would be called realizing the unending true enlightenment of Buddha.
Daoxuan's comments offer a unique view of the Buddhism of his age, a time he called the “End of Dharma” (Chinese:
mofa
). Daoxuan describes the problems of that age. In particular, he says that the importance of observing “mind” was being forgotten, and devotional practice and precepts were essential Zen practice. Daoxuan also described how this undermining of the Dharma would only get worse: “The Zen doctrines will [soon] be corrupted and then propagated everywhere, their meaning diluted with polluted ideas such as âform illuminates emptiness,' which is already much talked about, or [the idea of] âexperiencing chaos is peace.”' Daoxuan's reference to “form illuminates emptiness” is apparently an oblique criticism of the Heart Sutra, which Buddhologist Jan Nattier and others have shown to have gained currency in Chinese Buddhism about the time of Daoxuan's writing.
Daoxuan obviously thought that the “Dharma-ending age” had already arrived, and he predicted it would promulgate more false teachings. He states that various false doctrines would enter the religion. This was the time surrounding the creation of tablets at Yunju Temple that I described earlier. To Daoxuan and others, saving the Dharma through such actions was paramount.
What follows in Daoxuan's text is noteworthy. He specifically praises some of the other “former masters” of the Zen school:
A large number of records tell of those [Zen] teachers' different doctrines, their arguments and thinking ... During the period of the first [Northen] Qi emperor [circa 505â560 CE] [the monk] Seng Chou [the third abbot of Shaolin Temple] was unique, whereas the [Northern] Zhou dynasty [circa 570]
in the northern plain [Shanxi and Hebei] honored [a teacher named] Seng Shi. These monks in high places brought [Zen's] influence even to the powerful, causing Emperor Xuan Di [ruled 550â559] to give up power and hide out at Cloud Gate [Mountain] and Prime Minister Meng to lose his position and take refuge at Fu Temple.
Then Daoxuan speaks specifically of Bodhidharma (I quoted some lines of this passage earlier, but the complete passage is especially important):
Another [monk] of this sort was Bodhidharma. He converted [people] and established the Zen doctrines in the Yang-tse and Luoyang regions. His “wall-gazing” practice of the Mahayana is the highest [teaching]. Those who came to study with and honor Bodhidharma were like a city. But while there were many who lauded Bodhidharma, only a few really understood [his teachings] and dedicated themselves to their practice. He had a loyal following who would listen to him speak. His teachings were not of good and evil. One might describe his teaching to be that the truth and the false [affairs of the world] are like two wings, [or] two wheels on the cart of emptiness. Bodhidharma would not remain in places of imperial sway. Those [in high places] who desired to see him could not draw him near. His plan was quiet contemplation, and so he ceased speaking. He regarded the two doctrines [meditation and scripture] as two tracks from the same vehicle, and [Bodhidharma] was honored in the [pure practice Zen teachings] of Seng Chou [Shaolin's third abbot].
Bodhidharma's Dharma was the mysterious and deep doctrine of emptiness. It should be honored [as the principle whereby] the emotional affairs [of people's lives] are quickly exposed [as to their actual nature]. But the nature of [Bodhidharmaâs] deep principle is difficult to fathom. Therefore things [of the world] entrap people. If one can utilize [a proper understanding of] mind, then it will stop outflows [delusions] and make them like billowing clouds. Using such a method
will resolve one's difficulties. [Bodhidharma's] method is far from [what is found in] scriptures. It can be effective. When you compare it to the “Ten Stages leading to Bodhisattva-hood” [a doctrine then widely studied] you will find the latter to be inferior and slow.
Those who enter the Zen gate in the morning expound it in the evening. It is said that it is the source of everything. Attaining this profound spiritual samadhi [one can] illuminate and penetrate hindrances. It is the ultimate limit of what can be understood or realized through wisdom and knowledge.
There are no delusions of the mind that this [teaching] cannot illuminate. It reveals the mind tossed in the karmic waves, and it calms the swells of fear, manifesting samadhi. It is thus called the knowledge that arises through samadhic power.
