See also: Zen ranks and hierarchy. In Chan and Zen Buddhism, dharma transmission is a custom in which a person is established as a "successor in an unbroken lineage of teachers and disciples, a spiritual 'bloodline' (kechimyaku) theoretically traced back to the Buddha himself."[1] The dharma lineage reflects the importance of family-structures in ancient China, and forms a symbolic and ritual recreation of this system for the monastical "family".
In Rinzai-Zen, inka shōmei (印可証明) is ideally "the formal recognition of Zen's deepest realisation", but practically it is being used for the transmission of the "true lineage" of the masters (shike) of the training halls. There are only about fifty to eighty[2] of such inka shōmei-bearers in Japan.
In Sōtō-Zen, dharma transmission is referred to as shiho, and further training is required to become an oshō.
See also: Chinese Chan and Bodhidharma.
The notion and practice of Dharma Transmission developed early in the history of Chan, as a means to gain credibility and to foster institutional ties among the members of the Chan community. Charts of dharma-lineages were developed, which represented the continuity of the Buddhist dharma. Originally these lineages only included the Chinese Patriarchs, but they were later extended to twenty-eight Indian Patriarchs and seven Buddhas.
See also: Zen lineage charts.
The Chan tradition developed from the established tradition of "Canonical Buddhism", which "remained normative for all later Chinese Buddhism". It was established by the end of the sixth century, as a result of the Chinese developing understanding of Buddhism in the previous centuries.
One of the inventions of this Canonical Buddhism were transmission lists, a literary device to establish a lineage. Both Tiantai and Chan took over this literary device, to lend authority to those developing traditions, and guarantee its authenticity:
The concept of dharma transmission took shape during the Tang period, when establishing the right teachings became important, to safeguard the authority of specific schools. The emerging Zen-tradition developed the Transmission of the Lamp-genre, in which lineages from Shakyamuni Buddha up to their own times were described.
Another literary device for establishing those traditions was given by the Kao-seng-chuan (Biographies of Eminent Monks), compiled around 530. The Chan-tradition developed its own corpus in this genre, with works such as Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall (952) and the Jingde Records of the Transmission of the Lamp (published 1004). McRae considers Dumoulin's A History of Zen to be a modern example of this genre, disguised as scientific history.
The Chan lineages picture the semi-legendary monk Bodhidharma as the patriarch who brought Chan to China. Only scarce historical information is available about him, but his hagiography developed when the Chan tradition grew stronger and gained prominence in the early 8th century.
According to McRae, it is not clear that the practitioners surrounding Bodhidharma and his disciple Huike considered themselves as belonging to a unified movement or group, such as a "Chan school." He says even the name "proto-Chan" is not really reflective of their activities. He writes:
The extent to which the individuals involved conceived of themselves as participating in a single group or movement is unclear, and since they had no way of knowing of the continuity of their activities with any later “Chan school,” even the convenient term proto-Chan does not bear close scrutiny. (Their activities are “prototypic” only to those who already know what followed.) We know of a small number of figures who studied under Bodhidharma, and a somewhat larger number who were primarily associated with Huike, presumably after his master’s death. There is a certain quantity of biographical information about the participants in proto-Chan, and although it attests to the variety of their backgrounds, it imparts only a shadowy image of any shared group esprit.[3]
By the late eighth century, a lineage of the six ancestral founders of Chan in China had developed. Due to the influence of Huineng's student Shenhui, the traditional form of this lineage had been established:
However, certain questions remain. Regarding the connection between the second and third patriarchs, on the one hand, and the fourth patriarch, on the other; Whalen Lai points out, "Huike was a dhuta (extreme ascetic) who schooled others, and one of his disciples was Sengzan (d. 606). However, the link between this pair and Daoxin (580–651, now deemed the fourth Chan patriarch) is far from clear and remains tenuous."[4]
According to Wendi Adamek:
"There was no 'Chan school' in existence during the time of the six Chinese patriarchs—it cannot even be said to have begun with Shenhui, the one who yoked six names to a powerfully generative idea. However, once the imaginary line had been drawn in the sands of the past, it began to sprout real branches. It continues to put forth new shoots even today."[5]
According to tradition, the sixth and last ancestral founder, Huineng (惠能; 638–713), was one of the giants of Chan history, and all surviving schools regard him as their ancestor. The dramatic story of Huineng's life tells that there was a controversy over his claim to the title of patriarch. After being chosen by Hongren, the fifth ancestral founder, Huineng had to flee by night to Nanhua Temple in the south to avoid the wrath of Hongren's jealous senior disciples.
