New Gem | No More Learning

" The monk continued, "What is the

) Zen Master Chân Huyen*
Grand Tutor Do* Thu'ò'ng653
(The above three persons all succeeded Zen Master Ðô Ðô. Another source says Grand Tutor Ðô Thu'ò'ng succeeded Zen Master Tông Tinh* of Kien* So'. )654 Fifth generation: five persons
[72b] Zen Master Hai* Tinh655
Emperor Lý Cao Tông
Nguyen* Thú'c of Xu'ó'ng Nhi, Quang* Giáp
(The above three persons all succeeded Tru'o'ng Tam Tang*. )
Pham* Phung* Ngu'* and the others succeeded Chân Huyen*. (Another source says they succeeded Grand Tutor Ðô. )
PART III— APPENDIXES
Page 207
Appendix I—
Additional Supporting Data for Chapter One
History of the Transmission of the Thien * Uyen* Tap* Anh
The text that is the topic of our study here has generally been referred to in Vietnamese literature by two names: Thiên Uyên Tâp Anh [A Collection of Outstanding Figures of the Zen Community] and Dai* Nam Thiên Uyên Truyen* Dang* Tâp Luc* [A Record of Transmission of the Lamp in the Zen Community of Dai* Nam], after the 1715 edition under the [Later] Lê (1533–1788) and the 1858 edition under the Nguyen* (1802–1945). 1 Actually this text has been referred to by still other names,2 yet Thiên Uyên seems to be the original title of the text in its first complete, edited version.
Although some information has been provided by the studies of Tran* Van* Giáp and Émile Gaspardone,3 we still do not know much about the situation of the text before and after the edition of 1715. Among extant literary documents, the earliest mention of the Thiên Uyên is found in Lê Quí Ðôn's Nghe* Van* Chí [Description
of Arts and Literature],4 in which he remarked that the Thiên Uyên was a onefascicle work composed by an author who lived during the Trân dynasty (1225–1400), recording information about Zen sects and biographies of eminent monks of Vietnam from the time of the Tang (618–907) and Song (960–1279) dynasties up to the period including the Trân through the Ðinh (968–980), [Former] Lê (980–1009), and Lý (1010–1225) dynasties. Phan Huy Chú's Van Tich* Chí [Descriptive Bibliography]5 was content merely to repeat Lê Quí Ðôn's comment, adding that the Thiên Uyên consists of six fascicles. The two editions that are currently available
to us, however, consist respectively of two fascicles and one fascicle. 6
Phan Huy Chú's remark seems to indicate the existence of an edition earlier than the Lê edition. First, let us consider the question of the actual existence of this edition, which we will tentatively refer to as the Trân edition, taking into consideration the date of the composition of the text.
Page 209
The Tran * Edition
Although neither of the two extant editions of the Thien* Uyen* gives us the exact date of its composition, there are plausible reasons for us to believe that the Thiên Uyên is a work composed during the Tran* dynasty. Nowadays, though, the earliest edition of the text that we have at our disposal is the Lê edition of 1715. Thus, whatever information we now have about the text derives from this 1715 edition and Lê Quí Ðôns's remarks in his Nghe* Van* Chí.
A section on ''Immortals and Buddhist Monks" in the An Nam Chí Nguyên [Source Book on An Nam], an early fifteenthcentury work, records sketchy biographies of twenty Zen Masters. Thirteen of these are mentioned in the Thiên Uyên. 7 Except for Thao* Ðu'ò'ng, whose biography is not recorded in the Thiên Uyên, the An
Nam Chí Nguyên's records of the other Zen Masters are almost identical to certain passages in their biographies in the Thiên Uyên. In light of this fact, Lê Manh* Thát has suggested that the An Nam Chí Nguyên must have derived its information directly from the Thiên Uyên, or at least from a source that quoted the Thiên
Uyên. 8 However, it seems that the author of the An Nam Chí Nguyên did not know of the existence of the Thiên Uyên since he claimed to have gathered the information about those Buddhist monks from either oral sources or other old records. 9 Since the An Nam Chí Nguyên is believed to have been composed around 1419, Lê Manh Thát concludes that the "old records" its author refers to must have quoted from the most ancient edition of the Thiên Uyên, or the Trân edition.
In conclusion, we have reasonable evidence to believe that there existed a Trân edition of the Thiên Uyên. Nguyen* Van* Chat*10—an author living in the fifteenth century—who composed an appendix to Lý Te* Xuyên's Viet* Dien*,11 did mention the Thiên Uyên in this work. 12 This is clear evidence that there existed an
edition of the Thiên Uyên (probably the Trân edition) prior to the Lê edition of 1715. However, the Thiên Uyên does not seem to have been in wide circulation, since it was not known to some authors of the Trân dynasty. For example, Lê Trac*, in the section on Buddhist monks in his An Nam Chí Lu'o'c* [Brief Records of An Nam], does not appear to have had the Thiên Uyên at his disposal for reference.
The Lê Edition
This was published in 1715 and is the oldest edition that we have nowadays. The text consists of two fascicles, respectively called Thiên Uyên Tap* Anh Ngu'* Luc* [Recorded Sayings of Outstanding Figures of the Zen Community], upper fascicle and Thiên Uyên Tâp Anh, lower fascicle. The upper fascicle records the Vô Ngôn Thông lineage and the lower
Page 210
Page 211
fascicle gives the Vinitaruci * lineage with a list of names of the monks belonging to the Thao* Ðu'ò'ng school.
We have almost no information about the editor of this edition. From the preface written in the fourth month of the Vinh* Thinh* era of the Lê dynasty (1715), we
know only that he was a learned Confucian who admired Buddhism and edited the text at the request of his friend, a Zen Buddhist monk. 13 The Nguyen* Edition
This was published by Phúc Dien*14 as Dai* Nam Thien* Uyen* Truyen* Dang* Tap* Luc*, upper fascicle. Phúc Ðiên did not write a preface or record the date of publication of the text. He only gave a short note stating that the edition he used was the old woodblock kept at Tiêu So'n Temple, of which the name of the compiler was lost. Phúc Ðiên neglected to explain why he renamed the text Ðai Nam Thiên Uyên Truyên Ðang Tâp Luc, upper fascicle. Fortunately, we find the answer in a preface written by Phúc Ðiên entitled "Truyen* Dang* Ngu'* Quyen* Tân Tu'*" ["New Preface to the Transmission of the Lamp in Five Fascicles"] found at the beginning of Nhu' So'n's Thiên Dien* Thong* Yeu* Ke* Ðang Luc [Continuation of the Record of the Transmission of the Lamp] (Kê Ðang Luc). 15 This preface states that the Ðai Nam was published in 1858 [i. e. , the twelfth year of the Tu' Ðú'c era of the Nguyen* dynasty] as the "upper fascicle" of a larger project
intended as a complete history of the Zen transmission in Vietnam. Phúc Ðiên wrote:16
In the old days in our country there was the Thiên Uyên Tâp Anh giving brief records of the virtuous, eminent monks of the three dynasties (of Ðinh, [Former] Lê, and Lý). In general, the records are vague and incoherent. Therefore, I have edited and recopied it in order to preserve the ancient text, and have made it a separate upper fascicle. Up through the Tran* dynasty there was the Thánh Ðang Ngu' Luc [Recorded Sayings of Transmission of the Sacred Lamp] in one fascicle, which recorded only [biographies of] the three patriarchs of the Trân. There were stories but no portraits.
