Platform Sūtra · Dunhuang and Zongbao versions
Platform Sūtra · Dunhuang and Zongbao versions
One-line position
The thought of Huineng as preserved in the earlier layer of the Platform Sūtra (the Dunhuang version) brings the question of becoming a buddha back from “seeking the Buddha outside / relying on formal practice” to two states of one and the same structure, “self-nature deluded / awakened” (E-06, E-25). Its operational frame is “no-thought as the tenet, no-mark as the substance, non-abiding as the basis” (E-10): “no-thought” is not the cutting off of thought but “in thought, not thinking” (E-10, E-12), and “non-abiding” means not abiding on any dharma while thought follows thought without break (E-11).
Concentration and wisdom are set out as “one substance, not two” (E-07), while “seeing the nature” is in the text both the standard for entering the gate (E-03) and defined as a mode of functioning, “abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going” (E-22). (B)
What is most distinctive
The version layer changes the picture first. The most famous later line, “originally there is not a single thing”, is not in the Dunhuang version; the Dunhuang verse of attainment reads “the Buddha-nature is always pure, where is there dust?”, and there is also a second verse (E-02). Among the dated, checkable materials that survive, the Zutang ji (952) already has the complete verse with “originally there is not a single thing”, and the Huixin version (compiled 967) also includes the line; so it is not wording that first appears in the Zongbao version (1291). The more cautious conclusion is: “originally there is not a single thing” cannot be used to prove that the earlier Dunhuang layer had already emptied out Buddha-nature / self-nature as well;
the Dunhuang layer keeps both the negation “no tree / no stand” and the affirmation “the Buddha-nature is always pure”. (A: version facts; their effect on the philosophical meaning is B)
The operation of “no-thought / non-abiding” is not a stopping of experience. The Dunhuang texts say plainly “in thought, not thinking”, “do not refrain from thinking of the hundred things … once a thought is cut off you die and are reborn elsewhere”, and “if there is no thought, no-thought too is not set up” (E-10, E-12); they also say “thought follows thought without break; if a single thought is cut off, the Dharma-body leaves the form-body” (E-11). At the same place the Zongbao version writes “thought following thought without break is called bondage”, which stands in clear tension with the Dunhuang layer in its literal evaluation; yet the Zongbao context first says “in every thought, not dwelling on the previous object”, so there is also a harmonising reading that takes “bondage” to mean continued grasping of the previous object. The harmonisation is not stated in the text; until the intermediate versions have been systematically checked, this archive keeps it only as a C-grade interpretation. (A: the wording of each version; the interpretation of the relation between versions is C)
The reflexive constraint acts on Huineng’s own practice vocabulary: no-thought “too is not set up” (E-12); clinging to the “single-practice samādhi” as sitting unmoving obstructs the Way (E-08); watching the mind and watching purity “gives rise instead to a delusion of purity” (E-15); one who awakens to self-nature “does not set up precepts, concentration and wisdom either” (E-27); “if you see the true, what you see is all not true” (E-31). But in the checked Dunhuang earlier layer, no sentence has yet been found that withdraws “self-nature / Buddha-nature” itself as explicitly as “no-thought too is not set up”; this proves only that “explicit evidence of reverse withdrawal is insufficient”, and the lack of evidence cannot be used to rule directly that “self-nature enjoys a structural exemption”. A restriction on naming it “the original-source Buddha-nature” appears in the later Platform Sūtra layer and in an early variant tradition (E-35). (A: text; whether this amounts to an exemption is C)
a “no-thought” that clears away all thought (E-12); clinging to dharma-marks, to the single-practice samādhi, to “purity” (E-08, E-15); setting up “the true” as an object seen (E-31); fixing the opposition of paired dharmas (E-30). (A)
The load-bearing points still recognisable at the end: first, “self-nature / original nature” as the common locus of delusion and awakening — “when self-nature is deluded, the Buddha is a sentient being; when self-nature is awakened, the sentient being is the Buddha”, “From what does the function come? From self-nature” (E-25, E-30); it cannot be deleted in the earlier layer. Second, the function of “seeing / awakening / prajñā contemplation”, which cannot be deleted on the path and at the point of conversion (E-03, E-14, E-21, E-24). (B)
The former is the core structural load-bearing point, but at least three layers of its nature need to be kept apart: as the common structural item of delusion and awakening, of the arising of thought and of function, it is B; “when the nature is present, body and mind remain; when the nature departs, body and mind decay” gives it a grammar of being a condition for the persistence of body and mind / a ground, and this layer is B/C; further interpreting it as an independent, eternal substantial ground can still only be C.
The latter, “seeing / awakening / prajñā contemplation”, cannot be lightly removed from the path, from conversion or from post-awakening functioning, and takes part directly in the completion of awakening and liberation; what truly remains C is whether this cognitive function should be drawn as an independent, reified “seer — self-nature” relation, not whether it bears load in the complete ultimate structure.
Core disputes
Self-nature: the earlier layer already has strong language such as “the myriad dharmas are in self-nature”, “self-nature contains the myriad dharmas”, “when the nature is present the king is present, when the nature departs there is no king” and “function comes from self-nature” (E-16, E-25, E-30), and at the same time explains it in functional language — delusion / awakening, thinking / empty stillness, giving rise to function (E-17, E-25, E-30). The concentrated five lines, “originally not arising or ceasing, originally complete in itself, able to give rise to the myriad dharmas”, are not in the Dunhuang version, but the complete set already appears in the Huixin line of transmission (with a few characters differing slightly from the Zongbao version), and the Zongbao version keeps it (E-04).
So the more cautious statement is: compared with the Dunhuang layer, later versions add, in more concentrated form, positive attribute language and source language about self-nature; “self-nature bears the core structural function” is B, “it has a grammar of ground / condition for the persistence of body and mind” is B/C, and “self-nature = substantial ground” is C.
Seeing the nature: the Fifth Patriarch takes “seeing one’s own original nature” as the standard for entering the gate (E-03), and Huineng describes his awakening as “suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness” (E-23); but seeing the nature is also defined as “abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going” (E-22); when Shenhui asks “seeing or not seeing”, he is turned towards “always seeing one’s own faults” (E-29); and the verse on the true and the false, motion and stillness, rejects “seeing the true” (E-31). That there is “seeing” on the path is certain, and it is directly connected with the completion of awakening / liberation; whether an independent, reified “seer” is still needed is C, but this local C no longer decides the placement among the six positions.
Sudden awakening and practice: “the Dharma is neither sudden nor gradual; people are sharp or dull” and “the deluded are encouraged gradually;
the awakened practise suddenly” (E-09) show that “sudden” refers first to the speed of seeing, not to the abolition of practice; after awakening there is still “always seeing one’s own faults” and “thought after thought practising the Buddha’s practice” (E-26, E-28). “Cultivation after awakening” as an explicit two-stage structure is not found in this archive’s earlier-layer evidence. (A: text; “cultivation after awakening” is a T4 interpretation, C)
This archive distinguishes “reliability of the text” from “strength of the structural judgment”.
T1–T4 indicate the date, authorship, stability of transmission or representativeness of a text itself; the specific definitions for this archive are given in “Textual Scope and Method”. A–D indicate how certain a judgment drawn from the text is.
A = stated directly in the original text; B = strong structural inference supported by several passages; C = grounded, but an equally reasonable alternative reading exists; D = adversarial stress test / hypothesis awaiting verification.
An A-grade original text proves only that “the text really says this”; it does not automatically raise an interpretation built on it to grade A.
Evidence direction: Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; Limits = shows that something still bears a function or may form a boundary; Contested = the text does not point in a single direction; Neutral = present in the text, but by the deletion test it does not at present form a core limit.
Translation conventions
This English master is translated once from the Chinese master of this archive. Section structure, evidence numbers E-01–E-37, objections R-01–R-05, text levels T1–T4, judgment grades A / B / C / D and the strength of every judgment are kept one-to-one with the Chinese text.
Passages from the Platform Sūtra and the other Chinese sources are kept in the original (CBETA, with the traditional characters and Dunhuang usages such as 惠 for 慧 retained), and each is followed by an English rendering in italics. The renderings are this archive’s own and translate the specific version quoted, not a harmonised text. Short phrases quoted within the analysis are given in English only; the Chinese is in the evidence card cited beside them.
Locations: Dh. = Dunhuang version (T48 no.2007); Zb. = Zongbao version (T48 no.2008), with its chapters named in pinyin (Xingyou, Bore, Yiwen, Dinghui, Zuochan, Chanhui, Jiyuan, Dunjian, Fuzhu).
“Huineng” in this archive means the structure of thought attributed to Huineng and preserved in the version layers of the Platform Sūtra, not the word-for-word utterances of the historical Huineng. The Dunhuang version describes itself as “collected and recorded” by Fahai, and treats the Platform Sūtra itself as a certificate of Dharma transmission (E-01); from the start it is an edited text with a sectarian function. This archive can only say “such-and-such a layer of the Platform Sūtra records it so”.
Version layers and their use in this archive
| Version | Date (common scholarly view) | Size | Checking status in this archive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dunhuang version (Stein S.5475; also Dunhuang Museum 077, Lüshun Museum copy, etc.) | manuscripts c. 8th–10th century; date of compilation disputed | about 11,900 characters by this archive’s count (excluding punctuation) | checked passage by passage against the Taishō T48 no.2007 (base text S.5475); key lines also spot-checked against the Dunhuang Museum copy (verse of attainment, “in thought, not thinking”, “thought following thought”, “no-thought too is not set up”, “when the nature departs body and mind decay”, etc.); no passage-by-passage collation of all five Dunhuang manuscripts |
| Huixin version | compiled 967; preserved in Japan (Kōshōji copy, etc.) | about 14,000 characters | key passages such as “originally there is not a single thing” and “who would have thought that self-nature …” spot-checked; the complete five lines confirmed in the Huixin line of transmission, but the whole text not checked passage by passage |
| Version | Date (common scholarly view) | Size | Checking status in this archive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qisong version / Deyi version | 1056 / 1290 | — | not checked |
| Zongbao version | compiled 1291; current since the Ming canon | main text 20,000+ characters (T2008 with prefaces, postfaces and appendices about 26,000) | checked passage by passage against T48 no.2008 |
| Early Southern-school / Chan corroborating sources | Shenhui’s Platform Address and Miscellaneous Questions and Answers of the Reverend of Nanyang (8th century); Lidai fabao ji (c. 774); Zutang ji (952) | — | used only as external corroboration / comparison, not counted directly as Huineng’s own text layer; dates and speakers marked separately |
Text level (used only in the evidence base, T1–T4)
T1: within what this archive has actually checked, core material for which the Dunhuang and Zongbao versions correspond stably at the same place (the wording may differ slightly). Because the Huixin version, the Qisong version and the other Dunhuang manuscripts have not been checked passage by passage, every T1 in this archive can only be understood as a provisional T1, “stable between the two checked endpoints”, and must not be equated with “proved continuous and stable across the whole chain of transmission”.
T2: explicit material in the Dunhuang version that later versions omit, rewrite or turn in another direction.
T3: material found only in later versions (in this archive, the Zongbao version), or material with major differences between versions or clearly problematic attribution.
T4: external corroboration, variant traditions or later interpretations that do not belong to the Platform Sūtra’s direct Huineng text layer. This includes both Shenhui material, which is very early but whose speaker is not Huineng, and traditional sources such as the Separate Biography and the lamp histories. T4 means first of all “not usable directly as evidence for Huineng himself”; it does not mean “necessarily late”;
the specific date must be marked separately.
Judgment grade (structural judgments throughout, A–D): A = stated directly in the original text; B = strong structural inference supported jointly by several passages; C = grounded in the text, but an equally reasonable alternative reading exists; D = stress test / hypothesis awaiting verification. A T1 text does not automatically yield an A-grade philosophical interpretation; a T3 text can be A (“the Zongbao version says so”), but cannot represent the earlier layer.
Evidence direction: Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; Limits = shows something still bears a function or may form a boundary; Contested = the text does not point in a single direction; Neutral = present in the text, but by the deletion test does not at present form a core limit.
Quotations and locations: original texts are entered from CBETA, keeping the traditional characters and the Dunhuang usages (such as 惠 written for 慧, and 漕溪), without simplification so as not to alter characters. Locations are written “Dh. p.338c03” (T48 no.2007) and “Zb. p.353a11, Dinghui ch.” (T48 no.2008). The Taishō transcription of T2007 is known for its many miswritten characters; key lines (such as “in thought, not thinking” and “the Buddha-nature is always pure”) must be rechecked against the Dunhuang Museum copy and others.
Speakers: most of the sūtra is Huineng preaching to the assembly; the words of the Fifth Patriarch (E-03), the questions and answers of disciples (E-27–E-29), and the compiler’s narrative and account of transmission (E-01) are marked separately.
Independence rule: Madhyamaka theory (No.02) is not used to explain Huineng’s “emptiness” on his behalf, and early Buddhist “non-self” (No.01) is not equated with no-thought / self-nature; nor is the old table’s classification of Huineng as ② inherited. Every conclusion must first hold within the Platform Sūtra’s own texts.