Modern scholarship, however, has questioned this narrative. Historic research reveals that this story was created around the middle of the 8th century, beginning in 731 by Shenhui, a successor to Huineng, to win influence at the Imperial Court. He claimed Huineng to be the successor of Hongren instead of the then publicly recognized successor Shenxiu. In 745 Shenhui was invited to take up residence in the Ho-tse temple in Luoyang. In 753 he fell out of grace and had to leave the capital to go into exile. The most prominent of the successors of his lineage was Guifeng Zongmi According to Zongmi, Shenhui's approach was officially sanctioned in 796, when "an imperial commission determined that the Southern line of Chan represented the orthodox transmission and established Shen-hui as the seventh patriarch, placing an inscription to that effect in the Shen-lung temple".
Doctrinally the Southern School is associated with the teaching that enlightenment is sudden, while the Northern School is associated with the teaching that enlightenment is gradual. This was a polemical exaggeration, since both schools were derived from the same tradition, and the so-called Southern School incorporated many teachings of the more influential Northern School. Eventually both schools died out, but the influence of Shenhui was so immense that all later Chan schools traced their origin to Huineng, and "sudden enlightenment" became a standard doctrine of Chan.
In later writings this lineage was extended to include twenty-eight Indian patriarchs. In the Song of Enlightenment (證道歌 Zhèngdào gē) of Yongjia Xuanjue (永嘉玄覺, 665–713), one of the chief disciples of Huìnéng, it is written that Bodhidharma was the 28th patriarch in a line of descent from Mahākāśyapa, a disciple of Śākyamuni Buddha, and the first patriarch of Chán Buddhism.
Keizan's Transmission of the Light gives twenty-eight patriarchs up to and including Bodhidharma in this transmission:
According to the traditional Chan accounts, the first Dharma transmission occurred as described in the Flower Sermon. The Buddha held up a golden lotus flower before an assembly of "gods and men". None who were in attendance showed any sign of understanding except his disciple Mahākāśyapa, who offered only a smile. The Buddha then said,
Though dharma transmission implies the acknowledgement of insight into the teachings of Buddhism as understood by the Zen tradition, especially seeing into one's true nature, dharma transmission is also a means to establish a person into the Zen tradition:
The dharma lineage reflects the importance of family-structures in ancient China, and forms a symbolic and ritual recreation of this system for the monastical "family".
According to Borup the emphasis on 'mind to mind transmission' is a form of esoteric transmission, in which "the tradition and the enlightened mind is transmitted face to face". Metaphorically this can be described as the transmission of a flame from one candle to another candle, or the transmission from one vein to another. In exoteric transmission the requirement is "direct access to the teaching through a personal discovery of one's self. This type of transmission and identification is symbolized by the discovery of a shining lantern, or a mirror."
This polarity is recognizable in the emphasis that the Zen-tradition puts on maintaining the correct Dharma transmission, while simultaneously stressing seeing into one's nature:
Nevertheless, while the Zen tradition has always stressed the importance of formal Dharma transmission, there are well known examples of Mushi dokugo, such as Nōnin, Jinul and Suzuki Shōsan who attained awakening on their own, though all of them were familiar with the Zen-teachings.
According to Bodiford, "Zen is the predominant form of Buddhism because of dharma transmission":
Bodiford distinguishes seven dimensions which are discernible in both family relationships and in dharma lineages:
The family-model is easier recognized when East Asian languages are being used, because the same terminology is used to describe both earthly and spiritual family relations.
Dharma transmission is both concrete and abstract:
This feature gives dharma transmission a great flexibility:
Within the various Chan and Zen traditions, dharma transmission got various meanings. A difference is made in most schools between
Traditional Chinese Chan still exists in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, though it is less known in the west than Japanese Zen.
