The Discursive Formation of Silence in Lengqie Shizi Ji: Within the Context of the Huayan–Chan Interaction

Abstract

This article traces the formation of silence as a tradition in early Chan Buddhism, focusing on its construction in the Lengqie Shizi Ji 楞伽師資記. Challenging later perceptions, it argues that silence was not an innate characteristic but a historically contingent product of doctrinal interaction with the Huayan school. The analysis focuses on Fazang’s 法藏 definition of the “sudden teaching” (Dunjiao 頓教), showing how Huayan scholastics legitimized silence as an expression of the “wordless suchness” (Liyan Zhenru 離言真如) in the Dasheng Qixin Lun 大乘起信論. This doctrinal classification thus provided the Chan author Jingjue 淨覺 with a doctrinal framework to elevate wordlessness into a marker of authentic transmission. The paper further considers the Huayan critique of silent pedagogy, which pointed out the paradox of using silence as a didactic method. By situating the Lengqie Shizi Ji within the dynamics of Chan–Huayan interaction, this study demonstrates that the Chan tradition of silence was not a mere meditative stance or a timeless essence, but a discursive construction that functioned simultaneously as pedagogy and as a marker of sectarian identity.

1. Introduction

The Chan Buddhist ethos of a special transmission outside the teaching that is not reliant on words has long been regarded as a key marker distinguishing it from other Buddhist schools. Yet a crucial question emerges: does this image of rejecting language originate in the early practical traditions of Chan, or is it instead the product of a discursive construction, gradually shaped through interaction with other schools and the formation of genealogies? This question concerns not only Chan’s own understanding of language but also the broader mechanisms underlying the formation of Chinese Buddhist traditions. Rather than treating ineffability as an inherent feature of Chan, this article examines it as a discursively constructed phenomenon, tracing its gradual emergence through Chan’s interactions with other doctrinal traditions.

As a case study, this article turns to Jingjue’s 淨覺 early eighth-century Lengqie Shizi Ji 楞伽師資記 [Record of the Masters and Disciples of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra]. This text constructs a genealogy of Chan masters who almost uniformly embody a rejection of language and script: figures such as Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, Huike 慧可, Sengcan 僧璨, and Daoxin 道信 are depicted as exemplars of a secret, silent, non-transmitting tradition. Yet when this ethos of silence is compared with the accounts in Daoxuan’s 道宣 Xu Gaoseng Zhuan 續高僧傳 [Further Biographies of Eminent Monks], compiled half a century earlier, numerous contradictions and editorial interventions become evident. In fact, the Chan practice communities of the 660s exhibited diverse and complex attitudes toward language and script, far from any unified stance.

A pivotal shift occurred when Chan was no longer merely recorded by others, but began to actively construct its own history and lineage. The textual genealogy represented by the Lengqie Shizi Ji is thus both the outcome of internal self-writing and a response to external discourses. Notably, in constructing the ineffable tradition of the masters, Jingjue frequently cites the Dasheng Qixin Lun 大乘起信論 [Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna], especially its doctrine of “the mind as suchness” (Zhenruxin 真如心) which is wordless, thereby providing a theoretical justification for the rejection of verbal expression. Within Huayan doctrinal classification, Fazang 法藏 (643–712), the third patriarch of the Huayan school, explicitly categorized the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s wordlessness as belonging to the sudden teaching, suggesting that Chan’s self-image may have been shaped in part by external influences from Huayan hermeneutics.

Unlike previous studies that have primarily focused on Chan’s internal doctrinal development, this article examines how Chan was observed and interpreted within the classificatory frameworks of other schools, and how these external discourses were subsequently internalized in order to articulate their sectarian identity. In short, the article seeks to re-situate Chan’s ineffable image of “not relying on words” within the concrete historical contexts of its textual production and institutional formation.

The argument unfolds in four parts. First, this study analyzes the accounts in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan concerning the transmitters of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, highlighting the varied attitudes toward language in practice. Second, these accounts are compared with the master-images in the Lengqie Shizi Ji to trace the textual construction of the ethos of ineffability. Third, we explore how Fazang of the Huayan school defined ineffability as a characteristic of the sudden teaching, thereby enabling Chan to appropriate external doctrinal resources for the construction of its self-identity. Fourth, this study examines the diverse ways in which Chan practitioners employed silence in didactic practice, as observed by Fazang.

In summary, the ethos of silence represented in the Lengqie Shizi Ji should not be understood as a continuous, inherent tradition, but rather as a discursive construction—an outcome that was seen, named, legitimated, and genealogically codified through Chan’s interaction with other Buddhist teachings.

2. The Laṅkāvatāra Lineage in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan

To understand how the “beyond words” ethos became a standard feature of later Chan, we must trace its concrete manifestations during the period before it had fully crystallized. The Biography of Fachong 法衝 in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan provides a crucial window into this early stage.

Hu Shi had already pointed out that the account of Huike in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan reflects multiple layers of historical time (Hu 2008, pp. 148–77). According to recent scholarship, around the first year of the Linde 麟德 era (664), Daoxuan gathered new information and added accounts concerning Bodhidharma’s transmission of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Huike, as well as accounts of Fachong’s activities (Ibuki 2005, pp. 116–15). According to Daoxuan, Fachong was still alive in the Linde years (664–665). This biography, supplemented with contemporary information, indicates that Fachong’s activities played a significant role in shaping the historical record of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s transmission:

“Fachong, seeing that the profound scripture of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra had long lain neglected, sought it wherever it might be found, undaunted by hardship or danger. At that time, Huike’s disciple was zealous in studying the scripture; following this master’s instruction, Fachong repeatedly mastered its essential points. When this master withdrew from leading his disciples, he entrusted the transmission to Fachong, who in turn lectured on the scripture in succession more than thirty times. Fachong also encountered a practitioner who had received direct transmission from Huike and expounded the scripture according to the South-Indian One-Vehicle tradition, from whom he received it another hundred times. The scripture had been translated during the (Liu-)Song period by the Guṇabhadra and recorded by Master Huiguan 慧觀; accordingly, its diction and sense are mutually consonant, and practice and principle cohere. Its emphasis is on single-minded contemplation of wisdom rather than verbal formulation. Later, Bodhidharma transmitted it to both North and South, establishing as the school’s principle the practice of forgetting words and forgetting thoughts, without any attachment to fixed attainment of view.”