What question it starts from: at its opening the Dunhuang version sets the question as “seeking only to become a buddha” and “for people of the world, birth and death is the great matter … you seek only fields of merit and do not seek to escape the bitter sea of birth and death” (Dh. p.337b01–b11), and the fundamental predicament is set as “self-nature deluded”, not as failing to obtain what is sought (same place; E-06). (A)
Why it is not a linear three steps “ignorance → seeing the nature → becoming a buddha”: the earlier layer says again and again that delusion and awakening are two states of one and the same “nature” — “when self-nature is deluded, the Buddha is a sentient being; when self-nature is awakened, the sentient being is the Buddha” (E-25), “the previous thought deluded is an ordinary person; the following thought awakened is a buddha” (E-21). The chain is therefore a structure of switching states, not a generation from nothing into something. (B)
Direction of delusion (each arrow with evidence)
Seeking the Buddha / merit / rebirth outside, relying on an outside good friend (E-19, E-24, E-25) → “attached to objects outside”: “attached to objects outside, the floating clouds of deluded thought cover it over, and self-nature cannot be bright” (E-16). (A)
Attachment to objects → wrong views arising on thought: “deluded people have thoughts on objects, and on those thoughts wrong views arise; all the dust of affliction and deluded thought is born from this” (E-12). (A)
One thought abides → thought after thought abides → bondage: “if one thought abides, thought after thought abides; this is called bondage” (E-11). (A)
Self-nature is covered, not destroyed: “self-nature is always pure, the sun and moon always bright; only because clouds cover them …” (E-16); “wrong views are a heavy obstruction and afflictions are deep-rooted, like great clouds covering the sun” (E-22). (A: what the text says; “self-nature is not created, only covered and revealed” is B)
One can be deluded within practice too: clinging to the single-practice samādhi as sitting unmoving, watching the mind and watching purity (E-08, E-15); disputing which comes first, concentration or wisdom, “gives rise instead to a self in the Dharma” (E-07); reciting the Lotus and being “turned by the Lotus” (E-28). Practice itself can become an object of abiding attachment. (A)
Direction of awakening
Hearing the Dharma / a good friend showing the way (if one cannot awaken by oneself) → prajñā contemplation: “one must seek a great good friend to show the way to seeing the nature … you should arouse prajñā contemplation, and in an instant deluded thoughts all cease” (E-24); “just hold one roll of the Diamond Sūtra and you will see the nature” (E-22). (A)
Prajñā contemplation → recognising one’s own original mind / seeing the nature: “contemplating with wisdom, inside and outside are clear and bright, and one recognises one’s own original mind. If one recognises the original mind, that is liberation” (E-14); “contemplating with wisdom, neither grasping nor rejecting any dharma, is seeing the nature and accomplishing the Buddha Way” (the same passage as E-21). (A)
Seeing the nature = liberation = prajñā samādhi = no-thought: “having attained liberation, that is prajñā samādhi. Awakening to prajñā samādhi is no-thought” (E-14).
Note that the “→” here is “that is” (即是) in the text: names for one and the same thing, not temporal succession. (A: text; “not a time sequence but one and the same thing” is B)
The functioning of no-thought / no-mark / non-abiding: “seeing all dharmas without attaching to any dharma … in the six sense objects neither leaving nor being defiled, free in coming and going” (E-14); “abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going … that is seeing the nature” (E-22). (A)
Concentration and wisdom not two: “concentration is the substance of wisdom, wisdom is the function of concentration” (E-07); one who awakens to self-nature “does not set up precepts, concentration and wisdom either” (E-27). (A)
Not defiled by objects, yet discrimination does not vanish: “self-nature gives rise to thought; though it sees, hears, senses and knows, it is not defiled by the myriad objects and is always free”; “outwardly able to discriminate well the marks of all dharmas, inwardly unmoved in the first meaning” (E-13, E-31). (A)
Everyday action continues: always practising the straightforward mind in walking, standing, sitting and lying (E-08); practice is possible at home, the Dharma is originally in the world (E-26); always seeing one’s own faults (E-26, E-29); teaching with the thirty-six pairs (E-30). (A)
Textual limits of the chain itself
This complete chain is reconstructed by this archive across passages; every arrow has an original text, but the overall order is a B-grade inference, not the textual order of any one passage of the Platform Sūtra.
Steps 2–4 of the direction of awakening are linked in the text by “that is”; reconstructing them as a chain of succession would itself distort the text. “Whether path and endpoint are one” is dealt with under the “Cognitive deletion test” item. (C)
Why “hearing the Dharma” can turn into “seeing the nature” is given in the text mainly through similes (clouds / wind / sun, great rain / plants) and the distinction of faculties (E-22); the mechanism is little developed; see the “Structural closure” item.
The Dunhuang version does not develop “where delusion comes from”; this archive does not supply a theory of the origin of ignorance on the text’s behalf.
Reading note for the evidence base
T1–T4 indicate the reliability of a text itself; A–D indicate the strength of a judgment drawn from it: A = stated directly in the original text; B = strong structural inference supported by several passages; C = grounded, but an equally reasonable alternative reading exists; D = adversarial stress test / hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade original text proves only that “the text really says this”; it does not automatically raise an interpretation built on it to grade A. Direction: Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; Limits = shows that something still bears a function or may form a boundary; Contested = the text does not point in a single direction; Neutral = present in the text, but by the deletion test it does not at present form a core limit.
37 items in all: 32 items of Dunhuang evidence (each compared passage by passage with the Zongbao version);
a further 4 items are material that, between the two endpoints checked in this archive, is “absent from the Dunhuang version, present in the Zongbao version” (E-04, E-34, E-35, E-36), and must not be called “unique to the Zongbao version” before the Huixin and Qisong versions have been checked; 1 item of early Southern-school external comparison (E-37). 25 items carry notes on version differences, at least 4 of them major (E-02, E-04, E-11, E-36). The distribution of text levels is still counted by this archive’s main level: T1 30 items, T2 2, T3 4, T4 1; but T1 is a provisional endpoint-stability grade. Location format: Dh. = T48 no.2007; Zb. = T48 no.2008.
Original text (Dh. p.337a04–a08, 342a24–a27, 344a19–a21, 345b01–b03): the title 「南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇經一卷／兼授無相戒弘法弟子法海集記」
“The Southern School Sudden Teaching, Supreme Mahāyāna Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra: the Platform Sūtra preached by the Sixth Patriarch, Great Master Huineng, at the Dafan Monastery in Shaozhou, in one roll / also conferring the formless precepts;
collected and recorded by the Dharma-spreading disciple Fahai”
; 「若不得《壇經》，即無稟受……無《壇經》稟承，非南宗弟子也」
“If one has not obtained the Platform Sūtra, one has no transmission … without the Platform Sūtra as transmission, one is not a disciple of the Southern School”
; 「吾滅後二十餘年，邪法撩亂，惑我宗旨。有人出來，不惜身命，定佛教是非，竪立宗旨，即是吾正法」
“More than twenty years after my extinction, false teachings will be in confusion and will mislead my tenet. Someone will come forth who, not sparing his life, will settle right and wrong in Buddhism and set up the tenet; that will be my true Dharma”; the end records the transmission Fahai → Daoji → Wuzhen.
Zongbao parallel: absent are 「無《壇經》稟承非南宗弟子」 “without the Platform Sūtra as transmission one is not a disciple of the Southern School”
and the 「二十餘年」 “more than twenty years”
prophecy; instead there is 「吾去七十年，有二菩薩從東方來」 “Seventy years after I depart, two bodhisattvas will come from the east” (Zb. p.361b22, Fuzhu ch.).
Version differences: each of the two versions carries a prophecy pointing to its editor’s time. “More than twenty years … settle right and wrong in Buddhism” is often read as pointing to Shenhui’s settling of the tenet at Huatai (a scholarly interpretation, not independently adjudicated by this archive).
Original text (Dh. p.337c01–c02, 338a07–a11): Shenxiu’s verse 「身是菩提樹，心如明鏡臺，時時勤拂拭，莫使有塵埃」
“The body is the bodhi tree, the mind is like a bright mirror’s stand; at all times wipe it diligently, do not let there be dust”
. Huineng’s verse 「菩提本無樹，明鏡亦無臺，佛性常清淨，何處有塵埃？」
“Bodhi originally has no tree, the bright mirror has no stand either; the Buddha-nature is always pure, where is there dust?”
And another verse 「心是菩提樹，身為明鏡臺，明鏡本清淨，何處染塵埃？」
“The mind is the bodhi tree, the body is the bright mirror’s stand; the bright mirror is originally pure, where could it be stained by dust?”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.349a07–a08, Xingyou ch.): only one verse, 「菩提本無樹，明鏡亦非臺；本來無一物，何處惹塵埃？」
“Bodhi originally has no tree, the bright mirror is not a stand either; originally there is not a single thing, where could dust alight?”
Corroboration: the Zutang ji (952; B25 no.144, p.341a04), in the chapter on Hongren, reads 「身非菩提樹，心鏡亦非臺。本來無一物，何處有塵埃？」 “The body is not the bodhi tree, the mind-mirror is not a stand either. Originally there is not a single thing, where is there dust?”
; the Huixin version (compilation layer of 967) also already includes the verse with 「本來無一物」 “originally there is not a single thing”. Among the dated materials checked so far, the Zutang ji is earlier than the Huixin version; “earliest” here means only the earliest complete dated material checked in this archive, and does not assert that the line first came into being there historically. The Separate Biography of the Great Master of Caoxi and the Lidai fabao ji do not record this verse.
Version differences (major): the third line changes from “the Buddha-nature is always pure” to “originally there is not a single thing”, the second verse disappears, and “has no stand either” becomes “is not a stand either”. In the earlier layer the negation is aimed at Shenxiu’s metaphors (tree / stand), while “Buddha-nature” is affirmed as originally pure; the later layer extends the negation to “a single thing”. This change alters the judgment about “emptiness / Buddha-nature”: “originally there is not a single thing” cannot be used to prove that the earlier-layer Huineng had already emptied out Buddha-nature / self-nature as well.
Original text (Dh. p.337c15–c19): 「汝作此偈，見解只到門前，尚未得入。凡夫依此偈修行，即不墮落；作此見解，若覓無上菩提，即不可得。要入得門，見自本性。」
“In this verse you have written, your understanding reaches only to the front of the gate; you have not yet got in. If ordinary people practise according to this verse, they will not fall; but with this understanding, if one seeks unsurpassed bodhi, it cannot be found. To get in through the gate, see your own original nature.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.348c09–c14): 「未見本性，只到門外，未入門內……無上菩提，須得言下識自本心，見自本性不生不滅；於一切時中，念念自見萬法無滯，一真一切真，萬境自如如……」 “You have not seen the original nature; you have only reached outside the gate and not entered within … for unsurpassed bodhi, one must at these words recognise one’s own original mind and see one’s own original nature as neither arising nor ceasing;
at all times, in every thought, see for oneself that the myriad dharmas are unobstructed; one true, all true; the myriad objects are of themselves thus …”
Version differences: after “see one’s own original nature” the Zongbao version adds “neither arising nor ceasing” and “one true, all true; the myriad objects are of themselves thus”, writing “original nature” more like something seen that neither arises nor ceases.
Zongbao original text (Zb. p.349a16–a23, Xingyou ch.): 「為說《金剛經》。至『應無所住而生其心』，惠能言下大悟，一切萬法，不離自性。遂啟祖言：『何期自性，本自清淨；何期自性，本不生滅；何期自性，本自具足；何期自性，本無動搖；何期自性，能生萬法。』」
“He expounded the Diamond Sūtra for him. When he reached ‘one should give rise to the mind without abiding anywhere’, Huineng at these words greatly awakened: all the myriad dharmas are not apart from self-nature. He then said to the Patriarch: ‘Who would have thought that self-nature is originally pure in itself; who would have thought that self-nature originally neither arises nor ceases; who would have thought that self-nature is originally complete in itself; who would have thought that self-nature is originally without movement; who would have thought that self-nature can give rise to the myriad dharmas.’”
Dunhuang parallel (Dh. p.338a14–a16): 「五祖夜至三更，喚惠能堂內，說《金剛經》。惠能一聞，言下便悟。」 “At the third watch of the night the Fifth Patriarch called Huineng into the hall and expounded the Diamond Sūtra. As soon as Huineng heard it, he awakened at these words.” There is no line “without abiding anywhere”, and no “who would have thought that self-nature”. The corresponding passage in the Huixin line of transmission already has “one should give rise to the mind without abiding anywhere”, “all the myriad dharmas are not apart from self-nature” and the complete five “who would have thought that self-nature” lines; among them wordings such as “without movement or shaking” differ slightly from the Zongbao version. So the passage can no longer be called “unique to the Zongbao version”.
Version differences (major): this set of five lines and its Diamond Sūtra lead-in is not found in the Dunhuang version, but already appears in the Huixin line and other later versions, and the Zongbao version keeps it.
It writes “self-nature” in concentrated form as multiply determined: pure, neither arising nor ceasing, complete, unmoving, able to give rise to the myriad dharmas. It is the key evidence of the marked concentration of positive attribute language about “self-nature” in the later layer. The earlier Dunhuang layer already has scattered related statements (“self-nature is always pure”, “the nature contains the myriad dharmas”, “the substance of the nature neither arises nor ceases”: E-16, E-20, E-32), but not this set of concentrated declarations.
Original text (Dh. p.337b03–b05): 「人即有南北，佛性即無南北；獵獠身與和尚不同，佛性有何差別？」 “People have north and south, but Buddha-nature has no north or south; the body of a Lao barbarian differs from that of the Reverend, but what difference is there in Buddha-nature?”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.348a18–a19): 「人雖有南北，佛性本無南北……」 “Although people have north and south, Buddha-nature originally has no north or south …”
It also adds Huineng’s own statement 「弟子自心，常生智慧，不離自性，即是福田」 “Your disciple’s own mind always gives rise to wisdom; not being apart from self-nature is itself the field of merit”.
Version differences: “has no” → “originally has no”; the Zongbao version already adds “not apart from self-nature” in the scene of entering the gate.
Original text (Dh. p.338b04–b06): 「菩提般若之智，世人本自有之，即緣心迷，不能自悟，須求大善知識示道見性。……愚人智人，佛性本亦無差別，只緣迷悟，迷即為愚，悟即成智。」
“The wisdom of bodhi and prajñā, people of the world originally possess of themselves; only because the mind is deluded, they cannot awaken by themselves, and must seek a great good friend to show the way to seeing the nature. …
The foolish and the wise originally have no difference in Buddha-nature; it is only a matter of delusion and awakening: deluded, one is foolish; awakened, one becomes wise.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.350a11–a15, Bore ch.): essentially the same text.