In the Chinese Buddhist tradition, there are 3 systems of transmission:[6]
It is customary to refer to one's own tonsure Master as "Gracious Master", precept Master as "Root Master" and Dharma transmission Master as "Venerable Master". In Chinese Buddhism, these 3 systems are separate and are not performed by the same Masters. Moreover, due to the strong emphasis on the Dharma, when a person receives Dharma transmission, he or she is recognized as that Chán Master's Dharma son or daughter. Lay Buddhists may also receive this Dharma transmission, but this is very rare and with very few incidences. Most of the monks and nuns who received transmission have already been tonsured and ordained by other Masters.
See main article: article and Rinzai school.
All Rinzai lineages pass through Hakuin Ekaku, the 18th century revivalist, who considered himself to be an heir of Shoju Rojin (Shoju Ronin, Dokyu Etan, 1642–1721), though Hakuin never received formal recognition of his insight from Shoju Rojin, let alone transmission of his lineage, nor from any other teacher.[7] When he was installed as head priest of Shōin-ji in 1718, he had the title of Dai-ichiza, "First Monk":
All contemporary Rinzai-lineages stem formally from Inzan Ien (1751–1814) and Takuju Kosen (1760–1833), both students of Gasan Jito (1727–1797). Gasan is considered to be a dharma heir of Hakuin, though "he did not belong to the close circle of disciples and was probably not even one of Hakuin's dharma heirs".
Through Hakuin, all contemporary Japanese Rinzai-lineages relate themselves to the Ōtōkan lineage, brought to Japan in 1267 by Nanpo Jomyo, who received dharma transmission in China in 1265.[8]
In the Rinzai school, a difference is made between acknowledgement of insight and succession in the organisation:
According to Mohr,
The most common form of transmission in Rinzai Zen is the acknowledgement that one has stayed in the monastery for a certain amount of time, and may later become a temple priest.
After finishing koan-study, further practice is necessary:
Common transmission does not include inka shōmei. Ideally inka shōmei is "the formal recognition of Zen's deepest realisation", but practically it is being used for transmission of the "true lineage" of the masters (shike) of the training halls. Training halls are temples which are authorised for further training after being qualified as a temple priest.
There are only about fifty to eighty such inka shōmei-bearers in Japan:
According to roshi Sokun Tsushimoto, the title of roshi is equivalent to Zen master and shike:
A qualified Zen master bestows inka only upon "those select few" who have successfully completed the entire Rinzai koan curriculum,[9] and "are eligible to serve as sōdō roshi, that is, master of a training hall, in distinction from a common temple:
According to roshi Sokun Tsushimoto,
(Korean: Inga) literally means "the legitimate seal of clearly furnished proof":
The right-hand portion of the seal was given to an individual who would then work by authority of the emperor, while the emperor himself would retain the left-hand portion. In ancient times inka usually came in the form of an actual document, but this practice is no longer commonplace.[10]
In Sōtō, dharma transmission is the acknowledgement of the ties between teacher and student. It has been subject to changes over the history of the Sōtō-school.
Though Dōgen emphasized the importance of the purity of the teachings, and highly valued lineage and dharma transmission, the Sōtō-school has its origins in various lineages and dharma transmissions. Dogen received dharma transmission from his Chinese teacher Rujing, with whom he studied two years, but in medieval Sōtō he was also considered to be a dharma heir of Myōzen, a Rinzai-teacher, with whom he studied eight years. And Tettsū Gikai, the dharma-grandson of Dogen, was also lineage-holder of Nōnin, the founder of the Dharuma-shu, also a Rinzai-school. Gikai passed this lineage over to Keizan, who thereby was also lineage-holder in at least two lineages.
To make the history of Sōtō even more complicated, the Caodong-lineage that Dogen inherited through Rujing was passed on previously from the Caodong-master Dayang Jingxuan to Touzi Yiqing via the Rinzai-master Fushan Fayuan. Fushan Fayuan had once studied under Dayang Jingxuan. When Jingxuan died Fayuan had received Jingxuan's "portrait, robe, and a verse that expressed his teaching", promising "to pass them on to a suitable successor". Fayuan chose his student Touzi Yiqing to inherit this lineage, a fact that was acknowledged in Keizan's Denkoroku, but "[i]n the standard versions of Dogen's writings, however, all direct references to Yiqing's indirect succession have been eliminated".
