Addressing the Mind: Developments in the Culture of Confession in Sui-Tang China

Addressing the Mind: Developments in the Culture of Confession in Sui-Tang China

Wendi L. Adamek Associate Professor, Dept. of Classics and Religion, University of Calgary

Abstract

This article addresses the multivalence of confession-repentance practice (chanhui ㆢ〼) in Chinese Buddhism of the sixth and seventh centuries in light of the polemical reformation of repentance practice in Chan texts of the eighth century. Drawing from her research on the Sui-Tang Buddhist site known as Baoshan ⮞Ⱉ (Treasure Mountain) in present-day Henan, the author first discusses inscribed passages from the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra (Mohemoye jing 㐑姞㐑俞䴻 ) and the Vinayaviniğcaya-UpƘliparipΩcchƘVǍtra (Jueding pini jing 㰢⭂㮀⯤䴻), supplemented by verses ascribed to Lingyu 曰塽 (518–605), one of the co-founders of Baoshan. Subsequent sections focus on passages from early Chan texts, tracing shifts in the soteriological rationalization of chanhui versus Chan practice. In previous work, the author discussed ways that fifth and sixth-century precepts and repentance liturgies, as well as texts on spiritual causes and remedies for disease, contributed the emergence of a distinctive Chan ideology of practice in the eighth century. In this article, further expanding on connections between repentance ritual, buddha-response, and buddha-nature, the author discusses different modes of confessional “addressing the mind.” Buddhist concern with volition and kleĞa (deep-seated karmic effects) is also briefly compared with Foucault’s discussion of psychoanalytic confession; the author proposes that what links these disparate confessional modes is the creation of enhanced awareness of the elusiveness of the causal power that shapes the self. Finally, the author proposes that the logic of practice at work in repentance liturgies and Chan anti-liturgical rhetoric is not really so different as it may appear.

Keywords:

Chinese Buddhism, confession-repentance practice, Baoshan, Chan/Zen

憅⮵⽫曰

ʇʇᷕ⚳昳Ⓒㆢ〼㔯⊾䘬䘤⯽ 杳倆䫃 ≈㊧⣏⌉䇦≈慴⣏⬠⎌℠⬠冯⬿㔁⬠䲣∗㔁㌰ 㐀天

㛔㔯㍊妶ᷕ⚳ἃ㔁䘬ㆢ〼⮎嶸炻⽆ℕ军ᶫᶾ䲨䘬⺋㲃㳩埴⇘ℓᶾ䲨䥒 ⬿㔯䌣ᷕ䘬婾嫱㓡朑䘬廱✳ˤἄ侭ὅ㒂⮵昳Ⓒἃ㔁俾⛘⮞Ⱉ炷⛐Ṳᷳ㱛⋿炸 䘬䞼䨞炻椾⃰妶婾䞛⇣˪㐑姞㐑俞䴻˫冯˪㰢⭂㮀⯤䴻˫ᷕ䘬ᶨṃ㭝句炻 㗗䓙⮞Ⱉ∝⥳Ṣᷳᶨ䘬曰塽炷518–605炸㇨⡆墄䘬⎍⫸ˤ㍍叿炻㍊妶㖑㛇 䥒⬿㔯䌣ᷕ䘬ᶨṃℏ⭡炻ẍ徥希ㆢ〼妋僓婾冯䥒ᾖ䘬廱嬲ˤἄ侭⛐ẍ⇵䘬 婾叿ᷕ炻㚦妶婾忶Ḽ军ℕᶾ䲨䘬ㆺ⼳ˣㆢ〼₨⺷炻ẍ⍲䕦䕭䘬䱦䤆⮶⚈冯 㱣䗪䘬㔯䌣㗗⤪ỽὫㆸℓᶾ䲨㗪䌐䈡䘬䥒⬿ᾖ埴⿅゛䘬↢䎦ˤ⛐㛔㔯ᷕ炻 ἄ侭娛徘ㆢ〼₨⺷ˣἃデㅱ冯ἃ⿏䘬斄忋炻Ἦ妶婾憅⮵⽫曰ㆢ〼䘬⎬䧖ᶵ ⎴㕡⺷ˤ⎴㗪炻䯉╖⛘㭼庫ἃ㔁䘬シ栀␴䄑゙炷kleğa炸冯‭㞗炷1926– 1984炸䘬䱦䤆↮㜸⺷⏲妋炻忚侴娵䁢忁ṃ徍䃞ᶵ⎴䘬ㆢ〼⼊⺷㗗⮵忈⯙冒 ㆹ䘬⚈㝄≃慷㍸檀奢䞍䘬䓊䈑ˤ㚨⼴炻ἄ侭㊯↢ㆢ〼₨⺷䘬⮎嶸␴䥒⬿⍵ ₨⺷婾溆䘬怷廗℞⮎᷎㰺㚱⁷堐朊ᶲ䘬恋湤ᶵ⎴ˤ 斄挝娆烉 ᷕ⚳ἃ㔁ˣㆢ〼ˣ⮞Ⱉˣ䥒

Introduction This article add

resses a particular soteriological trajectory in Chinese Buddhism, comparing a local instantiation of the widely-practiced rites of confession and repentance (chanhui ㆢ〼) in the sixth and seventh centuries with the increasingly polemical reformation of repentance practice in Chan 䥒 texts of the eighth century. An ostensible opposition between ritual and Chan/Zen is inscribed in current popular views of Buddhism. Although confession and repentance is a long-standing practice with roots in the uposatha ceremony of the earliest saৄgha and remains central to Chinese Buddhist devotional practice, it is seldom recognized in Chan (Zen) circles as an integral part of the tradition to which Chan belongs. As an attempted counterbalance, here I wish to highlight certain shared soteriological underpinnings that bind together chanhui and Chan. And although it is beyond the scope of this article to adequately address debates over the psychological strengths or shortcomings of Buddhist practice, these contemporary issues are part of the implicit context for the theme of “addressing the mind.” In the following examples we will see different modes of addressing the mind: rebuking it, confessing and repenting its karmic burdens, evoking the means to transform it, attempting to present it, and turning it on its own emptiness of essence. The desire to decisively alter the indeterminable power of existential conditioning may be seen in both confrontation of the karma-burdened self and propitiation of the buddhas and/as buddha-nature.

Drawing from research on the Sui-Tang Buddhist site known as Baoshan ⮞Ⱉ (Treasure Mountain) in present-day Henan, I first discuss inscribed passages from the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra and the Vinayaviniğcaya-UpƘliparipΩcchƘVǍtra, supplemented by verses ascribed to Lingyu 曰塽 (518–605), one of the co-founders of Baoshan. Subsequent sections focus on passages from early Chan texts, tracing a process of reformulation or rejection of the soteriological value of chanhui. Buddhist preoccupation with the power of repentance ritual to eliminate deep-seated karmic effects is also briefly compared with Foucault’s discussion of psychoanalytic confession. I propose that what links these disparate confessional modes is the creation of enhanced awareness of the elusiveness of the causal powers that shape the self. Finally, I propose that the logic of practice at work in repentance liturgies is not really as different from the logic of practice in Chan anti-liturgical rhetoric as it may seem.

Baoshan

Baoshan is a network of rock-cut caves, devotional and memorial inscriptions, reliquary niches with portrait statues, and stelae and inscriptions with references to constructions and restorations. The site seems to have first attracted Buddhist attention due to its proximity to one of the passes through the Taihang ⣒埴 mountains that linked the Northern Qi ⊿滲 (550–577) capital of Ye 惜 with the former Northern Wei ⊿櫷 (386–534) capital of Luoyang 㳃春 to the south (Henan), and with the Northern Qi secondary capital Jinyang 㗱春 (present-day Taiyuan) in the north (Shanxi). It is said that Baoshan was first marked as a Buddhist place by the monk

Daoping 忻 ㄹ (488–559) during the Eastern Wei 㜙 櫷 (534–550).

Daoping’s disciple Lingyu won imperial recognition for the site, and appears to have been the designer of the devotional program at the main cave, Dazhusheng ⣏ỷ俾, which is the source for the inscriptions discussed here. Baoshan has a distinguished heritage stemming from the brief but brilliant efflorescence of Northern Qi Buddhism: Daoping was the disciple of the Northern Wei 櫷 master Huiguang ㄏ ⃱ (468–537), who was later considered the founder of the Southern Branch of the Dilun ⛘婾 (Stages Treatise) school that developed in Ye. The “Southern” and “Northern” designations are based on the biographies of Bodhiruci 厑㍸㳩㓗 (d. 527) and Huiguang in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan 临檀₏⁛, which show two lines of affiliation based on exegesis and practice of the YogƘFƘra tenets of Vasubandhu’s DaĞabhnjmikasnjtropadeĞa, a commentary on the DaĞabhnjmika-snjtra on the ten stages of the bodhisattva path, included in the Avataۨsaka-snjtra. Dazhusheng cave provides a focal point from which to explore the intersections between Dilun soteriology, final age eschatology, and repentance practice. Working from scriptural models, in the fifth through eighth centuries Chinese Buddhists developed new rituals for taking the bodhisattva precepts, and these ceremonies included formulae of confession and repentance: chanhui. Repentance and precepts were soteriologically linked as vows; that is, harnessing the power of volition in order to remove the effects of its past misuse. Recognizing one’s past negative actions and praying to the buddhas to aid in removing karmic residue was an important initial stage of the bodhisattva path. Indeed, many Chinese Buddhist rituals exhibit a basic structure that includes repentance as a constituent element. What is at stake in Dilun practice and on display in the design of Dazhusheng cave is belief in the capacity of repentance rituals to remove kleğa, deeply engrained habitual afflictive patterns, through the evocation of mutually responsive buddhanature/presence.