(Daoxuan 2014, p. 1079)

Three aspects of this account are particularly noteworthy.

First, it provides evidence for the circulation and reception of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in the early seventh century. The scripture had long lain neglected, yet Huike’s disciples devoted themselves to its study, which suggests that whether Huike himself had given the text similar attention remains unclear. The lectures delivered by Huike’s direct disciple on the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra were based on the South-Indian One-Vehicle tradition, and Fachong likewise identified himself with the One-Vehicle. During his travels, he encountered Master Run 潤法師 of Hongfu Monastery 弘福寺, who inquired about the purpose of his long journey. Fachong replied: “I heard that the One Vehicle was scarcely transmitted in this place, so I came to proclaim its teaching, hoping to gather and guide beings of faith, like netting fish and dragons.” Master Run praised him: “Truly, this is a monk of great heart and broad spirit.” (Daoxuan 2014, p. 1080) This indicates that Chan practitioners of the time sometimes self-identified with the One Vehicle, though, as will be analyzed later, the Huayan school did not recognize Chan as a One-Vehicle tradition.

Second, the biography expresses high regard for the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s translation quality and literary style—a view that contrasts sharply with Fazang’s later evaluation. Around 704, upon the completion of the new seven-volume translation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Fazang composed the Ru Lengqiexin Xuanyi 入楞伽心玄義 [Entering the Profound Meaning of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra], in which he launched a pointed critique of the earlier four-volume version. He faulted its phrasing as incomplete and its style as overly constrained by Indic syntax, with the result that even the most astute and erudite readers were unable to make sense of it, while the dull and mediocre imposed distorted interpretations upon it (Fazang 1983e, p. 430). This critique was clearly aimed at those responsible for the transmission of Guṇabhadra’s four-volume translation. Kōsei Ishii (2002, p. 44) has noted that Daoxuan already recorded similar dissatisfaction, noting that some who delighted in studying the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra took erroneous explanations for true understanding, and confused distorted cognition with perfect wisdom. Such comments indicate that the transmission of the scripture was regarded by many as deeply problematic. Fazang’s criticisms, however, were not limited to the four-volume version. He also pointed out that Bodhiruci’s 菩提流支 ten-volume translation suffered from interpolations and textual confusions, which introduced serious errors (Fazang 1983e, p. 430).

The unsatisfactory quality of both the four- and ten-volume translations of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, he argued, led Empress Wu to lament their difficulty in circulation and thus to commission a new translation. Yet in the imperial preface to the new version, Empress Wu did not attribute the problem to defects in translation. Rather, she expressed regret that, amid the turbulence of dynastic transitions, the two earlier versions had failed to achieve timely dissemination, and it was on this account that she considered a retranslation (Wu 1983, p. 587). As a public declaration, however, the preface may well have employed formulaic rhetoric to veil more pragmatic motives. In sharp contrast, Fazang’s evaluation of the four-volume version was entirely unreserved.

Third, the biography records Bodhidharma’s transmission of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and its guiding principles of non-verbal instruction and beyond words. Fachong’s own teaching exemplifies this beyond-words ethos: he was flexible and adaptive, unbound by language. When disciples approached him with questions, he could adjust skillfully according to circumstances, employ skillful means (upāya), yet maintain a unified intention, varying the words as needed, sometimes giving seemingly inconsistent answers (Daoxuan 2014, p. 1079). This indicates that his method already contained the features of expedient exposition. Nevertheless, disciples who could not fully grasp his teachings pressed him to clarify the meaning. Fachong replied: “Spoken words are already coarse; when written on paper, they are coarsest of all.” (Daoxuan 2014, p. 1079) Perhaps in response to their persistence, he composed a five-volume commentary on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which remained in circulation during Daoxuan’s time and likely served as evidence for the diligent study of the text by Huike’s disciples. Unfortunately, the commentary is now lost, and Fachong—though devoted to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra—was not subsequently incorporated into the Chan transmission lineage.

The Biography not only depicts Fachong’s profound connection with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra but also, through genealogical narration, presents the divergent attitudes among Huike’s disciples toward speech and written records:

“In recounting the lineage, it is evident that the succession of disciples is well grounded. After Bodhidharma, there were Huike 慧可 and Huiyu 惠育. Master Huiyu received the Dharma in mind and practice but never once expounded it in words. After Master Huike, there were Master Can 粲禪師, Master Hui 惠禪師, Master Sheng 盛禪師, Master Na 那老師, Master Duan 端禪師, Master Chang 長藏師, Master Zhen 真法師, and Master Yu 玉法師—they all produced no written records, but expounded the profound principle orally. After Master Huike, there were also Master Shan 善師 who produced a note in four-volume, Master Feng 豐禪師 who produced a commentary in five-volume, Master Ming 明禪師 who produced a commentary in five-volume, and Master Hu 胡明師 who produced a commentary in five-volume. Later heirs in the lineage of Master Huike, there were Master Dacong 大聰師 who produced a commentary in five-volume, Master Daoyin 道蔭師 who produced a note in four-volume, Master Chong 衝法師 who produced a commentary in five-volume, Master An 岸法師 who produced a commentary in five-volume, Master Chong 寵法師 who produced a commentary in eight-volume, and Master Daming 大明師 who produced a commentary in ten fascicles. Those who did not follow after Master Huike but instead relied on the Mahāyāna-samgraha-śāstra include Master Qian 遷禪師 who produced a commentary in four-volume and the Vinaya Master Shangde 尚德律師 who produced a commentary in ten-volume. After Master Na 那老師, there were Master Shi 實禪師, Master Hui 惠禪師, Master Kuang 曠法師, and Master Hongzhi 弘智師 (resident at Ximing Monastery 西明寺 in the capital, who passed away leaving no Dharma heirs). After Master Ming 明禪師, there were Master Jia 伽法師, Master Baoyu 寶瑜師, Master Baoying 寶迎師, and Master Daoying 道瑩師—these all transmitted the lamp in succession, and even now their teaching spreads abroad.”