During the Later Lê, the Patriarch Nhu' So'n, basing himself on the Wudeng huiyuan [the Chinese Zen collection, The Five Lamps Meeting at the Source] composed a threefascicle Ke* Ðang Luc, which included both stories and portraits. Nhu' So'n's work began with Bhismagarjitasvarar* Buddha, then related the stories of the Seven Ancient Buddhas, and finally recorded the biographies of fortyseven Indian patriarchs, and twentythree Chinese patriarchs, together with the Linji School of our country descended from the three patriarchs Chuyet* Công, Minh Lu'o'ng, and Chân Nguyên. As for the true school of Caodong, there
Page 212
were the Venerable Thuy * Nguyet* and Tông Dien*. As for the Linji School, [Nhu' So'n] did not record the transmission [of the generations] after Chân Nguyên's transmission to the Eminent Cú'u Sinh. Therefore, I follow the order of [Nhu' So'n's] Ke* Dang* Luc*, supplemented with the [biographies of] the five patriarchs. . . .
I am concerned that the lamp of the patriarchs is about to be extinguished, so I muster all my energy to record briefly [biographies of] the three patriarchs of the Tran* along with those of [the patriarchs of] the two schools of Linji and Caodong. I combine these into a single collection, together with the miscellaneous records from outside sources, and make this into a separate lower fascicle. [I do this] so that the Dharma will continue to be transmitted and the lamp will be perpetuated. 16
According to this, Phúc Dien* had at his disposal the Thien* Uyen*, the onefascicle Thánh Ðang Luc, which records the biographies of the the three patriarchs (of the Trúc Lâm Zen school) of the Trân dynasty, and Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc. Phúc Ðiên considered this last work to be more complete and coherent than the previous two texts, because it records the transmission of the lamp from the time of Bhismagarjitasvara* Buddha and the seven Ancient Buddhas, through all the generations of patriarchs in India and China, up to the founders of the Linji and Caodong schools in Vietnam. 17
What appears to be somewhat unclear is the title of the "Preface. " We are not certain what Phúc Ðiên meant by "the Transmission of the Lamp in Five Fascicles. " Nguyen* Lang gives the interpretation that Phúc Dien's* project was to use the Thiên Uyên as the upper fascicle, Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc (in three fascicles) as the middle fascicle, and the Thánh Ðang Luc (in one fascicle) and further biographies (from outside sources) of eminent Vietnamese Linji and Caodong monks as the lower fascicle. Thus, the Nguyên edition of the Thiên Uyên was to become the Dai* Nam upper fascicle of this complete fivefascicle project. The projected work was named "Transmisson of the Lamp in Five Fascicles," obviously because Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc itself consists of three fascicles. Lê Manh* Thát gives almost the same explanation, except for the fact that he seems to ignore the Thánh Ðang Luc and remarks that the last fascicle of the ''Five Fascicle" project was Phúc Ðiên's own work on the three patriarchs of the Trân, the Linji and Caodong schools, and other miscellaneous notes.
Neither of these explanations seems to be completely satisfactory. Phúc Ðiên himself did compose a text that was explicitly purported to be the continuation (i. e. , the lower fascicle) to the Ðai Nam as the upper fascicle. In fact, he named his work Thiên Uyên Truyen* Ðang Luc, Quyen* Ha* [The Transmission of the Lamp in the Zen Community, Lower Fas
Page 213
cicle], or Dai * Nam Thien* Uyen* Ke* Dang* Lu'o'c* Luc* Tu'* Tran* Chu' To* Lâm Te* Tào Dong* Quyen* Ha* [A Brief Record of the Transmission of the Lamp from the Patriarchs of the Linji and Caodong Schools of the Tran* Dynasty, Lower Fascicle] (Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc). 18 Furthermore, Phúc Dien* did not
state in the preface that he would use the Thánh Ðang Luc and Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc as the middle or lower fascicle. He seems to have mentioned them only as sources or models for his own work. Thus, "the Transmission of the Lamp in Five Fascicles" would mean the Thiên Uyên (one fascicle), the Thánh Ðang Luc (one fascicle), and Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc (three fascicles). Phúc Dien's* original intention was probably to edit these three works as a fivefascicle complete history of the Zen transmission in Vietnam. He might have been dissatisfied with Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc, since this work, relying heavily on the Chinese Wudeng huiyuan, records only sketchy biographies of Indian and Chinese patriarchs and nothing on Vietnamese monks. That is why Phúc Ðiên wrote a new preface stating his aspiration to compose a lower fascicle (i. e. , continuation) to the Thiên Uyên by combining the Thánh Ðang Luc with biographies and short sayings and teachings of the Vietnamese patriarchs of the Linji and Caodong schools which he (and obviously his disciples) had diligently collected from written historical records and other documents found in various temples.
Phúc Ðiên did not give the date of the composition of the Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc. It could have been started in 1858, the year he wrote the "Preface. " From the contents of this book, one gets the impression that Phúc Ðiên started the work, but that it was finished by some of his disciples. This is because his name was mentioned several
times, particularly in the later part of the book, and there is a section devoted to his own biography. 19
The Lê and the Nguyen* editions are almost identical except for some minor different readings. The main discrepancy is that in the Nguyên edition the content of the biography of Không Lo* is totally different from that in the Lê edition. In the Nguyên edition, Không Lo's* biography is inadvertently combined with the biography of Nguyên Minh Không. 2 0 Thus the biography of Nguyên Minh Không, who belonged to the thirteenth generation of the Vinitaruci* lineage, is completely missing from this edition. Another minor variation is that the section on Viên Chieu's* biography in the Phúc Ðiên edition is missing a page compared to the Lê edition. 2 1 Finally, the text edited by Phúc Ðiên, the Ðai Nam, does not include the preface written by the editor of the 1715 edition. This is more evidence that the old text kept at Tiêu So'n Temple was not identical with the Lê edition. 22
On the Date and Author of the Thien * Uyen* Tap* Anh Date
The issue of the Thiên Uyêns exact date of composition and author remains unsolved. On the basis of the information provided by Lê Quí Ðôn, along with some other historical and internal evidence found in the text, there is a consensus among scholars who have studied the text that it is a work of the Tran* dynasty.
