Early Buddhist rejection of lineal-succession 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." 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. According to Clasquin-Johnson, the early sangha was a form of limited participatory democracy in which leadership rested not on any individual but upon a set of abstract principles. In this way, Buddha advised his students to take the Dharma as their master after his passing, rather than take refuge in a living person. As the
Dazhidu lun says, "when the Buddha was about to enter Nirvana he said to his followers: 'From now on, rely on the Dharma, and not on people!'" In the
Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, which contains the Buddha's final teachings, 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. 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." Given the rejection of lineal-succession in early materials, Sharf points to the Brahmanicization of Buddhism as a likely contributing factor to Chan's preoccupation with an esoteric master-to-disciple transmission.
Criticism from within the Zen tradition The institutions of dharma transmission have come under criticism at various times throughout Zen history. According to Jørn Borup, Zen masters like
Linji and
Ikkyū "were said to have refused to receive transmission certificates," rejecting the circus associated with such things. During the Ming dynasty in China, important masters like
Hanshan Deqing,
Zibo Zhenke, and
Yunqi Zhuhong did not belong to any formal lineage. 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." The Japanese master of the
Tokugawa period
Takuan Sōhō believed the Dharma need not depend on an unbroken transmission from master to disciple. Like
Ikkyū in the
Muromachi period, Takuan refused to recognize an heir and chose instead to cut off his line, insisting the Dharma was always available to be discovered within by the right person. According to Haskel, Takuan's view was that "Zen mind exists any time a dedicated practitioner experiences realization, with or without a teacher's sanction and support." Takuan's refusal to pass on a lineage reflects a rejection of the view that "the torch of Zen" will be extinguished if it is not handed down in a master-disciple transmission. For Takuan, the truth of Zen cannot be destroyed since it is always present as the Buddha's original Dharma. It is enlightenment itself qua one's own intrinsic being, rather than some unbroken line of teachers and disciples, which is the true transmission that replicates and renews the experience of the Zen patriarchs. As such, Takuan stated, "That which is the Dharma cannot be passed on" and "That which can be passed on is not the Dharma."
Suzuki Shōsan, another master from the Tokugawa period, is an example of what is known as the "
self-enlightened and self-certified" phenomenon (
jigo-jishō 自悟自証). He had originally been a samurai who later became a Zen teacher. His independent enlightenment was defended in the
Sōan zakki, a work by an anonymous author published fourteen years after Shōsan's death. There the question is raised whether Shōsan was a heretic since he did not receive transmission in any particular school of Zen but was rather "without a teacher and self-certified" (
mushi-jishō). The text responds that the true meaning of mind-to-mind transmission is "knowing for oneself and attaining for oneself" (
jichi jitoku), declaring that "To transmit some written statement or a robe is not the true Way." The Tokugawa-era
Sōtō master Dokuan Genkō (1630–1698) was scathingly critical of the dharma transmission method which he called "paper Zen." Dokuan also criticized secret oral transmissions, stating that such things were not the meaning of Zen's "special transmission outside the scriptures." 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. 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. Yinshun believed that the Dharma was not something that could belong to anyone and thus it could not be "transmitted" in a lineage. Nevertheless, contrary to how it has often been presented, 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, such scandals have been possible because of the status given to roshis by dharma transmission, and "a desire for the master's aura, recognition, and approval." He says: With the idealization of the teacher through ideas of lineage and dharma transmission comes the reification of the role and subordinate position of the student. Where the actions of a teacher, defined by the institutional role, are necessarily considered good and pure, critical thinking on the part of the student can be dismissed as ego-driven and self-centered. This creates an opening for all kinds of potential abuse. Consequently, students may become objectified as a means to achieve a teacher's ends, or fulfill their desires, whatever those may be. Additionally, while teachers are socially defined in idealized terms, they may be simultaneously aware of their own human shortcomings. In this sense, the consciousness of such a teacher is split, with the idealization producing an internal otherness and alienation. Such a teacher may come to actually disdain the student who accepts their idealized status, looking upon the student with contempt as one who is easily fooled, seeing them as an object to be used.
Dharma transmission as a social construct According to Lachs, idealized concepts of lineage and dharma transmission (as well as ritual behaviors, like
koan interviews) serve to legitimate hierarchical structures in Zen, giving undeserved levels of authority to Zen teachers. Students are expected to take it on faith that a teacher’s title implies their infallibility, demonstrating that despite Zen's self-definition as beyond words and letters, in terms of its hierarchical organization, words and titles matter a great deal. Lachs points out that the three terms, Zen master, dharma transmission, and Zen lineage, make up a conceptual triad which is used to establish institutional authority in Zen. As Bernard Faure observes, such terms acquire their definitions and significance within a particular discourse. Regarding the socially constructed nature of what is transmitted through master-disciple relationships in Zen Buddhism, Faure writes: According to Alan Cole, the goal of Zen genealogical texts is to privatize enlightenment, which is presented as something no longer openly available to the general public, or to those lacking a lineage. Cole explains this as a kind of stealing of truth away from more public sources of enlightenment, which, among other things, include the Buddhist sutras. However, as Cole points out, this process requires the public's cooperation in an ideological exchange, acceptance of the lineage as a historical reality, and the desire of those outside the lineage to possess what the lineage has. In return for its gift of belief, the public is promised a kind of "partial sharing" in the universal good which the lineage claims to be in possession of. This serves to cloak the basic dependence of the lineage on the public. However, by the
Song dynasty, Chan had formed into a "state-sanctioned orthodoxy with a narrow conception of religious authority." 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. Such orthodoxy was further reinforced by fixed forms of practice and routinized modes of commentary on an authoritative canon. With the growth of Chan as a distinct tradition came concerns about origins and legitimacy, and Chan thus became preoccupied with "convoluted processes of lineage construction" in an attempt to fashion a unique Chan identity. Sharf observes that the rise of Chan was closely associated with ideological tropes in which the authority of teachers was based on myths of lineal descent, and this involved "the production and manipulation of pseudo-historical lineages." Likewise, Foulk writes that lineages belong, either partly or wholly, to the realm of ideology and myths fabricated retrospectively to gain authority, political power, and patronage. 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 virtuosos. 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. According to Welter, historical accuracy was not the main motivating factor in the creative construction of lineal connections. The notion of lineage evolved over time, and by the Northern Song it had become increasingly institutionalized. 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. 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." With the establishment of religiopolitical networks and linkages to nexuses of imperial power came important ramifications for teachings, practices, and institutions. 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. At the same time, as the position of abbot required official membership in a Chan lineage, ambitious monks sought to obtain inheritance certificates (
sishu 嗣書) to advance their careers, sometimes by dishonest means. Foulk observes the many abuses of this system recounted by
Dōgen, and states that "inheritance certificates were routinely given to senior monastic officers, presumably so that their way to an abbacy would not be blocked." According to Poceski, inheritance certificates are a peculiar feature of Chan which were invented during the Song dynasty. Poceski observes the way in which this overall 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. Later in the
Tokugawa period as well, Michel Mohr points out that "the misuse of Dharma-succession practices had become a plague that affected the credibility of the entire Zen Buddhist clergy." According to Lachs, dharma transmission has not always been based on the spiritual qualities or realization of the recipient. It has been given at times for various other reasons, such as securing political benefits to a monastery, perpetuating a lineage (even if the recipient has not awakened), and to imbue missionaries with authority in hopes of spreading Dharma to other countries. Lachs also observes that in modern
Sōtō, temples are often kept within families, with dharma transmission functioning as a formality for abbots to pass temple control to their eldest sons (thereby securing a comfortable place of retirement for themselves). ==See also==