(Daoxuan 2014, p. 1079)

In this genealogical schema, Daoxuan categorizes Huike’s disciples into three types according to their linguistic practice: those who remained entirely silent; those who spoke orally but did not leave written records; and those who composed exegetical commentaries or notes. Among Bodhidharma’s two direct heirs, Huike and Huiyu, their attitudes toward speech differed markedly. Huiyu received the Dharma in mind, suggesting a transmission from mind to mind, yet he never spoke a single word of Dharma, and consequently left no Dharma heirs. By contrast, Huike employed verbal expression and thereby nurtured many successors. Within Huike’s line there were, on the one hand, figures such as Master Can and others who expounded profound principles orally but did not commit them to writing, and on the other hand, those who actively produced notes or commentaries on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Fachong, who studied under Huike’s direct disciple and thus belongs to the third generation after Huike, also falls within this latter group. Thirdly, it is noteworthy that the line stemming from Master Na, aligned with oral exposition, died out within the next generation, whereas the line of Master Ming, aligned with written exegesis, continued its lamp transmission and was still flourishing in Daoxuan’s day. Thus, Daoxuan was likely acquainted with the heirs of Master Ming, who as the third generation of Huike’s lineage remained active in his time.

Thus, a distinctly Chan style advocating the absolute rejection of spoken words had not yet emerged. Nevertheless, in the Biography of Huike, Daoxuan appends a textual supplement, in which Huike voices concern over the transmission of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Although the Huike depicted in the biography did not repudiate the necessity of verbal instruction, after each discourse he is said to have remarked: “After four generations, this scripture will degenerate into mere names and concepts—how lamentable!” (Daoxuan 2014, p. 569). Judging from the genealogical accounts, Huike’s lineage had not yet matured into its fourth generation at that time. It is therefore plausible that this concern was conveyed to Daoxuan by figures connected to the lineages of Fachong or the heirs of Master Ming. By speaking through Huike’s voice, they sought to admonish later generations not to become attached to words.

The Biography of Fachong captures a historical moment prior to the solidification of the “beyond words” ethos as a distinctive Chan norm. At this stage, practices varied widely: some masters engaged in oral exposition and produced notes or commentaries, while others emphasized forgetting words and forgetting thoughts. Thus, the transmitters of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra were characterized not by a unified attitude toward language, but by a productive tension between employing speech and suspending it. Figures such as Fachong, Huike, and Master Ming exemplify this diversity, affirming both the reflective critique of written texts and the continued legitimacy of lecturing and scriptural propagation. Yet the verbal practices of these figures were later overshadowed by the image of wordless patriarchs fashioned in the Lengqie Shizi Ji. This erasure resulted not from a natural historical progression but from deliberate textual construction, specifically the genealogical narratives crafted by Jingjue and his circle. The following chapter will trace these redactions in the Lengqie Shizi Ji and demonstrate how they were underwritten by the doctrinal framework of the Dasheng Qixin Lun.

3. Lengqie Shizi Ji and the Making of the Silent Tradition

More than half a century after the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan was compiled, Hongren’s disciple Xuanze 玄賾 composed the Lengqie Renfa Zhi 楞伽人法志 [Record of the Practitioners of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra], a work now lost; Xuanze’s disciple Jingjue subsequently composed the Lengqie Shizi Ji, which survives as the earliest extant Chan lamp record. In the Lengqie Shizi Ji, the Chan patriarchs are, with almost no exception, portrayed as rejecting verbal expression—so that the entire lineage thread is unified into a continuous tradition of beyond-words practice and mind-transmission. This chapter will analyze how the Lengqie Shizi Ji, through selective redaction, reorganization, and the re-ascription of meaning, brought about a systematic unification of the masters’ verbal practices.

In the Guṇabhadra chapter, the expression “I transmit the Dharma in secrecy and silence 我法秘默” (Yanagida 1985, p. 102) appears, and Guṇabhadra is further recorded as admonishing:

“What need is there for ever more extensive study and discriminative knowledge, roaming among written words and spoken language, only to return to the path of birth and death? Those who use speech to transmit the Dharma are driven by a craving for fame and profit, thereby destroying themselves and others.” 何用更多廣學知見，涉歷文字語言，覆歸生死道。用口說文，傳為道者，此人貪求名利，自壞壞他。

(Yanagida 1985, p. 112)

No such statements appear in the Biography of Guṇabhadra in Huijiao’s 慧皎 Gaoseng Zhuan 高僧傳 [Biographies of Eminent Monks], demonstrating Jingjue’s deliberate reinterpretation of a silence-ethos onto the translator of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. (Huijiao 1992, pp. 130–34).