Trân Van* Giáp, who discovered the Thiên Uyên and was also the first to study it,23 summed up these facts and suggested an exact date for its composition. Giáp presents two reasons for believing that the Thiên Uyên was composed in the Trân dynasty:
1. The date of the deaths of the latest monks whose biographies were recorded: Y So'n, the last master of the Vinitaruci* school, died in 1213; Hien* Quang, the last master of the Vô Ngôn Thông school, died in 1221; Thông Thien*, although one generation earlier than Hiên Quang, did not die until 1228; the account of the Thao* Ðu'ò'ng school ends with Lý Cao Tông, who died in 1205. 24
2. Khuông Viet's* biography contains the following record of the Chinese envoy Li Jue's mission to Vietnam, which turns out to be a crucial element for determining the date of the Thiên Uyên:
In the seventh year [of the Tianfu era (987)] the Song envoy Ruan Jue (Nguyen* Giác in Vietnamese pronunciation) came to [Vietnam] on a peace mission. At this time the Dharma Master [Do* Thuan*] was also well known. Emperor Lê Dai* Hành ordered Khuông Viet* to put aside his monk's garb and to act as a court minister. 25
The same event was also recorded in the Cu'o'ng Muc* [Outline of History]:
In the second year, bính tuat*, of the Tianfu era (962) [sic] the Song court sent Li Ruoshuo and Li Jue on a diplomatic mission bringing along the decree investing the
King of Annam as the Prefect of Giao Chi*. 26
The two texts apparently refer to the same historical event, with the only difference that in the Thiên Uyên the surname of the Chinese envoy Li Jue (Lý Giác in Vietnamese pronunciation) has been changed to Nguyên (Ruan in Chinese). The Toàn Thu' also informs us that in the sixth month of the first year of the Thiên Ú'ng Chính Bình era (1232) of the Trân dynasty, the court issued an order to have those with the family name Lý change it to Nguyên. There were two reasons for this. First, since the
Page 214
Page 215
Tran * had overthrown the Lý by force, this decree was intended to uproot any loyalty for the Lý remaining in the people's hearts. Second, this decree reflects the taboo on using the name of the sovereign, since the personal name of the father of Trân Thái Tông, the founder of the Trân dynasty, was Lý.
Giáp argues that the author of the Thien* Uyen* must have followed this order and substituted Nguyen* Giác (Ruan Jue) for Lý Giác (Li Jue). From this he concludes that the Thiên Uyên must have been composed during the Trân dynasty, sometime after 1232 when the prohibition was issued. Referring to a statement at the end of Vô Ngôn Thông's biography that "[having lasted] up to now, the twentyfourth year, dinh* suu*, of the Khai Huu* era (1337), the Zen tradition in our country started withhim,"27 Trân Van* Giáp suggests that the year 1337 can be considered as the exact date of the composition of the Thiên Uyên.
Émile Gaspardone has pointed out that Trân Van Giáp's solution is not completely satisfactory, since Giáp seems to have ignored some difficulties in the passage on
which he bases his conclusions. For instance, the Khai Hu'u era (1329–1341) under Trân Minh Tông lasted only twelve years28 and not twentyfour years. Besides, the year dinh su'u was the ninth year of the Khai Hu'u era and not the twentyfourth. Gaspardone also points out some inconsistencies in Giáp's interpretation of the same passage in his essay. 29 Gaspardone concludes that we cannot establish the exact date for the Thiên Uyên based on such an obscure passage. We cannot resolve the inconsistency of the passage, and in any case we cannot conclude that the year dinh su'u of the Khai Hu'u era (1337) was the year the Thiên Uyên was composed. I am inclined, however, to take the date 1337 (dinh su'u, Khai Hu'u ninth year) seriously, at least as the earliest plausible date for the Thiên Uyên. That the text gives "twentyfourth" instead of "ninth" could very well have been due to a scribal error. In any case, the author did give us a clue, and taken together with other evidence, it appears to be a significant one.
In sum, we can say only that the Thiên Uyên is a work composed during the Trân dynasty, probably sometime after 1232 and before the end of the fifteenth century. Three facts lead to this conclusion: (1) The decree to change the Lý family name to Nguyên was issued in 1232. (2) Nguyên Van Chat*, who lived in the fifteenth century, drew on the Thiên Uyên to compose the legend of Sóc Thiên Vu'o'ng in his appendix to the Viet* Dien*. (3) Although the Thiên Uyên claims to record life stories of eminent monks of the Ðinh, [Former] Lê, Lý, and Trân dynasties, none of the monks whose biographies were recorded lived beyond the middle of the thirteenth century. This shows that the author did not live beyond the Trân dynasty.
Authorship
At present we know virtually nothing about the author's identity. Lê Quí Ðôn and Phan Huy Chú give us nothing. Both Tran * Van* Giáp and Émile Gaspardone are almost silent on this issue. We can conjecture that the author of the Thien* Uyen* might have been a monk belonging to the Vô Ngôn Thông school, because the biographies of the monks of this school are put before those of the Vinitaruci* school, and the author remarks at the end of Thông's biography that the Zen tradition in Vietnam began with him. This is somewhat odd, since we know that according to tradition, Vinitaruci arrived in Vietnam and established a Zen lineage almost three centuries before Vô Ngôn Thông.
Lê Manh* Thát, the only modern scholar who attempts to solve the problem of the authorship of the Thiên Uyên, has suggested that a monk named Kim So'n was the author of the Thiên Uyên. 3 0 Thát makes the following argument.