Before proceeding further, I would like to briefly note the important place that studies of chanhui have in the field of medieval Chinese Buddhism. I cannot list all the relevant work, but Daniel Stevenson’s 1987 dissertation, “The T’ien-T’ai Four Forms of SamƘdhi and Late North-South Dynasties, Sui, and Early T’ang Buddhist Devotionalism,” is an invaluable orientation to the relevant texts and soteriological issues. Stevenson provides both schematic comparison and in-depth discussion of the fifth- through seventh- century Chinese devotional-liturgical materials incorporating chanhui, as well as their Indian counterparts, in order to contextualize Zhiyi’s 㘢柿 (538–597) work. Kuo Li-ying’s 1994 monograph on fifth- through tenth-century repentance texts (Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du cinqième au dixième siècle) remains seminal for chanhui studies. Wang Juan’s 㰒⧇ 1998 work Dunhuang lichan wen yanjiu 㔎䃴䥖ㆢ㔯䞼䨞 (Research on Dunhuang Ritual and Repentance Texts) adds the important dimension of Dunhuangbased research. Focusing on Dilun materials in his examination of repentance rituals, Bruce Williams’s 2002 dissertation, “Mea Maxima Vikalpa: Repentance, Meditation, and the Dynamics of Liberation in Medieval Chinese Buddhism, 500–650 CE,” and his 2005 article have been essential aids in my Baoshan explorations. Shioiri RyǁGǁ’s ⠑ ℍ 列 忻 monumental 2007 publication ChǍgoku bukkyǁ ni okeru zanpǁ no seiritsu ᷕ⚥ṷ㔁̬̋̒͌ㆢ 㱽̯ㆸ䩳 (The Development of Penitential Methods in Chinese Buddhism) is highly recommended, but I confess and repent that I have not yet read it. More recently, Eric Greene’s 2012 dissertation, “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism,” explores the interesting question of pre-Chan “school” understandings of meditation, and examines selected dhyƘna (chan 䥒 ) manuals and repentance rituals to support the observation that “in fifth- and sixth-century China chan seems to have been valued in large measure as a means of divining the efficacy of such rites [i.e. chanhui], which during this time were beginning to form the core of Chinese Buddhist liturgical life” (2012, 11). Greene’s study centers on two texts in order to elucidate the connection between repentance rites and meditation in Chinese Buddhist concerns about the efficacy of practice. He thus follows up on themes introduced in the earlier works mentioned above, particularly Stevenson’s dissertation, where soteriological and psychological links between meditation and repentance practice in Chinese Buddhist texts of the fifth and sixth centuries are discussed at length. Tracking some of the same themes, in my 1998 dissertation and subsequent 2007 work The Mystique of Transmission, I identified fifth- and sixth-century precepts and repentance liturgies and related visualization practices, as well as texts on spiritual causes and remedies for disease, as contributing to a uniquely Chinese Buddhist discourse on meditation that influenced the emergence of a distinctive Chan ideology of practice in the eighth century. Here, further expanding on the connections between repentance ritual, buddha-response, and buddha-nature, I compare different modes of confessional “addressing the mind.”

MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra

The MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra (Mohemoye jing 㐑姞㐑俞䴻, 6Ǎtra of the Buddha’s Mother MahƘPƘ\Ƙ) is said to have been translated by the monk Tanjing 㙯㘗, active during the southern Xiao Qi 唕滲 dynasty (479–502). It includes a brief version of the story of quarreling monks that became one of the framing episodes for the “decline of the Dharma” motif. However, the passage carved inside Dazhusheng cave is taken from a different part of the text and centers on individual liberation rather than eschatology. The Buddha’s mother MahƘPƘ\Ƙ is the main speaker; we see her receiving her son’s prophesy that she will attain the first of the stages leading to final nirvƘԜa, that of ğrotƘpanna: stream-winner. Though the prediction is couched in terms of the pre-MahƘ\Ƙna path, it is presented in the manner of a bodhicitta-like moment that both initiates and encompasses fulfillment of the path. This is followed by the assembly’s prayer for the liberation of all beings.

In the following selections from the inscribed passage, we see the mind, specifically the volitional mind (xinyi ⽫ シ ), “addressed” by the longsuffering speaker:

At that time the World-Honored One saw from afar that his mother had come and she was paying homage in her heart. Her body shook like the agitation of the four great seas stirred by the Kings of Mount Sumeru. When the TathƘgata had seen his mother thus, he used the BrƘhmanical Voice to say to her: “What your body is going through is entirely caught up in sorrow and joy. You should cultivate nirvƘԜa and forever transcend sorrow and joy.” When MahƘPƘ\Ƙ heard the Buddha's words, she joined her palms and bowed her head and contemplated this wholeheartedly. Kneeling before the Buddha, she prostrated herself to the ground. She concentrated her efforts in mindfulness, and all entanglements subsided. Then she spoke verses of praise to the Buddha: “For countless eons you have been drinking my milk and have thus transcended birth, old age and death, attaining the peerless Way. You should repay my kindness in raising you by cutting off the root of my three poisons. I take refuge in the Great Hero, the unstinting benevolent one. I take refuge in the Master Tamer, the highest unsurpassable one. I take refuge in the Teacher of Gods and Men, forever parted from the bonds of ignorance and lust. Morning and night in each of the three times of day this recollection is not cut off, I prostrate and make obeisance to the supreme Great Dharma King. Now in your field of blessings I want to grow the seedlings of merit, I pray only that you bestow your mercy and speedily cause me to achieve the wondrous fruit. I have long had this great purpose, and thus I birthed in the palace of a great king a huge body the color of the finest gold, its radiance illuminating the ten directions, with face completely round and pure like the full moon of autumn.”

. . . . the Buddha due to his supramundane powers recognized her destiny. Because of the confluence of good roots and pure practice, [MahƘPƘ\Ƙ] would break the ties of eighty million burning [[[defilements]]] and achieve the fruit of the stream-winner. At this she raised her joined palms and said to the Buddha: “[From] the prison of birth and death, the confirmation of escape!” When the great assembly had the opportunity to hear these words, with one voice they said: “We pray that all beings attain liberation, just as MahƘPƘ\Ƙ has done right now!” Then MahƘPƘ\Ƙ said to the Buddha: “It is like a fierce fire heating hot iron—if one touches it, one's body and mind [[[experience]]] burning pain. Life and death in the world are also like this, what comes and goes are all accumulations of suffering. The basis of the sufferings of the ordinary masses all stem from their volitions. Following desires impetuously, they deceive the many beings. They revolve through the Five Paths and suffer the harsh winds [of karma]. It is like a play.”

Then in front of the Buddha, MahƘPƘ\Ƙ castigated her own volitions, saying: “Why do you always do what is unbeneficial? Wandering in the realm of the six senses you do not settle, chaotic imaginings drag you along without ever ceasing. What can be discriminated is all inauspicious. Why do you delude me and then allow [[[delusions]]] to collect there?

. . . . “In an instant you cause me to [live] in a heavenly palace, with sweet dew as my food and drink, indulging myself with the five desires. In an instant you cause me to be stuck in hell, drinking molten copper and swallowing balls of hot iron. Just from my past lives as an ox, [one could] pile up the skins as high as Mount Sumeru.

. . . . “You stupid volitions, though you have already repeatedly gone through the five desires of all the worlds, [enjoying] gold, silver, precious things, wives, children, female slaves and servants, elephants, horses, carriages, residences, property, and peopled towns, all quickly perishes and everything is impermanent; temporarily owned by someone, [all possessions] will eventually wear away. It is like resting in an inn without a settled host. . . . .

“You stupid volitions, since long ago you have pulled me along, going and coming everywhere, and I have always submitted, never disobeyed. Today, I wish to concentrate on hearing the Dharma, [so] do not turn back to vexations or become obstructions. You yourselves also ought to be disgusted and want to transcend all sufferings, speedily seek nirvƘԜa, and quickly obtain peace and joy.”7

7 Corresponding to T 383, 12: 1005b16–1006a25. The translation is from the following text, based on in situ examination at Dazhusheng cave and checked against Lee (1998, 41–2).