Original text (Dh. p.338b07–b15, b26–b29): 「我此法門，以定惠為本。第一勿迷，言惠定別，定惠體一不二。即定是惠體，即惠是定用。即惠之時定在惠，即定之時惠在定……若諍先後，即是迷人。
不斷勝負，却生法我。」
“This Dharma gate of mine takes concentration and wisdom as its basis. First of all, do not be deluded into saying that wisdom and concentration are different; concentration and wisdom are one substance, not two. Concentration is the substance of wisdom; wisdom is the function of concentration. At the time of wisdom, concentration is in wisdom; at the time of concentration, wisdom is in concentration … If you dispute which comes first, you are a deluded person. Not cutting off victory and defeat, you give rise instead to a self in the Dharma.”
「如燈光，有燈即有光，無燈即無光。燈是光之體，光是燈之用。名即有二，體無兩般。」
“It is like lamp and light: where there is a lamp there is light; where there is no lamp there is no light. The lamp is the substance of the light; the light is the function of the lamp. The names are two, but the substance is not of two kinds.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.352c13–c24, Dinghui ch.): the same text; “concentration and wisdom are one substance, not two”.
Corroboration: Shenhui’s Platform Address also discusses “the equality of concentration and wisdom” (B25 no.142, p.19a).
Original text (Dh. p.338b15–b26): 「一行三昧者，於一切時中，行、住、坐、臥，常行直心是。……但行直心，於一切法上，無有執著，名一行三昧。迷人著法相，執一行三昧，直言坐不動，除妄不起心，即是一行三昧。
若如是，此法同無情，却是障道因緣。道須通流，何以却滯？心不住法，道即通流，住即被縛。……又見有人教人坐，看心看淨，不動不起，從此置功。迷人不悟，便執成顛……故知大錯。」
“The single-practice samādhi is, at all times, walking, standing, sitting and lying, always practising the straightforward mind. … Only practise the straightforward mind and have no attachment to any dharma; this is called the single-practice samādhi. Deluded people are attached to dharma-marks and cling to the single-practice samādhi, saying simply that sitting unmoving, removing the deluded and not giving rise to mind, is the single-practice samādhi. If it were so, this dharma would be the same as the insentient, and would instead be a cause and condition obstructing the Way. The Way must flow freely; why make it stagnate? When the mind does not abide in dharmas, the Way flows freely; abiding, one is bound. … Again, I see people who teach others to sit, watching the mind and watching purity, not moving and not arising, and to put their effort into this. Deluded people do not awaken and cling to it until they become deranged … so we know it is a great error.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.352c25–353a07, Dinghui ch.): the same text; “if the mind abides in dharmas, this is called binding oneself”.
Original text (Dh. p.338b29–c02, 342b03–b05): 「法無頓漸，人有利鈍。迷即漸勸，悟人頓修。識自本心，是見本性，悟即原無差別，不悟即長劫輪迴。」
“The Dharma is neither sudden nor gradual; people are sharp or dull. The deluded are encouraged gradually; the awakened practise suddenly.
Recognising one’s own original mind is seeing the original nature; when awakened, there is originally no difference; when not awakened, one transmigrates for long kalpas.”
「法即一種，見有遲疾，見遲即漸，見疾即頓。」
“The Dharma is of one kind; seeing is slow or quick. Seeing slowly is gradual; seeing quickly is sudden.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353a08–a10, Dinghui ch.; 358b09, Dunjian ch.): 「本來正教，無有頓漸，人性自有利鈍。迷人漸修，悟人頓契……所以立頓漸之假名。」 “The true teaching originally has neither sudden nor gradual; human natures are of themselves sharp or dull. The deluded practise gradually; the awakened accord suddenly … therefore the provisional names sudden and gradual are set up.”
Version differences: “the awakened practise suddenly” → “the awakened accord suddenly”; the Zongbao version adds “the provisional names sudden and gradual are set up”. In the Dunhuang version “sudden” is still joined with “practise”.
Original text (Dh. p.338c02–c05, c10–c12): 「我此法門，從上以來，頓漸皆立無念為宗，無相為體，無住為本。何名無相？無相者，於相而離相。無念者，於念而不念。」
“This Dharma gate of mine, from the earliest times, whether sudden or gradual, has set up no-thought as the tenet, no-mark as the substance, and non-abiding as the basis. What is called no-mark? No-mark is being apart from marks while in marks. No-thought is not thinking while in thought.”
「外離一切相，是無相。但能離相，性體清淨。是以無相為體。」
“Outwardly to be apart from all marks is no-mark. If only one can be apart from marks, the substance of the nature is pure. Therefore no-mark is taken as the substance.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353a10–a13, a18–a19, Dinghui ch.): 「先立無念為宗……無念者，於念而無念。……能離於相，即法體清淨。」 “First, no-thought is set up as the tenet … No-thought is being without thought while in thought. … If one can be apart from marks, the substance of the Dharma is pure.”
Version differences: “in thought, not thinking” → “in thought, without thought”; “the substance of the nature is pure” → “the substance of the Dharma is pure”; “whether sudden or gradual, has set up” → “first, is set up”. Both versions use the pattern “in X, apart from / not X”, that is, within marks and within thought.
Original text (Dh. p.338c05–c10): 「無住者，為人本性，念念不住，前念、今念、後念，念念相續，無有斷絕。若一念斷絕，法身即離色身。念念時中，於一切法上無住。一念若住，念念即住，名繫縛。於一切法上，念念不住，即無縛也，是以無住為本。」
“Non-abiding is the original nature of people: thought after thought not abiding — the previous thought, the present thought, the following thought — thought following thought without break. If a single thought is cut off, the Dharma-body leaves the form-body. In every thought, there is no abiding on any dharma. If one thought abides, thought after thought abides; this is called bondage. On all dharmas, thought after thought not abiding, there is no bondage;
therefore non-abiding is taken as the basis.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353a13–a18): 「無住者，人之本性。於世間善惡好醜，乃至冤之與親，言語觸刺欺爭之時，並將為空，不思酬害，念念之中不思前境。若前念今念後念，念念相續不斷，名為繫縛。於諸法上念念不住，即無縛也。」 “Non-abiding is the original nature of people. Towards good and evil, beauty and ugliness in the world, even enemies and kin, at times of offending words, deceit and strife, one regards them all as empty and does not think of retaliation; in every thought one does not dwell on the previous object. If the previous thought, the present thought and the following thought, thought following thought without break, this is called bondage. On all dharmas, thought after thought not abiding, there is no bondage.”
Version differences (major): the Dunhuang version places “thought following thought without break” in the positive account of non-abiding; the Zongbao version has the sentence “thought following thought without break is called bondage”, and there is indeed a tension of direction in the literal evaluation.
The preceding Zongbao text, “in every thought one does not dwell on the previous object”, allows a harmonisation: what is judged to be bondage is not the continuity of the flow of thought in general, but the continued adherence of the previous, present and following thoughts to the previous object. But this is interpretation, not what the text says. Until the intermediate versions have been systematically checked, neither side — “the two versions are fully reversed” or “the two versions are in fact consistent” — is fixed as fact.
Original text (Dh. p.338c11–c19): 「於一切境上不染，名為無念。於自念上離境，不於法上生念。莫百物不思，念盡除却，一念斷即無，別處受生。……即緣迷人於境上有念，念上便起邪見，一切塵勞妄念從此而生。然此教門立無念為宗，世人離見，不起於念，若無有念，無念亦不立。」
“Not being defiled on any object is called no-thought. In one’s own thought, be apart from objects, and do not give rise to thought on dharmas. Do not refrain from thinking of the hundred things and clear away thought entirely; once a thought is cut off you die and are reborn elsewhere. … It is because deluded people have thoughts on objects, and on those thoughts wrong views arise, that all the dust of affliction and deluded thought is born from this.
Yet this teaching sets up no-thought as the tenet: when people of the world are apart from views, they do not give rise to thought; if there is no thought, no-thought too is not set up.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353a19–a28): 「若只百物不思，念盡除却，一念絕即死，別處受生，是為大錯。……只緣口說見性，迷人於境上有念……自性本無一法可得，若有所得，妄說禍福，即是塵勞邪見。」 “If one merely refrains from thinking of the hundred things and clears away thought entirely, once a thought is cut off one dies and is reborn elsewhere; this is a great error. … It is only because they talk of seeing the nature with their mouths that deluded people have thoughts on objects … Self-nature originally has not a single dharma that can be obtained; if there is something obtained and one talks falsely of fortune and misfortune, that is the dust of affliction and wrong views.”
There is also the kōan of Wolun’s verse: 「惠能沒伎倆，不斷百思想，對境心數起，菩提作麼長。」 “Huineng has no skills; he does not cut off the hundred thoughts. Facing objects, the mind arises again and again;
how would bodhi grow?” (Zb. p.358a26–b03, Jiyuan ch.)
Version differences: the Zongbao version deletes “if there is no thought, no-thought too is not set up”, argues instead from “self-nature originally has not a single dharma that can be obtained”, and writes “talking of seeing the nature with the mouth” into the illness of the deluded. A reflexive sentence about “no-thought” itself is replaced by a description of “self-nature” as having nothing to obtain. Wolun’s verse is T3, its direction consistent with the Dunhuang version.
Original text (Dh. p.338c19–c23): 「無者無何事？念者念何物？無者，離二相諸塵勞；念者，念真如本性。真如是念之體，念是真如之用。自性起念，雖即見聞覺知，不染萬境，而常自在。《維摩經》云：『外能善分別諸法相，內於第一義而不動。』」
“‘No’ is no what? ‘Thought’ is thought of what? ‘No’ is being apart from the two marks and all the dust of affliction; ‘thought’ is thinking of the original nature of suchness. Suchness is the substance of thought; thought is the function of suchness. Self-nature gives rise to thought; though it sees, hears, senses and knows, it is not defiled by the myriad objects and is always free. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: ‘Outwardly able to discriminate well the marks of all dharmas, inwardly unmoved in the first meaning.’”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353a28–b06): the same text, with the addition 「真如自性起念，非眼耳鼻舌能念。真如有性，所以起念；真如若無，眼耳色聲當時即壞。」
“The self-nature of suchness gives rise to thought; it is not the eye, ear, nose or tongue that can think. Suchness has nature, therefore it gives rise to thought; if suchness did not exist, eye and ear, form and sound would at once be destroyed.”
Version differences: the sentences added in the Zongbao version write suchness as “having nature” and as the basis on which the senses and their objects are not destroyed, clearly strengthening the ontologising tone.
Original text (Dh. p.340c16–c24): 「自性心地，以智惠觀照，內外明澈，識自本心。若識本心，即是解脫。既得解脫，即是般若三昧。悟般若三昧，即是無念。何名無念？無念法者，見一切法，不著一切法；遍一切處，不著一切處。常淨自性，使六賊從六門走出，於六塵中不離不染，來去自由，即是般若三昧，自在解脫，名無念行。莫百物不思，當令念絕，即是法縛，即名邊見。」
“On the mind-ground of self-nature, contemplating with wisdom, inside and outside are clear and bright, and one recognises one’s own original mind. If one recognises the original mind, that is liberation. Having attained liberation, that is prajñā samādhi. Awakening to prajñā samādhi is no-thought. What is called no-thought? The dharma of no-thought is seeing all dharmas without attaching to any dharma; pervading all places without attaching to any place. Always purify self-nature, let the six thieves go out through the six gates, and in the six sense objects be neither apart nor defiled, free in coming and going: that is prajñā samādhi, free liberation, called the practice of no-thought. Do not refrain from thinking of the hundred things, making thought cease;
that is bondage by the Dharma, and is called a one-sided view.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.351a25–b05, Bore ch.): essentially the same text; “if one recognises the original mind, that is original liberation”.
Original text (Dh. p.338c23–339a09): 「此法門中，坐禪原不著心，亦不著淨，亦不言不動。若言看心，心原是妄，妄如幻故，無所看也。
若言看淨，人性本淨，為妄念故，蓋覆真如。……起心看淨，却生淨妄……淨無形相，却立淨相，言是功夫，作此見者，障自本性，却被淨縛。……外於一切境界上念不起為坐，見本性不亂為禪。……外離相曰禪，內不亂曰定。」
“In this Dharma gate, seated meditation is originally not attached to mind, nor attached to purity, nor does it speak of not moving. If one speaks of watching the mind, the mind is originally deluded; since delusion is like an illusion, there is nothing to watch. If one speaks of watching purity, human nature is originally pure; it is because of deluded thoughts that suchness is covered over. … Giving rise to mind to watch purity gives rise instead to a delusion of purity … Purity has no form or mark, yet one sets up a mark of purity and calls it effort; one who holds this view obstructs one’s own original nature and is instead bound by purity. … Outwardly, thought not arising on any object is ‘sitting’; seeing the original nature without disturbance is ‘meditation’. … Outwardly apart from marks is called meditation; inwardly undisturbed is called concentration.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.353b08–b27, Zuochan ch.): 「亦不是不動……外於一切善惡境界，心念不起，名為坐；內見自性不動，名為禪。」
“Nor is it not moving … Outwardly, towards all good and evil objects, thought of mind not arising is called sitting; inwardly seeing self-nature unmoving is called meditation.”
Version differences: “seeing the original nature without disturbance is meditation” → “inwardly seeing self-nature unmoving is called meditation”. The Zongbao version adds “inwardly” and “self-nature unmoving”, writing meditative concentration as the seeing of an inner unmoving nature, more strongly objectual.
Original text (Dh. p.339a20–b01): 「世人性本自淨，萬法在自性。……知如是一切法盡在自性，自性常清淨，日月常明。只為雲覆蓋，上明下暗……於外著境，妄念浮雲蓋覆，自性不能明故。遇善知識，開真正法，吹却迷妄，內外明澈，於自性中，萬法皆現。一切法在自性。名為清淨法身。」
“The nature of people of the world is originally pure in itself; the myriad dharmas are in self-nature. … Know that thus all dharmas are entirely in self-nature; self-nature is always pure, the sun and moon always bright. Only because clouds cover them, above is bright and below is dark … Attached to objects outside, the floating clouds of deluded thought cover it over, and so self-nature cannot be bright. Meeting a good friend who opens up the true and correct Dharma, delusion is blown away, inside and outside are clear and bright, and within self-nature the myriad dharmas all appear. All dharmas are in self-nature. This is called the pure Dharma-body.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.354b22–c10, Chanhui ch.): 「世人性本清淨，萬法從自性生。
……如天常清，日月常明，為浮雲蓋覆……」 “The nature of people of the world is originally pure; the myriad dharmas are born from self-nature. … As the sky is always clear and the sun and moon always bright, but covered by floating clouds …”
Version differences: “the myriad dharmas are in self-nature” → “the myriad dharmas are born from self-nature”. From “in” (a grammar of appearing / location) to “born from” (a grammar of source / generation), in the same direction as “able to give rise to the myriad dharmas” in E-04. This shows that source-expressions strengthen in the later versions, but this grammatical change alone cannot directly decide that “self-nature is reified”.
