Mazu Daoyi | |
|---|---|
.jpg) | |
| Title | Chan master |
| Personal life | |
| Born | 709 China |
| Died | 788 |
| Religious life | |
| Religion | Buddhism |
| School | Chan Buddhism |
| Senior posting | |
| Teacher | Nanyue Huairang |
Mazu Daoyi (709–788) (Chinese:馬祖道一;pinyin:Mǎzǔ Dàoyī;Wade–Giles:Ma-tsu Tao-yi, Japanese:Baso Dōitsu) was an influential abbot ofChan/Zen Buddhism during theTang dynasty. He is known as the founder of theHongzhou school of Chan. The earliest recorded use of the term "Chan school" is from hisExtensive Records.[1]
He is most famously known for his two teaching statements: "This Mind is Buddha" (ji xin shi fo 即心是佛) and "Ordinary Mind is the Way."[2]
His family name was Ma – Mazu meaningAncestor Ma orMaster Ma.[3] He was born in 709 northwest ofChengdu inSichuan. During his years as master, Mazu lived inJiangxi, from which he took the name "Jiangxi Daoyi".[4]
In theTransmission of the Lamp, compiled in 1004, Mazu is described as follows:
His appearance was remarkable. He strode along like a bull and glared about him like a tiger. If he stretched out his tongue, it reached up over his nose; on the soles of his feet were imprinted two circular marks.[5]
According to theTransmission of the Lamp, Mazu was a student ofNanyue Huairang (677-744) atMount Heng inHunan[6][7]
A story in the entry on Nanyue Huairang in theTransmission of the Lamp is regarded as Mazu's enlightenment-account, though the text does not claim it as such.[8]An earlier and more primitive version of this story appears in theAnthology of the Patriarchal Hall which was transcribed in 952:
Reverend Ma was sitting in a spot, and Reverend Rang took a tile and sat on the rock facing him, rubbing it. Master Ma asked, "What are you doing?" Master [Huairang] said, "I'm rubbing the tile to make it a mirror." Master Ma said, "How can you make a mirror by rubbing a tile?" Master [Huairang] said, "If I can't make a mirror by rubbing a tile, how can you achieve buddhahood by sitting in meditation?"[9][a]
This story echoes theVimalakirti Sutra and thePlatform Sutra in downgrading purificative andgradualist practices instead ofdirect insight into theBuddha-nature.[10]
Mazu became Nanyue Huairang'sdharma–successor. Eventually Mazu settled at Kung-kung Mountain[clarification needed] byNankang, southern Jiangxi province,[11] where he founded a monastery and gathered scores of disciples.[12]
Traditionally, Mazu Daoyi is depicted as a successor in the lineage of Huineng, since his teacherNanyue Huairang is regarded as a student and successor of Huineng. This connection between Huineng and Nanyue Huairang is doubtful, being the product of later rewritings of Chan history to place Mazu Daoyi in the traditional lineages.[13]
Mazu Daoyi is perhaps the most influential teaching master in the formation of Chan Buddhism.[14] While Chan became the dominant school of Buddhism during theSong dynasty, the earlierTang dynasty and Mazu Daoyi'sHongzhou school became regarded as the "golden age" of Chan.[15] TheAn Lushan Rebellion (755-763) led to a loss of control by the Tang dynasty, and metropolitan Chan began to lose its status while "other schools were arising in outlying areas controlled by warlords. These are the forerunners of the Chan we know today. Their origins are obscure; the power of Shen-hui's preaching is shown by the fact that they all trace themselves to Hui-neng."[16]
This school developed "shock techniques such as shouting, beating, and using irrational retorts to startle their students into realization".[17][18] These shock techniques became part of thetraditional and still popular image of Chan masters displaying irrational and strange behaviour to aid their students.[19][20] Part of this image was due to later misinterpretations and translation errors, such as the loud belly shout known askatsu. In Chinese "katsu" means "to shout", which has traditionally been translated as "yelled 'katsu'" – which should mean "yelled a yell."[web 1]
During 845-846 staunchlyTaoistEmperor Wuzong of Tang persecuted Buddhist schools in China along with other dissidents, such asChristians:
It was a desperate attempt on the part of the hard-pressed central government, which had been in disarray since the An Lu-shan rebellion of 756, to gain some measure of political, economic, and military relief by preying on the Buddhist temples with their immense wealth and extensive lands.[21]
This persecution was devastating for metropolitan Chan, but the school of Mazu and his likes survived, and took a leading role in the Chan of the later Tang.[21]
Mazu Daoyi's teachings and dialogues were collected and published in theJiangxi Daoyi Chanshi Yulu "Oral Records of Chan Master Daoyi from Jiangxi".[b]