䇦㗪ᶾ⮲态夳㭵Ἦℏ㆟㫋㔔冱幓≽㎾⤪枰⻴Ⱉ䌳⍲⚃⣏㴟溻≽ᷳ䚠Ḷ㗪⤪Ἦ 㖊夳㭵军ὧẍ㡝枛侴䘥㭵妨幓㇨䴻 / 嗽冯劎㦪ᾙ䔞ᾖ㴭㥫㯠暊劎㦪䇦㗪㐑 姞㐑俞倆ἃ㬌婆⎰㌴Ỷ柕ᶨ⽫⿅ょ攟嶒ἃ⇵Ḽ橼㈽⛘⮰䱦㬋⾝媠丷㴰ặ⌛㕤 ἃ⇵ẍ῰孂㚘㰅⽆㖈㔠≓ / ⿺梚ㆹḛ㯩㓭暊䓇侩㬣⼿ㆸ㖈ᶲ忻⭄ㅱ⟙】梲 㕟ㆹᶱ㭺㛔㬠␥⣏ᶰ⣓㖈屒よ㕥侭㬠␥婧⽉⢓㚨ᶲ㖈傥忶ˤ㬠␥⣑Ṣⷓ㯠暊 / 䘉ッ䷃㘐⣄⎬ᶱ㗪⾝゛ᶵ㕟䳽䧥椾柕朊䥖㖈ᶲ⣏㱽䌳Ṳ㕤㰅䤷䓘㫚攟≇⽟剥ⓗ栀㕥ヰず忇Ẍㆸ⥁㝄ᷭ㚱㬌⣏⽿㓭䓇⣏䌳 / ⭖ⶐ幓䳓慹刚⃱㖶䄏⋩㕡 朊尴〱⚻㶐䋞⤪䥳㺧㚰䇦㗪ᶾ⮲⌛䘥㭵妨媎倥媎倥┬⿅⾝ᷳ⇅ᷕ⼴┬℞佑㶙 怈℞婆ⶏ⥁䲼ᶨ㖈暄℟嵛㶭䘥 / 㡝埴ᷳ䚠㐑姞㐑俞倆㬌婆ẍἃ䤆≃㓭⌛嬀 ⭧␥⸞ẍ┬㟡䲼䅇㗪㓭䟜ℓ⋩€㳆䅫ᷳ䳸⼿枰旨㳡㝄⌛崟⎰㌴侴䘥ἃ妨䓇㬣 䈊䋬⶚嫱妋僓㗪㚫⣏䛦倆 / 㬌婆⶚䔘⎋⎴枛侴ἄ㗗妨栀ᶨ↯䛦䓇䘮⼿妋僓 ⤪Ṳ䎦⛐㐑姞㐑俞㗪㐑姞㐑俞侴䘥ἃ妨嬔⤪䋃䀓䅺㕤䅙揝劍㚱妠侭幓⽫䃎䖃 ᶾ攻䓇㬣Ṏ⽑⤪㗗㇨ / ⼨Ἦ嗽䘮㗗劎倂↉普劎㛔䘮䓙⽫シ晐㫚庽帩㇚⌉䛦 䓇廒廱Ḽ忻䕦㕤䋃桐䋞⤪㉵杈㗪㐑姞㐑俞⌛㕤ἃ⇵侴冒⇳屔℞⽫シ妨㰅ⷠỽ 㓭ἄ朆⇑䙲 / 忲ℕ⠝⠫侴ᶵ⬱⭂Ḫ゛ḳ㋥㖈㗪㙓ṕ㇨⎗䶋ㄖ䘮朆⎱䤍ỽ㓭 ㆾㆹ侴ὧ普⼤嬔⤪㚱Ṣ⿺⡦㕤⛘侴⼤⣏⛘㛒㚦㎵䙲䃞℞侽☐㖍⯙㴰㭨⛐䓇㬣 㴟Ṏ / ⽑⤪㗗⿺㡬幓␥ᶵ⎗䧙庱侴ㆹ䤆嬀⇅ᶵ⡆㷃㰅傥Ẍㆹἄ廱廒俾䌳䴙 ⚃⣑ᶳᶫ⮞℟嵛枰冦Ẍㆹ徨䁢圎坮枰冦Ẍㆹἄ屏岌Ṣ㜙大楛崘㯪Ḇ堋梇枰 / 冦Ẍㆹἄ⣏攟侭䧵屉ⶐ€⎵䧙㘖倆枰冦Ẍㆹ⛐⣑⭖㭧梚梇䓀曚Ḽ㫚冒》枰冦 Ẍㆹ⯭㬊⛘䋬梚㕤圵戭⏆䅙揝ᷠㆹỮ忶⍣㚦䴻䈃幓䧵倂℞䙖檀枰⻴ / Ⱉ䋞 㕤䓇㬣㛒⼿妋僓枰冦⽑䌚㖈慷⎵⫿ㆾ㚘⣏⭞ㆾ㚘⁽ἧㆾ㚘廱廒俾䌳ㆾ㚘ⷅ䌳 ㆾ㚘⣑漵⣄⍱Ḧ斍⧮旧ᾖ伭徎㦻伭䵲恋伭㐑䜢伭ụṢ⍲朆Ṣ / ㆾ㚘䔄䓇ㆾ 㚘梻櫤ㆾ㚘⛘䋬䛦䓇㚱⤪㗗䫱䧖䧖⎵嘇㰅䘉⽫シ晾⽑㚦䴻℟ᶾḼ㫚慹戨媠䍵 ⥣⫸⤜⨊尉楔干Ḁ⯳况䓘⬭Ṣ㮹倂句⮳䘮㔋㹭ℙ⯙㖈 / ⷠ㙓䁢⶙㚱㚫㬠䢐 㹭䋞劍㕭况ㅑ㖈⭂ᷣᶲ军媠⣑Ḽ㫚冒⛐䤷䚉冐䳪Ḽ䚠䎦㗪⽀⼲栏ㆨ⽫㆟ォ劎 ⍲⛐Ṣᷕġ 屏䩖ᶳ岌䁢Ṣ / ㇨ἧ劍⯭䌳ỵḺ䚠妶Ẹ / ⏃冋䇞⫸䪞ℙ㭀㹭ᶳ军

This passage graphically describes the consequences of the incessant flow of self-obsessed volitional thought, that which is conditioned and produces further conditioning. It evokes the wide range of sufferings to which the karma-bound are subject. Most importantly, it places the responsibility for suffering squarely on the sufferer’s own shoulders, in her own head. The audience is shown that the true purpose of repentance is not the Sisyphean task of scrubbing away the karmic residue of endlessly arising transgressions. Rather, attention is drawn to one’s own constructions as the source of the continual reinforcement and recreation of the afflictive patterns that bind all beings to delusion. The MahƗPƗ\Ɨ thus provides scriptural support for one of the practices that Baoshan co-founder Lingyu emphasized: chanhui, confession and repentance practice. Let us look at the Dazhusheng liturgy that makes Lingyu’s praxicology more explicit. Chanhui wen

The repentance liturgy here referred to as the Chanhui wen (Lue li qijie foming chanhui deng wen 䔍䥖ᶫ昶ἃ⎵ㆢ〼䫱㔯 , The Text of the Abridged Confession and Repentance for Venerating Buddha Names in Seven Stages) is inscribed at the farthest west end of the lower register to the west (left) when one faces the Dazhusheng doorway. The apparent source of the confessional script is the Jueding pini jing 㰢 ⭂ 㮀 ⯤ 䴻 (Vinayaviniğcaya- UpƘliparipΩcchƘ-sǍtra, SǍtra of the Inquiry of UpƘli Regarding Determination of the Vinaya), a portion of which is closely reproduced.8 The wall includes

/ ⛘䋬Ⰸ√䅺䄖䔄䓇ᷳᷕ / 㚜䚠⏆⭛䙖倱䫳≃⃇℞ / ⭧⁝䁢㤕㇨忤ᶵ⼿冒 ⛐ / 梻櫤ᷳᷕ梊㷜㇨忤㜙大 / 楛崘ⓗ夳䀓倂⍲䅙揝廒 / 攟晐℞⼴Ḽ忻䓇㬣 㚱⤪ / 㗗䫱䧖䧖䛦劎ᶵ⎗䧙妰 / 㰅䘉⽫シ⼨㖼⶚Ἦ攟䈥 / 㕤ㆹ⍣Ἦ媠嗽⿺ 䚠枮⽆ / ⇅㛒忽䔘ㆹ㕤Ṳ㖍㫚⮰ / 倥㱽⊧⽑゙Ḫ侴䁢晄䣁 / Ṏ⭄冒ㅱ⍕暊媠劎忇㯪 / 㴭㥫 , 䕦䌚⬱㦪㗪㐑 / 姞㐑俞⌛㕤ἃ⇵侴婒῰妨 / ⓗ栀㲐㱽暐 㳥㼌㕤㝗㥩 / 㘖䓇㱽厴剥 / 攳䘤㻠㹳⍿ / Ẍㆹ⍲䛦㚦┬㟡㘖䲼䅇 / ㆾ㕤媠忻㝄㫉䫔晐㇨䌚 / 栀㗪㕥䓀曚㴰㹭屒。⍇

8 Jueding pini jing, T 325, 12: 39a7–27, said to have been translated by Dharmarakԕa 䪢㱽嬟 (265–ca. 313) at the end of the third century. However, Bruce Williams points out that the term “chanhui” did not come into use until ca. 400 and speculates that Dharmakԕema 㙯䃉嬾 (ca. 385–433) may have been the translator (2002, 34 n. 32). There are two related texts that may have been based on a written form of the Dazhusheng liturgy: the Dunhuang text Lüe li qijie foming chanhui deng wen (Beijing 8344/yu ⬯ 16), and a section of Zhisheng’s collection of liturgies compiled in 730, the Ji zhujing chanhui yi, T 1982, 47: two other scriptural sources with supplemental lists of buddha names that seem to have been intended to be recited as part of a ceremony. The Dazhusheng Chanhui wen begins with homage to the groups of buddhas individually named in the adjacent inscriptions. The confession and repentance begins with the line “I/We take refuge and repent” (guiming chanhui 㬠␥ㆢ〼)9 and proceeds with a comprehensive catalogue of the categories of offenses that the practitioner may have committed in this and previous lifetimes. In the course of this litany the practitioner prays that the buddhas to whom she has confessed will “compassionately recollect me/us” (cinian wo ヰ⾝ㆹ) and “should recollect me/us” (yinian wo ㅞ⾝ㆹ). The repentance concludes with prayers for merit transfer and collective refuge. . . . .

I take refuge and confess [and repent]:

“May all the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, of these many kinds of worlds who constantly reside in this world,10 may these World-Honored Ones compassionately recollect me. I now in all cases repent those obstructing offenses which I have committed: the mass of offenses which I have committed in this life or in previous lives since beginningless time, no matter whether I have done them, instructed others to do them, or seen them done and taken pleasure in that; . . . . Now all the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, should bear witness to and know me; should recollect me.”

456b27–457a27. For overviews of the development of repentance texts in China, see Kuo (1994); Wang (1998); Williams (2002). Besides the Jueding pini jing, early translations and apocrypha that served as key sources for repentance practice included the Banzhou sanmei jing 凔 凇 ᶱ 㗏 䴻 (PratyutpannabuddhasaΥmukhƘvasthitasamƘdhi-sǍtra, a.k.a. BhadrapƘla-sǍtra), translated by Lokakԕema in the late second century (T 418, 13); the Jinguangming jing 慹⃱㖶䴻 (SuvarΧaprabhƘsottama-sǍtra, 6Ǎtra of Golden Light), translated by Dharmakԕema (T 663, 16); and the Fanwang jing 㡝䵚䴻 (BrahmajƘla-sǍtra, 6Ǎtra of Brahma's Net), probably compiled in Central Asia or China around 430–480 (T 1484, 24).

9 In the Dazhusheng carving the character 〼 is missing, but it occurs in the corresponding Jueding pini jing text.

10 The line ⤪㗗䫱ᶨ↯ᶾ䓴媠ἃᶾ⮲ⷠỷ⛐ᶾ is from the Jueding pini jing, T

325, 12: 39a7; see Lee (1998, 39). This was the source for practices focused on the thirty-five buddhas of confession, and the inclusion of this line is an important indication that practitioners felt themselves to be accessing forms of buddha-presence in this world, not distant in space or time. Again, before all the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, I say:

“If I, in this life, or other lives, have ever practiced giving alms or kept the pure precepts, even to the extent that I have donated one morsel of food to an animal or practiced pure conduct, may these roots of goodness which I have bring sentient beings to maturity, may these roots of goodness which I have cultivate bodhi, may these roots of goodness which I have extend to ultimate wisdom, may these roots of goodness which I have, may they all, the whole accumulated, compared, reckoned, or calculated amount, be transferred to Supreme Ultimate Enlightenment. Just as what the past, future, and present buddhas have done has been transferred, I also likewise transfer.11 The merit from confessing and repenting all my transgressions, sympathetically delighting in all blessings [of others], and inviting the buddhas, I vow to dedicate to the accomplishment of supreme wisdom. The past, future, and present buddhas are among sentient beings the most superlative; in the immeasurable sea of their merit [I] take refuge, making obeisance with joined palms.”12

11 The translation up to this point is from Williams (2002, 123–4), with minor modifications; see pp. 124–36 for a discussion of sources and related texts. Lee (1998, 39) has a transcription of the text based on the rubbing at Academica Sinica and filled in lacunae by consulting Zhisheng’s version; Williams consulted her transcription and the Dunhuang text.