Original text (Dh. p.339b02–b06): 「何名為千百億化身佛？不思量，性即空寂；思量，即是自化。思量惡法，化為地獄；思量善法，化為天堂……自性變化甚多，迷人自不知見。一念善，知惠即生，此名自性化身佛。」
“What is called the Buddha of the hundred thousand million transformation bodies? Not thinking, the nature is empty and still; thinking, it transforms itself. Thinking of evil dharmas, it transforms into hell; thinking of good dharmas, it transforms into heaven … The transformations of self-nature are very many, but deluded people do not themselves know or see them. With one good thought, wisdom is born; this is called the transformation-body Buddha of self-nature.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.354c15–c22): 「不思萬法，性本如空，一念思量，名為變化……」 “Not thinking of the myriad dharmas, the nature is originally like space; with one thought of thinking, this is called transformation …”
Original text (Dh. p.339b16–b22): 「眾生無邊誓願度，不是惠能度，善知識心中眾生，各於自身自性自度。何名自性自度？自色身中，邪見煩惱，愚癡迷妄，自有本覺性，將正見度。
既悟正見般若之智，除却愚癡迷妄。眾生各各自度，邪來正度，迷來悟度，愚來智度，惡來善度，煩惱來菩提度，如是度者，是名真度。」
“‘Sentient beings are limitless; I vow to save them’ — it is not Huineng who saves them. Good friends, the sentient beings in your minds each save themselves in their own self-nature. What is called self-nature saving itself? Within one’s own form-body, wrong views and afflictions, foolishness and delusion, one has of oneself the nature of original awakening, and saves them with right view. Having awakened to the prajñā wisdom of right view, foolishness and delusion are removed. Sentient beings each save themselves: when the wrong comes, the right saves; when delusion comes, awakening saves; when foolishness comes, wisdom saves; when evil comes, good saves; when affliction comes, bodhi saves. Saving like this is called true saving.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.354a14–a22, Chanhui ch.): essentially the same text.
Original text (Dh. p.339c11–c20): 「佛者，覺也；法者，正也；僧者，淨也。……若言歸佛，佛在何處？若不見佛，即無所歸；既無所歸，言却是妄。……經中只言自歸依佛，不言歸依他佛。自性不歸，無所依處。」
“Buddha means awakening; Dharma means the right; Saṅgha means purity. … If you speak of taking refuge in the Buddha, where is the Buddha? If you do not see the Buddha, there is nothing to take refuge in; and since there is nothing to take refuge in, the words are false. … The sūtra speaks only of taking refuge in the Buddha of oneself; it does not speak of taking refuge in another Buddha. If self-nature does not take refuge, there is nowhere to rely on.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.354b02–b11): 「……不言歸依他佛。自佛不歸，無所依處。」 “… it does not speak of taking refuge in another Buddha. If one does not take refuge in the Buddha of oneself, there is nowhere to rely on.”
Version differences: “if self-nature does not take refuge” → “if one does not take refuge in the Buddha of oneself”.
Original text (Dh. p.339c25–340a05): 「何名摩訶？摩訶者是大。心量廣大，猶如虛空。
若空心坐禪，即落無記空。……世人性空，亦復如是。性含萬法是大，萬法盡是自性。見一切人及非人，惡之與善，惡法善法，盡皆不捨，不可染著，猶如虛空，名之為大……又有迷人，空心不思，名之為大，此亦不是。」
“What is called mahā? Mahā means great. The capacity of mind is vast, like empty space. If one sits in meditation with an empty mind, one falls into indeterminate emptiness. … The emptiness of the nature of people of the world is likewise so. The nature contains the myriad dharmas: that is great; the myriad dharmas are all self-nature. Seeing all people and non-people, evil and good, evil dharmas and good dharmas, rejecting none of them, yet not to be defiled by or attached to them, like empty space: this is called great … Again there are deluded people who empty the mind and do not think, and call this great; this too is not it.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.350a22–b15, Bore ch.): the same in meaning, with the additions 「世人妙性本空，無有一法可得。自性真空，亦復如是。善知識！莫聞吾說空，便即著空」 “The wondrous nature of people of the world is originally empty; there is not a single dharma that can be obtained. The true emptiness of self-nature is likewise so.
Good friends! Do not, on hearing me speak of emptiness, at once become attached to emptiness”
and 「一切般若智，皆從自性而生，不從外入」 “All prajñā wisdom is born from self-nature; it does not enter from outside”.
Version differences: the Zongbao version strengthens two directions at once: on the one hand “the true emptiness of self-nature, not a single dharma that can be obtained” and “do not be attached to emptiness”; on the other, “prajñā wisdom is born from self-nature”.
Original text (Dh. p.340a05–a15, a24–a26): 「般若是智惠。一切時中，念念不愚，常行智惠，即名般若行。一念愚即般若絕，一念智即般若生。……般若無形相，智惠性即是。……解義離生滅，著境生滅起。如水有波浪，即是於此岸；離境無生滅，如水永長流，故即名到彼岸……即煩惱是菩提。前念迷即凡，後念悟即佛。」
“Prajñā is wisdom. At all times, thought after thought not foolish, always practising wisdom: this is called the practice of prajñā. With one foolish thought, prajñā is cut off; with one thought of wisdom, prajñā arises. … Prajñā has no form or mark; it is the nature of wisdom itself. … Understanding the meaning, one is apart from arising and ceasing; attached to objects, arising and ceasing come up. Like water with waves, that is this shore; apart from objects there is no arising or ceasing, like water flowing on for ever; therefore it is called reaching the other shore … affliction is bodhi. The previous thought deluded is an ordinary person; the following thought awakened is a buddha.”
「用智惠觀照，於一切法不取不捨，即見性成佛道。」
“Contemplating with wisdom, neither grasping nor rejecting any dharma, is seeing the nature and accomplishing the Buddha Way.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.350b15–c09): the same in meaning, with the addition 「前念著境即煩惱，後念離境即菩提」 “The previous thought attached to objects is affliction; the following thought apart from objects is bodhi”.
Original text (Dh. p.340a26–b21): 「若欲入甚深法界，入般若三昧者，直須修般若波羅蜜行，但持《金剛般若波羅蜜經》一卷，即得見性，入般若三昧。……故知本性自有般若之智，自用智惠觀照，不假文字。……因何聞法即不悟？緣邪見障重，煩惱根深，猶如大雲，蓋覆於日，不得風吹，日無能現。……但於自心，令自本性常起正見，一切邪見煩惱，塵勞眾生，當時盡悟，猶如大海，納於眾流，小水大水，合為一體，即是見性。內外不住，來去自由，能除執心，通達無礙。」
“If you wish to enter the very deep Dharma-realm and enter prajñā samādhi, you must directly cultivate the practice of the perfection of prajñā; just hold one roll of the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and you will see the nature and enter prajñā samādhi. … So we know that the original nature has prajñā wisdom of itself, and contemplates with wisdom by itself, not relying on words. …
Why is it that on hearing the Dharma one does not awaken? Because wrong views are a heavy obstruction and afflictions are deep-rooted, like great clouds covering the sun; without the wind blowing, the sun cannot appear. … Only in one’s own mind let one’s own original nature always give rise to right view, and all wrong views and afflictions, the sentient beings of the dust of affliction, at once all awaken, like the great ocean taking in all streams, small waters and great waters merging into one body: that is seeing the nature. Abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going, able to remove the clinging mind, penetrating without obstruction.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.350c09–351a03): the same in meaning; 「煩惱塵勞常不能染，即是見性。……內外不住，去來自由……」 “Afflictions and the dust of affliction can never defile it: that is seeing the nature. … Abiding neither inside nor outside, free in going and coming …”
Original text (Dh. p.340b21–c05): 「一切經書及文字，小大二乘，十二部經，皆因人置……我若無世人，一切萬法本亦不有。故知萬法本從人興……故知不悟，即佛是眾生；一念若悟，即眾生是佛。故知一切萬法，盡在自身心中，何不從於自心頓見真如本性。……我於忍和尚處，一聞言下大悟，頓見真如本性。」
“All sūtras and writings, the Small and Great Vehicles, the twelve divisions of scripture, are all set up because of people … If there were no people of the world, all the myriad dharmas would originally not exist either. So we know that the myriad dharmas originally arise from people … So we know that when not awakened, the Buddha is a sentient being; if for one thought one awakens, the sentient being is the Buddha. So we know that all the myriad dharmas are entirely within one’s own mind; why not, from one’s own mind, suddenly see the original nature of suchness? … At the place of the Reverend Hongren, as soon as I heard, at these words I greatly awakened and suddenly saw the original nature of suchness.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.351a03–a15): the same in meaning; “so we know that the myriad dharmas are entirely in one’s own mind”.
Original text (Dh. p.340c06–c16): 「若不能自悟者，須覓大善知識示道見性。……三世諸佛十二部經，在人性中本自具有。不能自性悟，須得善知識示道見性。若自悟者，不假外求善知識。若取外求善知識望得解脫，無有是處。識自心內善知識，即得解脫。……汝若不得自悟，當起般若觀照，剎那間妄念俱滅，即是自真正善知識，一悟即至佛地。」
“Those who cannot awaken by themselves must look for a great good friend to show the way to seeing the nature. …
The buddhas of the three times and the twelve divisions of scripture are originally complete of themselves in human nature. If one cannot awaken in self-nature, one must obtain a good friend to show the way to seeing the nature. If one awakens by oneself, one does not need to seek a good friend outside. If one seeks a good friend outside hoping to attain liberation, there is no such thing. Recognise the good friend within your own mind, and you will attain liberation. … If you cannot awaken by yourself, you should arouse prajñā contemplation, and in an instant deluded thoughts all cease; that is your own true good friend; with one awakening you reach the ground of the Buddha.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.351a16–a25): the same in meaning; 「若一向執謂須他善知識方得解脱者，無有是處。」 “If one clings throughout to the view that one must have another as good friend in order to attain liberation, there is no such thing.”
Original text (Dh. p.341b11–b12, b24–c08): 「迷人念佛生彼，悟者自淨其心。所以佛言：『隨其心淨，則佛土淨。』」
“Deluded people recite the Buddha’s name to be reborn there; the awakened purify their own minds. Therefore the Buddha said: ‘As the mind is purified, so the buddha-land is purified.’”
「心即是地，性即是王。性在王在，性去王無。性在身心存，性去身心壞。佛是自性作，莫向身外求。自性迷，佛即是眾生；自性悟，眾生即是佛。……自心地上覺性如來，放大智惠光明，照曜六門清淨……內外明澈，不異西方。」
“The mind is the land; the nature is the king. When the nature is present the king is present;
when the nature departs there is no king. When the nature is present, body and mind remain; when the nature departs, body and mind decay. The Buddha is made by self-nature; do not seek outside the body. When self-nature is deluded, the Buddha is a sentient being; when self-nature is awakened, the sentient being is the Buddha. … On the ground of one’s own mind, the Tathāgata of the awakened nature sends out the great light of wisdom, illuminating the six gates and making them pure … inside and outside clear and bright, no different from the Western Land.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.352b02–b18, Yiwen ch.): 「……佛向性中作，莫向身外求。自性迷即是眾生，自性覺即是佛……」 “… the Buddha is made within the nature; do not seek outside the body. When self-nature is deluded, it is a sentient being; when self-nature is awakened, it is the Buddha …”
Version differences: “the Buddha is made by self-nature” → “the Buddha is made within the nature”; “self-nature awakened (悟)” → “self-nature awakened (覺)”.
Original text (Dh. p.341c11–c14, c25–342a13): 「若欲修行，在家亦得，不由在寺。」
“If you wish to practise, you can do it at home as well; it does not depend on being in a monastery.”
The verse: 「菩提本清淨，起心即是妄，淨性於妄中，但正除三障。……常見在己過，與道即相當。……法原在世間，於世出世間，勿離世間上，外求出世間。邪見在世間，正見出世間，邪正悉打却，菩提性宛然。」
“Bodhi is originally pure; giving rise to mind is delusion. The pure nature is within delusion; only rectify it and remove the three obstructions. … Always see your own faults, and you will accord with the Way. … The Dharma is originally in the world; in the world one goes beyond the world. Do not leave the world to seek going beyond the world outside. Wrong views are in the world; right view goes beyond the world. Strike down both wrong and right, and the bodhi-nature is plainly there.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.351b14–c11, Bore ch.; 352b22, Yiwen ch.): 「菩提本自性，起心即是妄……佛法在世間，不離世間覺，離世覓菩提，恰如求兔角。正見名出世，邪見是世間，邪正盡打却，菩提性宛然。」 “Bodhi is originally self-nature; giving rise to mind is delusion … The Buddha-Dharma is in the world; awakening is not apart from the world. Seeking bodhi apart from the world is just like looking for a rabbit’s horn. Right view is called going beyond the world;
wrong views are the world. Strike down wrong and right entirely, and the bodhi-nature is plainly there.”
The verse opens 「唯傳見性法……只此見性門」 “Transmitting only the Dharma of seeing the nature … only this gate of seeing the nature”.
Version differences: “bodhi is originally pure” → “bodhi is originally self-nature”; the Dunhuang verse opens “transmitting only the sudden teaching … if you study the sudden teaching”, which the Zongbao version changes to “transmitting only the Dharma of seeing the nature … only this gate of seeing the nature”; “the Dharma is originally in the world” is rewritten as “the Buddha-Dharma is in the world; awakening is not apart from the world”. The later layer rewrites “sudden teaching” as “seeing the nature”.
