Accounts of Bodhidharma’s
life have been based until recently on largely hagiographical
materials such as the Jingde chuandeng lu (1004).
However, the discovery of new documents among the Dunhuang
manuscripts found in Central Asia at the turn of this
century has led Chinese and Japanese scholars to question
the authenticity of these accounts. The oldest text in which
Bodhidharma’s name is mentioned is the Luoyang qielan ji,
a description of Buddhist monasteries in Luoyang written in
547 by Yang Xuanzhi. In this work, a monk called Bodhidharma
from “Po-ssu in the western regions” (possibly Persia)
is said to have visited and admired the Yongning Monastery.
This monastery was built in 516 and became a military camp
after 528. Consequently, Bodhidharma’s visit must have
taken place around 520. But no other biographical details
can be inferred from this, and the aged western monk (he
was purportedly one hundred and fifty years old at the time)
bears no resemblance to the legendary founder of Chinese
Chan.
The most important source for Bodhidharma’s life is the
Xu gaoseng zhuan, a work written by Daoxuan in 645 and
revised before his death in 667. It states that Bodhidharma
was a brahman from southern India. After studying the Buddhist
tradition of the Greater Vehicle (Mahāyāna), Bodhidharma
decided to travel to China in order to spread
Mahāyāna doctrine. He arrived by sea at Nanyue, in the domain
of the Liu Sung dynasty (420–479), and later traveled
to Lo-yang, the capital of the Northern Wei (386–534). In
Lo-yang, he attempted to win converts, apparently without
great success. Nonetheless, he eventually acquired two worthy
disciples, Huike (487–593) and Daoyou (dates unknown),
who studied with him for several years. He is said
to have transmitted the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, the scripture he
deemed best fitted for Chinese practitioners, to Huike. Bodhidharma
seems also to have met with some hostility and
slander. Daoxuan stresses that Bodhidharma’s teaching,
known as “wall-gazing” (biguan), or as the “two entrances”
(via “principle,” liru, and via “practice,” xingru), was difficult
to understand compared to the more traditional and popular
teachings of Sengchou (480–560). Daoxuan concludes by
saying that he does not know where Bodhidharma died. In
another section of the text, however, Daoxuan states that
Bodhidharma died on the banks of the Lo River. That Bodhidharma’s
teachings evoked hostility in China is evident
from the fact that after his death, his disciple Huike felt it
necessary to hide for a period. Since the locale mentioned is
known to have been an execution ground, it is possible that
Bodhidharma was executed during the late Wei rebellions.
Although Daoxuan’s account is straightforward, succinct,
and apparently fairly authentic, it presents some problems.
Most important, it presents two different, almost contradictory,
images of Bodhidharma—as a practicer of “wallgazing,”
intent on not relying on the written word, and as
a partisan of the Lankāvatāra Sūtra. Daoxuan clearly has
some difficulty in reconciling his divergent sources. Primarily,
he draws on the preface to the so-called Erru sixing lun
(Treatise on the two entrances and four practices), written
around 600 by Bodhidharma’s (or Huike’s) disciple Tanlin
(dates unknown) and on information concerning the reputed
transmission of the Lankāvatāra Sūtra. This latter had probably
been given to Daoxuan by Fachong (587?–665), an heir
of the tradition. In any case, at the time of Daoxuan’s writing,
Bodhidharma was not yet considered the twenty-eighth
patriarch of Indian Buddhism.
In Daoxuan’s time, a new school was developing on the
Eastern Mountain (Dongshan, in modern Hunan) around
the dhyāna masters Daoxin (580–651) and Hongren (601–
674). The latter’s disciples, Faru (638–689), Shenxiu (606–
706), and Huian (attested dates 582–709), spread this new
teaching, known as the “Dongshan doctrine,” in the region
of the Tang capitals (Ch’ang-an and Luoyang). Faru’s epitaph
and two historiographical works of this metropolitan
Chan written in the first decades of the eighth century, the
Chuan fabao ji and the Lengqie shizi ji, succeeded in linking
the Dongshan tradition to the Lan˙kāvatāra tradition. Bodhidharma
and Huike were defined in these texts as the first
two Chinese patriarchs of the Chan school and Daoxin and
Hongren were designated the fourth and fifth patriarchs.
The missing link was conveniently provided by an obscure
disciple of Huike, Sengcan (d. 606)—baptized “third patriarch.”
