Clarifying "Chinese syncretic Chan" and "Japanese pure Zen" in light of Tsung-mi's thought

Abstract

This essay aims to clarify two hotly debated notions of Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen. I chiefly discuss the implications of two terms — "syncretic" and "pure" and explain why they should be taken as a particular method of exposition rather than the substance per se. I shall then elucidate why Tsung-mi’s works can be taken as the primary and valid source for a research on both of them.

Tsung-mi's ideas center on the correspondence between Chan and Canonical Buddhism (Jing Jiao 經教). This correspondence induces both the diversity of and restrictions on the interpretations of Chan/Zen. Accordingly, I propose threefold negations primarily regarding the misunderstandings of the Chan source(禪源), Chan teaching(禪教) and Chan lineage (禪系), which may serve to present a right view of these issues. I then take Chan-Pureland synthesis as an exemplar of Chan-Jiao correspondence. In particular, I discuss why "Nianfo Chan" effectively leads to the development of "Samādhi" and "Prajñā" and thus deserves its reputation as a classical Chan theory and practice. Then I discuss three groups of the commonly held opinions on Japanese Pure Zen: Is it spiritual freedom or antinomianism, universalism or nationalism, direct action or a mysterious experience? These manifold problematic Zen hermeneutics in turn attest to Tsung-mi's assertion that the Chan/Zen exposition conforms with the valid source of knowledge that has been crystallized into canonical texts, lest it leads to either "ignorant Samādhi" or "mad Prajñā".

I conclude that "Syncretic Chan" should be identified with typical Buddhist teaching whereas "Pure Zen" is to a large extent a late form of Japanese culture. This is inferred not from the hermeneutical notions of either "syncretic" or "pure" but from what Chan/Zen is all about in a fundamental sense.