Relying on the well-knownessence-function paradigm, Mazu taught thatbuddha-nature manifests in function and that function was identical to buddha-nature.[22] As Jinhua Jia points out, in this he seems to have been directly influenced by theHuayan doctrine ofnature-origination in which all phenomena are manifestations of theTathāgata.[23] The doctrine of nature-origination is closely associated with the related Huayan teaching of the unobstructed interpenetration of principle and phenomena (li-shih wu-ai).[24] Where "principle" (li), or the absolute, refers to the mind assuchness; "phenomena" (shih) refers to the mind subject to birth-and-death.[25] Regarding the meaning of the interfusion of principle and phenomena, the Huayan patriarchFazang explains that thetathāgatagarbha, whose self-nature is neither born nor annihilated, accomplishes all phenomena in accordance with conditions.[26] He says, "The principle and phenomena interfuse and are not obstructed, thus one-mind and thetwo truths are not obstructed."[27] Similarly, Mazu taught, "The absolute and the phenomenal are without difference; both are wonderful functions."[28]
However, according to Jia, while Mazu's theory that Buddha-nature manifests in function is similar to the Huayan doctrine of nature-origination, there is nonetheless a difference. Jia says:
...while their theoretical frameworks are the same, the target and content of the Huayan nature-origination and Mazu’s idea that function is identical with Buddha-nature are nevertheless different. In the Huayan theory, the pure Buddha-nature remains forever untainted, even though it gives rise to defiled phenomena and originates the realization of all sentient beings’ enlightenment. In Mazu’s doctrine, the spontaneous, ordinary state of human mind and life, which is a mix of purity and defilement, is identical with Buddha-nature.[29]
It is within this doctrinal context that Mazu affirmed the "fundamental value of the human being" which Yanagida saw as the basic standpoint ofLinji Yixuan, but as Jinhua Jia points out, it can actually be traced back to Mazu.[30] "Ordinary mind is the Way" was perhaps Mazu's most famous slogan. He says:
If you want to know the Way directly, then ordinary mind is the Way. What is an ordinary mind? It means no intentional creation or action, no right or wrong, no grasping or rejecting, no terminable or permanent, no profane or holy. The sūtra says, “Neither the practice of ordinary men, nor the practice of sages—that is the practice of the Bodhisattva.” Now all these are just the Way: walking, abiding, sitting, lying, responding to conditions, and handling matters.[31]
Jia states that "identifying absolute buddha-nature with the ordinary human mind, Mazu confirmed that the entirety of daily life was of ultimate truth and value."[32] Similarly, Peter Gregory observes that Mazu'sHongzhou school collapses essence (buddha-nature) into function ("all activities—whether good or bad, enlightened or deluded").[33] As an example of this, when Fenzhou Wuye told Mazu he did not understand the meaning of "this mind is the Buddha," Mazu responded: "This very mind that doesn't understand is it, without any other thing."[34]
Mazu's sermons indicate that awakening and ignorance form a false dichotomy since "originally there is no ignorance," and hence "awakening also need not be established."[35] He says, "Since limitless kalpas, all sentient beings have never left thesamādhi of dharma-nature, and they have always abided in the samādhi of dharma-nature. Wearing clothes, eating food, talking and responding, making use of the six senses, all activities are dharma-nature."[36] Accordingly, there was no need to deliberately try to enter into samādhi since, as Mazu says, "You are the diamond-samādhi by yourself, without again intending to attain samādhi by concentration."[37][c]
Mazu taught that the Way cannot be cultivated, since whatever is attained through cultivation will still be subject to decay.[40] Mazu says:
[It] originally existed and exists at present. It does not depend on the cultivation of the Way and seated meditation. Neither cultivation nor seated meditation—this is the pure Chan (dhyāna) of Tathāgata.[41]
However, while the Way cannot be cultivated, Mazu does say it can be defiled by "intentional creation and action." He says, "The Way needs no cultivation, just not defiling it. What is defilement? When you have a mind of birth and death and an intention of creation and action, all these are defilement."[42] For Mazu, the Way belongs neither to cultivation nor even to non-cultivation, since to practice the former is to be like theśrāvakas (who follow theHīnayāna), while falling into the latter position is to be no different than apṛthagjana, an ordinary, worldly person.[43]
Mazu taught that the mind is originally pure "without waiting for cleaning and wiping." Mazu says:
This mind originally existed and exists at present, without depending on intentional creation and action; it was originally pure and is pure at present, without waiting for cleaning and wiping. Self-nature attains nirvāna; self-nature is pure; self-nature is liberation; and self-nature departs [from delusions].[44]