12 In the following transcription of the Dazhusheng inscription, characters in parentheses are supplemented from the Jueding pini jing, T 325, 12: 39a7–27.

ㆢ炷〼⤪炸㗗䫱ᶨ↯ᶾ䓴媠ἃᶾ⮲ⷠỷ⛐ᶾ / 㗗炷栀媠炸ᶾ⮲䔞ヰ⾝ㆹ劍 ㆹ㬌䓇劍ㆹ⇵䓇⽆㖈 / ⥳䓇㬣⶚Ἦ㇨ἄ䛦伒劍冒ἄ劍㔁Ṿἄ / 夳ἄ晐╄劍 ⟼劍₏⚃㕡₏䈑劍冒⍾劍㔁Ṣ / ⍾夳⍾晐╄ㆾἄḼ微㖈攺慵伒劍冒ἄ劍㔁 / Ṿἄ夳ἄ晐╄⋩ᶵ┬忻冒ἄ㔁Ṿἄ夳ἄ晐╄ / ㇨炷ἄ伒炸惋ㆾ㚱央啷ㆾᶵ 央啷ㅱ晐⛘䋬梻櫤 / 䔄䓇⍲媠ら嵋怲⛘ᶳ岌⍲⻍㇦干⤪㗗䫱嗽 / ㇨ἄ伒惋 Ṳ䘮ㆢ〼Ṳ媠ἃᶾ⮲䔞嫱䞍ㆹ䔞 / ㅞ⾝ㆹ⽑㈝媠ἃᶾ⮲⇵ἄ⤪㗗妨劍ㆹ㬌 / 䓇劍㕤检䓇㚦埴ⶫ㕥ㆾ⬰㶐ㆺᷫ军㕥冯䔄 / 䓇ᶨ㎋ᷳ梇ㆾ僑㶐埴㇨㚱┬㟡 ㆸ⯙埮䓇㇨㚱┬㟡僑埴厑㍸㇨㚱┬㟡⍲㖈ᶲ Ŝ㘢㇨㚱┬ / 㟡ᶨ↯⎰普妰㟉䯴 慷〱䘮徜⎹旧俐⣂伭 / ᶱ啸ᶱ厑㍸⤪忶⍣㛒Ἦ䎦⛐媠ἃ㇨ἄ徜 / ⎹ㆹṎ⤪ 㗗徜⎹䛦伒䘮ㆢ〼媠䤷䚉晐 / ╄⍲婳ἃ≇⽟栀ㆸ㖈ᶲ㘢⍣Ἦ䎦⛐ἃ㕤 / 埮 䓇㚨⊅㖈慷≇⽟㴟㬠ὅ⎰㌴䣤]

The final section in bold typeface is not in Lee (1998) or Williams (2002), but is found in the Ji zhujing chanhui yi, T 1982, 47: 457a24–27 at the end of Zhisheng’s version of the repentance liturgy. These lines were recorded at Dazhusheng cave in July of 2005, when I spent two weeks copying and photographing the inscriptions with the invaluable help of Shen Ruiwen 㰰䜧㔯,

Moving toward the cave door from this liturgy and vow, the practitioner is provided with additional panels of inscriptions listing the names of the buddhas of the ten directions, the names of the thirty-five buddhas of confession from the Jueding pini jing, and the names of the fifty-three buddhas. The lists of ten and fifty-three buddhas are from the Guan Yaowang Yaoshang er pusa jing 奨喍䌳喍ᶲḴ厑啑䴻 (6Ǎtra on Visualizing the Two Bodhisattvas BhaiΙajyarƘja and BhaiΙajyasamudgata).13 The upper register has an additional list of twenty-five buddha names from the Foming jing ἃ⎵ 䴻 (6Ǎtra of Buddha-Names).14 The combined eighty-eight buddhas (fiftythree and thirty-five) of repentance have continued to serve as a popular liturgical framework over the centuries. The many buddha names and images inscribed outside and inside Dazhusheng cave could be apprehended together to represent the buddhas described in the Chanhui wen liturgy collectively and synchronically, a cosmic array not limited to a particular Pure Land or a particular time. Evoked as a comprehensive collectivity, each grouping also represents a specific function. The buddhas of the ten directions provide a basis for a maԜԑala-like visualization of space, the seven buddhas of the past prompt the practitioner to recollect previous cycles of regeneration and decline of the Dharma,15 the fifty-three buddhas from the Guan Yaowang Yaoshang er pusa jing signify purification of transgressions (Rऺsch 2008), and the thirty-five buddhas from the Jueding pini jing serve as witnesses for the repentance ritual.

The Dazhusheng Chanhui wen is an early Chinese version of the Seven Stage BuddhanƘma (Qijie foming ᶫ昶ἃ⎵), a liturgical format based on Indian precedents that became standard in China. Stevenson (1987, 249–464) provides in-depth discussion of this genre in the context of a wide range of fifth- and sixth-century devotional liturgies that center on or incorporate

a professor in the archaeology department of Peking University, and his wife Wang Jing 䌳朁, a professor at Renmin University. When we were making our notes and included these lines, I did not realize that the entire portion in brackets, above, is apparently not legible in the Academica Sinica rubbing. I would like to go back and recheck the inscription but have not had the opportunity.

13 T 1161, 20: 662a2–8, 663c8–29.

14 T 441, 14: 159c14–161c1.

15 Many early Buddhist sources contain a standard list of six past buddhas: Vipassư/Vipağyin, Sikhi/Ğikhin, VessabhǍ/ViğvabhǍ, Kakusandha/Krakucchanda, KoԜƘgamana/KonƘkamuni/Kanaka, Kassapa/KƘğyapa. Versions are found at BhƘrhut, ca. 2nd cent. BCE; SƘñcư ca. 1st cent. BCE; and the MahƘvadƘna-sǍtra (DN 14). repentance practice. He identifies three lenses through which to examine devotional rituals of the period in question, namely: (1) internal form and procedure, (2) contextual setting and pattern of usage, and (3) relevant broader soteriological themes (Stevenson 1987, 254). In “Seeing Through Images: Reconstructing Meditative Visualization Practice in Sixth-Century Northeastern China,” Bruce Williams (2005) discusses the Seven Stage BuddhanƘma form in the context of Baoshan as an instantiation of Dilun soteriology. Both Stevenson and Williams demonstrate the intricate connections among ritual elaborations developed in subsequent Sanjie ᶱ昶

(Three Levels), Jingtu 㶐 ⛇ (Pure Land), and Tiantai ⣑ 冢 practiceorientations.

Did practitioners of different sorts come together to chant the writing on the wall at Dazhusheng cave, or was it a symbolic representation of doing the practice in totality and in perpetuity? Perhaps both, but I suggest that Lingyu and his followers did intend this to be a script for practice done in situ. Monks and nuns who had memorized the liturgy and buddha names may have led the  

performance. The mountainside terrace in front of the cave could have served as a platform for repentance and bodhisattva precepts ceremonies. One estimates that the terrace could accommodate about thirty-five people, if the extra space needed to perform prostrations is taken into account. This cave may also have been used for individual intensive repentance and visualization practice. In the vicinity of Yingjue ㅱ奢 temple near Ye— Lingyu’s home monastery and a major Buddhist center during the Northern Qi—there is a small cave temple with features very similar to those of Dazhusheng. This is Cave Three of Fenglongshan 桐漵Ⱉ, which, according to Li Yuqun (1998, 67–75), appears to have been carved in the latter part of the sixth century, probably earlier than Dazhusheng. Like Dazhusheng, it has three main niches with Vairocana, AmitƘbha, and Maitreya, as well as smaller niches with the thirty-five buddhas from the Jueding pini jing in a different arrangement.

Petra Rösch (forthcoming) argues that the caves at Fenglongshan and Dazhusheng cave could have served as separate chambers for recitation of the buddha names and confession liturgy at the prescribed six times of the day and night. According to the Jueding pini jing, the ritual was to be practiced in an isolated place (duchu 䌐嗽) while visualizing the buddhas of confession, until the appearance of the buddhas confirmed that the practitioner had achieved purification: “A bodhisattva thus visualizes (guan 奨 ) these thirty-five buddhas as if they were in front of him/her, and contemplates (siwei ⿅ょ) the merit of the TathagƘta. He/she ought to perform this pure confession and repentance; if the bodhisattva is able to completely purify these transgressions, at that time the buddhas will reveal their bodies for him/her.”

Dilun Repentance Verses

Repentance formulae and bodhisattva precepts vows functioned as mutually reinforcing performative utterances, believed to actualize the salvific power of the act of committing to the bodhisattva path. Acknowledging one’s past negative actions and praying to the buddhas to aid in removing karmic residue was an important initial stage of the path. This gained critical importance in Dilun soteriology, for the power of repentance to remove kleğa meant that it gave access to the tathƘgatagarbha, and in the context of final-age ideology this endeavor was considered urgent.

