CHINESE CH'AN AND JAPANESE ZEN | Zen Wisdom

QUESTION:
Would Shih-fu please talk about the similarities and differences between Chinese Ch’an and Japanese Zen?

SHIH-FU:
Ch’an was initially transmitted from China to Japan during the time of the Northern Sung dynasty (960-1127). Ch’an was then assimilated and altered by Japanese culture to form what is Japanese Zen. One must remember, however, that Ch’an itself has evolved over the centuries. There were noticeable changes in Ch’an Buddhism from the T’ang dynasty to the Sung dynasty, from the Sung dynasty to the Ming dynasty, and from the Ming dynasty to the present. Northern Sung dynasty Ch’an was probably very similar to Japanese Zen of that same period, but over the centuries they have evolved along different paths.

Most people in the West who know about Buddhism are more familiar with Zen than Ch’an. There are two schools of Zen, called the Rinzai and Soto sects. Both schools trace their roots to two schools of Ch’an during the Northern Sung dynasty. Rinzai Zen grew out of Lin-chi Ch’an and Soto Zen grew out of Ts’ao-tung Ch’an.

There is also a third lineage in Japan called the Obaku sect. The Obaku sect traces its roots to the Lin-chi sect of the Ming dynasty. Because the Lin-chi sect changed somewhat during the centuries between the Northern Sung and Ming dynasties, the Rinzai and Obaku sects have different characteristics and styles. The Obaku sect still exists, but it is small, with only one temple remaining in Japan.

To make matters even more complex, there are two major branches of the Japanese Rinzai sect. One school was transmitted from China during the Northern Sung dynasty. Its headquarters is the Myo Shin Ji temple in Kyoto, from which stem many minor branches. The other major branch of the Rinzai sect was transmitted from China during the final years of the Southern Sung dynasty (1127-1279). This Zen school is situated in Enga Ku Ji temple in Kamakura, Tokyo.

There is also a marked difference in the flavor of Zen before and after World War II. Before the war, Zen displayed more of a samurai spirit. After the war, these characteristics were not as clearly evident; but, compared to masters from other countries, Japanese Zen masters, or roshis, still exhibit forceful personae. It would not be difficult to point out a male Japanese Zen master in a gathering of monks and nuns. It is normal for a Japanese man who is in a position of power to have a commanding, often intimidating, personality, like that of a samurai. A Japanese roshi is still Japanese, and has therefore been raised with these cultural qualities. It is not necessarily the trait of a roshi; it is the trait of a Japanese man in a position of power. In recent times, however, Japanese men have not exhibited the samurai personality as much as they have in the past. Lately there have emerged masters, male and female, of Western ancestry, who
are also to as roshis, and no doubt these masters will have personae reflecting their own cultures.

On the other hand, except for their dress and appearance, Chinese Ch’an masters would not stand out in a crowd. They appear and act ordinary. In general, Chinese masters do not have fierce or forceful personalities. If a Chinese master is fierce, then it is that particular master’s personality. Ch’an masters will take charge while they are guiding others in practice, but they will not carry over this kind of behavior into daily life. During retreats Ch’an masters might scold some people, but it would be rare to witness this behavior at other times. Outside of the Ch’an Hall, they would live ordinary lives and be indistinguishable from everyone else.

In the Ch’an tradition, there are, in general, two types of Ch’an masters. One type of master tends to scold ─ and sometimes beat ─ practitioners while guiding them. These masters are usually followers of the Lin-chi tradition. The other type of master uses gentle words and mannerisms in teaching practitioners. Generally, these masters are followers of the Ts’ao-tung tradition. Again, however, it must be emphasized that masters exhibit such behavior only when guiding others in practice.

In Ch’an and Zen monasteries, practice is very much immersed in daily life. Work and service are important aspects of practice. Of course, there are times devoted completely to meditation practice. At those times there may be a few hundred monks and nuns practicing together formally. In Ch’an retreats, there are usually no regularly scheduled personal interviews with the master.

It is only on those occasions when a practitioner feels something has happened that he or she may request a personal interview with the master. At other times, a master teaches to the entire gathering at the same time. There are people who have stayed in a Ch’an monastery for several years and have not had a single occasion to meet and speak personally with the master. Possibly this is one of the reasons why Ch’an masters do not have to maintain a dignified manner. During Zen retreats, by contrast, masters usually interview their disciples on a daily basis.