Although Mazu did not use the term, as Jia points out, this relates to the doctrine oforiginal enlightenment (benjue).[45] Indeed, Mazu said, "All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha."[46]
In the famous East Asian śāstra, theAwakening of Faith, original enlightenment is situated among two other terms, "non-enlightenment" (bujue) and "actualized enlightenment" (shijue), and the three together form a cycle of religious practice.[47] That is, in theAwakening of Faith, although all beings are originally enlightened, they do not recognize this fact and this constitutes non-enlightenment. They must therefore engage in religious practice to achieve actualized enlightenment which leads one back to one's original enlightenment.[48] However, as Jia points out, Mazu's approach is different. Where theAwakening of Faith teaches a cycle of practice to regain original enlightenment by moving from non-enlightenment to actualized enlightenment, Mazu simplifies the cycle, emphasizing only original enlightenment.[49] Thus, one can discover that which "originally existed and exists at present" without any need for religious practice.[50]
A well-known story found in Mazu's biography depicts Mazu being rebuked for practicing seateddhyāna (meditation) 'to become a Buddha', by his teacher,Nanyue Huairang, who compared sitting in meditation in order to become a buddha with polishing a tile to make a mirror.[51] During this famous encounter, Nanyue Huairang says to Mazu:
Are you practicing to sit in meditation, or practicing to sit like a Buddha? As to sitting in meditation, meditation is neither sitting nor lying. As to sitting like a Buddha, the Buddha has no fixed form. In the non-abiding Dharma, one should neither grasp nor reject. If you try to sit like a Buddha, you are just killing the Buddha. If you attach to the form of sitting, you will never realize the principle.[52]
Yanagida Seizan saw this story as an indication that Mazu rejected formal sitting meditation.[53] According to Mario Poceski, Yanagida's stance reflects "popular views about classical Chan's rejection of formal meditation, which go back to Hu Shi's pioneering studies of Shenhui and early Chan history."[54] For Poceski, the story "simply asserts that the originally existing Buddha-nature does not depend on the practice of meditation or any other spiritual exercise," a doctrinal position which can also be found in theVimalakīrti Sūtra.[54]
Bernard Faure observes that seateddhyana was a point of contention in the developing Chan school,[55] noting that quietist tendencies are criticized in theVimalakīrti Sūtra.[56] Criticism of seateddhyāna can be found inShenhui's attacks on the so-called Northern school. As Faure states, for Shenhui, "the true practice must be non-intentional (wuzuo),"[51][d] a stance also illustrated in Mazu's dialogue with Nanyue (which Faure deems to be fictional).[51] According to Faure, Nanyue's criticism is directed at "the idea of 'becoming a Buddha' by means of any practice, lowered to the standing of a 'means' to achieve an 'end'."[51]
Faure notes that seateddhyāna as mere quietism was also condemned byLinji, who criticized the practitioner who "sits down cross-legged with his back against a wall, his tongue glued to the roof of his mouth, completely still and motionless." For Linji, "motion and motionlessness are merely two kinds of states; it is the non-dependent Man of the Way who utilizes motion and utilizes motionlessness."[61] Faure further maintains that criticism of seated dhyāna as quietism reflects a resentment toward the socio-economic role and position of monks inTang society who, quoting Gernet, "undertook only pious works, reciting sacred texts and remaining seated indhyāna".[61]
Some worried that the spontaneity and emphasis on wisdom (direct insight) promoted by Mazu could be misunderstood, and despite the criticisms and doctrinal debates, seateddhyāna continued to be practiced, even by many of its critics.[61]Guifeng Zongmi, heir to Shenhui's Heze School, successfully sought to restore the balance between concentration and wisdom which had been disturbed by Shenhui's sudden rhetoric and emphasis on wisdom. Regarding the stance of theVimalakīrti Sūtra, according to Zongmi, although it says that it is not necessary to sit, this does not mean that it is necessary not to sit. Zongmi says, "Whether or not to be seated depends on what is most suited to the capacities of the practitioner."[61]