Original text (Dh. p.342b16–b17, b25–c02): Zhicheng: 「未說時即是，說了即不是」
“Before it is said, it is so; once said, it is not so”
; the Sixth Patriarch: 「煩惱即是菩提，亦復如是」
“Affliction is bodhi; it is likewise so”
. 「心地無非是自性戒，心地無亂是自性定，心地無癡是自性惠。……汝師戒定惠勸小根智人；吾戒定惠勸上智人。得悟自性，亦不立戒定惠。……自性無非、無亂、無癡，念念般若觀照，常離法相，有何可立？自性頓修，無有漸次，所以不立。」
“The mind-ground without wrong is the precepts of self-nature; the mind-ground without disturbance is the concentration of self-nature;
the mind-ground without folly is the wisdom of self-nature. … Your teacher’s precepts, concentration and wisdom encourage people of small faculties and wisdom; my precepts, concentration and wisdom encourage people of superior wisdom. One who awakens to self-nature does not set up precepts, concentration and wisdom either. … Self-nature is without wrong, without disturbance, without folly; in every thought there is prajñā contemplation, always apart from dharma-marks; what is there to set up? Self-nature practises suddenly, without gradual steps; therefore they are not set up.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.358c13–c29, Dunjian ch.): the same in meaning, with the additions 「若悟自性，亦不立菩提涅槃，亦不立解脫知見。無一法可得，方能建立萬法。……見性之人，立亦得、不立亦得……自性自悟，頓悟頓修，亦無漸次，所以不立一切法。諸法寂滅，有何次第？」 “If one awakens to self-nature, one does not set up bodhi and nirvāṇa either, nor set up the knowledge and vision of liberation. Only when not a single dharma is obtained can one establish the myriad dharmas. … For one who has seen the nature, setting up is fine and not setting up is fine … Self-nature awakens by itself; sudden awakening, sudden practice, also without gradual steps;
therefore no dharma at all is set up. All dharmas are quiescent; what sequence is there?”
Version differences: the phrase “sudden awakening, sudden practice”, “not setting up bodhi and nirvāṇa / the knowledge and vision of liberation”, and “setting up is fine and not setting up is fine” are found only in the Zongbao version. The Dunhuang version says only “self-nature practises suddenly”.
Original text (Dh. p.342c17–343a06): 「人心不思，本源空寂，離却邪見即一大事因緣。內外不迷，即離兩邊。外迷著相，內迷著空，於相離相，於空離空，即是不迷。……心開何物？開佛知見。『佛』猶如『覺』也……從一處入，即覺知見，見自本性，即得出世。」
“When the human mind does not think, the original source is empty and still; to be rid of wrong views is the one great cause and condition. Not deluded inside or outside, one is apart from the two extremes. Deluded outside, one is attached to marks; deluded inside, one is attached to emptiness. In marks, apart from marks; in emptiness, apart from emptiness: that is not being deluded. … What does the mind open? It opens the knowledge and vision of the Buddha. ‘Buddha’ is like ‘awakening’ … Entering from one place, that is the knowledge and vision of awakening; seeing one’s own original nature, one goes beyond the world.”
「心行轉《法華》，不行《法華》轉……」
“When the mind practises, it turns the Lotus; when it does not practise, it is turned by the Lotus …”
「即佛行是佛。」
“Practising the Buddha’s practice is being a buddha.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.355c05–c28, Jiyuan ch.): 「……即覺知見，本來真性而得出現。」 “… that is the knowledge and vision of awakening; the original true nature thereby appears.”
The verse 「心迷法華轉，心悟轉法華……無念念即正，有念念成邪，有無俱不計，長御白牛車。」 “When the mind is deluded, the Lotus turns it; when the mind is awakened, it turns the Lotus … Thinking without thought is right; thinking with thought becomes wrong. Counting neither with nor without, one drives for ever the white-ox cart.”
Version differences: “seeing one’s own original nature, one goes beyond the world” → “the original true nature thereby appears”: from the action of “seeing” to “the true nature appearing”.
Original text (Dh. p.343a16–a29): 「和尚坐禪，見亦不見？」
“When the Reverend sits in meditation, does he see or not see?”
The Great Master rose and struck Shenhui three times … 「吾亦見亦不見。……吾亦見，常見自過患，故云亦見。亦不見者，不見他人過罪，所以亦見亦不見也。……見不見是兩邊，痛不痛是生滅。汝自性且不見，敢來弄人？……吾不自知，代汝迷不得；汝若自見，代得吾迷？何不自修，問吾見否？」
“I both see and do not see. … I see: I always see my own faults; therefore I say I see. Not seeing: I do not see the faults and offences of others;
that is why I both see and do not see. … Seeing and not seeing are two extremes; pain and no pain are arising and ceasing. You do not even see your own self-nature, and you dare come and make sport of people? … If I do not know for myself, I cannot be deluded in your place; if you see for yourself, could you be deluded in my place? Why not practise yourself, instead of asking whether I see?”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.359b12–c01, Dunjian ch.): the same in meaning; at the beginning it adds Shenhui’s answer 「以無住為本，見即是主」 “Non-abiding is taken as the basis; the seeing is the master”
and Huineng’s rebuke 「這沙彌爭合取次語」 “How can this novice speak so carelessly?”.
Version differences: the Zongbao version adds the passage in which “the seeing is the master” is rebuked.
Original text (Dh. p.343b05–b08, b14–b18, c03–c10): 「舉三科法門，動用三十六對，出沒即離兩邊，說一切法，莫離於性相。若有人問法，出語盡雙，皆取法對，來去相因，究竟二法盡除，更無去處。」
“Take up the Dharma gate of the three categories, and put to use the thirty-six pairs; coming out and going in, be apart from the two extremes; in speaking of all dharmas, do not depart from nature and mark.
If someone asks about the Dharma, let every utterance be in pairs, always taking the paired dharma; coming and going are mutually caused; ultimately both dharmas are removed, and there is nowhere further to go.”
「自性含萬法，名為含藏識。思量即轉識……由自性邪，起十八邪；若自性正起十八正。惡用即眾生，善用即佛。用由何等？由自性。」
“Self-nature contains the myriad dharmas; it is called the storehouse consciousness. Thinking is the evolving consciousness … Because self-nature is wrong, the eighteen wrongs arise; if self-nature is right, the eighteen rights arise. Evil function is the sentient being; good function is the Buddha. From what does the function come? From self-nature.”
「出外，於相離相；入內，於空離空。著空，則惟長無明；著相，則惟長邪見。……自性上說空，正語言本性不空。……以暗現明，來去相因。」
“Going outward, in marks be apart from marks; coming inward, in emptiness be apart from emptiness. Attached to emptiness, one only increases ignorance; attached to marks, one only increases wrong views. … Speaking of emptiness on self-nature, right speech — the original nature is not empty. … Darkness makes light appear; coming and going are mutually caused.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.360a27–c10, Fuzhu ch.): the same in meaning; “do not depart from nature and mark” reads “do not depart from self-nature”; “self-nature can contain the myriad dharmas … all give rise to function from self-nature”.
Version differences: “nature and mark” → “self-nature”. The Dunhuang transcription of the sentence 「自性上说空，正语言本性不空」 “Speaking of emptiness on self-nature, right speech — the original nature is not empty” is suspected of omissions or errors; to be checked.
Original text (Dh. p.343c29–344a09): 「一切無有真，不以見於真。若見於真者，是見盡非真。若能自有真，離假即心真。自心不離假，無真何處真？……若見真不動，動上有不動，不動是不動，無情無佛種。能善分別相，第一義不動。若悟作此見，則是真如用。」
“In all things there is nothing true; do not take them as seeing the true. If you see the true, what you see is all not true. If you can have the true in yourself, apart from the false, the mind is true. If your own mind is not apart from the false, there is nothing true; where would the true be? … If you see the true as unmoving, there is the unmoving within motion; the unmoving that is merely unmoving is insentient, without the seed of buddhahood. Able to discriminate marks well, in the first meaning unmoved. If you awaken and hold this view, it is the function of suchness.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.360c28–361a10, Fuzhu ch.): essentially the same text; “if you see the true as unmoving” reads “if you seek the true unmoving”.
Original text (Dh. p.343c23–c25, 345a20–a22): 「若知去處，即不悲泣。性體無生無滅，無去無來。」
“If you knew where I am going, you would not weep. The substance of the nature neither arises nor ceases, neither goes nor comes.”
「如吾在日一種，一時端坐，但無動無靜，無生無滅，無去無來，無是無非，無住，坦然寂靜，即是大道。」
“Just as on the days when I was here, all sit upright together; only without motion or stillness, without arising or ceasing, without going or coming, without right or wrong, non-abiding, calm and still: that is the great Way.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.360c22–c24, 362a26–b02, Fuzhu ch.): 「法性本無生滅去來」 “The Dharma-nature originally has no arising, ceasing, going or coming”
; 「……無是無非，無住無往」 “… without right or wrong, without abiding or going”
, and it adds the verse 「兀兀不修善，騰騰不造惡，寂寂斷見聞，蕩蕩心無著。」 “Unmoved, not cultivating good; free, not making evil; still, cutting off seeing and hearing; open, the mind without attachment.”
Version differences: “the substance of the nature” → “the Dharma-nature”; “non-abiding, calm and still” → “without abiding or going”; the later versions have in addition the verse “still, cutting off seeing and hearing”. “Cutting off seeing and hearing” stands in literal tension with the Dunhuang layer’s “though it sees, hears, senses and knows, it is not defiled by the myriad objects”, but it does not necessarily mean a literal abolition of sense / cognition; it may also mean cutting off attachment to seeing and hearing; its version source and meaning need separate checking.
Original text (Dh. p.344c13–c27, 345a01–a15): 「後代迷人，但識眾生，即能見佛；若不識眾生，覓佛萬劫不可得見也。……即緣佛心有眾生，離眾生無佛心。」
“Deluded people of later generations: only recognise sentient beings, and you can see the Buddha; if you do not recognise sentient beings, you may look for the Buddha for ten thousand kalpas and never see him. … It is because the Buddha-mind has sentient beings; apart from sentient beings there is no Buddha-mind.”
The verse 「迷即佛眾生，悟即眾生佛……我心自有佛，自佛是真佛。自若無佛心，向何處求佛？」
“Deluded, the Buddha is a sentient being; awakened, the sentient being is the Buddha … My mind has the Buddha of itself; one’s own Buddha is the true Buddha. If oneself had no Buddha-mind, where would one seek the Buddha?”
「真如淨性是真佛，邪見三毒是真魔。……婬性本是淨性因，除婬即無淨性身。……若能心中自有真，有真即是成佛因。」
“The pure nature of suchness is the true Buddha; wrong views and the three poisons are the true Māra. … The lustful nature is originally the cause of the pure nature; remove lust and there is no body of the pure nature. … If within the mind one can have the true of oneself, having the true is the cause of becoming a buddha.”
Zongbao parallel (Zb. p.361c27–362a20, Fuzhu ch.): the same in meaning; it adds 「只為眾生迷佛，非是佛迷眾生」 “It is only that sentient beings are deluded about the Buddha, not that the Buddha is deluded about sentient beings”
and 「汝等自心是佛，更莫狐疑。外無一物而能建立，皆是本心生萬種法」 “Your own minds are the Buddha; have no more doubt. Outside, there is not a single thing that can be established; it is all the original mind giving rise to the myriad kinds of dharmas”
; the verse opens 「真如自性是真佛」 “The self-nature of suchness is the true Buddha”.
Version differences: “one’s own mind is the Buddha” and “the original mind gives rise to the myriad kinds of dharmas” are found only in the Zongbao version; “the pure nature of suchness” → “the self-nature of suchness”.
Zongbao original text (Zb. p.356b23–c16, Jiyuan ch.): the Reverend Datong said: 「汝之本性，猶如虛空，了無一物可見，是名正見；無一物可知，是名真知。……但見本源清淨，覺體圓明，即名見性成佛。」
“Your original nature is like empty space; there is not a single thing to be seen: this is called right seeing; there is not a single thing to be known: this is called true knowing. … Just see the original source as pure and the substance of awakening as perfectly bright: this is called seeing the nature and becoming a buddha.”
Huineng: 「彼師所說，猶存見知，故令汝未了。……不見一法存無見，大似浮雲遮日面；不知一法守空知，還如太虛生閃電。此之知見瞥然興，錯認何曾解方便，汝當一念自知非，自己靈光常顯現。」
“What that teacher said still keeps seeing and knowing; that is why you have not yet understood. … Not seeing a single dharma, you keep a not-seeing, much like floating clouds hiding the face of the sun; not knowing a single dharma, you guard an empty knowing, just like lightning born in the great void. This knowledge and vision flashes up;
mistaking it, how could you understand skilful means? In one thought you should know for yourself the error, and your own numinous light will always be manifest.”
Dunhuang parallel: none. In the Dunhuang version Zhichang asks only about the meaning of the four vehicles (Dh. p.343a07–a15).
Version differences: the whole passage is a later addition.
Zongbao original text (Zb. p.359c01–c10, Dunjian ch.): 「吾有一物，無頭無尾，無名無字，無背無面。諸人還識否？」
“I have a thing, without head or tail, without name or word, without back or face. Do any of you recognise it?”
Shenhui came forward and said: 「是諸佛之本源，神會之佛性。」
“It is the original source of all buddhas, Shenhui’s Buddha-nature.”
The Master said: 「向汝道：『無名無字』，汝便喚作本源佛性。汝向去有把茆蓋頭，也只成箇知解宗徒。」
“I told you ‘without name or word’, and you at once call it the original-source Buddha-nature. Even if you later have a handful of thatch to cover your head, you will only become a follower of intellectual understanding.”
Also 「無名可名，名於自性，無二之性，是名實性。」
“That which has no name that can name it is named in self-nature; the nature without duality is called the real nature.”