Whereas the Second Patriarch Huike in Xu Gaoseng Zhuan still acknowledged the pedagogical value of speech, the Lengqie Shizi Ji depicts him as declaring that relying on language is like seeking ice by boiling water or trying to illumine darkness with a lamp in the wind (Yanagida 1985, p. 147). The colorful similes erase the earlier balance between oral exposition and contemplative practice, recasting Huike as a paradigmatic critic of spoken words.

The portrayal of the Third Patriarch Sengcan in the Lengqie Shizi Ji draws on the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, Biography of Fachong, which depicts Sengcan as “producing no written records but orally expounding the profound principle 不出文記，口說玄理” (Daoxuan 2014, p. 1079). Yet Jingjue is not faithful to that source: he deliberately deletes the clause “orally expounded the profound principle” and recasts it as “secretly not transmitting the Dharma 秘不傳法” (Yanagida 1985, p. 167), thereby making explicit that not only writing but speech itself is futile. This version, which conflicts with the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, further deepens the aura of mystery surrounding Sengcan, whose life and activities were already obscure.

In the Lengqie Shizi Ji, the Fourth Patriarch Daoxin 道信 frequently cites the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as scriptural proof, using it to argue that all forms of discourse—including the Buddha’s own teaching—are nothing more than the deluded imaginings of sentient beings (Yanagida 1985, p. 199). Yet half a century earlier, when Daoxuan supplemented the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan with accounts of the transmission of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, he made no mention of Daoxin’s connection with this scripture. Moreover, the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan records that, when Daoxin and others were besieged by bandits, he admonished the local magistrate to recite only the Prajñā scriptures (Daoxuan 2014, p. 807). Together with the Lengqie Shizi Ji’s testimony to Daoxin’s esteem for the Mañjuśrī-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, this makes clear—as Seizan Yanagida has argued—that the traits of Prajñā-ism were even more pronounced in Daoxin’s case (Yanagida 1985, p. 35).

From the time of Hongren 弘忍 onward, Chan began to branch out and flourish, benefiting from his inclusive pedagogical practice that allowed for the use of spoken words; the tradition he established came to be known as the East Mountain teaching 東山法門. Xuanze and Jingjue, when composing Hongren’s portrait, likewise felt compelled to acknowledge this historical fact. The Hongren chapter of the Lengqie Shizi Ji records:

“From this Dharma-tree flowers opened and the Chan groves bore fruit. Master Ren sat in serene composure, produced no written records but orally expounded the profound principle, and silently conferred the Dharma upon persons.” 從此道樹花開，禪林果出也。其忍大師蕭然淨坐，不出文記。口說玄理，默授與人。

(Yanagida 1985, pp. 268–69)

As indicated in the passage, Jingjue transfers to Hongren the characterization that in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan belongs to Sengcan—produced no written records but orally expounded the profound principle—and furthermore states that Hongren’s teaching was silent transmission. This distinguishes Hongren’s silent transmission from the portrait Jingjue constructs for Sengcan as secretly refusing to transmit the Dharma. It follows that, although verbal expression may be coarse and imperfect, it nonetheless retains a certain efficacy in manifesting and explicating the truth; hence Hongren needed to use speech cautiously as a pedagogical device—ensuring the privacy of the transmission and the receptivity (root-capacity) of the recipient—so that understanding of the truth would not be distorted by the uncertainties of public dissemination or by the misapprehensions of those of inferior faculties. Secondly, according to Xuanze’s Record of Laṅkāvatāra Practitioners, Hongren regarded “speech and silence as essentially one” (Yanagida 1985, p. 273), and this provides a theoretical rationale for Hongren’s use of spoken teaching.

Xuanze’s and Jingjue’s portrayals of Shenxiu 神秀 are broadly similar to their depiction of Hongren. Although Shenxiu is described as “the lamp of Chan shines in silence, words and speech are cut off, the activity of mind is extinguished, and no record is committed to writing” (Yanagida 1985, p. 298), he nevertheless, owing to the needs of instructing disciples, had to make provisional use of speech to expound the truth. His disciples praised Shenxiu thus: “With provisional words you manifest principle, adapting to phenomena and thereby resonating with them.” (Yanagida 1985, p. 307)

In the transmission history of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as recorded in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, verbal exposition was treated with greater tolerance in comparison to written records. By contrast, the Lengqie Shizi Ji, in constructing the image of distant patriarchs, not only rejected written records but also denied oral transmission and verbal discourse altogether. Yet, in the case of more contemporaneous figures such as Hongren and Shenxiu, it was compelled to accommodate, at least to some extent, their use of language.

The Lengqie Shizi Ji’s stance toward oral and written language clearly reveals Jingjue’s active authorial project. The work’s opening refuge-verse states the position emphatically:

“Buddha-nature is empty and without marks; True Suchness is quiescent and does not speak. Spoken and written words—these are all delusive Chan.” 佛性空無相，真如寂不言。口傳文字說，斯皆妄想禪。

(Yanagida 1985, p. 49)

To justify so sweeping a rejection, Jingjue appeals to the Dasheng Qixin Lun in order to construe “the mind as suchness” as beyond the range of expression. The Dasheng Qixin Lun distinguishes between “the mind as suchness” and “the mind as birth-and-death” (Shengmiexin 生滅心), and it maintains that “the mind as suchness” is not namable and cannot be adequately expressed in any form of language (Paramārtha 1983, p. 576). By invoking this wordless suchness, Jingjue harmonizes and homogenizes disparate reports of the patriarchs’ linguistic conduct, elevating secret, non-verbal transmission from a pragmatic method of instruction to a marker of sectarian legitimacy. Dufei 杜朏, writing slightly later in his preface to the Chuan Fabao Ji 傳法寶紀 [Record of the Transmission of the Dharma-Treasure], likewise cites the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s formulation that the mind as suchness transcends both spoken and written words (Yanagida 1985, p. 269). From these parallels one may infer that the Dasheng Qixin Lun had begun to shape Chan self-identification: it provided Jingjue, Dufei, and others with a doctrinal warrant for constructing their self-narratives.