[Bodhidharma's teaching] maintains that an external doctrine only leads to confusion, and will not easily allow one to solve one's obstructions [to gaining enlightenment]. I personally often practice [Bodhidharma's teaching]. The doctrine he espoused is the truth. Through it, delusions of true and false, death and difficulty, are understood. It is difficult to penetrate and eliminate [ideas of] true and false, form and delusion. Delusive states are avoided only through understanding “mind only.” Clinging to what is before one is not the practice of mind. All [Bodhidharma's disciples] were able to speak of the Way through [knowledge of] this practice.
Daoxuan seems to be of two minds about Bodhidharma's teachings. On the one hand he says that Bodhidharma's teaching is “difficult to fathom.” Yet he also says that “Those who enter the Zen gate in the morning expound it in the evening.” Here we see the same Sudden Enlightenment teaching idea that is associated with the Southern Zen school, the line regarded as springing from Bodhidharma that passed down through Chinese and East Asian history.
Notably, this passage of the
Continued Biographies
offers a rare insight into the state of Zen during and immediately after Bodhidharma's life. It indicates that Bodhidharma must be considered a central player in the debate about the nature of the mind, a debate that
Emperor Wu entertained and encouraged. It should be pointed out, however, that Daoxuan, who was not a Zen monk, held an understanding of Bodhidharma's teaching that was not the same as that of later generations of Zen teachers. The latter appear to have avoided talking about emptiness because they realized that such metaphysical doctrines unduly confuse people. Daoxuan's view that Bodhidharma's teaching was the “mysterious and deep doctrine of emptiness” may indirectly indicate that later Zen evolved away from Bodhidharma to become something less metaphysically oriented. Daoxuan himself provides the reason why this evolution would occur when he criticizes the idea of “form illuminates emptiness.” This may be an oblique criticism of the metaphysically heavy Heart Sutra that gradually gained a foothold in the Zen tradition. When Daoxuan wrote these words around the year 650, the Prajnaparamita Sutra promoted extensively by Emperor Wu was widely studied. Daoxuan's criticism may have been directed against the metaphysical nature of that and other scriptures. Ironically, its text, still widely chanted in the Zen world, says “form is nothing other than emptiness, emptiness nothing other than form.” In my view, Daoxuan declares that Zen's true meaning and teachings, as taught by Bodhidharma, would be widely corrupted and undermined by this idea during Daoxuan's life and the ages that followed.
It is particularly surprising that Daoxuan, who was the most important monk of the Precepts school in his era, compares that school unfavorably to Zen teachings on the nature of the mind. He indicates that sole reliance on the precepts is inferior to the Zen masters who came previously, and that this turn toward the precepts is indicative that the “Dharma-ending age” had now arrived.
How did Daoxuan, a towering figure of China's Precepts school, gain such a deep appreciation for doctrines about the nature of “mind” ? During the period after the year 640, when Daoxuan wrote his
Continued Biographies,
he resided in China's capital city of Chang An (now the city of Xian). Daoxuan personally assisted the famous monk Xuan Zang in translating new Yogacara (Yogis) teachings that the latter had brought back from India. Thus, Daoxuan's exposure to “mind” teachings was extensive, and he understood the relationship between such Yogi ideas and the Zen school. He seems to have understood that Zen was the best vehicle for the spread of “mind” teachings in China.
Thus, textual evidence left by Daoxuan reveals a Zen tradition that, in its origins, was truly “outside of scriptures.” Even Daoxuan, who was not of the Zen tradition, honored early Zen highly and deplored that its mind teachings were forgotten after Bodhidharma and its other early teachers passed from the scene.
36. Changlu Temple
The sun shines on the solitary green peak.
The moon floats above the cold creek waters.
When the sublime mystery of the ancestors is understood,
You will never again turn to your small mind for peace.
âZen Master Qingliao (1089â1151) of Changlu Temple,
addressing the monks
“The entire great earth is a gate to liberation. If you push on it, you can't enter it. How can the white-haired monk standing before you compel you to enter? When you reach this place, why do you let your nostrils be in someone else's hand?” The master paused, and then said, “If you want to see the moon in the sky, put down your oar.”
Zen Master Miaojue (taught circa 1170 CE) of Changlu Temple