During the fourteenth century, the only Zen tradition that remained in Vietnam was the Trúc Lâm (Bamboo Grove) school, of which Emperor Trân Nhân Tông (r. 1279–1293) was the first patriarch. 31 We learn from the [Hue* Trung] Thu'o'ng* Si* Ngu'* Luc* [Recorded Sayings of the Eminent Hue* Trung]32 that this school originated with Thông Thien*,3 3 a Zen master of the Vô Ngôn Thông lineage. Trân Minh Tông (r. 1314–1329), Trân Nhân Tông's grandson, reputed to be a literary man, was very interested in history. During his reign he was known for requesting eminent monks to compose books on topics related to Buddhism. 34 There are records still extant about the relationship between Minh Tông and Kim So'n. 35 Lê Manh Thát therefore suggests that Kim So'n must have composed the Thiên Uyên at the request of Trân Minh Tông. Since there are no historical records directly (or indirectly) referring to Kim So'n as the author of the Thiên Uyên, I mention Lê Manh Thát's suggestion merely as a hypothesis, pending the discovery of more materials concerning this issue.
Source Materials for the Composition of the Thiên Uyên Tap* Anh
The Thiên Uyên, as evidenced by the title and contents of the text, was consciously intended as a work in the Zen tradition. This is reflected clearly in his copious
borrowing from the model Zen biographical collection, the Jingde chuandeng lu [Transmission of the Lamp Composed during the Jingde Era] (Chuandeng lu). 36 It is the author's manifest intent that gives the Thiên Uyên its unique historical and cultural value.
Let us examine the sources that the author of the Thiên Uyên used and his method of drawing on them. Inspired by Chinese Zen literature, the
Page 216
author of the Thien * Uyen* was moved to produce a systematic history of Zen Buddhism in Vietnam. With some oral transmissions and previous compilations as his source materials, and the Chuandeng lu as a model, the author composed a work that became the first comprehensive historical treatment of the Buddhist tradition in Vietnam.
The following texts are directly referred to throughout the Thiên Uyên as its main source materials:
1. The Chieu* Doi* Luc* [Collated Biographies] of Thông Bien* and Biên Tài.
2. The Nam Tông Tu'* Pháp Do* [Diagram of the Succession of the Dharma of the Southern School] by Thu'ò'ng Chieu* 3. The Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu'* [Essential Sayings of the Patriarchs] of Hue* Nhat*
(These texts are discussed in detail in Appendix II. ) As secondary sources, Thiên Uyên drew on:
1. The Su'* Ký [Record of History]
2. The Quoc* Su' [National History]37
The Quôc Su' is mentioned three times. According to Lê Manh* Thát, the Quôc Su' is probably the Dai* Viet* Su' Ký [A Recorded History of Dai* Viet*] composed by Lê Van* Hu'u. This history was a result of the revision of a work by Tran* Chu Pho* by Lê Van Hu'u by royal decree under Trân Thái Tông (r. 1225–
1258); it was finished in 1272. 38
The second historical source cited in the Thiên Uyên is the Su' Ký [Recorded History]. It is mentioned only once, in the biography of Khánh Hy*, where it reads: "According to the Su' Ký, he passed away in the third year of the Thiên Chu'o'ng Bao* Tu'* era. "39 Hoàng Xuân Hãn suggests that the note was added by the editor of the 1715 edition, and thus identifies the Su' Ký with Ngô Sy* Liên's Ðai Viêt Su' Ký Toàn Thu' [A Complete History of Ðai Viêt]. Lê Manh Thát disagrees: his
opinion is that the Su' Ký cited here is the Su' Ký composed by Do* Thien*, a work quoted four times in the Viêt Dien*. 40 We know that the Viêt Ðiên was composed by Lý Te* Xuyên in 1329, so Ðô Thien's* Su' Ký must have preceded it.
Analyzing the source materials for the Thiên Uyên provides us with a basis for evaluating the methodology and content of the text. Given the explicit content and the implicit intention of the Thiên Uyên, I find it hard to agree with Lê Manh Thát's remark that the author of the book "wished to achieve a method of writing history in an objective and scientific way. "41
Rather, in compiling the text, the author of the Thiên Uyên had a more complicated intention and objective, one that has exercised a significant and lasting influence on the Vietnamese Buddhist tradition: to provide a legitimating framework for Vietnamese Buddhism as an independent tradition with a definite, deeprooted history of its own.
Page 217
Appendix II—
Additional Supporting Data for Chapter Two
"Transmission of the Lamp" Texts in Vietnam before the Thien * Uyen* Tap* Anh
From the records in the Thiên Uyên we learn of a few texts of the "transmission of the lamp" genre that existed in Vietnam prior to the compilation of the Thiên Uyên. This indicates that the efforts to establish Vietnamese Buddhism as a legitimate continuity of Chinese Zen had been going on even prior to the time of the Thiên Uyên. It is interesting to note that prior to the period from 1272 to 1400, which E. S. Ungar has characterized as the period of political/historical maturity in Vietnamese intellectual history,1 the Chuandeng lu had provided the Vietnamese Buddhist elite with a conceptual model for an awareness of the transmission of Buddhism as an independent history.
The compiler of the Thiên Uyên relied considerably on earlier texts to compile his book. These were the Chieu* Doi* Luc* [Collated Biographies], Hue* Nhat* Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu'* [Essential Sayings of the Patriarchs Composed by Hue* Nhat*], Nam Tông Tu'* Pháp Do* [Diagram of the Succession of the Dharma of the Southern School], and Lu'o'c* Dan* Thiên Phái Ðô [Summarized Diagram of the Zen Schools]. Unfortunately, none of these works is extant, except for a short
preface to the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô. 2 Some scanty information about them can be gleaned from the records in the Thiên Uyên and from other descriptive bibliographical notes.
Chieu* Doi* Luc* or Chiêu Ðôi Ban*
This text was composed by Thông Bien* (died 1134) and later revised by Biên Tài. 3 We read in the biography of Than* Nghi (died 1216)4 that when he asked Thu'ò'ng Chieu* (died 1203) for instruction on the successive generations of Zen transmission in Vietnam, Thu'ò'ng Chiêu showed him Thông Biên's* Chiêu Ðôi Ban*. This tells us that by this time the idea of Zen transmission and lineage had been in circulation for some time
Page 218
Page 219
among the Vietnamese Buddhist elite. In Bien * Tài's biography it is said that he obeyed a royal order to revise the Chieu* Doi* Luc*. We do not know whether the original text was entitled Chiêu Ðôi Ban* and Biên Tài's revised version was called Chiêu Ðôi Luc, or there was a single text referred to by both names. In any case, both texts are lost so we do not have much information about their contents. They might have been the first works of the "transmission of the lamp" genre in Vietnam, and as such, the first texts to establish the Zen lineages in Vietnam.