Williams argues that the Dilun monks active in Ye during the Northern Qi developed a rather concrete notion of what it meant to achieve buddhahood. He demonstrates that the Dilun translators and exegetes promoted the notion that repentance rituals not only renewed bodhisattva vows and removed the effects of past evil deeds (karma), but even eliminated the kleğas that condition one’s actions. This was a radical claim that meant repentance itself could effect liberation (2002, 152–58). Further, he draws attention to the unusually explicit meditative visualization instructions given in the Guanfo sanmei hai jing 奨 ἃ ᶱ 㗏 㴟 䴻 (6Ǎtra on the Ocean-Like SamƘdhi of

Contemplating the Buddha), a text in the family of visualization scriptures to which the Baoshan-inscribed Guan Yaowang Yaoshang er pusa jing belongs. The Guanfo sanmei hai jing recommends repeated purification through repentance in order to achieve clear visualization of the marks of the buddhas. At the same time, monks were aware of the need to rationalize this in terms of the PrajñƘSƘramitƘ-based emptiness discourse that was integral to the Madhyamaka and YogƘFƘra treatises they studied. Williams discusses a commentary that addresses this issue, the Jin’gang xian lun 慹 ∃ ẁ 婾 ([VajrağUư’s?] Commentary on the VajracchedikƘ). Taking up the Diamond 6Ǎtra’s repudiation of knowing and accessing buddhas through visualization of their marks, the commentary proposes two kinds of dharma-body. Williams summarizes: “Here the ‘dharmakƘya of the dharma-nature’ (faxing fashen 㱽 ⿏㱽幓; Skt. dharmatƘdharmakƘya) was distinguished from the ‘dharmakƘya of expediency’ (fangbian fashen 㕡ὧ㱽幓; Skt. upƘyadharmakƘya). The dharmakƘya of the dharma-nature is the dharmakƘya in its ultimate nature. The dharmakƘya of expediency is the dharmakƘya that responds to activities and includes both the sambhogakƘya and nirmƘΧakƘya” (2005, 58). In the Baoshan context, Lingyu’s understanding of the way that repentance accesses expedient buddha-responsiveness and the ultimate dharmadhƘtu is captured in a repentance poem/prayer attributed to him in the Fayuan zhulin 㱽剹䎈㜿 (Jade Grove of the Dharma Garden), entitled Zongchan shi’e jiwen ䷥ㆢ⋩ら῰㔯 (Verses on Comprehensive Repentance for the Ten Evil

Deeds). This is the second half of the text:
ӵፏҍၴٰ [I] violate the TathƘgata’s ృమϪ΋י pure precepts.
༮࡟ᆶང኉ Resentment and regret, love and hate— คЈԶόԖ never has my heart been without them. ࢂ࿾ऩόᝍ If I do not repent this misconduct, ڹߏ⡗ԾЈ through the long night [of saԲVƘra] it poisons my mind.
ᑈ⡗Զός If its noxious fumes accumulate without end, ᡂԋӦᅢೀ it will turn into a place in hell, धፏᆶϷڀ complete with instruments of torture. Օፏܭᅟਔ At that time even all the buddhas
ࣣ஼όૈ௱ will be utterly unable to save [me],
୤ନԾว៛ unless I myself reveal ܌೷ፏཐگ the blameworthy acts I have done.
ᔈՕ๦ᙓЈ By responding to the mind of the buddhas and bodhisattvas,
ృҁ໩ᒿ܄ and following one’s originally pure nature, คۈਔคܴ beginningless ignorance ԾԜᅌ༾ᖓ from then on gradually weakens.
ࢂࡺᚶᄏཎ Therefore I take my shame to heart,
ుЈ৷ፏ࿾ and with profound mind I repent all transgressions.
ՕᜫܫཁӀ I beseech the buddhas to spread the radiance of their compassion
ྣϷध౲ғ and shine it on suffering beings;
܌Ԗྠඊᆫ make the kleğas accumulated ࣣз஼੃ྐ all entirely disappear.
Ծ܄మృЈ One’s own nature, pure mind,
ԿԜவزഖ from this reaches its ultimate [[[state]]],
੿฻ѳݤࣚ the undifferentiated absolute dharmadhƘtu,
ܭϞள༝ᅈ and attains perfection now.

Lingyu evokes the suffering of the unliberated vividly, highlighting one’s own chaotic emotions and willful actions as the source, also the theme of the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ passage. The verses provide a step-by-step explanation of the spiritual physics of repentance. If one is able to realize and render transparent one’s transgressions through sincere repentance, one’s own pure nature innately responds to the mind of the buddhas. The responsive compassion of the buddhas then eliminates kleğas, the latent habitual unwholesome or delusory patterns that keep one in bondage. The elimination of these obscuring patterns of behavior then removes the errors of perception that are the only barrier to enlightenment and the ultimate buddha-realm, undifferentiated dharmadhƘtu. “Southern Branch” Dilun monks were particularly interested in scriptures that expounded on tathƘgatagarbha (innate potential buddha-nature). They were influenced by ParamƘrtha’s 䛇媎 (499–569) YogƘFƘra commentaries on the nature of the fundamental consciousnesses, ƘlayavijñƘna (storehouse) and amalavijñƘna (pure, equivalent to dharmadhƘtu). Practice of chanhui for the elimination of defilements became a key focus of practice, as removal of accrued negative patterns of thought and action allowed one’s fundamental affinity/identity with buddha-nature to be actualized.

Abandoning the technical language of YogƘFƘra scriptures and commentaries (Williams 2002, 153–5), Lingyu’s poem provides images of psychical-physical processes: transgressions are revealed in the mirror of selfdisclosure/buddha-gaze, this is accomplished through the innate resonance between buddhas and buddha-nature, and kleğas disappear through the catalytic effect of the buddhas’ compassion. He evokes the emergence of the tortures of hell out of toxic emotions as though this were a natural effect rather than a mandated punishment. He then describes the mind’s gradual purification following the mutually responsive, mirror-like awareness generated in repentance.

For Lingyu, the power of kleğas gradually weakens, while his fellow Dilun monk Tanqian 㙯怟 (542–607) used an image of instant transformation for a similar effect. In Tanqian’s repentance poem, the Shie chanwen ⋩らㆢ㔯 (Text of Confession for the Ten Evil Deeds), an image suggesting alchemical transformation is used to express the sudden effect of repentance: “From beginningless time the ten unwholesome acts are all produced from the perverted perspective of kleğas. Now, because of relying on the strength of the true perspective of buddha-nature (foxing zhengjian ἃ⿏㬋夳), I publicly confess and repent (falu chanhui 䘤曚ㆢ〼) and [my transgressions] are thereby extirpated. It is like a bright pearl thrown into turbid water; through the power and virtue of the pearl the water immediately becomes transparent. The power and virtue of buddha-nature is just like this.”

For Lingyu and Tanqian, it is confession that enables the resonant response/identity between the buddhas and buddha-nature, which initiates fundamental change. This resonance was also meant to be realized in the merit-field of collective and public ritual. Like the opening up and clearing away of the mind in repentance, the generous expenditure of one’s limited physical and material resources actualized membership in collective vows that accessed the inexhaustible merit-field of the buddhas. Links between generosity, buddha-presence, removing kleğas, and becoming a buddha are repeated themes in the other scriptural passages carved at Dazhusheng.

Reinforced by the Sanjie, Jingtu, and Tiantai movements, variations on this soteriology established repentance practice as a fundamental Buddhist practice during the seventh century. In a previous work I explored a few of the connections between Sanjie and the nascent Chan movement (Adamek 2007, 120–8). Here I suggest that Sanjie and Chan represent two extremes in the spectrum of repentance-centered soteriology, a soteriology deeply influenced by the Dilun masters. I am not arguing for a chain of genealogical influences carried through specific texts and individuals, though certain links can be traced. I argue that Chan successfully usurped a field of practice that had been dominated by repentance. In Chan’s well-known criticisms of (1) repentance, (2) cleansing of kleğas, and (3) seeking signs of buddha-response, there may have been more at stake than elitist rejection of credulous popular Buddhism. Rather, these signature criticisms could indicate that the power of these practices was still at work within the soteriology of realizing one’s own buddha-nature. I suggest that scapegoating these practices may have served to absolve Chan’s debts to the exegetical-devotional fervor of the sixth century. The intense soteriology of faith-based “buddha-becoming” was complex and difficult to sustain, but it shaped numerous subsequent developments and helped generate more streamlined forms of practice.

The complexity of individual confession and visualization practice promoted in texts like the Jueding pini jing was accompanied by large-scale collective devotions, which appears to have generated a variety of simplified forms. For example, a Sanjie practitioner who joined in communal offering even in a small way could access the merit-field of the buddhas and bodhisattvas. The Jingtu practitioner who recited the name of a single buddha could be reborn in the Pure Land. As has been extensively discussed by scholars of early Chan, we find comparable praxicological reductionism at work in eighth-century texts that contributed to the development of a distinctive Chan polemical style, as contending arguments for “one practice” and “formless practice” were advanced. The apocryphal VajrasamƘdhi-sǍtra is a pivotal text in this regard. Its tathƘgatagarbha-based teachings promote access to original enlightenment through contemplation practice, but it does not reject the devotional soteriology of access to the buddhas: “That virtuous one arouses the thought of bodhi at the sites of the [three] buddhas: that is, (1) the buddha endowed with all the meritorious qualities of the fruition, (2) the tathƘgatagarbhabuddha, and (3) the buddha as image” (Buswell 2007, 206).

Moreover, the final teaching in the VajrasamƘdhi-sǍtra is repentance:

“Oh son of good family! The mind of a person who encourages all sentient beings to keep this sǍtra will be constantly concentrated; he will never forget his original mind. If he forgets his original mind, he then must repent. The practice (dharma) of repentance produces clarity and coolness (ğưWưbhǍta).” Ɨnanda stated: “Repenting of previous evil deeds does not mean that they have receded into the past.” The Buddha responded: “So it is. It is like bringing a bright lamp into a dark room: the darkness instantly vanishes. Oh son of good family! We do not say that we have repented from all previous evil deeds; and yet we still stay that they have receded into the past.” Ɨnanda asked: “What is meant by ‘repentance’?”

The Buddha replied, “By relying on the teachings of this sǍtra, one accesses the contemplation of true reality. As soon as one accesses that contemplation, all evil deeds will vanish completely. Leaving behind all evil destinies, one will be reborn in the Pure Land, where one will quickly achieve anuttarasamyaksaΥbodhi” (Buswell 2007, 306–7)

In his explication of this passage, Wǃnhyo ⃫㙱 (617–686) is careful to underline that it is the present flow from the seeds of past deeds in the ƘlayavijñƘna that is dispelled by repentance, not the deeds in the past, which are non-existent. He further distinguishes this from eradicating the fetters (figurative for the kleğas), the compulsions that would produce evil deeds in the future. So in one sense the role of repentance is limited to a provisional mop-up, rather than breaking the self-perpetuating patterns that produce the seeds. However, in the last words spoken by the Buddha in the sǍtra, repentance is folded into reliance on the sǍtra and accessing contemplation of true reality, which is the non-existence of evil deeds or destinies (Buswell 2007, 307). Repentance here signifies the non-distinction between relying on buddhawords as buddha-presence, and having faith in the buddha-nature of the mind. This pivotal reflexive resonance between refuge and self-realization is at the heart of tathƘgatagarbha discourse. It is at work in the Dazhusheng Chanhui wen prayer that the buddhas “nian wo ⾝ㆹ” (recollect me), the Sanjie practice of ren’e 娵ら (acknowledging the evil of one’s nature) and the Jingtu practice of nianfo ⾝ἃ (buddha-recollection).

