And to add, the classification of 3 streams of Chinese Pure Land
Buddhism:
Honen's
Establishment of a Chinese Lineage
A
common method of legitimation which East Asian Buddhist sects have
used is establishing a lineage of the transmission from Shakyamuni
Buddha himself down to their particular founder, and from thence to
the present age. This is always established in order to invest the
teachings with authority. It was during the Sung Dynasty (960-1297)
that the establishment of official lineages for the various schools
of Buddhism became common. The Ch'an school lineage was established
at this time through Tao-yuan's Ching-te-chuan-teng-lu.
Yuan-chao (1048-1116) established the nine patriarchs of the Four
Part Vinaya school in his Nan-shan-lu-tsung
tsu-ch'eng-t'u-lu, and Chih-p'an (circa late thirteenth
century) established the T'ien-t'ai lineage in his
Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi. Pure Land Buddhism was in turn
influenced by these earlier examples, and Tsung-hsio (1151-1214)
established the Pure Land lineage in his Le-pang-wen-lei
(T. 1469, vol. 47). This lineage is as follows: Hui-yuan of
Lu-shan, Shan-tao, Fa-chao, Shao-k'ang, Sheng-ch'ang, and
Tsung-tse. Honen's lineage, however, differs fundamentally in that
he neither recognized Hui-yuan as Shan-tao's teacher nor as a
patriarch at all.
In
Honen's Commentary on the Jodosanbukyo (Sanbukyo
shaku), in reference to the Amida Sutra, he
says:
In the Pure Land
school of Shan-tao, no one studied directly under him, and no one
praises him. But I, through his writings, have inherited his
intention and so have founded the Pure Land sect. Therefore, in the
Pure Land school there is nothing one can call a lineage, nor is
there any proof of the oral transmission of its teachings.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the teaching of the sutras and
commentaries, and on my personal experience, I have established the
Pure Land sect. (SHZ. 145)
Honen's
Pure Land sect differed in this regard from the Buddhism of the
Nara and Heian periods in that it made no claim to have been
transmitted through a continuous master-disciple lineage. Although
inspired by Shan-tao's works, it was in fact based on Honen's
personal religious experience.
This very lack of
transmission provided grounds for harsh criticism, from the
established Tendai and Shingon sects and the temples of Nara. Honen
attempted to respond to such criticism in the Gyakushu
seppo, when he named his own five patriarchs
of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism (jodogoso)
[T'an-luan,
Tao-ch'o, Shan-tao, Huai-kan and Shao-k'ang] as constituting the
Pure Land lineage.(SHZ. 264)
The
Chinese lineage established by Tsung-hsiao was not made on the
basis of a direct master-disciple relationship or on the common
thought of Pure Land masters, but rather on the respective careers
of each in propagating Pure Land teachings and on chronological
order. By the time Tsung-hsiao wrote the Le-pang-wen-lei
in 1200, it had already been two years since Honen had dictated the
Senchakushu in which he classified three different Pure
Land lineages and insisted on the veracity of his five patriarch
lineage. Honen designated the three lineages as those of Hui-yuan
of Lu-shan, T'zu-min, and Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao.
The
first one of Hui-yuan was centered around the practice of the
nembutsu with visualization. This form of nembutsu practice is
advocated in the Pratyutpanna Sutra (Pan-chou-san-mei
ching), one of the first sutras dealing with Amida Buddha, and
stresses the nembutsu as a practical means or upaya for reaching
ultimate wisdom and the samadhi of emptiness. Hui-yuan lived during
a period in which he could have seen the Amida Sutra as
translated by Kumarajiva and the P'ing-teng-chueh ching
and Ta-ami-t'o ching (both earlier versions of the
Sutra of Immeasurable Life (Wu-liang-shou ching). His
nembutsu teaching, however, is mostly based on the Pratyutpanna
Sutra and not on the sutras associated with the Sutra of
Immeasurable Life, which expounds Amida Buddha's power of the
original vow (hongan). This teaching succeeded onwards to
the T'ien-t'ai master Chih-i (538-97) and the Hua-yen master
Ch'eng-kuan (738-839). To Honen, who insisted on the recited
nembutsu as the true practice, Hui-yuan's visualized nembutsu ought
to be rejected. Thus, we can see why Honen differentiated Hui-yuan
from Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao and established another
lineage.