Nam Tông Tu* Pháp Do*
This was composed by Thu'ò'ng Chieu* (died 1203). 5 This work is mentioned five times in the Thien* Uyen*, in the biographies of Thu'ò'ng Chiêu, Than* Nghi, Ma
Ha, and Dinh* Hue*, and in the list of the Thao* Ðu'ò'ng lineage. 6 We learn that the Nam Tông Tu'* Pháp Do*, despite its title, is more than just a diagram of the lineages, for it also contains biographies: The Thiên Uyên itself states that the "main biographies" (benzhuan) of Không Lo* and Giác Hai* can be found in the Nam Tông Tu' Pháp Ðô. 7
Thu'ò'ng Chiêu uses the expression "Nam Tông" [Southern School]. The Vinitaruci* school is traditionally referred to as "the Southern school. " We know that the Nam Tông Tu' Pháp Ðô records biographies of both the Vinitaruci and the Vô Ngôn Thông schools. By "Nam Tông," Thu'ò'ng Chiêu probably means the Southern school of Chinese Zen, the school that considered Huineng the Sixth Patriarch of Zen in China. Thu'ò'ng Chiêu thus seems to agree with Thông Biên in approving of both Zen schools in Vietnam as legitimate offshoots of the Southern school of Chinese Zen. The compiler of the Thiên Uyên, on the other hand, does not seem to agree with him.
To sum up, Thu'ò'ng Chiêu appears to have studied Thông Biên's works very carefully and considered them authoritative. He even defended Thông Biên for not
recording the two lineages of Nguyen* Dai* Diên and Nguyên Bát Nhã. 8 Thu'ò'ng Chiêu, therefore, might have used the Chiêu Ðoi Luc as a model he followed in composing his own Nam Tông Tu' Pháp Ðô. These two works proved to be the main sources for the author of the Thiên Uyên in compiling biographies of Vietnamese "Zen masters" from the sixth to the end of twelfth century.
Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu*
This text was composed by Hue* Nhat*. This work is mentioned twice in the Thiên Uyên, in the biographies of Tinh* Không (1091–1170) and Nguyên Hoc* (? – 1181), without giving any information about its author. 9 Since the Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu'* is no longer extant, and no other source in
Page 220
Vietnamese literature besides the Thien * Uyen* refers to it, we know absolutely nothing about its author, Hue* Nhat*. 10
From the way the Thiên Uyên refers to these works, it seems that the Chieu* Doi* Luc* and Nam Tông Tu'* Pháp Do* provided the compiler of Thiên Uyên with
biographical notes on eminent monks, and that he had to resort to the Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu'* for encounter dialogues and instructional verses.
The biographies of Tinh* Không and Nguyen* Hoc* are two explicit examples. 1 1 Even the compiler of the Thiên Uyên calls our attention to the fact that encounter dialogues and instructional verses in these two biographies are identical with those in the biographies of the two Chinese Zen masters Jiashan and Huisu as recorded in the Chuandeng lu. 12 Let us look at a few examples:
1. In Tinh Không's biography, one of his encounter dialogues with another monk reads as follows:
One day, when Tinh Không had gone up to the teaching hall, a monk with a staff came and asked, "What is the Truth Body (Dharmakaya*)? " Tinh Không said, "The Truth Body is originally without form.
" The monk continued, "What is the Dharmaeye? " Tinh Không said, "The Dharmaeye is originally without obstruction. '' He again said, "There is no Dharma in front of the eye. There is only consciousness in front of the eye. The Dharma is not within range of ear and eye. " The monk laughed loudly. Tinh Không said, "What are you laughing about? " The monk said, "You're the type who have left the world to become a monk but have not grasped the message [of Zen]. You should go study with Master Dao* Hue*. " Tinh Không said, "Can I still go see this master? " The monk said, "Above there's not a single roof tile, below there's not enough ground to stick an awl into. " Tinh Không then changed his clothes and headed for Mount Tiên Du. 13
Compare this with the encounter dialogue between Jiashan and Daowu in the biography of Jiashan in the Chuandeng lu:
One day Zen Master Jiashan Shanhui was coming up to the teaching hall when Daowu came with his staff. A monk asked, "What is the Truth Body? " Jiashan said, "The Truth Body is without form. " The monk continued, "What is the Dharmaeye? " Jiashan said, "The Dharmaeye is stainless. " He again said, "There is no Dharma in front of the eye. The Dharma is not within range of ear and eye. " Daowu laughed. Jiashan became confused and asked him, "What are you laughing about? " Daowu said, "Venerable sir, you're the type who left the world to become a monk yet haven't met a teacher. You should go to Zhezhong, Huating Village to study with the Venerable Chuanzi. " Jiashan
said, "Can I still go see him? " Daowu said, "With that teacher, above there's not a single roof tile to cover his head, below there's not enough ground for him to stick an awl into. " 14
2. It is recorded in Nguyen* Hoc's* biography that when he was about to pass away he spoke two verses instructing his students. One of them reads as follows:
The Dharma has no image or form,
It is right before your eyes, not far away. You have to turn back and find it in yourself, Do not seek it from others.
Even if you find it from them,
It wouldn't be the true Dharma.
But suppose you find the true Dharma, What kind of a thing is it? 15
This is almost identical with a verse spoken by Huisi recorded in the Chuandeng lu:
The Dharma is essentially not far away,
The ocean of the True Nature is not immense. Try to find it within yourself,
Do not seek it from others.
Even if you find it from them,
It wouldn't be the true Dharma. 16
The second verse by Nguyên Hoc* is also identical to another verse spoken by Huisi. The author of the Thien* Uyen* also informs us that the encounter dialogues and instructional verses in the above two biographies were taken from the Liet* To* Yeu* Ngu'*. This seems to show that the Liêt Tô Yêu Ngu' was an earlier Vietnamese "transmission of the lamp" text that drew heavily on the Chuandeng lu. (Note that cases of interpolation of dialogues and verses borrowed from the Chuandeng lu are not restricted to the biographies of Tinh* Không and Nguyên Hoc. )
Lu'o'c* Dan* Thien* Phái Do*
This work was composed by an unknown author of the Tran* dynasty: As its title suggests, this is a brief, annotated diagram of the origin and development of the Trúc
Lâm [Bamboo Grove] Zen school, the only genuine Vietnamese Zen school with a Vietnamese founder and a lineage of successors.