4. Huayan Doctrinal Classification and the Legitimation of Silence

Yet the Dasheng Qixin Lun was never a core canonical text for early Chan. Daoxuan’s Xu Gaoseng Zhuan shows no sign that Huike’s lineage regarded it as central. Only in the course of Jingjue’s construction of a wordless patriarchate did the treatise become indispensable to Chan’s theory of language. Why did Jingjue appropriate the Dasheng Qixin Lun as doctrinal warrant for an anti-linguistic Chan identity?

The answer lies in the Huayan school’s doctrinal classification (Panjiao 判教). The sudden teaching (Dunjiao 頓教), as its name suggests, is defined in opposition to the gradual teaching (Jianjiao 漸教). This dichotomy in Buddhist doctrinal classification is generally traced to the thinker Liu Qiu 劉虬 (438–495) of the Liu Song and Southern Qi dynasties (Zhang 2024, p. 105). According to Fazang’s account, the Northern Wei monk Huiguang 慧光 further added the perfect teaching (Yuanjiao 圓教) to the categories of gradual and sudden, thereby formulating the threefold classification of gradual, sudden, and perfect teaching. This tripartite scheme distinguished three modes of the Buddha’s teaching according to the capacities of sentient beings. The gradual teaching refers to the Buddha’s progressive exposition of such doctrines as impermanence, permanence, emptiness, and non-emptiness for those whose faculties are not yet mature. The sudden teaching refers to the simultaneous proclamation of all Buddhist teachings for those whose faculties are mature. The perfect teaching refers specifically to the Buddha’s exposition of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra for those who have attained the stage of realizing the Buddha’s own realm.

The second patriarch of the Huayan school, Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668), inherited the threefold classification of gradual, sudden, and perfect (Mabuchi 2007, pp. 87–93). Fazang then constructed a systematic doctrinal classification for the Huayan school. Within the doctrinal classification, the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s teaching of Suchness beyond words is aligned with the sudden teaching. While scholarly consensus generally holds that it was not until the fourth patriarch Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839) that the sudden teaching was explicitly correlated with Chan (Chengguan 1983, p. 512), in fact, the definitions of the sudden teaching in Zhiyan’s works already reflect their observation of Chan’s practical phenomena.

Previous studies have already noted the connection between Zhiyan and the East Mountain teaching. Kōsei Ishii’s research shows that in his later years Zhiyan took notice of Chan meditators who had taken up practice on Zhongnan Mountain; among these practitioners the figure Lao’an 老安 who promoted the doctrine of sudden enlightenment was particularly prominent (Ishii 2003, pp. 123–47). Zhiyan revised the traditional understanding that the sudden teaching was intended merely for those of mature faculties: in his later work, the Huayan Jing Neizhangmen Deng Za Kongmu Zhang 華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 [Miscellaneous Chapters on the Inner Sections and Categories of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra], he ascribed to the sudden teaching the characteristics of being inexpressible, silent, and signless. Several examples are as follows:

“With respect to the sudden teaching, all stages and practices are inexpressible, because they are signless; this is explained provisionally from the standpoint of the three vehicles.” 若約頓教，即一切行位，皆不可說，以無相故。此據三乘方便說。

(Zhiyan 1983, p. 537)

“The gateway of sudden teaching is exemplified in the Chapter on the Gate of Non-Duality in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra, where Vimalakīrti remained silent to reveal the profound suchness. It transcends all doctrinal formulations and lies beyond the reach of conceptual thought.” 頓教門者，如《維摩經·不二法門品》，維摩直默以顯玄意者是。此如絕於教義，相想不及。

(Zhiyan 1983, p. 558)

“According to the sudden teaching, all is inexpressible, for it is free from discrimination.” 若依頓教，一切不可說，離分別故。

(Zhiyan 1983, p. 578)

In Zhiyan’s view, the sudden teaching belonged to the expedient means of the Three Vehicles, and not to the One Vehicle as claimed by Fachong and others.

When Fazang studied with Zhiyan in the latter’s late period, he was influenced by this mature formulation of the sudden teaching. In Huayan Yisheng Jiaoyi Fenqi Zhang 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 [Huayan One Vehicle Classification of the Teachings], Fazang repeatedly defines the sudden teaching by features such as inexpressible, beyond words and thought. Unlike Zhiyan, however, Fazang incorporates the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s concept of the mind as suchness into his account of the sudden teaching:

“In the Dasheng Qixin Lun, the sudden teaching manifests the suchness beyond words, whereas the gradual teaching speaks of suchness dependent on words.” 《起信論》中，約頓教門顯絕言真如，約漸教門說依言真如。

(Fazang 1983c, p. 481)

“In the sudden teaching, the ultimate truth is identified solely with the One True Suchness, which lies beyond all forms of verbal expression.” 約頓教明者，唯一真如，離言說相。

(Fazang 1983c, p. 487)

The phrases “One True Suchness” and “beyond all forms of verbal expression” in Fazang’s definition are terms originating from the Dasheng Qixin Lun, where they are used to articulate the mind as suchness. In short, while Zhiyan’s late characterization of the sudden teaching as inexpressible and silent grew from his observation of contemporary Chan practices, Fazang advanced this further by grounding those characteristics in the theoretical framework of the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s wordless suchness. Thus, the criterion of reliance on speech versus its transcendence became the fundamental principle for distinguishing the sudden from the gradual teaching.