Early corroboration: the Separate Biography of the Great Master of Caoxi (c. 782; X86 no.1598, R146 p.969b02–b09) already records: 「我有法，無名無字……」 “I have a Dharma, without name or word …”
; Shenhui answers 「本源者諸佛本性」 “The original source is the original nature of all buddhas”
, and the Master: 「我說無名無字，汝云何言佛性有名字」 “I said without name or word; how can you say that Buddha-nature has a name?”
Version differences: the Dunhuang version does not have this passage. Its main body already existed in the 8th-century Separate Biography, so it is not purely a Song-dynasty addition, but it has nothing to do with the earlier layer of the Platform Sūtra.
Zongbao original text (Zb. p.349b23–b28, c10–c20, Xingyou ch.): to Huiming, 「不思善，不思惡，正與麼時，那箇是明上座本來面目？……與汝說者，即非密也。汝若返照，密在汝邊。」
“Not thinking of good, not thinking of evil, at just this moment, what is the original face of Senior Monk Ming? … What I have told you is not secret. If you turn the light back, the secret is on your side.”
; the wind and the banner, 「不是風動，不是旛動，仁者心動」
“It is not the wind moving, it is not the banner moving; it is your minds, kind sirs, that move”
; to Yinzong, 「惟論見性，不論禪定解脫……佛法是不二之法」
“We discuss only seeing the nature, not meditative concentration and liberation … the Buddha-Dharma is a Dharma of non-duality”.
Dunhuang parallel: none of the three passages is present. Of the incident at the Dayu ridge the Dunhuang version says only 「能於嶺上，便傳法惠順，惠順得聞，言下心開」 “On the ridge, I transmitted the Dharma to Huishun; Huishun heard it, and at these words his mind opened” (Dh. p.338a28–a29), without recording what was transmitted.
Early corroboration: the Separate Biography already records the wind and the banner (「所言動者，人者心自動耳」 “What is called moving is only people’s own minds moving”
, R146 p.968a16) and 「唯論見性，不論禪定解脫」 “discussing only seeing the nature, not meditative concentration and liberation”
(p.968b07); the Lidai fabao ji records that Huiming, on hearing the Dharma, 「具說心法直了見性」 “was fully told the mind-Dharma of directly understanding and seeing the nature” (T51 p.182b26), but has no “original face”.
Version differences (major): the three “Huineng scenes” best known today are none of them in the Dunhuang version.
Original text (Platform Address of the Reverend of Nanyang on Directly Understanding the Nature through the Chan Gate of Sudden Teaching and Liberation, Hu Shi’s collated edition, B25 no.142, p.19a–21a): 「無住心不離知，知不離無住。知心無住，更無餘知。……定慧等者，明見佛性。今推到無住處便立知。」
“The non-abiding mind is not apart from knowing; knowing is not apart from non-abiding. Knowing that the mind is non-abiding, there is no further knowing. … The equality of concentration and wisdom is clearly seeing the Buddha-nature. Now, having pushed to the point of non-abiding, knowing is set up there.”
「本體空寂。從空寂體上起知，善分別世間青黃赤白，是慧。不隨分別起，是定。」
“The original substance is empty and still. Knowing arises from the empty and still substance and discriminates well the blue, yellow, red and white of the world: this is wisdom. Not arising along with discrimination: this is concentration.”
Platform Sūtra parallel: the Dunhuang version has the equality of concentration and wisdom (E-07) and no-thought that is undefiled while seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing (E-13), but has no talk of “setting up knowing” or “knowing arises from the empty and still substance”; in the Dunhuang version “knowing” is not a term on which a tenet is set up.
Difference: Shenhui explicitly sets up “knowing” as the inseparable function of the non-abiding mind. This shows that in the early Southern school there was one line that put “knowing” at the centre of the structure, while the Dunhuang Platform Sūtra did not do so.
Of the 15 terms, “self-nature / original nature” stably bears, in the earlier Dunhuang layer, the function of locating delusion and awakening and of giving rise to function; it is one of the most important structural words. “Seeing the nature / prajñā / wisdom” are not only important function words of path and conversion but also take part in the structure that completes awakening and liberation, while their interpretation as an independent subject remains disputed; no-thought, no-mark and non-abiding form the operational skeleton. This archive made an exploratory snapshot of word frequency per ten thousand characters for the Dunhuang and Zongbao versions: in the Zongbao version the proportions of “seeing the nature”, “Buddha-nature” and “one’s own mind” rise, and those of “non-abiding”, “prajñā” and “sudden” fall. Since only two endpoints are compared, and their scale and editorial purposes differ, these figures can only suggest shifts in the centre of gravity of each version’s language; they cannot by themselves prove a linear direction of historical development.
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| self-nature 自性 | the myriad dharmas are in self-nature; self-nature deluded / awakened; self-nature gives rise to thought; function comes from self-nature (E-16, E-25, E-13, E-30) | the common locus of delusion and awakening; that from which function comes | writing it directly as a metaphysical substance that neither arises nor ceases and can give rise to the myriad dharmas | “who would have thought that self-nature” is not found in the Dunhuang version, but already appears in the Huixin version; “the myriad dharmas are in self-nature” → “the myriad dharmas are born from self-nature” shows the later strengthening of source-language | Yes: self-nature / original nature bears the core structural function (B); as the condition for the persistence of body and mind / grammar of ground, B/C; substantial ontology, C |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| seeing the nature 见性 | the standard for entering the gate (E-03); abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going, is seeing the nature (E-22); suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness (E-23) | the turning point of the path; one of the synonyms of liberation | fixing it, because of the verb “see”, as a subject seeing an object; or, because of “non-duality”, as non-cognition | the later layer changes “sudden teaching” into “seeing the nature” (E-26); “discussing only seeing the nature” is later (E-36) | Load-bearing both on the path and in the structure of completion (A/B); whether it forms an independent subject — object relation is C |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buddha-nature 佛性 | no north or south (E-05); no difference between the wise and the foolish (E-06); the Buddha-nature is always pure (E-02) | the premise that awakening is universally possible | an eternal Buddha-substance inside each person | the Dunhuang verse of attainment has “the Buddha-nature is always pure”; the later verse changes it to “originally there is not a single thing”; the correspondence between Buddha-nature and self-nature cannot be decided by word frequency alone | Important as the premise that “all sentient beings can awaken”; overlaps with “self-nature” in function, but synonymy is not presupposed |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| prajñā 般若 | with one thought of wisdom, prajñā arises; no form or mark; contemplation (E-21, E-24) | the way seeing the nature and no-thought come about | taken as knowledge that is possessed, or as scriptural and doctrinal theory | its weight falls in the later layer; “prajñā wisdom is born from self-nature” is later (E-20) | Load-bearing point of path / conversion; at the final stage, C |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no-thought 无念 | in thought, not thinking; not defiled by the myriad objects; no-thought too is not set up (E-10, E-12) | the tenet (operational principle) | no-thought = stopping thinking, not thinking of the hundred things | “not thinking” → “without thought”; “no-thought too is not set up” deleted (E-12) | No: the term itself is replaceable; its function of “not abiding / not being defiled” needs to be considered separately |
| no-mark 无相 | in marks, apart from marks (E-10) | the substance | the world has no marks | “the substance of the nature is pure” → “the substance of the Dharma is pure” | No |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| non-abiding 无住 | thought after thought not abiding, there is no bondage; thought following thought without break (E-11) | the functional constraint of “not abiding / not attaching” (preventing any item from becoming again an object one can abide in) | bearing nothing at all; thought following thought is itself bondage | both endpoints keep “thought after thought not abiding, there is no bondage”; the Dunhuang line keeps the continuity of the flow of thought positively, while the Zongbao version organises “following — previous object — bondage” differently, leaving a C-grade interpretive tension | What bears load is the function of “not abiding / not attaching” (B), not the proper name “non-abiding” |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sudden awakening 顿悟 | the Dharma is neither sudden nor gradual; seeing is slow or quick; the awakened practise suddenly (E-09) | the way seeing comes about; does not negate practice | no need to practise; after awakening no continued practice is needed | “practise suddenly” → “accord suddenly”; “sudden awakening, sudden practice” is later (E-27) | No |
| concentration 定 | the substance of wisdom; inwardly undisturbed (E-07, E-15) | one with wisdom | sitting unmoving, removing the deluded and not giving rise to mind | stable | No (on its own) |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wisdom 惠（慧） | the function of concentration; contemplation (E-07, E-14) | one with concentration; the capacity to contemplate | a final knower independent of concentration | stable | Contested functional load-bearing point (C) |
| unity of concentration and wisdom 定惠一体 | one substance, not two; the simile of lamp and light (E-07) | dissolves the temporal structure of “first concentration, then wisdom” | the cognitive mediator has vanished completely | stable | No: it is the cancellation of a dichotomy |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| original mind / one’s own mind 本心 / 自心 | recognising one’s own original mind is liberation (E-14); recognise the good friend within your own mind (E-24) | the ground of delusion and awakening, used interchangeably with self-nature | the mind of an inner subject | “one’s own mind is the Buddha” and “the original mind gives rise to the myriad kinds of dharmas” are later (E-33) | Ranked with self-nature |
| Buddha 佛 | Buddha means awakening; when self-nature is awakened, that is the Buddha; practising the Buddha’s practice is being a buddha (E-19, E-25, E-28) | the name for the state and action of awakening | an external object; or a hidden inner substance | the later layer adds “one’s own mind is the Buddha” | No: it is a name and a state |
| Term | Usage in the original (earlier layer) | Structural function in this archive | Common misreading | Version issues | Could it become a load-bearing point? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| affliction 烦恼 | wrong views are a heavy obstruction, like clouds covering the sun (E-22) | concealment, not destruction | a really existing obstacle that must be annihilated | stable | No |
| bodhi 菩提 | affliction is bodhi; the bodhi-nature is plainly there (E-21, E-26) | awakening in the same place as affliction | another realm separate from affliction | “bodhi is originally pure” → “bodhi is originally self-nature” | Ranked with self-nature |
Note: “self-nature / original nature / original mind / Buddha-nature / the original nature of suchness” overlap clearly in function in the Dunhuang version, but they cannot for that reason be presupposed to be strict synonyms.
Of these, “Buddha-nature” bears more the doctrinal function of the universal possibility of awakening / non-difference among sentient beings, while “self-nature / original nature” more often bears the structural function of delusion and awakening, of giving rise to thought and to function, and of the inner thing relied on; whether the two are identical remains an open question.
This chapter asks only: where does this thought finally place the ground — how far does its inquiry reach, and where does it stop?
This item asks only: how deep a level of constitution does this thought’s core inquiry finally reach?
the establishment of scriptural teaching and of the myriad dharmas returns to people’s situation of delusion and awakening (E-23); the source of thought and the wrong and right of the opening of consciousness are attributed to self-nature (E-13, E-30).
Limiting evidence: “where delusion comes from” is not developed; affliction is described only as “clouds covering the sun” and “wrong views are a heavy obstruction” (E-16, E-22). Why self-nature itself is “originally pure in itself”, the earlier layer only declares (E-02, E-16).
Contested readings: one reading holds that Huineng pursued the question to the place where experience happens (thought, object, abiding and not abiding), and that this is already the grounding level; another reading holds that he takes “self-nature, originally pure in itself” as an unquestioned bottom layer, and that the inquiry stops there.
Current most cautious conclusion: the inquiry clearly enters the level at which experience happens, “how thought abides and attaches, how it does not abide” (B).
“Why self-nature is pure” is outside the range of the text’s inquiry; whether this is a boundary of method or a failure to push further into the grounding level is C.
When Huineng (earlier layer) reaches the endpoint, three kinds of load-bearing structure can at present be identified most cautiously. First, “self-nature / original nature” as the common structural item of delusion and awakening, of giving rise to function and of inner transformation; second, “not abiding / not attaching” as the functional constraint that prevents no-thought, purity, emptiness, seeing the nature and the like from becoming again objects that can be clung to; third, “seeing / recognising / prajñā contemplation” as the cognitive relation of completion — from delusion to awakening, liberation through recognising the original mind. The third can be without a substantial subject, but it cannot be deleted without changing Huineng’s complete ultimate structure, so the six-position placement is placed at ②; its specific ontological form after completion remains C.
Structural endpoint / load-bearing point card
Deletion test
| Delete X | Still holds | Breaks immediately | Nature of X | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “seeing” (the seeing of seeing the nature) | the functional definition of seeing the nature: abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going, attached to no dharma (E-14, E-22); the operations of no-thought and non-abiding (E-10, E-11) | the standard for entering the gate (E-03); the self-description of awakening (E-23); the definition “seeing the original nature without disturbance is meditation” (E-15) | a cognitive verb at the level of path and naming | Deleting “seeing” makes the standard for entering the gate, the self-description of awakening, the definition of seeing the original nature and continued contemplation lose their key connections, so the complete structure of awakening changes; this supports ②. What remains C is only whether “seeing” corresponds to an independent, reified seer — self-nature relation. |
| Delete X | Still holds | Breaks immediately | Nature of X | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “nature” (mainly self-nature / original nature) | no-thought / no-mark / non-abiding as operations of practice; the form of the unity of concentration and wisdom | the identity of “self-nature deluded / awakened” (E-25); sudden awakening (clouds disperse and the sun appears, E-16, E-22); saving oneself, taking refuge in oneself (E-18, E-19); the source of thought and of function (E-13, E-30) | core structural load-bearing point | After deletion, the core account “originally complete — delusion and awakening — manifestation / giving rise to function” breaks (B); “when the nature departs, body and mind decay” also shows the pressure of a ground for the persistence of body and mind (B/C). But “self-nature = substance” still cannot be inferred directly from this. |
| Delete X | Still holds | Breaks immediately | Nature of X | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| prajñā | the declaration that self-nature is pure (E-16); the formal description of not abiding | the occurrence of conversion: “with one thought of wisdom, prajñā arises”, “you should arouse prajñā contemplation” (E-21, E-24); the entrance of holding the Diamond Sūtra (E-22); “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” after awakening (E-27) | function of conversion and of operation | What breaks is mainly path and conversion; after awakening there is still vocabulary such as “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation”, so whether prajñā is also an undeletable final-stage function is C. The unity of concentration and wisdom cannot by itself fill in the mechanism of continuation. |
| Delete X | Still holds | Breaks immediately | Nature of X | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| the function of “not abiding / not attaching” | the declarations that self-nature is pure and of seeing the nature | no-thought, no-mark, seeing the nature, the single-practice samādhi and so on lose the common constraint that prevents renewed abiding-and-attaching / objectification (E-08, E-10, E-14, E-15, E-22) | operational constraint (expressible by several terms) | Structurally important (B); the proper name “non-abiding” itself cannot be taken as an undeletable entity or as the only term |
| Delete X | Still holds | Breaks immediately | Nature of X | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| the cognising subject | thought following thought and the occurrence of seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing (E-11, E-13); the functional definition of “seeing the nature” (E-22); “self-nature gives rise to thought” (what gives rise to thought is self-nature, not “I”) | the reflexive grammar of “awakening oneself”, “seeing for oneself”, “saving oneself” (E-18, E-24, E-29); the irreplaceability of “I cannot be deluded in your place” (E-29) | the grammatical subject in scenes of question and answer | The text does not need an explicit, independent ordinary subject to describe thought, seeing and hearing, and seeing the nature; but whether “self-nature” therefore bears a quasi-subject / knower function remains C, and cannot directly be assigned to ② on this basis. |
Item-by-item checks: withdrawn, cognitive deletion, premises, structural closure and return
This item asks only: how many fixed entities, fixed identities and fixed positions does this thought actually dismantle in the world of objects it faces?