I argue that this thread continues in the eighth-century Chan practice of wunian 䃉⾝ (no-thought) as the realization of buddha-nature. The tension and complementarity between wunian and nianfo is at the crux of the question of Chan’s claim to iconoclasm. Wunian, while claimed to be subitist rejection of meditation, nevertheless retained roots in nian as “buddha-recollection.” While in Japan wunian and nianfo would become hallmarks of sectarian division between Zen and Pure Land practice, in China and Korea many masters continued to advocate both and theorize their relationship. Eighth-century Chan works emphasized subitist focus on the pivotal nature of all practices: true repentance is realizing no-repentance, the true nature of the mind is no-thought. In these movements one can see the aspects of giving and receiving intention/attention functioning as a virtual “point” that is both the fervently practicing self and the purifying mirror of the buddhaother: both self-power and other-power, and neither. Lingyu’s buddhareflection through repentance and the later Chan reflexive non-reification of buddha-nature were both aimed at realization of original nonduality. While later practice traditions in Japan drew a firm line between devotion and introspection, in the next section I trace the ways that reflexive devotional soteriology turned inward and remained alive within Chan.

Chan and Repentance

The influence of Chinese tathƘgatagarbha and YogƘFƘra thought on Chan notions of buddha-nature has been well-explored. The important role played by bodhisattva precepts ceremonies, including their repentance aspects, in the formation of early Chan has been discussed by Yanagida Seizan, Paul Groner, John McRae, and others, including myself. I now focus more narrowly on a chain of references reinterpreting or rejecting repentance practice in early Chan literature. I argue that the soteriology of sixth-century repentance practice remained embedded in Chan soteriology through its very scapegoating of repentance. Tiantai Zhiyi’s work has been shown to be a formative influence in the development of Chan’s subitist ideology. Bernard Faure argued that the nascent Chan movement appropriated the highest level of Zhiyi’s classification of the teachings (“perfect and sudden”) and rejected the foundational levels (Faure 1986), and we see this pattern also in the case of repentance practice. In his Shi chan poluomi cidi famen 慳䥒㲊伭囄㫉䫔㱽 攨 (Explaining the Sequence of Teachings on the Perfection of Meditation), Zhiyi articulates three mutually-reinforcing and hierarchical acts in the repentance ritual. These three are (1) acknowledging one’s sins according to the Vinaya, (2) seeking miraculous signs attesting to the removal of karmic residue, and (3) meditating on the empty nature of sins. The first level was the tacitly accepted “HưnayƘna” foundation for the precepts. The second level, the seeking of signs, was the key element in many of the repentance and bodhisattva precepts texts. Within the ordered yet flexible logic of Zhiyi’s system, the ultimate third level or “truth of the middle” was manifested in practice of the two expedient levels while realizing their emptiness. This dialectic was offered in a dual form in the Mohe zhiguan 㐑姞㬊奨 (The Great Cessation and Insight), where Zhiyi distinguished between phenomenal repentance (shichan ḳㆢ) and repentance through principle (lichan 䎮ㆢ). Zhiyi’s higher levels did not exclude repentance ritual performance, but this would become the point of departure for Chan rhetoric demoting all phenomenal purification practices.

Paul Groner notes a trend that he calls the “professionalization” of bodhisattva precepts rituals in the eighth century, which were used to attain good luck in marriage, birth, and travel, and were also used in funerals and the dedication of new buildings (1990, 235). This ritual specialization, in which Tiantai monks were particularly active, appears to have contributed to the polarization of what had previously been complementary or synonymous: ritual and contemplative practice. Repentance liturgies continued to develop and proliferate, but antinomian rhetoric emphasizing the non-existence of defilements in realization of true mind began to establish its own oppositional trajectory.

Certain synchronicities are indicative of their differential cohabitation of the same milieux. For example, Zhisheng 㘢⋯ (active ca. 700–740) finished his compendium of repentance liturgies, the Jizhujing chanhui yi 普媠䴻䥖ㆢ ₨ (A Compilation of Repentance Rituals from the SǍtras) in 730, around the same time that Shenhui 䤆㚫 (684–758) was issuing the public challenge that launched the “Southern school” of Chan. Further, the coexistence of eighthand ninth- century repentance ritual texts and early Chan texts in the Dunhuang cache indicates their shared importance in that practice community. Tracing a series of discursive shifts in the treatment of repentance practice, we begin with Shenxiu’s 䤆䥨 (d. 706) Dasheng wusheng fangbian men ⣏ Ḁ䃉䓇㕡ὧ攨 (Teachings on the Expedient Means of Attaining Birthlessness in the MahƘ\Ƙna). It opens with a collective precepts ritual and a script for audience responses. The liturgy includes taking the buddhas and bodhisattvas as preceptors, repeating the precepts, and confessing and repenting. However, at the end the practitioner ritually repeats that the true nature of one’s own mind is the same as the nature of the precepts: “To maintain the bodhisattva precepts is to maintain the precepts of the mind, because the buddha-nature is the ‘nature of the precepts’ (jiexing ㆺ⿏). To activate the mind (qixin 崟⽫) for the briefest instant is to go counter to the buddha-nature, to break the bodhisattva precepts” (McRae 1986, 171–2). Here both the conventional and ultimate meanings of the precepts are retained.

However, Shenhui's subsequent critique of the Northern school targeted all practices aimed at purification, claiming that they contributed to misrecognition of the nature of the mind. As this critique gained force, true practice was redefined as the non-objectification of practice. Any accommodation of conventional practice became problematic. Yet, as Stevenson points out, even Shenhui recommended recitation of the Diamond 6Ǎtra in order to eradicate karmic impediments (1987, 361).

The late eighth-century Liuzu tanjing ℕ䣾⡯䴻 (Platform SǍtra of the Sixth Patriarch) provided a platform for a reformulation of practice on Shenhui’s terms, even if it did not support his claimed transmission status as Huineng’s ㄏ傥 (638–713) sole heir. In the Dharma talk following the story of his reception of the robe, Huineng, the putative sixth Chan patriarch, goes through four of the stages of a bodhisattva precepts ceremony. Each stage is reinterpreted as an aspect of taking the “formless precepts”: taking refuge in the three bodies of the buddhas, the four vows, repentance, and taking refuge in the Three Treasures (Yampolsky 1967, 141–6).

This is the passage on repentance: “Good friends, what is confession and repentance (chanhui ㆢ〼)? ‘Seeking forgiveness’ (chan) is, for one’s whole life, to not-do (bu zuo ᶵἄ). ‘Repentance’ (hui) is to know that the wrongs and evil deeds you have done in the past were never separate from mind. It is useless to verbally [confess] before the buddhas. In this teaching of mine, by not-doing to forever cease [wrongdoing] is called repentance.” “Not-doing” refers to not doing evil, shorthand for the first of the Three Pure Precepts based on the AvataΥsaka-sǍtra. Here, it is reinterpreted in the sense of nothought: to be free of action in the midst of action.

The most thorough-going Chan rejection of repentance is found in the Lidai fabao ji 㙮ẋ㱽⮞姀 (Record of the Dharma-Treasure through the Generations), compiled in ca. 780 by disciples of the Bao Tang ᾅⒸ founder Wuzhu 䃉ỷ (714–774). In the Lidai fabao ji, Wuzhu calls his fellow disciples raving idiots for wanting to practice the six daily periods of worship and repentance. In his instructions for practice he says: “Regard nonobstruction as repentance. Regard no-thought as the precepts, non-action and nothing to attain as meditation, and non-duality as wisdom. Do not regard the constructed ritual arena as the bodhimaΧΕa.” The Lidai fabao ji emphasizes wunian to the point of making it into a dhƘraΧi incantation, and Wuzhu’s signature teaching is “at the time of true no-thought, no thought itself is not.” Wuzhu firmly adheres to the principle that realization of no-thought is at once the emptiness of transgression and the perfection of the precepts.

Compiled in 801, the Baolin zhuan ⮞㜿⁛ (Transmission of the Baolin [[[Temple]]]) pinpoints repentance as the pivot of the exchange between the putative second and third Chan patriarchs, Huike ㄏ ⎗ (487–593) and Sengcan ₏䑐 (d.u.). Afflicted with a chronic ailment, Sengcan asks Huike to administer the rites of repentance for him. Performance of chanhui rites for those seeking relief from illness would have been one of the accepted functions of the clergy. Huike asks him to bring his transgression (zui 伒), and when Sengcan is unable to do so, Huike declares that he has administered repentance. This encounter was reproduced and expanded in the eleventh-century Jingde chuandeng lu 㘗⽟⁛䅰抬 (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp [compiled in] the Jingde era). More significantly, it is likely to have been the model for the famous Jingde chuandeng lu dialogue wherein Huike asks Bodhidharma to pacify his mind, to which Bodhidharma replies, “Bring me your mind.” Huike replies that he cannot find it anywhere, and Bodhidharma tells him that he has thus pacified his mind for him.

The “bring me your mind” and “bring me your transgression” motifs are also found in the Dunhuang text that Jeffrey Broughton calls Record II, in passages that purport to be Huike’s answers to a disciple’s questions: [[[Huike]] was asked] another question: “Teach me to quiet the mind.” He answered, “Bring your mind here and I will quiet it for you.” [The disciple] went on: “Just quiet my mind for me!” [[[Huike]]] answered,

“This is like asking a craftsman to cut out a garment. Once the craftsman gets your silk, then he can set his blade to work. Without having seen the silk, how could he have cut out the pattern from space for you? Since you are unable to present your mind to me, I don’t know what mind I shall quiet for you. I certainly am unable to quiet space!”

[The disciple] went on: “Administer confession and repentance for me.” [[[Huike]]] answered, “Bring your transgressions here, and I will administer confession and repentance for you.” [The disciple] went on: “Transgressions lack any characteristic of form that can be apprehended. I [don’t] know what to bring!” [[[Huike]]] answered, “My administration of confession and repentance to you is over. Go to your quarters.” Comment: If there is transgression one must confess and repent, but since one does not see transgression, it is unnecessary to confess and repent.

In the Huike material in the Baolin zhuan, Record II, and Jingde chuandeng lu dialogues, it is the indeterminability of the transgression and the “self” who committed it that is interrogated. Huike offers his arm to Bodhidharma and Sengcan presents his afflicted body to Huike, but both are stumped when it comes to bringing the “mind” or their transgressions. These episodes give flesh and blood to Chan antinomian claims, based in YogƘFƘra doctrine— that the discriminatory function of mind that produces “characteristics” (xiang 䚠) is the illusory locus of transgression and moral distinctions, and that once one ceases the production of characteristics in no-thought, one realizes the fundamental non-existence of transgressions.