When Zen masters introduced Ch’an teachings and methods to Japan, they taught the forms that were popular in China at that time. These forms were passed along from generation to generation with few changes. Even today, Japanese Zen monasteries have fairly strict rules about outer appearances and uniformity of behavior. Again, this may be a characteristic of Japanese culture.

Through the centuries, Chinese Ch’an monasteries have not placed much emphasis on appearances and specific forms of practice. For example, Chinese monasteries do not issue sets of uniforms and robes to Sangha members. Monks and nuns wear their own clothes. Of course they have ceremonial robes for special occasions, but for the most part, there are no strict rules governing clothing. Emphasis is placed on following precepts and adhering to the daily schedule.

It is only natural that there be differences between Japanese Zen monasteries and Chinese Ch’an monasteries. The same is true for Ch’an centers and Zen centers in the United States. If people see the Ch’an Center as being different from a typical American Zen center, it should come as no surprise. It’s normal. The Western Ch’an Center is different from a traditional Ch’an hall in a Chinese monastery. A typical zendo in this country is different from a traditional zendo in a Japanese monastery.

Actually, traditional zendos in Japan are quite similar to traditional Ch’an halls in China. A typical Ch’an Hall is usually only one of several buildings in a Chinese monastery. Here at the Ch’an Center, we only have two buildings, and one is more or less a dormitory for nuns. Therefore, we have to fit everything else into one building. The Ch’an Center is compact and it is used for a variety of purposes. In a traditional Ch’an monastery, there may be several buildings and thousands of people. A large group may live in the building holding the main hall. Only a hundred or so may stay at the Ch’an Hall. The Ch’an practitioners may never go to the main hall to attend its activities; and the Ch’an Hall is usually austere in its appearance. It may not have a single Buddha statue.
I am a product of twentieth century China, so when I came to the United States I brought some flavor of modern China with me. In the same way, American Zen centers founded by Japanese teachers carry the spirit of modern Japan.

Also, I have not adhered completely to the style of Chinese Ch’an. Certain elements of this Ch’an Center have been borrowed from Japanese teachings. For example, the cushions we sit on are a product of the Japanese tradition.

Traditionally, practitioners of the Lin-chi, Ts’ao-tung and Rinzai sects sit facing each other. Here we sit facing the wall, after the Japanese Soto tradition.

I also have practitioners do variations of hatha yoga exercises in between sittings. This is not found in any Chinese or Japanese tradition. It’s just that I feel stretching exercises are healthy for the body and necessary for modern practitioners.

My attempt to give each retreatant several personal interviews is adopted from Zen. I will interview each practitioner a couple of times during retreat, but not every day. I often leave it up to the practitioner. If he or she wishes to speak with me, I am usually available.

Chinese Ch’an monasteries are predominantly closed to lay practitioners. Our Ch’an Center in New York is open to and mostly frequented by householders. A typical Ch’an monastery consists of a group of monks and nuns living and practicing together for many years. One doesn’t find householders attending week-long retreats and then returning to their regular lives and daily schedules.
Things are different in the United States. It will never be the same here as it is in China, so I have had to restructure things and modify the way I teach. Ch’an and Zen will have to change and adapt if they are to survive in modern cultures, whether Eastern or Western.

STUDENT:
On retreats at the Ch’an Center, we do prostration practice. Is this also an element of the Zen sect?

SHIH-FU:
Prostration is a generic Buddhist practice. Zen uses prostration, but not to the extent of other Buddhist traditions. In a Japanese monastery, prostration practice is not emphasized, but monks and nuns will prostrate three times before and after services. However, it is up to the individual how he or she wishes to practice during private time. There are four kinds of samadhi practice: sitting, walking, chanting and prostrating; so doing prostrations is a legitimate form of practice.

STUDENT:
Do Zen practitioners do slow walking meditation?

SHIH-FU:
Yes, but not fast walking meditation. In Ch’an monasteries, practitioners fast walk but do not slow walk. At the New York Ch’an Center we do both forms of walking.