The Lu'o'c* Dan* Thien* Phái Do* is too brief and does not appear to have been an independent work; it is not mentioned by the compiler of the Thiên Uyên either. However, it is relevant in this connection, since it was an attempt to trace the transmission of Zen in Vietnam and thus
Page 221
Page 222
falls within the "transmission of the lamp" genre, and it is the only extant document of its kind. This "annotated diagram" is included in the preface to the [Hue * Trung] Thu'o'ng* Si* Ngu'* Luc* [Recorded Sayings of the Eminent Hue* Trung], a Tran* dynasty Zen teacher. 17 We have evidence to believe that the Lu'o'c* Dan*
Thien* Phái Do* was written circa 1310–1313. 18 The main purpose of the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Dô as reflected in its preface was to set forth the genealogy of the Trúc Lâm school within the broader context of the Zen tradition:
After our Great Sage Sakyamuni* Buddha transmitted the treasure of the eye of the true Dharma, which is the wondrous mind of Nirvana, to the Venerable Mahakasyapa*, it was transmited for twentyeight generations until it reached the Great Master Bodhidharma. He came to China and transmitted [the true Dharma] to the Great Master Shenguang. 19 From Shenguang the transmission continued for six generations until it reached the Great Master Shenhui. It was at that time that the true Dharma came to our country.
It is not known who was the first one to receive it [in our country]. The records begin with Zen Master Chanyue (Thien* Nguyet*) who transmitted [the true Dharma] to Lý Thái Tông, then to the Elder Dinh* Hu'o'ng, then to the Great Master Viên Chieu*, then to Zen Master Dao* Hue*—from one generation to the next, sometimes their names were known sometimes unknown. It is difficult to trace the lineage.
[The Zen tradition in our country] can be divided into three lineages:
1. Our lineage has already been set forth in the diagram, so it is not necessary to recount it again.
2. Zen Master Vu'o'ng Chí Nhàn transmitted it to Venerable Nhiem* Tang*. Nhiêm Tang transmitted it to Layman Nhiêm Tú. This lineage is now lost, and its transmission is not known.
3. Venerable Nhat* Thien* received [the true Dharma] from a certain [unknown] teacher. He transmitted it to Prince Chân Ðao. At the present time, this lineage is also fading. Also, there was Layman Tianfeng (Thiên Phong) who came from Zhangquan and was a contemporary of Yingshun (Ú'ng Thuan*). Tianfeng claimed he belonged to the Linji school. He transmitted [the true Dharma] to National Preceptor Dadeng (Dai* Dang*) and Venerable Nansi (Nan Tu').
Dadeng transmitted it to our Emperor [Trân] Thánh Tông, to National Preceptor Lieu* Minh, to Huyen* Sách and others. Huyên Sách transmitted it to Pha* Trac* and others. Now this lineage is also deteriorating and is not in a very glorious state. Alas! The flourishing and decline of the Zen School is beyond words.
Now I am briefly enumerating the lineages of the Zen School [in our country] to leave [an account] to posterity, so that the generations of scholars to come will know that Zen has a source that can be traced. This is not just my own fabrication.
In this text, the author describes the origin and the situation of Buddhism in Vietnam during his time as follows:
1. The "True Dharma" (Buddhism) first came to Vietnam at the time of Shenhui (684–758). However, the author of the Lu'o'c * Dan* Thien* Phái Do* was quick to note that it was not known "who was the first to receive [the Dharma] in our country," and that the record only starts with Chanyue (Thien* Nguyet*),20 who transmitted the Dharma to Lý Thái Tông (r. 1029–1054), then to Dinh* Hu'o'ng (? –1051), to Viên Chieu* (999–1090), to Dao* Hue* (? –1073), and others. 21
2. By the early fourteenth century when the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô was written, there were four Zen lineages in Vietnam: The first lineage started with Thông Thiên (? –1228),22 who transmitted the Dharma to Tú'c Lu*, to Ú'ng Thuan*, to Xiaoyao (Tiêu Diêu), and to Huizhong (Huê Trung). Huê Trung then transmitted the Dharma to Trúc Lâm, i. e. , Emperor Tran* Nhân Tông (r. 1279–1293), who founded the Trúc Lâm Zen sect. The second lineage was transmitted by Zen Master Vu'o'ng Chí Nhàn; the third by Zen Master Nhat* Thien*; and the fourth by Layman Tianfeng, a contemporary of Ú'ng Thuân, who claimed to belong to the Linji school. According to the author of the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô, these three lineages were already fading at his time and not much was known about them.
As we review this account of Buddhist history, a few things deserve consideration.
First, the author of the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô remarks that "the True Dharma" (zhengfa) came to Vietnam at the time of Shenhui. " Whether by "True Dharma" he meant either Zen Buddhism or simply Buddhism, this statement does not seem to be correct, since we have archeological and historical evidence of the presence of Buddhism in Vietnam prior to the time of Shenhui and very little evidence of the introduction of Zen to Vietnam at the time of Shenhui. 2 3 Still, the connection the author makes between Shenhui and the origin of Zen Buddhism in Vietnam might be more than a chance conjecture: There might have been Chinese monks of Shenhui's lineage who came to Vietnam to spread Zen Buddhism and whose Vietnamese disciples strove to establish some sort of a Zen school in Vietnam.
Second, note that the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô was probably written less than thirty years before the Thiên Uyen*, yet the author of the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái
Ðô seems to know nothing of either Vinitaruci* or Vô Ngôn Thông. In fact, he did not know of any teachers before Thiên Lão. 24 Some modern scholars like Lê Manh* Thát have argued that this is because these authors did not have access to the materials used by the author of Thiên Uyên. But then again, the author of the Thiên Uyên did not seem to know of some of the "lineages" mentioned by the author of
Page 223
Page 224
the Lu'o'c * Dan* Thien* Phái Do*, for instance. This suggests that there were various alternative versions of the history and contemporary situation of Buddhism in Vietnam current at that time.
While the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô might tell us something about the genealogy of the Trúc Lâm school, its author seems surprisingly nebulous about the transmission of Zen Buddhism in Vietnam in general. Nevertheless, the author of the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô seems to have recorded only what he actually knew, unlike other authors who tried to portray an unbroken line of succession connecting Vietnamese Zen to the Southern School of Chinese Zen (an aspiration that lasts even to the present time). In fact, although the Lu'o'c Dân Thiên Phái Ðô is not extremely informative about the transmission of Zen in Vietnam, it does give us a realistic impression of the historical situation. During the period of more than ten centuries before its author's time, there were records of émigré foreign monks of Cham, Indian, and Chinese provenance coming to Vietnam to teach Buddhism. Among them, there must have been some Chinese Zen masters who transmitted their teachings to Vietnamese disciples. Some of these Vietnamese Zen adepts in turn might have made efforts to establish Vietnamese lineages. But there is no documentary record to indicate whether these "lineages" were consistent and lasting enough to become legitimate "sects" or "schools. "
By the middle of the eleventh century, under the Lý dynasty, efforts were underway to construct a "history" of the transmission of Vietnamese Buddhism. The Vietnamese Buddhist elite in the Lý dynasty capital must have come under the spell of Zen literature, which enjoyed high prestige among cultured circles in China at the time, and been familiar with the "transmission of the lamp" genre, and especially the Chuandeng lu. Although we know that Buddhism came to Vietnam before the Zen school arose in China (and before the formation of the concept of "schools" in the Zen sense), for the Lý dynasty Buddhist elite, it was natural to portray Vietnamese Buddhist history as part of the history of the transmission of Zen, which was the form of Buddhism both intellectually paramount and socially most prestigious in their cultural horizon. Since the Chinese Buddhist intellectuals composed "lamp history" texts to rewrite the history of Buddhism according to the Zen school, the Vietnamese Buddhist leaders likewise composed ''lamp history" texts to assert Vietnamese Buddhism as the legitimate outgrowth of Chinese Zen.