In the famous “mirror” verses attributed to Shenxiu and Huineng in the Platform SǍtra (to which we will return at the end), the mirror-mind metaphor is used to reject the notion that there is any validity to practices bent on purifying the mind of “dust,” kleğas (Yampolsky 1967, 128–33). This is the antithesis of the use of the mirror in Lingyu’s verse, where removal of kleğas allows the practitioner’s mind to mirror the dharmadhƘtu. Instead, in the formative Chan polemic captured in the war of the verses in the Platform 6Ǎtra, emphasis on the non-reality of kleğas is itself reified, made into a “mirror-stand.” Similarly, I suggest, the Chan master’s typical challenge to a disciple to “bring me” something indeterminable (your transgression, your mind, a rhinoceros) that echoes through Chan encounter-dialogue literature has roots in the formative Chan rejection of the practice of bringing one’s kleğas and confessing and repenting before the buddhas, represented by images and preceptors. The Chan master becomes the one to whom one presents one’s mind, and also the one who smashes the notion of the suchness mirror/matrix as “other.”

Addressing the Confessing Animal

In our own intellectual milieu, one of the most widely recognized voices on the confessional mode is Michel Foucault’s, which I can neither address adequately nor ignore. Confession is a key theme in The History of Sexuality and a thread running throughout Foucault’s writings on the politics of language and the “technologies of the self” (Foucault [1976] 1978; 1988). One obvious gap between his work and this one is that Baoshan’s culture of confession and repentance was not centered on sexuality. Yet there is a critical intersection in the two confessional contexts—the effect of an enhanced awareness of causality. Tracing historical connections between the pressures brought to bear on the procedures of confession and the development of scientific discursivity, Foucault asks, “How did this immense and traditional extortion of the sexual confession come to be constituted in scientific terms?” He includes the following in the catalogue of means: “Through the postulate of a general and diffuse causality. Having to tell everything, being able to pose questions about everything, found their justification in the principle that endowed sex with an inexhaustible and polymorphous causal power” ([1976] 1978, 65).

I would suggest that in the medieval Buddhist soteriological project of removing kleğas, it is volitional conceptualization rather than sexuality that is endowed with this inexhaustible and polymorphous causal power. MahƘPƘ\Ƙ’s lament addressed to her own volitions is based on the fundamental Buddhist teaching that saΥskƘras or constructing activities, the fourth of the five skandhas or factors of personality, is the function through which intention-driven thoughts and actions are generated. It is these karmaproducing activities that have the power of ongoing conception of the self, by which beginningless polymorphous births are tied to polymorphous deaths. Moreover, in Buddhist attitudes to volitional conceptualization there is also an intrinsic “principle of latency.” We could substitute for “sex” the word “conceptualization” in the following sentence, and express a Buddhist principle: “If it was necessary to extract the truth of sex through the technique of confession, this was not simply because it was difficult to tell, or stricken by the taboos of decency, but because the ways of sex were obscure; it was elusive by nature; its energy and its mechanisms escaped observation, and its causal power was partly clandestine” (Foucault [1976] 1978, 66).

Volitional thought is karmic, and the Buddhist subject is made aware that deeds of body, speech, and mind—especially those he/she cannot remember from past lives—continue to beget further volitional acts though mechanisms that escape ordinary observation. The confession and repentance liturgy is meticulous and even redundant in categorically including all past lives and every act, utterance, and intention that the subject desires to be exposed to the penetrating gaze and purifying gaze of innumerable buddhas.

In various works, Foucault returns to a key moment in the creation of the modern subject: the Reformation, when confession to a priest and absolution were renounced. Instead, the practice of the pious became private prayer, attempting to create a subject whose self-awareness is consciousness of an unmediated relationship with God. At the same time, this personal articulation corresponded to a burgeoning professional discourse (scientific, legal, and medical) on sexuality, and this became part of the arsenal of technologies of knowledge and power contributing to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century progressive rationalizations of labor (Foucault [1976] 1978, 17–35, 58–73, 116–31).

The arrival of Descartes’ cogito ergo sum was, unlike MahƘPƘ\Ƙ’s, conceived as liberation. This corresponded with further removal of mediators and the distancing of God as wholly transcendent and eventually dispensable. As the judge of the self became ever more interiorly unmitigated and externally rationalized, absolution became indeterminable.

Somehow, across the gaps of time and place that we have just traversed so quickly, it appears that confession still retains its character as both revealer and congealer of potent latencies. It also remains a quintessential medium of relationship, even in the disembodied, fragmented, and solipsistic interactions of social media. Conception of the parties and witnesses to the transactions may change radically, but desire for absolute self-exposure appears to be as resilient as its object is elusive. And in the pursuit of further means, technologies, or upƘya of transparence, there remains an implied other, even if it is conceived as oneself.

Facing the outer west wall of Dazhusheng cave, the means appear straightforward: one confesses and repents to individually named buddhas, thereby invoking an incalculability of salvific expedients. At the same time, this ritual of erasure of self-conditioning through relationship with skillful illusion was not regarded as antithetical to the verses that are carved on the outer east wall, the Wuchang ji 䃉ⷠ῰ (Verses on Impermanence) based on the NirvƘΧa-sǍtra. Without any reference to bodhisattvas or buddhas, these verses glorify “tranquil extinction” as permanence, joy, self, and purity (chang le wo jing ⷠ㦪ㆹ㶐). This is symmetrically presented as the clear mirror of the “compounded things” (zhuxing 媠埴, saΥskƘras) marked by suffering, impermanence, and no-self. The rites of recitation that take place before these two walls, the confession of innumerable consequential acts and the celebration of the extinction of their traces, were meant to actualize the true nature of the reflexive subject, the own-nature that mirrors/is buddha-nature. Baoshan’s inscriptions includes references to the evil of defiled nature that would seem at home in Christian contexts, yet the difference is that defiled nature is said to be conditioned through past directions taken by the practitioner’s mind, as provisionally effective and ultimately empty as the buddhas she evokes. The devotee is seen by/as buddha, and only damned insofar as her vision is self-eluded.

Conclusion

In the context in which confession-repentance was engraved at Dazhusheng cave, the “technology of the self” at stake was the real possibility of chengfo ㆸἃ, becoming buddha (Tsiang 2008). The means were at once immediate access (tathƘgatagarbha), intercessional access (the great bodhisattvas), and cosmic access (Vairocana). In the MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra, the Buddha’s mother addressing (and dressing down) the mind that has been formed through her volitional thought is like an extended personal confession and repentance encompassing all the possible destinies of delusion. Just on the other side of the wall, the Chanhui wen provides the means to turn the performative power of thought back on itself, by calling on the buddhas to bear witness. The scene fulfills the Jueding pini jing prescription for practice in an “isolated place” during which the ritual was to be performed at the six times of day and night while visualizing (guan 奨) the buddhas and contemplating (siwei ⿅ょ) their merit. Then, “If the bodhisattva is able to completely purify these transgressions, at that time the buddhas will reveal their bodies for him/her.” This revelation was not sought for the sake of the spectacle; instead, it was so that the practitioner could directly address the buddhas with the prayer to yinian wo, “recollect me.” The response to that prayer is the realization of the empty nature of mind/buddhas, as evoked in Lingyu’s verse, above: “I beseech the buddhas to spread the radiance of their compassion and shine it on suffering beings; make the kleğas accumulated all entirely disappear. One’s own nature, pure mind, from this reaches its ultimate, the undifferentiated absolute dharmadhƘtu, and attains perfection now.” To provide an image for the continuity of this soteriology under Chan erasure, I would now like to revisit the most famous scene in Chan literature, the legendary battle of the verses in the Platform SǍtra alluded to above. Shenxiu offers up his understanding to the fifth patriarch Hongren ⻀⽵ (602–675) in the following verse:

The body is the Bodhi tree

The mind is like a clear mirror

At all times we must strive to polish it,

And must not let the dust (kleğa) collect.

And the future sixth patriarch Huineng responds:

Bodhi originally has no tree,

The mirror has no stand,

Buddha-nature is always clear and pure;

Where is there any dust? (Yampolsky 1967, 128–33)

In Lingyu’s milieu, which is the dust that the Chan masters shake from their feet, it was not necessary to speak of “polishing” the mirror. In Dazhusheng cave as well as in the Chan hall, it was taught that the mind and its afflictions are like nothing at all, such that buddhas or dust may appear. Repentance was not for preventing the collection of dust, it was for activating the recollection of buddhas. Yinian wo originally has no “me” or wo, and wunian has no wu or “no”—where is there any difference?