In Zhiyan’s time, although the notion of sudden already carried the connotation of ineffability, it was not yet directly correlated with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Fazang, however, when explaining the distinction between the gradual and the sudden, not only took ineffability versus its cessation as the principle of differentiation, but also employed this framework to interpret the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s account of sudden and gradual:

“What is termed gradual refers to the two teachings of beginning (Shijiao 始教) and end (Zhongjiao 終教), wherein all understanding and practice are mediated by verbal expression, proceeding in stages, with cause and effect mutually conditioning one another, progressing from the subtle to the manifest—this is called gradual. Thus the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: ‘Gradual is like the āmalaka fruit, ripening by degrees, not all at once.’ This is the meaning. Sudden means the abrupt cessation of verbal expression, the immediate manifestation of principle, the instantaneous completion of understanding and practice. When not a single thought arises, one is already equal to the Buddha. Thus the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: ‘Sudden is like the image in a mirror, appearing at once, not by degrees.’ This is the meaning. All dharmas are originally upright of themselves; they do not rely on verbal expression, nor on contemplative wisdom—just as Vimalakīrti revealed non-duality through silence.”

(Fazang 1983c, p. 481)

If we examine the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passage Fazang cites, it becomes evident that the sutra distinguishes sudden and gradual in terms of temporality: the sudden entails a severing of the flow of time, while the gradual follows the linear course of time, illustrating the process of things developing from subtle to manifest across past, present, and future. Fazang, however, introduces verbal expression as an additional criterion for differentiating sudden and gradual: in the gradual teaching, all understanding and practice must rely on verbal expression, whereas in the sudden teaching they are accomplished at once, without reliance on verbal expression.

Fazang’s perspective was shaped not only by Zhiyan’s influence but also by contact with contemporary Chan practitioners. He asserts in defining the sudden teaching that “all dharmas are originally upright of themselves 一切法本來自正”, meaning that dharmas require no external rectification through verbal expression or contemplative wisdom. Kōsei Ishii (2002, p. 27) has already noted a parallel expression in the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan, specifically in the Biography of Huike. According to that text, Huike, transmitter of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, once responded to Daoheng 道恆, who bore resentment against him: “The eye is originally upright; it was only because of teacher that it became distorted.” (Daoxuan 2014, p. 567) Such phrasing may have circulated among Chan practitioners and subsequently entered Fazang’s lexical repertoire.

In fact, Fazang’s disciple Huiyuan 惠苑 did not accept his master’s definition of the sudden teaching. From his perspective, if the sudden teaching is understood as silence or the cessation of words, then it should not properly be regarded as a “teaching” capable of explication (Huiyuan 1983, p. 581). However, from the foregoing analysis it is clear that Fazang not only invoked the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s doctrine of wordless suchness as the theoretical warrant for the sudden teaching, but had already treated Chan practitioners as a potential object of observation. He affirms that the cessation of verbal expression constitutes “a teaching without teaching”:

“Like in the sudden teaching…all is wordless, and even the state of being wordless is itself absent; therefore the sacred teaching is a teaching without teaching.” 如頓教中……一切無言，無言亦無故，是故聖教即是無教之教。

(Fazang 1983b, p. 118)

The Huayan practice of seeing and naming was instrumental in shaping Chan’s self-understanding. Fazang classified the Dasheng Qixin Lun’s doctrine of “suchness beyond words” as belonging to the sudden teaching, thereby establishing non-reliance on language as the defining criterion of the sudden teaching. The Lengqie Shizi Ji explicitly appropriates this classificatory logic, equating “beyond words” directly with authentic transmission, making ineffability a distinctive feature of the patriarchs’ enlightenment. Through this transformation, silence was reconfigured as the distinctive hallmark of the Laṅkāvatāra lineage. Functioning as both a symbolic and exclusionary strategy, the patriarchs’ silence was elevated into the very emblem of their possession of the true Dharma—a crucial mechanism in Chan’s construction of sectarian identity during its early eighth-century formation.

5. Silent Pedagogy and Fazang’s Perspective

In the second half of the seventh century, before silence was formally codified as a tradition in the Lengqie Shizi Ji, the vibrant East Mountain teaching navigated between the severance of words and reliance on them. It struck a balance between wordless suchness and the pedagogical necessity of verbal guidance. Chan activities are reflected, both implicitly and explicitly, in Fazang’s works. He was not merely an observer but a theoretical interlocutor who actively engaged with the developments in Chan.

5.1. Shouting to Transcend Teaching

Beyond ineffability, Fazang’s Huayan Jing Tanxuan Ji 華嚴經探玄記 [Record on Exploring the Profound Theory of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra] introduces for the first time the pedagogical strategy of “shouting to transcend teaching 呵教勸離” into the meaning of the sudden teaching:

“In the sudden teaching, one does not in any way expound the marks of dharmas, but only distinguishes the true nature. Nor does one recognize the characteristics of the eight consciousnesses. All that exists is nothing but deluded thought; all dharmas in reality are wholly ineffable. By shouting to transcend teaching, one demolishes marks and extinguishes mind. When mind arises, that is delusion; when it does not arise, that is Buddhahood. Moreover, there is neither Buddha nor not-Buddha, neither arising nor not-arising. This accords with the intent of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, in which silence reveals non-duality.”

(Fazang 1983b, p. 116)

The Tanxuan Ji underwent a long process of composition and revision. Wang Song has pointed out that fascicle fifteen was probably written relatively early, perhaps as early as 680. Yet, according to Fazang’s letter sent to the Uisang 義湘 (625–702), the Tanxuan Ji, sent together with the Dasheng Fajie Wuchabie Lun Shu 大乘法界無差別論疏 [Commentary on the Treatise on the Non-Differentiation of the Mahāyāna Dharma-Dhātu], still had two fascicles unfinished (Wang 2019, p. 79). Thus, the portion of fascicle 1 that introduces “shouting to transcend teaching” was likely completed in the 680s or early 690s.