Having established its orthodoxy and spiritual filiation,
the new Chan school, popularly known as the Damo
zong (Bodhidharma school) or the Lengqie zong
(Lan˙kāvatāra school), quickly developed as the main trend
of Chinese Buddhism and its “founder” Bodhidharma accordingly
acquired legendary status.
About 150 years after Bodhidharma’s death, his legend had
already grown considerably. His Indian origin plus the very
scarcity of information available from the Xu gaoseng zhuan
seem to have been the essential factors in Bodhidharma’s
posthumous assumption of the status of “first patriarch” of
the new Chan school. In 686, Faru settled at Song Shan, near
Luoyang (in modern Henan). Song Shan was already a Buddhist
stronghold; Sengchou, Bodhidharma’s lucky rival, had
once studied under another Indian monk named Fotuo
(dates unknown) at Song Shan. Fotuo was revered by the
Northern Wei emperor, Xiaowen di (r. 471–499), who, after
moving the capital to Luoyang in 496, had the Shaolin Monastery
built for him at Song Shan. It seems that later, in
Faru’s circle, an amalgam was made of the legends of Fotuo,
Sengchou, and Bodhidharma. This may be the reason why
Bodhidharma became associated with the Shaolin Monastery.
According to the Chuan fapao ji, Bodhidharma practiced
wall-gazing at Song Shan for several years. He thus became
known as the “wall-gazing brahman,” the monk who
remained without moving for nine years in meditation in a
cave on Song Shan (eventually losing his legs, as the popular
iconography depicts him). There he also met Huike, who,
to show his earnestness in searching for the Way, cut off his
own arm. (The Chuan fapao ji severely criticizes Daoxuan for
claiming that Huike had his arm cut off by bandits.) This
tradition, fusing with the martial tradition that developed at
Song Shan, resulted in Bodhidharma becoming the “founder”
of the martial art known as Shaolin boxing (Jpn., Shōrinji
kempō).
Bodhidharma’s legend continued to develop with the
Lidai fabaoji (c. 774), the Baolin (801), and the Zutang ji
(Kor., Chodangjip, 952), and reached its classical stage in
1004 with the Jingde chuangdeng lu. In the process, it borrowed
features from other popular Buddhist or Daoist figures
such as Baozhi or Fuxi (alias Fu Dashi, “Fu the
Mahāsattva,” 497–569, considered an incarnation of
Maitreya). But its main aspects were already fixed at the beginning
of the eighth century. For example, the Chuan fabao
ji contains the following account concerning Bodhidharma’s
“deliverance from the corpse” (a typical Daoist practice): On
the day of his death, he was met in the Pamir Mountains by
Songyun, a Northern Wei emissary on his way back from
India. After his arrival in China, Songyun told Bodhidharma’s
disciples of his encounter. The disciples, opening their
master’s grave, found it empty except for a single straw sandal.
Bodhidharma returning to his home in the western regions
on one sandal has become a standard motif in Chan
iconography.
Another important—if somewhat later—motif is Bodhidharma’s
encounter with Liang Wudi (r. 502–549) on his
arrival in China. This story, which became a favorite theme
of Chan “riddles” or gongan (Jpn., kōan), has its prototype
in Fuxi’s encounter with Liang Wudi. In both cases, the emperor
failed to understand the eminence of the person he had
in front of him.
It is also noteworthy that many early Chan works formerly
attributed to Bodhidharma have recently been proved
to have been written by later Chan masters such as Niutou
Farong (594–657) or Shenxiu (606–706). That so many
works were erroneously attributed to Bodhidharma may be
due simply to the fact that the Chan school was at the time
known as the Bodhidharma school, and that all works of the
school could thus be considered expressive of Bodhidharma’s
thought. Whatever the case, these works have greatly contributed
to the development of Bodhidharma’s image, especially
in the Japanese Zen tradition. Further confusing the
issue is the “discovery,” throughout the eighth century, of epitaphs
supposedly written shortly after his death. In fact,
these epitaphs were products of the struggle for hegemony
among various factions of Chan.
Source and bibliography: https://terebess.hu/zen/bodhidharma-eng.html
My commentary: I advise to not only read the texts of this or that master, but investigate as closely what has been documented of that master by third party entities of that time and can be revealed only by simple historical study. I can sense slight confirmation bias and infatuation in the author here, but since he mostly just provides names dates and bibliography someone who is interested can easily find out everything by himself.
Submitted April 15, 2020 at 05:48PM by thatkitty https://ift.tt/3ck0nyT
No comments:
Post a Comment