In respect to the so-called Zen lineage beginning with Mahakashyapa, it has no connection with the mind to mind transmission. According to the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Great Disciples like Mahakashyapa "were not capable of perpetuating the lineage of Buddhas..." Moreover, according to this same Sutra they did not see the transformation of the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, his true adornments, his freedom, his magical powers, his mastery, the miracles, the light of the Buddhas, their power and many other qualities. Mahakashyapa and the other disciples lacked roots of goodness. Again, they had not instilled in others the generation of the illuminated mind. They erred in innumerable ways. They were blind has to whom was the real Buddha. The question then is how can modern Zennists, in light of this, claim that Mahakashyapa is the Buddha spiritual heir? This calls into serious question the Zen lineage.
The traditional Zen lineage is probably an ordination lineage taken from the Sarvastivadins during the early formation of various Zen schools. Its accuracy is certainly in question. (Ananda’s preceptor, for example, was Belatthasisa and not Mahakashyapa, according to Pali sources.) Zen’s inclusion of a specific ‘enlightenment lineage’ is certainly a late invention. Previous to that, there is no record of an ‘enlightenment lineage’ to be found in either the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon. Mahayana Sutras like the Sûtra on the End of Transmitting the Dharma Basket, which included a lineage ending with Simha Bhiksu, strictly pertains to the basket of discourses—not to the mind to mind transmission noted in the early schools of Zen.
The Zennists of China devised the so-called 'Zen lineage' of which there were not a few. In so doing, they were not above altering the names of certain documents, for example, substituting the name of Dharmatrata with that of Bodhidharma. The imperial recognition of Zen as a particular school was accomplished by efforts of the Zen exegete, Ch'i-sung (1007–72).