The variations in the explanations of the sudden teaching within the Tanxuan Ji reflect the complexity of contemporary Chan practice, where the most influential figure was Faru. According to the Tang Zhongyue Shamen Shi Faru Chanshi Xingzhuang, 唐中嶽沙門釋法如禪師行狀 [Biographical Account of the Chan Master Shi Faru, the Monk of Mount Zhongyue in the Tang Dynasty], Faru entered Shaolin Monastery in 683, lived there in obscurity for three years, and only began openly teaching Chan in 686, before passing away in 689. The biographical account of Faru shows that he was against written words and holds the view of sudden enlightenment. He claims that within the time it takes to stretch or bend one’s arm, one realizes the original mind (Anonymous 1983, p. 11123). Thus, in contrast to the Xuanze-Jingjue lineage, which exalted the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and emphasized a silent tradition, Faru’s understanding of the sudden teaching centered on momentary enlightenment, without privileging silence per se. Dufei also explains that although Bodhidharma had advocated cessation of speech and detachment from scriptures, one cannot but employ words as skillful means to guide beings toward the realm of ineffable suchness: “This world is a world of words. Therefore, sages cannot avoid using words to guide others toward the place of no words.” (Yanagida 1985, p. 408) Upāya is a defining characteristic of the Faru line. As Dufei writes in his preface:

“After Bodhidharma, patriarchs opened the Way, all excelling in employing skillful means to bring realization within the mind. They spoke freely according to the occasion, never bound to fixed doctrines.” 自達摩之後，師資開道，皆善以方便取證於心，隨處發言，略無繫說。

(Yanagida 1985, p. 337)

Unlike the Xuanze–Jingjue lineage’s Lengqie Shizi Ji, which incorporates Guṇabhadra, the translator of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, into its patriarchal genealogy, the Chuan Fabao Ji regards the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as an initial expedient, which was already observed by Yinshun (2010, p. 17).

Faru did not particularly emphasize a silent tradition but advocated expedient speech. In addition, he adopted the pedagogical practice of “shouting” (He 呵), likened to an empty boat colliding with people. Seizan Yanagida has shown that this allusion comes from the Zhuangzi, Shanmu 山木 [The Mountain Tree]:

“If a person is floating on his two-hulled craft across a river and an empty boat bumps into his, he does not get angry no matter how petty-minded a person he may be. But if there is a person in the other boat, he will shout out, demanding that it be steered clear. If the first shout is not heard, he will shout again, and then again, and by the third shout his tone will have become abusive. In the former case there was no anger, but in the latter case there is, because in the former case the boat was empty and in this case it is full. When a person can wander through the world emptied of self, what can harm him?”

(Zhuangzi 2020, p. 159)

This allusion indicates that although Faru rebuked his disciples, his shout did not provoke resentment, because like the empty boat, he emptied himself, transforming the shout into an occasion for awakening. Unlike orally expounding abstruse principles, shouting as a pedagogical act used sound but did not convey doctrinal content. In other words, expounding abstruse principles employed speech as a medium to transmit insights into “suchness dependent on words” (Yiyan Zhenru 依言真如), thereby inspiring rational and analytic reflection. In contrast, the shout carried no such content; it was not intended to trigger discursive analysis, but rather to sever the chain of rational thought instantaneously, using the impact of a sharp utterance upon the ear to catalyze sudden awakening. Perhaps because of this anti-intellectual tendency embodied in reproach, Fazang associated “shouting to transcend teaching” with the notion of “demolishing marks and extinguishing mind”.

5.2. Raising Eyebrows and Moving Eyes

Whether through speech or shouting, both employ sound to guide practitioners toward realizing ineffable suchness, functioning as skillful means for awakening. In addition, silence functions as a pedagogical act, demonstrating that suchness is beyond words and inexpressible. Whether through sound or action, the essence lies in the pedagogical use of rūpa-dharma to instruct disciples. Fazang classified such methods under the category of the “teaching-body that conveys meaning 能詮教體”, specifically identifying them as part of the “universally pervading dharma-gate 遍該諸法門” or “all-encompassing gate 遍通門”.

Fazang’s elaboration on this universally pervading pedagogical method can be traced across several works, reflecting a development in his thought: fascicle 1 of the Tanxuan Ji (completed in the 680s–early 690s), the Wuchabie Lun Shu (c. 696), and the Ru Lengqiexin Xuanyi (after 704). In the earlier Tanxuan Ji, Fazang did not yet explicitly recognize silence as a pedagogical method in itself (Fazang 1983b, p. 118). It was only in the Fajie Wuchabie Lun Shu that Fazang explicitly treated silence as a legitimate means of teaching. Although he referenced the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, he did not specify where in its text silence is regarded as a teaching-body (Fazang 1983a, p. 62). It was not until the Ru Lengqiexin Xuanyi that Fazang, while acknowledging silence as a pedagogical method, explicitly cited examples from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, such as “raising the eyebrows and moving the eyes 揚眉動目” and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, such as “the various postures and gestures of Buddhas 諸佛威儀進止” (Fazang 1983e, p. 427). Fazang thus equates silence with bodily gestures—such as movements of the eyebrows and eyes—and the dignified postures of Buddhas, viewing them all as pedagogical practices that perform and demonstrate truth.