Positive evidence: the external Buddha, the external pure land and the external good friend as sources of rescue are dismantled (E-19, E-24, E-25); formalised practice — sitting unmoving, watching the mind, watching purity, the single-practice samādhi — is dismantled (E-08, E-15); the differences of north and south, of status, of wise and foolish are dismantled (E-05, E-06); the dichotomy of concentration / wisdom and the dispute over sudden / gradual are dismantled (E-07, E-09); attachment to emptiness and attachment to marks are rejected together (E-20, E-28, E-30); scripture changes from “turning one” to “being turned” (E-28).
Limiting evidence: “the Buddha-nature is always pure” (E-02), “self-nature is always pure, the sun and moon always bright” (E-16), “when the nature is present the king is present;
when the nature departs, body and mind decay” (E-25), “the substance of the nature neither arises nor ceases” (E-32), “function comes from self-nature” (E-30). The later layer strengthens this further: the five “who would have thought that self-nature” lines (E-04), “the myriad dharmas are born from self-nature” (E-16), “suchness has nature” (E-13).
Contested readings: (a) The replacement reading: Huineng dismantles the fixed positions of external objects and of the ordinary self, but leaves a deeper “self-nature” — always pure, the condition for the persistence of body and mind, that from which function comes. (b) The functional reading: the earlier layer’s sentences about self-nature are mostly spoken in terms of “delusion / awakening”, “thinking, it transforms itself”, “not thinking, the nature is empty and still” (E-17, E-25), with sky / sun / clouds as similes; their grammar is that of “the locus of a state”, not of “an independently existing thing”. (c) The version reading: the ontologising tone is mainly a later strengthening (the version differences of E-04, E-13, E-16).
Current most cautious conclusion: the dismantling of external positions of rescue, of formalised practice and of several dichotomies is clear (A);
differences such as north and south, wise and foolish lose their ultimate decisiveness at the level of Buddha-nature / the nature of awakening, but not all differences of experience are negated. In the Dunhuang layer checked, no withdrawal sentence about “self-nature / Buddha-nature” itself as explicit as “no-thought too is not set up” has been found (A). This is not enough to prove directly that they acquire substantiality or a structural exemption; whether they form a final core that cannot be constrained in reverse is C.
This item asks only: in the complete ultimate structure of the thought, is the cognitive function of “seeing self-nature / prajñā contemplation / recognising the original mind” still an undeletable link? Whether there is a substantial seer standing outside self-nature is a different question.
“holding the Diamond Sūtra one sees the nature” (E-22). Conclusion: A.
② Whether there is a confirming function when sudden awakening happens: there is. “As soon as I heard, at these words I greatly awakened and suddenly saw the original nature of suchness” (E-23); “if one recognises the original mind, that is liberation” (E-14). But in the text the confirmation appears through event verbs of the type “awaken / recognise / see”; there is no separate formula of “knowledge of liberation”. Conclusion: A.
③ After completion, is an independent “seer” always needed to go on seeing the nature: the direct material supporting a continuing cognitive function includes “suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness” (E-23), “seeing the original nature without disturbance is meditation” (E-15), “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” (E-27) and “the knowledge and vision of awakening” (E-28); the anti-objectifying material, for its part, explains seeing the nature as “not abiding, not being defiled, free in coming and going” (E-22) and as “seeing all dharmas without attaching to any dharma” (E-14).
These suffice to reject a crude picture of subject and object as entities, but they do not cancel the functions of seeing / recognising / contemplation already clearly present in the first two questions.
Contested readings: (a) The direct-seeing reading: seeing the nature does keep the functional relation of “the ground being directly realised”; non-objectification only specifies the manner of this seeing. (b) The operational reading: in the earlier layer seeing the nature is at the same time explained as not abiding, not being defiled, being free in coming and going, so “seeing” may mainly bear a path / naming function, and the final stage need not have an independent seer standing outside self-nature. (c) The “self-manifestation” reading can only be a C-grade interpretive hypothesis: the Dunhuang E-16 says “within self-nature the myriad dharmas all appear”, and the later E-28 even has “the original true nature thereby appears”; this allows discussion of “manifestation rather than a subject’s looking”, but the Dunhuang version does not say directly that “self-nature manifests itself”, and it cannot be listed as a textual direction as strong as the first two.
Current most cautious conclusion: ① “seeing / contemplation” on the path is necessary (A); ② at sudden awakening, “awakening / recognising / seeing” directly constitutes the relation of completion (A); ③ whether, after completion, a reifiable independent seer still exists is C. Under the six-position standard, the first two already show that the function of “rightly recognising the ground” cannot be deleted from Huineng’s complete ultimate structure; anti-objectification, not abiding and the non-duality of concentration and wisdom change the mode of existence of cognition, but are not enough to prove that the cognitive function itself has been placed within a more basic structure and can be deleted.
This item asks only: must the core conclusions of the thought rely on premises it has not itself tested?
hell and heaven, the Western Pure Land are rewritten as transformations of thought (E-17, E-25); it can be done at home, not depending on the monastery (E-26).
Limiting evidence: ① “Buddha-nature” and “the wisdom of bodhi and prajñā is originally possessed” as untested premises (E-05, E-06, E-18); ② the Diamond Sūtra, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra and the Brahmajāla Sūtra cited as authorities (E-13, E-15, E-22, E-28); ③ the framework of rebirth: “when not awakened, one transmigrates for long kalpas” (E-09), “once a thought is cut off you die and are reborn elsewhere” (E-12); ④ the transmission of the patriarchs and the Platform Sūtra as transmission (E-01).
Deletion test: ① Delete traditional cosmology such as rebirth and other-world pure lands: the operational skeleton centred on “attached to objects — abiding and attaching — bondage / not abiding — no bondage” can still be largely stated (E-11, E-17, E-25), but the complete soteriological goals such as “transmigrating for long kalpas”, “reborn elsewhere”, “escaping birth and death / becoming a buddha”, and part of the argument, would be changed; so one cannot say that only “motivational rhetoric” is lost.
② Delete “sentient beings originally possess Buddha-nature / prajñā wisdom”: the account of sudden awakening as “the manifestation of an originally present nature” loses its core fulcrum (E-06, E-16, E-21, E-25), but “not abiding / not being defiled” can still be kept as an operational description. ③ Delete the authority of any single scripture: the core structure does not necessarily break, but the Platform Sūtra goes on borrowing the Buddhist vocabulary and authority of the Diamond Sūtra, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra and others; so one can only say “it does not rely on any one scripture as its sole basis”, and cannot prove independence from the Buddhist scriptural tradition as a whole.
Contested readings: is the premise of Buddha-nature an article of faith, or can it be tested by self-verification in experience, as in “with one thought of wisdom, prajñā arises”? The text itself treats it as something that can be verified for oneself here and now (E-21, E-24), but gives no argument for its universality.
Current most cautious conclusion: the operational level of “not abiding / not being defiled” is to some extent separable from cosmology such as rebirth and other-world pure lands (B);
but the complete soteriological goal of “becoming a buddha / escaping birth and death” still sits within the world-picture of the Buddhist tradition, so the overall judgment “the core thought depends little on traditional cosmology” should be lowered to C. The dependence on “originally present Buddha-nature / prajñā wisdom” is more central: once it is deleted, the account that “sudden awakening is manifestation, not generation” clearly breaks (B). Whether it has been adequately tested by the text itself is still C.
This item asks only: once the thought’s own core premises are accepted, do the key links from core principle to final conclusion really join up?
Positive evidence: delusion / awakening are placed in one and the same structure of self-nature (E-21, E-25); the unity of concentration and wisdom explicitly refuses the stage-division of “first concentration, then wisdom” (E-07); seeing the nature, liberation, prajñā samādhi and no-thought are tightly linked by “that is” (E-14);
the text also gives an account of continued functioning after awakening, in the world, in walking, standing, sitting and lying, practising in every thought (E-26, E-27, E-28, E-31). This material makes the system conceptually highly compressed, but “one and the same structure” is not in itself an explanation of how the conversion happens.
Limiting evidence: ① why “hearing the Dharma / holding the sūtra” can turn into “seeing the nature”, the text gives only similes (clouds / wind / sun, great rain / plants) and the distinction of faculties (E-22); ② “in an instant deluded thoughts all cease” is not developed (E-24); ③ how habitual tendencies after awakening are dealt with appears in the text in the form of commands such as “always see your own faults” and “thought after thought practise the Buddha’s practice” (E-26, E-28), with no mechanism given; ④ “the deluded are encouraged gradually; the awakened practise suddenly” (E-09) does not explain the content of “practising suddenly”.
Contested readings: (a) The structural-compression reading: since concentration and wisdom are not two, delusion and awakening share one self-nature, and seeing the nature and no-thought are linked by “that is”, Huineng deliberately refuses to arrange awakening and practice as several independent stages. (b) The insufficient-mechanism reading: even if the stages are compressed, how “one thought of awakening” happens, how it continues as “thought after thought not abiding”, and how people of different faculties are transformed, are not developed to the same degree. Both judgments can hold at once.
Current most cautious conclusion: “structural compression” and “closure of mechanism” must be kept apart. The Huineng texts compress several stages that might otherwise be separate into one and the same structure or substance–function relation; this structural compression can be graded B; but how “hearing the Dharma / one thought of awakening” stabilises into “thought after thought not abiding”, how habitual tendencies are dealt with, and how people of different faculties are transformed, the text expresses mainly through similes, commands and differences of faculty, so the account of mechanism can only be graded C.
“That is” or “concentration and wisdom are not two” cannot be used to fill this broken bridge automatically.
This item asks only: after seeing the nature, can the discriminated world, language, action and relationships still stand?
Positive evidence: always practising the straightforward mind in walking, standing, sitting and lying (E-08); thought following thought without break, “if a single thought is cut off, the Dharma-body leaves the form-body” (E-11); “self-nature gives rise to thought; though it sees, hears, senses and knows, it is not defiled by the myriad objects”, “outwardly able to discriminate well the marks of all dharmas, inwardly unmoved in the first meaning” (E-13, E-31); it can be done at home, the Dharma is originally in the world (E-26); always seeing one’s own faults and not seeing others’ (E-26, E-29); transmitting the Dharma with the thirty-six pairs, using language well (E-30); “recognise sentient beings, and you can see the Buddha” (E-33).
Limiting evidence: the return is shown in the text mainly in practice, teaching, everyday action and the function of discrimination; it does not systematically develop this structure into a theory of political or social institutions, but this is not negative evidence for this item; it only delimits the range of what “Return” can prove. The later versions also have expressions that literally lean more towards quiescence, such as “still, cutting off seeing and hearing” (E-32), which stand in interpretive tension with the Dunhuang layer’s “undefiled, while seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing continue”; whether this line really means the cessation of perception still needs version and semantic re-checking.
Contested readings: is the source of the return “coming back from the ground to experience”, or “never having left experience”? The structure of the Dunhuang version supports the latter more: not abiding takes place within the flow of thought, not by first withdrawing and then coming back.
Current most cautious conclusion: in the Dunhuang layer checked, awakening does not require withdrawing from experience;
thought, seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing, discrimination, language, walking, standing, sitting and lying, and teaching can all continue, and the key constraint is not abiding and not being defiled (A/B). This item can judge only by the domains of practice and teaching the text claims, and does not judge negatively because no systematic social theory is built.
This chapter checks two things: whether the thought turns the principle it uses to dismantle the world back on its own highest core (self-reflexivity); and whether the thought’s own proposing, speaking and understanding are positively placed within the whole it accounts for, without needing a knower or completer standing outside that whole (self-inclusion). The two cannot replace each other: letting go of one’s highest concept is not yet an account of the thought’s own place within the whole.
This item asks only: does the fundamental principle used to deal with the world act equally on itself?
Positive evidence: “if there is no thought, no-thought too is not set up” (E-12); clinging to the single-practice samādhi obstructs the Way (E-08); watching purity “gives rise instead to a delusion of purity”, “purity has no form or mark, yet one sets up a mark of purity” (E-15); one who awakens to self-nature “does not set up precepts, concentration and wisdom either” (E-27); “strike down both wrong and right” (E-26); “if you see the true, what you see is all not true” (E-31); “seeing and not seeing are two extremes” (E-29); “in emptiness, apart from emptiness” (E-28, E-30). The later layer has in addition “still keeps seeing and knowing” (E-34) and “calling it the original-source Buddha-nature … a follower of intellectual understanding” (E-35), both T3.