Mazu Daoyi is depicted as having employed novel and unconventional teaching methods in order to shake his students out of routine consciousness. Mazu is credited with the innovations of usingkatsu (sudden shouts),[62] striking,[63] kicking,[64] and unexpectedly calling to a person by name as that person is leaving.[65] Mazu also employed silent gestures,[14][66] non-responsive answers to questions,[67] and was known to grab and twist the nose of a disciple.[68] Utilizing a variety of sudden shocks, he sought to enable his students to experience enlightenment through the collapse of habitual feeling and thinking.[14] According to Bielefeldt, such methods reflect a shift in emphasis within Zen from essence, or substance (t'i), to function (yung).[69]
John McRae points out that such things as calling to a person by name just as they are leaving bring the attention of the student to the perfection of their automatic response, "yes?" Following Ogawa Takashi, McRae says the goal was "to alert the student to the fact that his Buddha-like ordinary mind was functioning perfectly all the time, like the selfless and undefiled reflection of the mirror, even as the student used that 'ordinary mind' to pose questions and respond automatically to his own name."[70] This "represents the fundamental capability of cognition, the bare working of the human mind" as "primordial cognitive capacity."[71]
Mazu appears in laterSong dynasty Chan anthologies of transmission, encounter dialogues andkoans:[72]
Other anthologies where Mazu appears include:
Mazu was particularly fond of using the phrase "What the mind is, what the Buddha is." In the particular case of Damei Fachang, hearing this brought about an awakening. Later this same statement was contradicted by Mazu when he taught "No mind, No Buddha":[77]
A monk asked why the Master [Mazu] maintained, "The Mind is the Buddha." The Master answered, "Because I want to stop the crying of a baby." The monk persisted, "When the crying has stopped, what is it then?" "Not Mind, not Buddha", was the answer.[78]
Other examples of kōans in which Mazu figures are as follows:
When sick Mazu was asked how he felt; he replied, "Sun Face Buddha. Moon Face Buddha."[79]
P'ang asked Mazu, "Who is it who is not dependent upon the ten thousand things?" Matsu answered, "This I'll tell you when you drink up the waters of the West River in one gulp".[80]
A monk asked Mazu, "Please indicate the meaning of Ch'an directly, apart from all permutations of assertion and denial." Mazu told him to ask Zhiang. Zhiang paused, then said for him to askBaizhang. Baizhang seemed to say he didn't understand. The monk returned to Mazu and related what happened. Mazu observed dryly that Zhiang had white hair, while Baizhang's was black.[81]
Among Mazu's immediate students wereBaizhang Huaihai (720-814)[i][j][k]Nanquan Puyuan (748-835),Fenzhou Wuye (760-821),[84]Danxia Tianran (739-824), and Damei Fachang (752-839).
A generation later his lineage through Baizhang came to includeHuangbo Xiyun (d.850), and his celebrated successorLinji Yixuan (d.866).[85] From Linji Yixuan derived theLinji school and the Japanese sect, theRinzai school.
A second line was Guishan Lingyou (771-853), to whom theGuiyang school was named, and therein Yangshan Huiji (807-883).
| Six Patriarchs | ||
| Huineng (638-713) (Hui-neng, Jpn. Enō) | ||
| Nanyue Huairang (677-744) (Nan-yüeh Huai-jang, Jpn. Nangaku Ejō)) | ||
| Mazu Daoyi (709-788) (Ma-tsu Tao-i, Jpn. Baso Dōitsu) | ||
| Nanquan Puyuan (748-835) (Nan-ch'üan p'u-yüan, Jpn. Nansen Fugan) | Baizhang Huaihai (720-814) (Pai-chang Huai-hai, Jpn. Hyakujō Ekai) | |
| Zhaozhou Congshen (778--879) (Chao-chou Ts'ung-shen, Jpn. Jōshū Jūshin) | Huangbo Xiyun (d.850) (Huang-po Hsi-yüan, Jpn. Ōbaku Kiun) | Guishan Lingyou (771-853) (Kuei-shan Ling-yu, Jpn. Isan Reiyū) |
| Linji Yixuan (d.866) (Lin-chi I-hsüan, Jpn. Rinzai Gigen) | Guiyang school | |
| Linji school | ||
The Hung-chou school has been criticised for its radicalsubitism.
Guifeng Zongmi (圭峰 宗密) (780–841), an influential teacher-scholar and patriarch of both theChán and theHuayan school claimed that the Hung-chou tradition believed "everything as altogether true".[86]
According to Zongmi, theHung-chou school teaching led to a radical nondualism that believed that all actions, good or bad, are expressions of the essentialBuddha-nature and therefore denied the need for spiritual cultivation and moral discipline. This was a dangerouslyantinomian view as it eliminated all moral distinctions and validated any actions as expressions of the essence of Buddha-nature.
While Zongmi acknowledged that the essence of Buddha-nature and its functioning in the day-to-day reality are but different aspects of the same reality, he insisted that there is a difference. To avoid the dualism he saw in the Northern Line and the radicalnondualism and antinomianism of the Hung-chou school, Zongmi's paradigm preserved "an ethically critical duality within a larger ontological unity."[87]
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{citation}}:|last= has generic name (help){{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)| Buddhist titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | LinjiChan/RinzaiZen patriarch | Succeeded by |
.svg)