The
second lineage of T'zu-min is based around his syncretic teaching
of the Ch'an, Pure Land and Vinaya schools in which he combined
meditation, nembutsu practice, and observance of the precepts.
Especially after the T'ang Dynasty (618-907), not only Pure Land
but also other schools tended towards this syncretic mixing of
teachings. Fa-chao of the middle T'ang, Wan-chao of the Sung, and
Ch'u-hung (1532-1612) and Chih-hsu (1599-1655) of the Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644) are examples of typical masters who brought other
teachings into their own schools. T'zu-min's teachings also
revolved around the visualization practices of the Pratyutpanna
Sutra (Pan-chou-san-mei ching). Further, his syncretic
approach contradicted Honen's principle of the selection of the
exclusive practice of the nembutsu (senju-nembutsu), Honen
clearly differentiated it from the Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao lineage
which was firmly centered in the Sutra of Immeasurable Life
(Wu-liang-shou ching), the Meditation Sutra (Kuan
wu-liang-shou ching), and the Amida Sutra (A-mi-t'o
ching).
Finally,
the third lineage of Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao is the very one which
became the lineage of the Pure Land denomination (Jodo Shu) in
Japan. In the Senchakushu, Honen lists the five patriarchs
as follows: T'an-luan, Tao-ch'o, Shan-tao, Hui-kuan and Shao-k'ang.
There are, however, two separate opinions on its Dharma
transmission. The first begins with Bodhiruci and follows to
Hui-ch'ung, Tao-chang, T'an Luan, Ta-hai, and Fa-shang. The second
begins with Bodhiruci and follows to T'an Luan, Tao-ch'o, Shan-tao,
Huai-kan, and Shao-k'ang (Senchakushu Chapt.1). In the
Senchakushu, Honen does not distinguish which lineage is
correct, but in his other works, he only uses the second
transmission. He cites the T'ang Kao-seng-chuan (Bibliography
of Eminent Masters Complied in the T'ang
Dynasty)[T.50,425-707]1 and the Sung Kao-seng-chuan
(Bibliography of Masters Compiled in the Sung
Dynasty)[T.50,709-900]2 as sources for this transmission,
although in actuality these works do not contain such a
transmission (Ruiju Jodo Goso Den, SHZ. 843-57). The key
master in this lineage is clearly Shan-tao. From his standpoint,
Tao-ch'o, his teacher, is designated the Second Patriarch, and
Hui-kuan, his direct disciple, is designated the Fourth Patriarch.
The First and Fifth Patriarchs, T'an-luan and Shao-k'ang, are
designated not on the basis of the master-disciple relationship but
rather on the connection of commonness of thought. T'an-luan had a
great influence on the thought of both Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao and
was thus designated the First Patriarch. Shao-k'ang in turn was
greatly influenced by Shan-tao, eventually becoming known as a
latter day Shan-tao, and was thus designated the Fifth Patriarch.
Honen's five patriarch lineage based on the master-disciple
relationship and commonness of thought, therefore, clearly
contrasts that of Tsung-hsiao's.
If
we reflect on Honen's classification of the three lineages of Pure
Land Buddhism, we can easily see how he rejected Hui-yuan's lineage
based on the nembutsu with visualization and T'zu-min's based on
syncretic teachings and selected the one of Tao-ch'o and Shan-tao
based on his unprecedented teaching of the exclusive recited
nembutsu. However, this lineage was not one of direct transmission
from one patriarch to the next. Historically speaking, although
Shan-tao and Huai-kan were clearly related as master and disciple,
this "lineage" of five Chinese patriarchs was Honen's own original
concept. Thus his Pure Land sect continued to receive criticism as
lacking any clear line of direct transmission.
http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHINGS/clineage.html