Manzan Dokahu (1636–1714), a Sōtō reformer,
According to Manzan, even an unenlightened student could receive dharma transmission:
In Sōtō-zen, since Manzan Dokahu, two criteria are applied for dharma transmission:
In contrast to the status that dharma transmission has begotten in the west, in Sōtō it has a relatively low status:
To supervise the training of monks, further qualifications are necessary:
The duties which come with this full qualification were not always appreciated. In the medieval organisation of the Sōtō-shu, when rotation of abbotship was the norm. Dharma transmission at a branch temple obliged one to serve at least one term as abbot at the main temple. Abbotship gave severe duties, and financial burdens, for which reason many tried to avoid the responsibility of abbotship:
The Sōtō-shu also confers inka shōmyō (or inshō) "[granting] the seal of approval to a realization of enlightenment", upon students. This is an
Dharma transmission is part of the maintenance of the Sōtō-institutions. Authority and temple-property are handed down, often from father to son. It is not a guarantee for spiritual attainment:
Dharma transmission is also called shiho. In the Sōtō school a student receives Dharma transmission during a denbō ceremony, which is the last ceremony of their shiho ceremony:
Muhō Noelke, the German-born former abbot of the temple Antai-ji, describes his understanding of shiho:
Shiho is done "one-to-one in the abbot's quarters (hojo)". Three handwritten documents certify the dharma transmission;
The procedure has to take place only once in one's life, and binds the student to the teacher forever:
If a students does not have the feeling he wants to be tied to this teacher for the rest of his life, he may refuse to take dharma transmission from this particular teacher. Since the time of Manzan Dokahu (1636–1714), multiple dharma transmissions are impossible in Sōtō Zen.
According to Muho Noelke, dharma transmission marks the beginning of the real learning:
After Dharma transmission one has become a member of the "blood line" of Zen, but is not yet qualified as an Oshō. After the ten-e and zuise ceremonies, one is qualified as an oshō. There-after one has to practice for some time, at least six months, in an sôdô-ango, an officially recognized Sōtō-shu training centre.[11]
After that one can start to work in a temple. The newly acquired status is confirmed in the kyoshi-honin ceremony. There-after follows the first practice-period in one's own temple, with the aid of a susho (head monk). This is followed by the Jushoku-himei ceremony, which confirms one's status as dai-oshō.
The Sanbo Kyodan mixes Sōtō and Rinzai-elements. Students in this school follow the Harada-Yasutani koan curriculum, in which great emphasis is placed on kensho, the initial insight into one's true nature. Having attained kensho is publicly acknowledged in a jahai-ceremony. After working through the Harada-Yasutani koan curriculum, which may take as short as five years, the student receives a calligraphy testifying that he or she "has finished the great matter". This is publicly acknowledged in the hasansai-ceremony, giving the status of hasan.
The Sanbo Kyodan has two levels of teaching authority, namely junshike ("associate zen master"), and shōshike ("authentic zen master"). Junshikes can give dokusan, authorize kensho, and supervise part of the koan-study. Shoshikes can supervise the advanced koan-study, and perform religious ceremonies, such as the precept-ceremony and wedding ceremonies.
The process toward gaining these titles has seen some variations within the Sanbo Kyodan. Hasansai may be preparatory to the junshike-title, but may also be the promotion to this title. And promotion to shoshike may be preparatory to dharma transmission, but may also be equivalent to it.
In dharma transmission, the student receives the sanmotsu, akin to the Sōtō shiho ceremony. This is coupled with the Rinzai notion on inka. In Rinzai, only students who have completed the complete Rinzai koan curriculum and "are eligible to serve as sōdō roshi, that is, master of a training hall, in distinction from a common temple, receive inka. In the Sanbo Kyodan, inka is derived from Harada's Rinzai master Dokutan Sōsan.