There are other differences. Japanese Zen does not use the Buddha’s name recitation method. The Chinese tradition does. The Buddha recitation method was taught by the Fourth Patriarch, Tao-hsin (580-651). Today, most people recite Amitabha Buddha’s name, but any Buddha’s name will do. After the Sung dynasty, many people used this method as part of their Ch’an training. In Japan, reciting the Buddha’s name is, however, practiced by the Pure Land sect.

In Zen, people begin to practice with a hua-t’ou or by counting the breath. In general, the Rinzai sect uses koan and hua-t’ou methods. A roshi will give a student a series of koans or hua-t’ous to work on, one after another. The main method used by the Soto sect is shikantaza, which means “just sitting.” Really, shikantaza is the method of no method.

When teaching beginners, I usually ask them to count or follow the breath; if they have been using the hua-t’ou method for a long time and are doing well with it, I’ll allow them to continue. If people are accustomed to reciting Amitabha Buddha’s name, I’ll let them continue but with certain modifications. In order for the practice to be a Ch’an method, practitioners may not recite the name with the desire to be reborn in the Pure Land.

As a Ch’an method, reciting the Buddha’s name ─ or a mantra for that matter ─ is no different from counting the breath. Its purpose is to help calm the mind. When a reciter of the Buddha’s name reaches a point where the mind is calm and concentrated, he or she can then start to ask, “Who is it that is reciting the Buddha’s name?” In essence, the method has been turned into a hua-t’ou. I rarely instruct practitioners to start with a hua-t’ou, because if their minds are not calm, then the hua-t’ou will not help them to give rise to a sense of great doubt. Giving rise to a sense of great doubt is the purpose of the hua-t’ou. If it doesn’t work, then the method is useless.

Some have said that if you turn reciting the Buddha’s name into a hua-t’ou, it is simultaneously a Ch’an method and a Pure Land method. In reality, this is Ch’an practice.

In Ch’an, people may begin with the hua-t’ou method or by reciting Buddha’s name. Practitioners of the Lin-chi sect may begin by counting breaths or by reciting the Buddha’s name, but eventually they should progress to a hua-t’ou. Whereas in Rinzai Zen students are given one hua-t’ou after another, Lin-chi Ch’an students may work on the same hua-t’ou for their entire lives.
Practitioners of the Ts’ao-tung sect may begin to practice by counting breaths, or more likely, by reciting the Buddha’s name. They will not, however, turn the method into a hua-t’ou. Instead, when the mind is calm, practitioners will practice silent illumination, which is very similar to shikantaza.

STUDENT:
When Pure Land practitioners recite the Buddha’s name and attain a level of one-mindedness, is it the same as a Ch’an experience of one-mindedness?

SHIH-FU:
No, it’s not the same because the Pure Land practitioner is seeking to be reborn in the Pure land. Since there is a seeking attitude, there is attachment. If there are any attachments involved, it cannot be a Ch’an experience. When a Ch’an practitioner recites the Buddha’s name, there shouldn’t be any element of desire. A true Ch’an practitioner would not ask the Buddha for help.

STUDENT:
Why then do some Ch’an practitioners call on Kuan-yin (Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara) for help?

SHIH-FU:
Ch’an is still part of Buddhism and is therefore not completely devoid of religious elements. Practitioners who are in situations where they feel hopeless may call on Kuan-yin for help or strength. It’s human nature to sometimes feel weak or at a loss. The question is, would Ch’an masters ask Kuan-yin for help? Ch’an masters, even if they have no attachments and are not seeking anything for their own sake, may at times find they cannot do something for the sake of sentient beings. In these situations, Ch’an masters may invoke the name of Kuan-yin. However, in my study of Chinese Buddhist history, I have never come across any reference of a T’ang dynasty Ch’an master reciting names of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. It’s possible that the attainment of contemporary
masters is not as deep as that of past patriarchs. A genuinely enlightened master would not need to call on Kuan-yin for help.

STUDENT:
If Soto Zen derives from Ts’ao-tung Ch’an, then how come Soto is considered a gradual school of practice whereas Ts’ao-tung is considered a sudden approach?