Unfortunately, except for the Thiên Uyen*, none of the other Vietnamese "lamp history" texts is extant except in fragments or in brief references in other literary works.
The fact that the authors of the various "lamp history" texts did not offer compatible accounts of Vietnamese Zen, and apparently did not
Page 225
even know of each other, demonstrates that in reality Vietnamese Buddhism at that time was not at all what these authors made it out to be: a coherent, unified transmission derived from some Chinese Zen lineages. Rather, Vietnamese Buddhism consisted of different groups, stationed at different temples, under the influence of émigré monks belonging to different traditions of Chinese, Indian, or Central Asian Buddhism. When the Vietnamese authors recorded what they observed (or heard), they structured their accounts to conform to the Zen lineage model that they believed to be orthodox.
A critical reading of the Thien * Uyen* shows us that its model of Vietnamese Buddhist history is based on interpretations derived from the Chieu* Doi* Luc*, a text of the "lamp history" genre composed by Thông Bien*, now lost. Although at present the viewpoint of the Thiên Uyên is accepted by the Vietnamese Buddhist community as the "official view," the writings of Phúc Dien* show that up to the middle of the nineteenth century the Thiên Uyens* account of Vietnamese Buddhist history was not accepted unquestioningly as it is nowadays.
Thông Bien's* Model of Vietnamese Buddhist History
Thông Biên was the first Vietnamese Buddhist author to establish a history of Buddhism in Vietnam based on the paradigms of Chinese Zen: the Zen school versus the scriptural school, the direct transmissions from one patriarch to another in successive lineages. In other words, Thông Biên was the first Vietnamese who endeavored to interpret the development of Vietnamese Buddhism in the form of transmission of the mind of enlightenment based on the model of Chinese Zen's "lamp history. "
Thông Biên's biography relates an incident that took place at a vegetarian feast held at the National Temple in 1096, where he gave this explanation on the origin of Buddhism in India and its transmission to Vietnam:
Out of compassion, the Buddha appeared to be born in India. This is because India is the center of the world. At nineteen he left home. At thirty he achieved enlightenment. He stayed in the world preaching the Dharma for fortynine years, setting forth all sorts of provisional teachings to enable sentient beings to awaken to the Path. This is what is called creating teachings for a certain period.
When he was about to enter final nirvana, he was afraid that people attached to delusion would get stuck on his words, so he told Manjusri*, "In fortynine years I have not spoken a single word. Will they think something was said? " So he held up a flower [in front of the assembly on Vulture Peak]. No one in the assembly knew what to say, except
Page 226
Later Moteng (Kasyapa* Matanga*) brought this teaching to Han China [ca. first century C. E. ] and Bodhidharma travelled to [the Chinese kingdoms] of Liang and Wei [ca. sixth century C. E. ] with this message. The transmission of the teaching flourished with Tiantai: it is called the school of the scriptural teachings. The gist of the teaching became clear with [the Sixth Patriarch of Zen] Caoqi: this is called the Zen school. Both these schools reached our country [Vietnam] many years ago. The scriptural teachings began with Mou Bo and Kang Senghui. The first stream of the Zen school began with Vinitaruci* (Ty* Ni Ða Lu'u Chi); the second with Vô Ngôn Thông. Vinitaruci and Vô Ngôn Thông are the ancestral teachers of these two streams [of Zen].
. . . The present representatives of the Vinitaruci stream are Lâm Hue* Sinh and Vu'o'ng Chân Không. For the Vô Ngôn Thông stream, they are Mai Viên Chieu* and Nhan Quang* Trí. [The successor of Kang Senghui] is Lôi Hà Trach*. The other side branches [of these two streams] are too numerous to mention them all. 25
Thông Bien's* remarks simply reiterated the typical traditional Zen model of Buddhist history. His concept of Buddhist history can be summarized as follows: (1) Both the "scriptural school" and "mind school" or Zen derived directly from the Buddha. (2) The scriptural school culminated in China with the Tiantai school, whereas the Zen school was transmitted by Bodhidharma from India to successive generations of Chinese patriarchs until it reached its zenith with Huineng. (3) Both of these schools, however, had come to Vietnam quite early: the scriptural school began with Mou Bo and Kang Senghui, the Zen school with Vinitaruci and Vô Ngôn Thông.
Note that although Thông Bien* obviously based himself on some of the ideas circulating in Zen circles in Song China, he did not seem to rate the Zen school as superior to the scriptural school as most of his Chinese Zen predecessors and contemporaries did. In fact, according to his biography Thông Biên attained enlightenment by meditating on the Lotus Sutra* and became known as "Ngo* Pháp Hoa" or "Awakened to the Lotus. "
Thông Biên's model of Vietnamese Buddhist history—although not known to or approved by some authors of the Tran* dynasty—was subsequently adopted by the compiler of the Thien* Uyen* and thus exercised lasting influence on the traditional understanding of Vietnamese Buddhist history.
the Venerable Mahakasyapa *, who cracked a slight smile. Buddha knew he had meshed [with truth], so he entrusted the treasury of the eye of the true Dharma to him, and he became the first patriarch [of Zen]. This is what is called the separate transmission of the mindsource outside the scriptural teachings.
Page 227
We have evidence that the author of the Thien * Uyen* derived his overall outline of Vietnamese Buddhist history from the Chieu* Doi* Luc*, a work composed by Thông Bien* himself. We learn from Than* Nghi's biography that when he enquired about the Zen transmission and lineages in Vietnam, his teacher, Thu'ò'ng Chieu*, showed him Thông Bien's* Chiêu Ðôi Luc in which was recorded the transmission of both the scriptural school and particularly the Zen school in Vietnam with the lineages of Vinitaruci* and Vô Ngôn Thông and other minor branches.