In the White Plum Asanga, Dharma transmission comes first, and qualifies one as a sensei. This may be followed by inka, the final acknowledgemment:[12]
In Korean Seon, Inka (In'ga) typically refers to the private acknowledgement of dharma transmission from a teacher to their student. "Transmission" is used to refer to the public ceremonial version of the same acknowledgement.
Both are considered equal in authority and "realization". A monk with either In'ga or the public "transmission" is qualified to hold the post of Seon Sa (seonsa; Korean: 선사; Chinese: 禪師), or "Zen Master" for a temple, and give transmission to their own students (either, In'ga or public "transmission"). The majority of Zen Masters in Korea have only received, and only give In'ga, with the formal transmission ceremony being far more rare.[13]
In the Western Kwan Um School of Zen created by the Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn, "Inka" is granted to an individual who has completed their koan training and is granted the title Ji Do Poep Sa Nim (jido beopsa-nim; Korean: 지도법사님; Chinese: 指導法師님). Dharma transmission in the Kwan Um School of Zen comes after inka, denoting the individual is now a Seon Sa Nim.[14] Seung Sahn himself is quoted saying in reference to the administration of his Western organization,
Thích Nhất Hạnh has created a ritual known as "Lamp Transmission", making a teacher a dharmācārya—an individual with "limited teaching authority".[14] According to author James Ishmael Ford,
According to Robert Sharf, early Indian Buddhist materials explicitly reject the paramparā ideal of lineal-succession, the "notion that sacred teachings are authorized through an unbroken line of enlightened sages."[15] As such, Buddha refused to appoint any successor to guide the sangha after his death. Instead, he laid out procedures by which monks could govern themselves without dependence on a single charismatic leader.[16] In this way, Buddha advised his students to take the Dharma as their master after he was gone. In the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, the Buddha's dying sermon, he said:
"It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone."[17]Similarly, in the same sutta, Buddha tells his students, "be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge."[18] Buddha also denies any distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrine and rejects the idea that the sangha should depend on a teacher who holds some things back with a "closed fist."[19]
The institutions of Dharma transmission have come under criticism in various times throughout Zen history. Zen masters like Linji and Ikkyū "were said to have refused to receive transmission certificates", seeing the procedure as corrupt and institutionalized.[20] During the Ming dynasty, important masters like Hanshan Deqing, Zibo Zhenke, and Yunqi Zhuhong did not belong to any formal lineage.[21] According to Jiang Wu, these eminent Ming Chan monks emphasized self-cultivation while criticizing formulaic instructions and nominal recognition. Wu writes that at this time "eminent monks, who practiced meditation and asceticism but without proper dharma transmission, were acclaimed as acquiring 'wisdom without teachers' (wushizhi)."[22] Hanshan's writings indicate that he seriously questioned the value of dharma transmission, seeing personal enlightenment as what truly mattered in Zen. As Wu observes, for Hanshan, "the enlightenment of the mind was more important than the nominal claim of dharma transmission. Because true enlightenment experience was valued, a few self-proclaimed Chan masters in the late Ming gained reputations as eminent monks without acquiring dharma transmission."
In a similar fashion, several important medieval Japanese masters like Takuan Sōhō eschewed formal transmission and did not believe it was necessary since the Dharma was always available to be discovered within. Some of these figures were even considered "self-enlightened and self-certified" (jigo jishō), since they claimed to have achieved "wisdom without a teacher" (無師智, pinyin: wúshīzhì; Japanese: 無師独悟, mushi-dokugo). They include Suzuki Shōsan, and Myōshin-ji figures like Daigu, Ungo and Isshi.[23] The Tokugawa era Sōtō master Dokuan Genkō (1630–1698) was scathingly critical of the dharma transmission method which he called "paper Zen".[24] According to Dokuan, "what is called Zen enlightenment is not dependent on another’s enlightenment. It is only what you realize for yourself, attain for yourself, just as you know when you’ve eaten enough rice to satisfy your hunger, or drunk enough water to slake your thirst". Dokuan's critique of the transmission system went as far as to claim that only those who were self-awakened actually had the wisdom of the Buddha:
In today’s Zen temples they transmit the robe and bowl [i.e., the symbols of the teacher’s transmission]; but while the name continues, the reality [of enlightenment] has long ceased to exist. Those who carry on the wisdom of the buddhas and patriarchs rely on themselves, being enlightened independently, without a teacher; so that even though the name has ceased, the reality itself continues.[25]
Modern Chinese Buddhists like Tanxu, Taixu and Yinshun also criticized dharma transmission, seeing it as a Chinese invention that was not taught by the Buddha. Taixu held that the practice led to sectarianism, and Tanxu wrote that it contributed to the decline of Zen.[26] Yinshun believed that the Dharma was not something that could belong to anyone and thus it could not be "transmitted" in a lineage.