SHIH-FU:
Where did you hear that? There is no such distinction. You shouldn’t confuse “soft” with “gradual.” The Soto and Ts’ao-tung sects are more gentle in their approach to practice than are the Rinzai and Lin-chi sects. But they are all sudden methods of practice. There are two ways to look at this. First, I always stress that practice is both the process and the goal. If the goal is to practice, then it is automatically a sudden method. Second, no matter whether you practice forcefully or gently ─ no matter whether you break through the barriers of illusion with a hua-t’ou method or you gently calm the mind until the sense of self disappears ─ enlightenment always comes suddenly. Enlightenment never appears little by little.

If you insist on calling the Ts’ao-tung sect a gradual approach, then you must also call the Lin-chi sect a gradual approach. Ts’ao-tung practitioners practice silent illumination steadily for years. Lin-chi practitioners investigate hua-t’ous. They may do so for years. What is the difference?

STUDENT:
Japanese Zen monks can marry. What is the difference between a Zen priest and a Zen monk and why is there no such distinction in Ch’an? Are there any other obvious differences?

SHIH-FU:
To my knowledge, there are no Zen monks in Japan. There are only Zen priests. The difference is that priests can get married and live with their families in a temple. They might follow the monk lifestyle, but so long as they get married, they are not monks. On the other hand, Japanese Zen nuns cannot get married. Presently, they are struggling for this right.

STUDENT:
But I thought one of the first precepts for becoming a Buddhist monk was to take a vow of celibacy?

SHIH-FU:
Zen priests take most of the traditional Buddhist vows, but do not take the vow of celibacy.

STUDENT:
This couldn’t have always been the case in Japan. When and why did this happen?

SHIH-FU:
The change in monks being allowed to marry happened about a hundred years ago. It was a political move to weaken Japanese Buddhism. Monks were given a choice of returning to lay life or joining Shinto temples.

STUDENT:
When you become a monk or nun in China, you are a Buddhist and not specifically a Ch’an Buddhist or Pure Land Buddhist. Monks and nuns can try different practices during their lifetime. Is this also true in Japan?

SHIH-FU:
In China, once you become a monk or nun, you can practice any Buddhist tradition. You are not even limited to Chinese Buddhism. You can practice Theravada Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, or any other tradition. This is not the case in Japan. When you join the Sangha in Japan, you choose whether you want to be part of the Zen sect or Pure Land sect. I’m not sure this is such a bad idea. In China, it is so easy for monks and nuns to dabble with different practices that many of them never advance far in any one tradition. It is like what I say about changing meditation methods all the time. You never get anywhere. It’s like window shopping.

Let me close by saying a few things. The few years I lived in Japan I spent studying and practicing. I didn’t make it a point to analyze the similarities and differences between Zen and Ch’an. Likewise, my contact with American Zen centers and with people who follow the Zen tradition in the United States has been limited, so everything I have said must be considered in this light.
Furthermore, we have limited our discussion to China, Japan and the United States, but there is also a strong Ch’an tradition and practice in Korea, called Son, and masters from Korea have come to the United States as well. My guess is that in each of these places, the tradition of Ch’an Buddhism carries qualities unique to those areas and environments. A basic principle of Buddhism states that all things change. Why should the different Ch’an traditions be immune to this fundamental principle?

I prefer that we explain to people what we do and why we do it. It’s pointless to say, “Ch’an does this and Zen does that.” Inevitably, it leads to unfair comparisons, disagreements, quarrels and competition. If this talk sparks controversy and animosity among people who want to believe that one style is better than another, then they are not good practitioners. Such behavior is foolish. Practitioners should be concerned with their own practice and with helping others.

Looking beyond whatever differences exist, Ch’an and Zen are both within the Mahayana tradition, whose followers meditate and practice for the sake of helping sentient beings. This is more important than any differences.

Lastly, American Buddhism owes a debt of gratitude to Japanese Zen masters and authors, who were among the first to venture to the West with teachings of Buddhadharma. Their initial work and ensuing success made it possible and easier for other Buddhist traditions to establish themselves.

PREVIOUS: ARE YOU A BUDDHIST? | Zen Wisdom
NEXT: THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE AND HISTORY ON CH’AN | Zen Wisdom