Hi everyone,
Following up from a post earlier which examined the implications of the lineage model within Zen's development (i.e. transmission from Bodhidharma, to Huike, to Sengcan, etc). The analysis of the transmission model was the first half of Chapter 1 in Seeing Through Zen; the second half of the first chapter presents an alternative: phase model. Here's a diagram of this model:
McRae describes the distinction between these two models as such:
Hence, the basic difference between the lineage diagram and the chart in figure 2 is that, where the diagram tends to homologize all the individuals represented as identically enlightened representatives of a single confraternity—to enable (and simultaneously limit) the understanding of them according to a meaningful yet unitary religious mode—the chart seeks to distinguish qualitative differences along a chronological axis, to facilitate multiple perspectives and modes of understanding. The goal of the chart is the generation of meaningful distinctions, not the assertion of an unbroken continuity of patriarchal authority. (12)
There are two main takeaways from this chart: 1) The religious sect of Zen, and its evolving tradition, is not monolithic. The Zen of Song Dynasty is very different from the Zen of Bodhidharma, is very different from the Zen of Huineng. Zen is characterized by phases of development which each have their own distinguishing features. 2) The identity of each phase is constructed retroactively from the phase which follows it. McRae elaborates on this point:
You might assume that the chart depicts a chain of historical causality, but it actually characterizes the retrospective identity of the various phases of Chan. The periodization of any set of past events represents an act of reconstruction—not the mere reorganization and ordering of in- formation, but the total remaking of the past as the structured image of our imaginations. Now, there is nothing wrong with creating an image of the past—indeed, I believe it is our task as historians, both professional and occasional, to visualize the past in the best ways we know how. But we should work to remain aware that the ordering of developments from the fifth through the thirteenth centuries inevitably involves this kind of re-creation; we cannot get off the hook with the naive belief that we are merely ordering the information for the sake of convenience, but not really altering it in the process.
This retrospective quality pervades the Chan tradition. Time and again we find we are dealing, not with what happened at any given point, but with what people thought happened previously. We deal not so much in facts and events as in legends and reconstructions, not so much with accomplishments and contributions as with attributions and legacies. The legends and reconstructions, not the supposedly “actual” events, deter- mined later religious and social praxis. This observation may have a broad application beyond Chinese Chan, in describing what it is that makes traditions traditions. (14-15)
Later, McRae looks at this creative act of retroactive definition within the Chan tradition by looking at 1) the chronology of the myth-making around Bodhidharma (ch 2) 2) the proselytizing of Shenhui, and the factual inconsistencies and later creation of the Platform Sutra (ch 3) 3) inconsistencies in encounter dialogue (ch 4).
This gives an overview of the book. The other important theme I'd like to briefly mention as a thread throughout the book is an examination a number of dialectics within Chan, and how they parallel the Chinese philosophical distinction between essence and function.
Anyways, I know not everyone is interested in Zen history or McRae's research. If so, you don't have to read this post or read McRae's work. Just thought I'd follow up with my previous post for the sake of consistency. If you're interested in more of the details of his argument and want to take a look at his hundreds of footnotes and citations rather than just this brief summary, feel free to read the book and offer reflections and critiques based on material in the book. Pointing to the fact that he spent a couple years at Komazawa University, even though all of this research was done during his long tenure as head of Buddhist studies at Indiana University, isn't a "critique" – it's just giving yourself a pass to dismiss someone's scholarship without having to provide any methodological reasoning.
A quick note about the skewed notion of "apologetics" I sometimes see here: McRae is engaging in critical historical scholarship – he is deconstructing Chan mythology through historical analysis. "Apologetics" would be trying to defend canonical assertions (such as the facticity of encounter dialogue) with flimsy evidence ("the events really happened, but all the records are missing"). Apologetics is the religious zealot's response towards critical scholarship, so as you look at the responses to this post, take note of who is really "apologizing" and for what.
Submitted June 19, 2020 at 10:49PM by oxen_hoofprint https://ift.tt/3dhzOL5
No comments:
Post a Comment