This progression suggests that by the time Fazang composed the Fajie Wuchabie Lun Shu, he had encountered communities employing such pedagogical methods. Although historical sources regarding Chan are scarce, fragmentary accounts allow glimpses into these practices. Kōsei Ishii notes that Lao’an 老安 was the earliest figure to use raising eyebrows and opening eyes as a means of instruction (Ishii 2001, p. 207). The Stele for Dao’an on Mount Song (727) already records his mystical Chan style: “Compassion and joy are exhausted in mundane dust; subtlety and profundity converge; with two eyes and a few words, insight arises spontaneously.” (Song 1983, p. 11209) Additionally, in a fragment of the Da Tang Shaozhou Shuangfengshan Caoxi Baolin Zhuan 大唐韶州雙峰山曹溪寶林傳 [Chronicle of the Baolin Monastery at Caoxi on Mount Shuangfeng in Shaozhou of the Great Tang], Master Tanran 坦然 instructed Huairang 懷讓 to inquire of Lao’an; Lao’an opened and closed his eyes, and Huairang suddenly attained understanding (Shiina 1980, p. 248). This record interprets eye movements as a pedagogical act akin to speech. The Jingde Chuandeng Lu 景德傳燈錄 [Jingde Record of the Transmission of the Lamp] similarly notes that Lao’an opened and closed his eyes to reveal the suchness (Daoyuan 2019, p. 82).

In 695, a year prior to Fazang’s composition of the Fajie Wuchabie Lun Shu, Lao’an was summoned to the palace by Empress Wu, treated with the respect due to a master, and honored alongside Shenxiu. In the same year, Empress Wu also summoned Lao’an’s disciple, Master Renjian 仁儉 of Fuxian Monastery 福先寺 in Luoyang, to the court. Renjian enacted a performance of silence, deliberately refraining from speech in the presence of the empress. He later explained this gesture as an observance of the precept of silence (Buyu Jie 不語戒), thereby turning silence itself into a form of instruction. Moreover, on the following day, he presented Empress Wu with nineteen short songs, which she admired and ordered to be transcribed and circulated throughout the empire. Silence, therefore, was transformed into a performative externalization of ineffable suchness—a pedagogical act manifesting truth through behavior. Given Fazang’s long service in proximity to Empress Wu, it is highly plausible that his recognition of such methods was influenced by the activities of Lao’an’s lineage.

5.3. The Huayan School’s Critique of Silent Pedagogy

In the Huayan Youxin Fajie Ji 華嚴遊心法界記 [Record of Mind Roaming the Dharma Realm of Avataṃsaka], which was either appended to or composed by later followers of Fazang, a critical attitude is articulated toward treating silence as a mode of practice. The Huayan Youxin Fajie Ji’s exposition of the dialectical relation between insight and practice reveals the author’s detailed reflection on praxis as well as the implicit object of his critique. After explicating insight, the author proceeds to discuss practice and states that “the practice of cultivation transcends views and severs words 行法離見亡言”; both words and views are merely expedient means. (Fazang 1983d, p. 648)

An interlocutor then points out an internal contradiction in the claim that “the practice of cultivation transcends views and severs words”: the claim itself constitutes a view. In other words, the very proposition “the practice of cultivation transcends views and severs words” is itself a doctrinal view, thereby contradicting its own assertion that practice lies beyond linguistic formulations and conceptual views. The author replies:

“If one recognizes that this view is insight, then this understanding indeed counts as insight. But if one takes this view to be practice, then it is not only not practice, but also not truly understanding. Why? Because an illusory view taken as insight is not genuine insight.” 若知此見是解，此解即為解。若即以此見為行，非但不是行，亦復不是解也。何以故？妄見之解即非解故。

(Fazang 1983d, p. 648)

Thus, while the claim itself represents an insight into practice, if one mistakes that understanding for practice itself, one not only deviates from authentic cultivation but also fails to attain correct insight. It may thus be inferred that the Huayan school was directing its critique against certain contemporaries who clung to the phrase “transcends views and severs words” as if it were itself a practical method or a state of attainment.

6. Conclusions

Jingjue’s formulation of a tradition of silence should not be read simply as an effort to consolidate a distinct Chan ethos. Rather, it must be located within the broader context of Chan’s sectarian positioning crisis in the early eighth century. As the disciples of Hongren spread throughout both Northern and Southern China, Chan was transformed from a loose network of meditation practitioners on the periphery into a formally recognized Buddhist school supported by political authority. In this process, Chan’s genealogical lineages, canonical texts, and institutional forms all demanded urgent standardization and classicization.

Meanwhile, the Huayan school had already begun to articulate a systematic perspective on Chan. Within Huayan’s doctrinal classification, the sudden teaching was explicitly characterized by ineffability and signlessness. It was within this externally defined doctrinal framework that Jingjue’s notion of silence took shape. His Lengqie Shizi Ji was not merely a record of the past but a strategic reinterpretation of the patriarchal image in accordance with the Huayan conception of the sudden teaching. By invoking the doctrinal authority of the Dasheng Qixin Lun, Jingjue sought to authorize silence not merely as a pedagogical expedient but as the essential mark of orthodoxy.

This act of internalizing Huayan’s classificatory language marked a crucial turning point: Chan began to adopt the discourse of the Other in order to narrate its own history. This was not only a process of sectarian self-identification but also a formative moment in the emergence of a distinct Chan rhetorical tradition. The silent lineage constructed in the Lengqie Shizi Ji was, therefore, not a faithful mirror of early Chan history but a polemical construct born of the Chan-doctrinal interaction—a text in which Chan’s self-expression was articulated through the appropriation and transformation of a scholastic Other’s language.

This study has sought to uncover the dynamics of this Chan-doctrinal interaction: a movement from being seen and named by the Other toward being received and reconstituted by the Self. This process illuminates the entangled dynamics of sectarian exchange, scriptural hermeneutics, and lineage historiography in the making of medieval Chinese Buddhism.

By reconstructing the formation of the Chan tradition of silence in the Lengqie Shizi Ji, this study aims to advance a broader insight: a religious tradition is not a reified historical essence transmitted linearly, but a dynamic process through which it recognizes, constitutes, and develops itself in ongoing interaction with others.