References

Abbreviation

T = Taishǁ shinshǍ daizǁkyǁ ⣒ 㬋 㕘 ᾖ ⣏ 哝 䳴 (Taishǁ Era Revised TripiΛaka), Edited by Takakusu Junjiro 檀㤈枮㫉恶. Tokyo: Daizǁ shuppan kai, 1922–1933.
Primary Sources
Banzhou sanmei jing 凔凇ᶱ㗏䴻 (PratyutpannabuddhasaΥmukhƘvasthitasamƘdhi-sǍtra, a.k.a. BhadrapƘla-sǍtra). Trans. late 2nd c. by Lokakԕema. T 418, 13.
Baolin zhuan ⮞㜿⁛ (Transmission of the Baolin [[[Temple]]]). 801, by Zhiju 㘢䁔. In Zhongguo fojiao congshu: Chanzong bian ᷕ⚳ἃ㔁⎊㚠烉䥒
⬿䶐 (Compendium of Chinese Buddhism: Chan School), 1.18: 507–659. (Beijing: Jiangsu guji, 1993.)
Chuan fabao ji ⁛㱽⮞䲨 (Annals of the Transmission of the DharmaTreasure). Ca. 713, by Du Fei 㜄偸. T 2838, 85; P 2634; P 3858; P 3559. See Yanagida (1971).
Dabanniepan jing ⣏凔㴭㥫䴻 (MahƘparinirvƘΧa-sǍtra). T 374 and 375, 12.
Dafangguang fo huayan jing ⣏㕡⺋ἃ厗♜䴻 ([[[Buddha]]]avataΥsaka-sǍtra,
Flower Garland Scripture). T 278, 9; T 279; T 293, 10.
Diamond SǍtra; see Jin’gang banruopoluomi jing.
Fanwang jing 㡝 䵚 䴻 (BrahmajƘla-sǍtra; SǍtra of Brahma's Net).
Apocryphon, early 5th c. T 1484, 24; trans. attributed to KumƘrajưva.
Fayuan zhulin 㱽剹䎈㜿 (Jade Grove of the Dharma Garden), by Daoshi 忻 ᶾ (ca. 596–683). T 2122, 53.
Foming jing ἃ⎵䴻 (6Ǎtra of the Names of the Buddhas). T 441, 14.
Guan Yaowang Yaoshang er pusa jing 奨喍䌳喍ᶲḴ厑啑䴻 (6Ǎtra on Visualizing the Two Bodhisattvas BhaiΙajyarƘja and BhaiΙajyasamudgata). Likely to be a Central Asian apocryphon. Trans. attributed to KƘlayağas ⻲列俞况 (383–442). T 1161, 20.
Guanfo sanmei hai jing 奨ἃᶱ㗏㴟䴻 (6Ǎtra on the Ocean-Like SamƘdhi of Contemplating the Buddha). Likely to be a Central Asian apocryphon, trans. attributed to Buddhabhadra ἃ楙嵳旨伭. T 643, 15.
Jin’gang banruo poluomi jinglun 慹∃凔劍㲊伭囄䴻婾, T 1511, 25.
Jin’gang banruopoluomi jing 慹 ∃ 凔 劍 㲊 伭 囄 䴻
(VajracchedikƘprajñƘSƘramitƘ-sǍtra, Diamond SǍtra). T 235–239, 8.
Jin’gang xian lun 慹 ∃ ẁ 婾 ([VajrağUư’s?] Commentary on the
VajracchedikƘ). Trans. attributed to Bodhiruci. T 1512, 25.
Jingde chuandeng lu 㘗⽟⁛䅰抬 (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp [compiled in] the Jingde era). 1004, by Daoyuan 忻⍇. T 2076, 51.
Jinguangming jing 慹⃱㖶䴻 (SuvarΧaprabhƘsottama-sǍtra, SǍtra of Golden Light). Trans. attributed to Dharmakԕema 㙯䃉嬾 (ca. 385–433). T 663, 16.
Jizhujing chanhui yi 普媠䴻䥖ㆢ₨ (A Compilation of Repentance Rituals from the SǍtras). Compiled 730 by Zhisheng 㘢⋯ (active ca. 700–740). T 1982, 47.
Jueding pini jing 㰢 ⭂ 㮀 ⯤ 䴻 (Vinayaviniğcaya-UpƘliparipΩcchƘ-sǍtra, Scripture of the Inquiry of UpƘli Regarding Determination of the Vinaya). Trans. attributed to Dharmarakԕa, ca. end of 3rd c. T 325, 12.
Lidai fabao ji 㙮ẋ㱽⮞姀 (Record of the Dharma–Treasure through the
Generations). ca. 780. T 2075, 51.
Lüe li qijie foming chanhui deng wen 䔍䥖ᶫ昶ἃ⎵ㆢ〼䫱㔯 (The Text of the Abridged Repentance for Venerating the Buddha Names of the Seven Registers). Dunhuang text Beijing 8344/yu ⬯ 16; Ji zhujing chanhui yi, T 1982, 47: 456b27–457a27.
Mohe zhiguan 㐑姞㬊奨 (The Great Cessation and Insight). By Tiantai Zhiyi ⣑⎘㘢柿 (538–597). T 1911, 46.
Mohemoye jing 㐑姞㐑俞䴻 (MahƘPƘ\Ƙ-sǍtra, SǍtra of the Buddha's Mother MahƘPƘ\Ƙ). Trans. ca. 479–502. T 383, 12.
Shi chan poluomi cidi famen 慳䥒㲊伭囄㫉䫔㱽攨, T 1916, 46.
Shidi jing lun ⋩⛘䴻婾 (⛘婾) (DağabhǍmivyƘkhyƘna, DağabhǍmikasǍtrağƘstra, Treatise on the SǍtra on the Ten Stages) by Vasubandhu, ca. 4th– 5th c., trans. Ratnamati, Bodhiruci, et al. T 1522, 26.
Xu gaoseng zhuan 临檀₏⁛ (Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks). By Daoxuan 忻⭋ (596–667); first completed in 645 and augmented two decades later. T 2060, 50.
 
Zongchan shie jiewen ䷥ㆢ⋩ら῰㔯 (Verses on Comprehensive Repentance for the Ten Evil Deeds), by Lingyu 曰塽 (518–605). In the Fayuan zhulin, T 2122, 53: 918c23–919a27.
Secondary Sources
Adamek, Wendi L. 2007. The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and Its Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press.
Broughton, Jeffrey L. 1999. The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Buswell, Robert E., Jr. 2007. Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wǃnhyo’s Exposition of the VajrasamƘdhi-SǍtra (KǏmgang Sammaegyǃng Non).
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Chen, Jinhua. 2002. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies.
Conze, Edward, trans. 1959. Buddhist Scriptures. London: Penguin.
Faure, Bernard. 1986. The Concept of One-Practice SamƘdhi in Early Ch'an. In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 99–128. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Foucault, Michel. [1976] 1978. The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction, translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon.
———. 1988. Technologies of the Self. In Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrick H. Hutton, 16–49. London: Tavistock.
Funayama Toru. 2006. Masquerading as Translation: Examples of Chinese Lectures by Indian Scholar-Monks in the Six Dynasties Period. Asia Major, 3rd Series, 19 (1–2): 39–55.
Greene, Eric Matthew. 2012. Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Groner, Paul. 1990. The Ordination Ritual in the Platform SǍtra within the Context of the East Asian Buddhist Vinaya Tradition. In Fo Kuang Shan Report of International Conference on Ch'an Buddhism, 220–50. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Fo Kuang Publisher.
Jorgensen, John. 2005. Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch: Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch'an. Leiden: Brill.
Kim, Sunkyung. 2005. Decline of the Law, Death of the Monk: Buddhist Text and Images in the Anyang Caves of Late Sixth-Century China. Ph.D. diss., Duke University.
——— 2011. Seeing Buddhas in Cave Sanctuaries. Asia Major 24 (1): 87–126.
Kuo, Li-ying. 1994. Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du Ve au Xe siècle. Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient.
Lee Yu-min 㛶䌱䍇. 1998. Baoshan Dazhushengku chutan ⮞Ⱉ⣏ỷ俾䩇⇅ ㍊ (A Preliminary Study of Dazhusheng Cave on Mt. Bao). Gugong xueshu jikan 㓭⭖⬠埻⬋↲ 16 (2): 1–51.
Li Yuqun 㛶塽佌. 1998. Fenglongshan shiku kaiye niandai yu zaoxiang ticai 桐漵Ⱉ䞛䩇攳㤕⸜ẋ冯忈⁷柴㛸 (On the Topics of the Sculptured
Images and Opening Date of the Fenglongshan Cave Temples). Wenwu 㔯䈑 1: 67–75.
———. 2010. Classification, Layout, and Iconography of Buddhist Cave Temples and Monasteries. In Vol. 1 of Early Chinese Religion: Part Two: The Period of Division (220–589 AD), edited by John Lagerwey and Pengzhi Lü, 575–738. Leiden: Brill.
McRae, John. 1986. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch'an Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Nattier, Jan. 1991. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in the Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
Rösch, Petra. 2008. The Fifty-three Buddhas of Confession. Horin 15: 115–38.
———. Forthcoming. Envisioning Purification: Material Evidences for Buddhist Rituals of Confession and Repentance at North Chinese Cavetemples.
Shioiri RyǁGǁ ⠑ℍ列忻. 2007. ChǍgoku bukkyǁ ni okeru zanpǁ no seiritsu
ᷕ ⚥ ṷ 㔁 ̬ ̋ ̒ ͌ ㆢ 㱽 ̯ ㆸ 䩳 (The Development of Penitential
Methods in Chinese Buddhism). Tokyo: Taishǁ Daigaku Tendaigaku KenkyǍshitsu.
Stevenson, Daniel B. 1987. The T’ien-T’ai Four Forms of SamƘdhi and Late North-South Dynasties, Sui, and Early T’ang Buddhist Devotionalism. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University.
———. 2008. The Ties that Bind: Chinese Buddhist Rites for Securing Rebirth in the Pure Land. +ǁrin 15: 139–202.
Tsiang, Katherine R. 2008. Resolve to Become a Buddha (Chengfo): Changing Aspirations and Imagery in Sixth-Century Chinese Buddhism. Early Medieval China 13–14 (2): 115–69.
Wang Juan 㰒⧇. 1998. Dunhuang lichan wen yanjiu 㔎䃴䥖ㆢ㔯䞼䨞
(Research on Dunhuang Ritual and Repentance Texts). Zhonghua foxue yanjiusuo luncong ᷕ厗ἃ⬠䞼䨞㇨婾⎊ 18. (Collected Essays of the Chinese Buddhist Research Institute No. 18). Taibei: Fagu wenhua 㱽溻 㔯⊾.
Williams, Bruce Charles. 2002. Mea Maxima Vikalpa: Repentance, Meditation, and the Dynamics of Liberation in Medieval Chinese Buddhism, 500–650 CE. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
———. 2005. Seeing through Images: Reconstructing Buddhist Meditative Visualization Practice in Sixth-Century Northeastern China. Pacific World 7: 33–89.
Wong, Dorothy C. 2004. Chinese Steles: Pre-Buddhist and Buddhist Use of a Symbolic Form. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
———. 2008. What’s in a Buddha’s Name: Case Study of a Sixth-Century Chinese Buddhist Stele from the Shaolin Monastery. In Treasures Rediscovered: Chinese Stone Sculpture from the Sackler Collections at Columbia University, edited by Leopold Swergold et al., 17–26. New York: Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Art Gallery.
Yamabe Nobuyoshi. 1999. The SǍtra on the Ocean-Like SamƘdhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal SǍtra.
Ph.D diss., Yale University.
Yampolsky, Philip B., trans. 1967. The Platform SǍtra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York: Columbia University Press.
Yanagida Seizan 㞛䓘俾Ⱉ, ed. 1971. Shoki no Zenshi I: Ryǁga shijiki,
DenhǁEǁ ki ⇅㛇̯䥒⎚ I烉㤆ụⷓ屯姀ˣễ㱽⭅姀 (Early Chan
History I: Lengqie shizi ji, Chuan fabao ji). Zen no goroku 䤭̯婆拚, no.
2. Tokyo: Chikuma shobǁ.