The rub between the Caodong practice and the Linji practice

Historically, the Zen lineage 禪宗 and its versions has never gone without being challenged and one would be better off treating the Zen lineage as mythology—not history.  The goal of this lineage, and rightly so, is Buddhahood. It involves a mysterious "special transmission" in which the adept "sees their [buddha] nature 見性".

This nature 性 is unconditioned and, therefore, not something conditioned and determinate (i.e., empirical).  Furthermore, this nature is beyond the reach of physical exercises such as cross-legged sitting and even representational thinking.

Needless to say, achieving Buddhahood is no easy task and few, if any practitioners, actually attain Buddhahood.  Nevertheless, it didn't stop traditions like Caodong-zong 曹洞宗 (J., Sōtō-shū) from taking the approach that prolonged cross-legged sitting would eventually and spontaneously manifest itself in Buddhahood. This is not the same as trying to see or awaken to one's true nature or kensho 見性 which was taken up by Linji-zong 臨済宗 (J., Rinzai-shū).

And here lies the tension between the Caodong practice and the Linji practice.  Whereas the Linji practice consisted of trying to put a halt to representational thinking and thereby enter the gateless, Dharma gate, achieving Buddhahood, Caodong’s approach believed that prolonged sitting would eventually achieve Buddhahood as a kind of organic development.

Personally speaking, from what I can tell the two traditions are different in a number of respects.  The Caodong practice is much more simple and is better suited for laypersons—but it seems to ignore the four traditional dhyanas used by the Buddha-to-be to attain enlightenment.  By comparison, reliance on koans depends on whether or not the teacher has attained authentic kensho.  Chances are the teacher has not.  So the adept's efforts might be in vain.  

In my own example, thanks to Bishop Nippo I got it firmly set in my head that I must look within for the pure Mind.  This implied that my present state of mind was defiled, or the same, maculate.  Looking at Zen literature there is more to support my method than either prolonged cross-legged sitting or working on koans.  Both as a means appear during the Song dynasty and have their problems.

Comments

[Jim]

Dogen is mostly rubbish. Modern day japanese soto (and it's western derivatives) have nothing to do with Zen.

[thezennist]

Mike: My main source of information for this blog is from Morten Schlutter's dissertation (1998) titled: Chan Buddhism in Song Dynasty China. Dogen is another can of worms as is his shikantaza.

[mike]

You should really try to make this point without having to totally denigrate the Caodong tradition. It's nowhere near as simple as you suggest. I'd argue that Dogen (who never once uses the term "silent illumination" - and think about that...) is actually describing sitting as a process of "kensho-ing". Take the many admonitions of Soto teachers who taught that one should "sit and become buddha". That's a koan. It's not an assertion that sitting on your ass turns you into a buddha.