In the Western understanding, dharma transmission stands solely for recognition of authentic insight, whereas in the Japanese monastery system dharma transmission is a formal notification that someone is fully qualified to take a leading role in this system. In the USA and Europe dharma transmission is linked to the unofficial title roshi, older teacher. In the Western understanding roshis are "part of a tradition that imputes to them quasi-divine qualities", someone who "is defined by simplicity, innocence, and lack of self-interest or desire". Nevertheless, the authorisation of teachers through dharma transmission does not mean that teachers are infallible, as is clear from the repeated appearance of scandals:
According to Stuart Lachs, those scandals have also been possible because of the status given to roshis by dharma transmission, and "a desire for the master's aura, recognition, and approval":Regarding the socially constructed nature of what is transmitted through master-disciple relationships in Zen Buddhism, Bernard Faure writes:
According to Mario Poceski, during the formative years of its development in the Tang era, Chan was a diffuse and heterogeneous movement which lacked rigid orthodoxy and an independent institutional structure.[27] However, by the Song dynasty, Chan had formed into a "state-sanctioned orthodoxy with a narrow conception of religious authority."[28] As Poceski observes, unlike earlier Chan in which charismatic monks challenged or reframed established religious norms, Song Chan became centered around the office of the Chan master, an officially certified religious functionary whose authority rested on an institutionalized lineage model.[29]
With the growth of Chan as a distinct tradition came concerns about origins and legitimacy.[30] Chan thus became preoccupied with "convoluted processes of lineage construction" in an attempt to fashion a unique Chan identity.[31] For Poceski, at the heart of this was the image of the Chan master (chanshi 禪師) whose identity was based on membership in a distinguished group of religious virtuousos.[32] The notion of lineage evolved, and during the Northern Song it became increasingly institutionalized.[33] As Poceski points out, well-known genealogical schemata were used to situate individual masters within illustrious spiritual ancestries, which served as sources of religious legitimacy and authority.[34]
According to Poceski, preoccupation with lineage helped to create "an ahistorical sense of continuity" between the Chan of the Tang and Song dynasties, as it served to conceal certain paradigm shifts and ruptures that occurred during the Tang-Song transition.[35] This illusion of continuity "obfuscates the very real and consequential differences that separate the dissimilar Chan traditions that flourished during the Tang and Song eras."[36]
By the Song, Chan had become increasingly embedded in sociopolitical structures.[37] With the establishment of religiopolitical networks and linkages to nexuses of imperial power came important ramifications for teachings, practices, and institutions.[38] As part of an effort to control and regulate Buddhism, Chan monasteries received official recognition by the imperial state, and government officials came to either influence or control the selection of abbots.[39]
As the position of abbot requied official membership in a Chan lineage, ambitious monks sought to obtain inheritance certificates (sishu 嗣書) to advance their careers, sometimes by dishonest means.[40] According to Poceski, inheritance certificates are a peculiar feature of Chan which were invented during the Song dynasty.[41] He observes the way in which this situation reflects a routinization of charisma:
A major stipulation for all Chan monasteries, which de facto meant most public monasteries, was that the new abbot had to be recognized as an official member of a Chan lineage. Consequently, the Chan master came to act as a sanctioned religious functionary, a prominent prelate endorsed by the state, rather than an independent spiritual virtuoso whose authority was to a large extent based on his personal charisma and unique vision.[42]
Moreover, Poceski points out that abbots also enjoyed opportunities for personal enrichment as well as control of the monastery's finances.[43] With this situation came certain abuses such as the selling of abbotships and the acceptance of bribes by officials who controlled the process of abbot selection.[44]