Phúc Dien's* Model of Vietnamese Buddhist History
I have pointed out that from the middle of the Lý dynasty there were sporadic efforts by selfconscious Vietnamese Buddhist leaders to compose texts recording or interpreting the transmission of Buddhism in Vietnam. The Thiên Uyên itself is one important milestone in this ongoing enterprise of constructing history.
Nhu' So'n, an eminent monk of the [Later] Lê dynasty, composed the Ke* Dang* Luc, intending to trace Vietnamese Buddhism back to the time of the ancient, mythical Bhismagarjitasvararaja* Buddha, the paradigmatic symbol of the mind of enlightenment. But Nhu' So'n's work turns out to be nothing but a summary of the Wudeng huiyuan chronicle of Chinese Zen and is almost useless for the study of Vietnamese Buddhist history.
It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, during the Nguyen* dynasty, that there appeared, in the writings of Phúc Dien*, another sustained effort at understanding the transmission of Zen in Vietnam. Phúc Ðiên's writings inform us of the transmission of Linji and Caodong Zen in medieval Vietnam and shed some light on a few historical issues in the Thiên Uyên.
Through Phúc Ðiên's biography in the Kê Ðang Lu'o'c* Luc, we learn that one of his main concerns is to collect materials for a complete history of the origin and transmission of Vietnamese Buddhism (which he understood to mean Zen Buddhism). 2 6 This is the reason why Phúc Ðiên reprinted and edited writings and materials that he thought related to this issue. Phúc Ðiên stated in his "New Preface to the FiveFascicle Transmission of the Lamp" that he composed the Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc as a supplement to the Thiên Uyên, yet we notice that he did not seem to believe completely in the model of Vietnamese Buddhist history set forth by the Thiên Uyên. Phúc Ðiên wrote:
The successions from generation to generation among monks of various schools in the Zen community of Vietnam from the Ðinh, [Former] Lê, Lý and Tran* to the [Later] Lê, could not be recorded. [Concerning the transmission] from the Trân up to the present time (Nguyên), I have many times searched among the adepts, records,
Page 228
and legends, without much success, and I have not been able to do a thorough study of the lineages of dharmaheirs. Therefore, I do not dare to compose anything but only record briefly [information] on the Tran * dynasty about the adepts, Buddhist sites, eminent monks, together with famous mountains, monasteries, renowned monks, transmissions from teachers to students, and the patronage by the aristocrats. 27
Thus, instead of continuing the Thien* Uyen*, Phúc Dien's* Ke* Dang* Lu'o'c* Luc* becomes an effort to investigate the complete history of "the transmission of the lamp" in Vietnam.
Another point worth noticing is that Phúc Dien* did not discuss extensively Vô Ngôn Thông. In his "New Preface to the FiveFascicle Transmission of the Lamp" he only mentioned the name of Vô Ngôn Thông as the founder of Zen in Vietnam (actually, he seems to reiterate the viewpoint of the Thiên Uyên). In his Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc, Phúc Ðiên presents a picture of Vietnamese Zen in which Vô Ngôn Thông does not appear to play any role. It is the same with Vinitaruci*. Phúc Ðiên only refers to Vinitaruci in passing in the story of Khâu Ðà La,28 merely as a monk who dwelt at Co* Châu Temple.
Phúc Ðiên stated that his intention was to compose a supplement to the Thiên Uyên. As a result we have the Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc. Phúc Ðiên himself seems to have been of the opinion that the value of Nhu' So'n's Kê Ðang Luc consists in connecting the patriarchs of the two schools of Linji and Caodong—in both China and Vietnam—with the beginning of Zen since Bhismagarjitasvararaja* Buddha; therefore, in his Kê Ðang Lu'o'c Luc, he followed the example of Nhu' So'n and strove to
retrace the inception of Zen in Vietnam in ancient records. 2 9 Phúc Ðiên wrote as follows about the beginning of Zen in Vietnam:
The inception of Zen in Dai* Nam: During the reign of Hùng Vu'o'ng there was [a young man named] Dong* Tu'* who went up to the grass hermitage on Mount Quynh* Vi. In the hermitage dwelt a monk from India named Phat* Quang (*Buddhaprabha). When Ðông Tu' passed the age of forty, Phât Quang transmitted the Dharma to him, giving him a hat and a staff saying that they contained all his miraculous power. Ðông Tu' transmitted the Dharma to Tiên Dung (his wife) and together they cultivated the Dharma.
On their way home, they had to stay overnight at some place, taking shelter under the hat supported by the staff. At the third watch, there appeared citadels, palaces, boy and girl servants, armies, and a whole court. Next morning, the nearby people were amazed and referred to it as the celestial court. [Ðông Tu' and Tiên Dung] arranged them into ranks, and they became a separate country. When Hùng Vu'o'ng heard about this, he thought that his daughter (Tiên
Page 229
Dung) was rebelling, so he sent his troops to fight them but they did not succeed. One night, strong wind arose scattering the sand and shaking the trees. Tiên Dung, Dong * Tu'*, their subject, citadels, and palaces all rose to the sky. The empty lot was transformed into a swamp. The next day there was nothing to be seen. People then built a shrine to worship. The swamp was subsequently named Da* Trach*, the province Tu'* Nhiên, the town Hà Mau*. 30
This strongly mythical story does not seem to have anything to do with the transmission of Zen. Perhaps Phúc Dien's* intention was to say that Zen was as old as the country of Vietnam. Traditional history gives the date of Hùng Vu'o'ng—the mythical ancestor of the Vietnamese people—as 2879 B. C. E. 31 For Phúc Dien*, Zen had been transmitted by Bhismagarjitasvararaja* Buddha since the beginning of time. Obviously, from the viewpoint of critical history we cannot accept this position, because Zen did not really take shape in China until the middle of the seventh century. To interpret the unfolding of Buddhism in human history symbolically as the transmission of the enlightenment experience in the Zen fashion is one thing, but to regard this as actual history is another.
To sum up Phúc Ðiên's view, Zen had been present in Vietnam since the time of Hùng Vu'o'ng. Although this ancient transmission was not recorded clearly and there were not sufficient materials to restore a coherent history, the continuous transmission of Zen in Vietnam as a cohesive school was a reality beyond any doubt. In essence, then, Phúc Ðiên, like Thông Bien*, implicitly adopted the interpretive concepts of the Chinese Zen tradition to construct his view of Vietnamese Buddhist history.

Word:

Question:

Answer (optional):