Limiting evidence: in the earlier layer, no reflexive sentence like “is not set up either” is found for “self-nature / Buddha-nature / bodhi-nature”: “strike down both wrong and right, and the bodhi-nature is plainly there” (E-26);
taking refuge in oneself turns what is relied on from an external Buddha into self-nature (E-19); the thirty-six pairs break every pair of dharmas, but “function comes from self-nature” is not among those broken (E-30); “one’s own Buddha is the true Buddha”, “having the true is the cause of becoming a buddha” (E-33). The later versions, on the contrary, delete “no-thought too is not set up” (E-12).
Contested readings: has the verse on the true and the false, motion and stillness already brought self-nature under reflexivity? One reading: “in all things there is nothing true” already includes that “self-nature” cannot be taken as a true thing seen, so self-nature is not exempt. Another reading: the verse still says “apart from the false, the mind is true”; it only forbids objectifying it, while keeping it as true; what is constrained is the cognitive relation, not the existence of what is referred to.
Current most cautious conclusion: at the level of “practice terms, seeing, purity, emptiness, the true”, the reflexive constraint is strong and already present in the earlier Dunhuang layer (A). For “self-nature / Buddha-nature” itself, the checked texts contain no equally explicit withdrawal sentence (A);
this shows only that evidence of explicit reverse withdrawal is insufficient, and cannot be upgraded to “it has been proved that self-nature enjoys a structural exemption”. Whether self-nature constitutes a core not subject to the same constraint, and, if such a core exists, whether it is functional load-bearing or substantial exemption, both remain C.
This item asks only: are the thought’s own proposing, speaking and understanding positively placed within the whole it accounts for, without needing a knower or completer standing outside that whole?
Positive evidence: “True suchness is the substance of thought; thought is the function of true suchness” (E-13) positively places “thought” within the substance–function structure of true suchness; “the myriad dharmas are within self-nature” (E-16); “the myriad dharmas arise because of people” (E-23).
There are also “no-thought too is not set up” (E-12), “nor are precepts, concentration and wisdom set up” (E-27), “if you see the true, that seeing is wholly untrue” (E-31) and “speech always comes in pairs; both dharmas are entirely removed” (E-30). The first three come close to self-inclusion; the rest are self-reflexivity.
Limiting evidence: E-13 places “thought”, an activity of mind, not the completing function of “seeing one’s own nature”. The same earlier-layer text still takes “seeing one’s own fundamental nature” as the standard of entry (E-03) and defines liberation as “if you recognise the fundamental mind, that is liberation” (E-14). That thought lies within true suchness does not make “seeing the nature” a deletable event.
Contested readings: One reading holds that, since thought is the function of true suchness, seeing the nature is only true suchness functioning, so the cognitive function is already embedded (pointing to ①). Another holds that the substance–function structure explains the source and nature of cognition without removing the load that the turn “from delusion to awakening” carries in completion (pointing to ②).
Shenhui’s “knowing arises from the substance of empty stillness” (E-37) is an early Southern-school comparison in the same direction, but cannot be attributed directly to Huineng.
Current most cautious conclusion: Self-reflexivity: A. Self-inclusion: the earlier layer does contain text that positively places “thought” as the function of true suchness (as a textual statement A; as an inference to the embedding of cognition as a whole C) — the material in this archive closest to “positive embedding”; but once “seeing the nature / recognising the fundamental mind” is deleted, the complete structure of awakening breaks, so the placement at ② is unchanged.
Huineng’s most delicate point is not the three words “is there seeing the nature”, but this: the earlier layer on the one hand continually requires “seeing one’s own original nature, suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness, prajñā contemplation, the knowledge and vision of awakening”, and on the other hand defines seeing the nature operationally as “not abiding, not being defiled, free in coming and going”, and restricts setting up “the true” again as an object. Under the six-position standard, the real question is whether Huineng’s own complete structure of awakening still holds once “rightly seeing / recognising / contemplating the ground” is deleted. The present texts show: seeing on the path = A; confirmation at awakening = A; the load-bearing of the cognitive function for the complete structure of awakening = B; whether there is an independent, reified “seer — self-nature” relation = C. The six-position placement is therefore determined as ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground”; this local C no longer constitutes an equally strong ① / ② boundary.
Current handling: the six-position placement is determined as ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground”. The key is not how many times the word “seeing the nature” appears, nor is a substantial seer at the final stage required; the key is that Huineng’s own complete ultimate structure still places functions such as “seeing one’s own original nature, suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness, prajñā contemplation, recognising the original mind” within the relation that completes awakening and liberation. Under the current definition of ①, a change to ① would further require proving both that these actual cognitive functions have been positively placed within a more basic structure, and that the structure of completion stays whole once they are deleted; the present texts of the earlier layer do not yet reach this proof.
The direct material supporting ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” is fairly strong: seeing one’s own original nature is the standard for entering the gate (E-03); Huineng describes himself as “suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness” (E-23); “seeing the original nature without disturbance” is meditation (E-15); “if one recognises the original mind, that is liberation” (E-14);
cognitive functions such as “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” and “the knowledge and vision of awakening” keep appearing (E-27, E-28). These do not prove a reified seer, but they are enough to prove that cognitive transformation is an undeletable link in ultimate completion.
Why it is not at present placed in ① “Occurrence Itself”: seeing the nature is explained operationally as “abiding neither inside nor outside, free in coming and going” (E-22); no-thought / prajñā samādhi is “seeing all dharmas without attaching to any dharma” (E-14); and the text continually restricts setting up “the true”, “seeing”, “emptiness” and “purity” again as objects or places of abiding (E-12, E-15, E-30, E-31). But “cognition is not reified” does not equal “the cognitive function can already be deleted”; nor does the Dunhuang layer itself have positive text placing “seeing / knowing / awareness” as a whole as a deletable event within a more basic structure. The two proofs required for ① are therefore not yet established.
On the third position, ③ “Inquiry into the Ground”: at present the text writes “awakening / seeing the nature / liberation” as events and functioning that can happen and be completed, not merely as continued inquiry or theoretical account, so ③ is not the current main candidate. This is only a judgment of structural type, and does not indicate a higher or lower position.
Deletion test (for the ① / ② boundary): if the function of “seeing / contemplation” is deleted and only “not abiding, not being defiled, free in coming and going” is kept, a considerable part of Huineng’s operational structure can still be preserved (E-14, E-22), but the standard for entering the gate, the self-description of awakening and the post-awakening vocabulary of contemplation clearly break; if the constraint of “not abiding / not attaching” is deleted and only “seeing self-nature” is kept, seeing the nature is easily understood again as something seen that can be abided in, clung to and objectified. The two constrain each other. In terms of burden of proof, to change the six-position placement from ② to ①, it would have to be further proved that at the final stage “seeing / contemplation” retains only a path or naming function; the current evidence has not yet reached this strength.
Current judgment: ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground”. The reason is not the literal phrase “seeing the nature” itself, but that the earlier layer’s direct texts positively and continually keep “seeing / recognising / contemplation / the knowledge and vision of awakening”, which is more direct than the inference that “at the final stage the cognitive relation no longer stands independently at all”. ① “Occurrence Itself” is kept as a C-grade boundary reading;
if in future new version evidence or a stronger structural argument changes the weight of the burden of proof, the classification may be reopened.
Judged by the evidence, Huineng (earlier layer) has three outstanding structural achievements; a fourth, with weaker evidence, is listed separately.
Treating “no-thought” as not abiding within thought, not as the annihilation of experience. “In thought, not thinking”, “do not refrain from thinking of the hundred things … once a thought is cut off you die and are reborn elsewhere” (E-10, E-12); “thought following thought without break … on all dharmas, thought after thought not abiding, there is no bondage” (E-11); “though it sees, hears, senses and knows, it is not defiled by the myriad objects” (E-13). What liberation is from is “abiding” and “defilement”, not thought, marks or discrimination. This is the most stable and structurally densest part of the earlier layer. (A: text; B: the judgment “highest achievement”)
Compressing the before-and-after dichotomy of concentration and wisdom explicitly into a unity of substance and function, and relocating sudden / gradual in “the slowness or quickness of seeing” rather than in two kinds of Dharma (E-07, E-09); the single-practice samādhi is also rewritten as the straightforward mind at all times (E-08). As for “whether practice and awakening are completely one”, the Dunhuang version still has sentences such as “the awakened practise suddenly” and “thought after thought practise the Buddha’s practice”, so one can only say that the two are strongly compressed, not that their distinction is completely cancelled. (B/C)
Pulling awakening back from external objects into one’s own present structure, and letting it remain in everyday experience. The Buddha, the pure land, the good friend and scripture are all taken back into “self-nature deluded / awakened” (E-19, E-23–E-25, E-28); at the same time “the Dharma is originally in the world”, “it can be done at home”, “always practising the straightforward mind in walking, standing, sitting and lying” (E-08, E-26). Taking back and returning are one and the same movement. (B)
(Weaker evidence, listed only as a candidate) A marked reflexivity towards its own core terms: “no-thought too is not set up” (E-12), watching purity becoming “a delusion of purity” (E-15), attachment to emptiness also rejected (E-28, E-30). “If you see the true, what you see is all not true” (E-31) can supply further anti-objectification pressure, but cannot be equated directly with “self-nature too is not set up”. So the reflexivity towards method and practice terms can be confirmed as strong (A/B); whether the reflexivity finally reaches self-nature itself remains C.
The five objections are used to test this archive’s core judgments. The “current conclusions” below are this archive’s current most cautious judgments; places still marked C are kept as open disputes and not forcibly resolved.
Strongest version of the objection: Huineng dismantles the fixed positions of the external Buddha, the external Dharma and the ordinary self, but sets up a “self-nature” that is always pure, contains the myriad dharmas, is the condition for the persistence of body and mind, and neither arises nor ceases. He has merely moved the substance from outside to inside.
Evidence for the objection: “the Buddha-nature is always pure” (E-02); “self-nature is always pure, the sun and moon always bright” (E-16); “when the nature is present, body and mind remain; when the nature departs, body and mind decay” (E-25); “the substance of the nature neither arises nor ceases” (E-32); “function comes from self-nature” (E-30). Later layer: the five “who would have thought that self-nature” lines (E-04), “suchness has nature” (E-13); T4: the Separate Biography records the exchange with Xue Jian, 「佛性……不生不灭，性相常住，恒不变易」 “Buddha-nature … neither arises nor ceases; nature and mark abide permanently, ever unchanging” (R146 p.971a02).
Evidence for the reply: “not thinking, the nature is empty and still; thinking, it transforms itself” (E-17); self-nature is spoken of in the two states of delusion / awakening (E-25); “in all things there is nothing true; do not take them as seeing the true” (E-31); “in emptiness, apart from emptiness” and “always apart from dharma-marks” (E-27, E-28); the verse of attainment negates “tree / stand” (E-02). The later layer also has self-constraint: “self-nature originally has not a single dharma that can be obtained” (E-12), “calling it the original-source Buddha-nature … a follower of intellectual understanding” (E-35).
Decidable boundary: ① whether “always pure / neither arising nor ceasing” is a description of the attributes of an existent, or a description of the inapplicability of the categories of arising and ceasing; ② whether “self-nature” can be “broken by its pair” in the Dunhuang version; ③ the weighting of the ontologising tone by the version layers.
Current conclusion: the earlier layer does have strong positive language about “self-nature” that is not explicitly withdrawn (A), and “when the nature departs, body and mind decay” and “function comes from self-nature” give “self-nature” a grammar of ground / condition for the persistence of body and mind (B/C), so the pressure of the objection is real. But “there is no ‘self-nature too is not set up’” shows only that explicit reflexive evidence is insufficient, and cannot by itself prove that self-nature enjoys a substantial exemption. Determined as: “self-nature / original nature bears the core structural function of delusion and awakening and of giving rise to function” is B; “self-nature has a grammar of ground / condition of persistence” is B/C; the two ontological extrapolations “self-nature is an eternal substance” and “self-nature is merely a name for substanceless functioning” are both C.
Strongest version of the objection: “seeing the nature” is the signature term of the whole teaching, and its grammar is “seeing — nature”; “suddenly seeing the original nature of suchness”, “seeing the original nature without disturbance” and “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” all keep a cognitive mediator. “Non-duality” is only a rhetorical reinforcement of this relation.
Evidence for the objection: E-03, E-15, E-23, E-27, E-28; the later layer’s “discussing only seeing the nature” (E-36) and “your own numinous light will always be manifest” (E-34); Shenhui’s “setting up knowing” (E-37, T4).
Evidence for the reply: seeing the nature is defined operationally (E-14, E-22); E-29, in a concrete exchange, refuses to take the two extremes of “seeing / not seeing” as the final answer; E-31, as a verse entrusted at the end of his life, places a strong summarising constraint on objectifying “the true”; concentration and wisdom are at once substance and function (E-07).
But neither E-29 nor E-31 is enough by itself to prove “no seer at the final stage”. The later-layer E-34 criticises “still keeps seeing and knowing” more directly, and must not be read back into the earlier layer.
Decidable boundary: the three questions ① on the path, ② at awakening, ③ at the final stage are adjudicated separately; whether “seeing” in the Platform Sūtra necessarily implies a subject–object structure; how “self-nature manifesting itself” should be located within the series framework.
Current conclusion: ① the path needs seeing / contemplation, and ② there is a confirming event at awakening; both are A. ③ The final-stage relation remains C. In terms of direct textual strength, the evidence for a continuing “seeing / recognising / contemplation” is stronger than the evidence for “the cognitive relation is completely cancelled at the final stage”; but this still cannot automatically reduce the grammar of “seeing the nature” to a substantial subject facing a substantial object. For the six-position placement, see “Six-Position Placement and Boundary Analysis”.
Strongest version of the objection: “thought after thought not abiding” is a continuing task. Who judges, in every thought, “abiding” and “not abiding”? If judgment is needed, a knower standing outside the flow of thought is needed, and this is precisely a variant of “watching the mind”.
Evidence for the objection: “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” (E-27); “in one’s own thought, be apart from objects” (E-12); “always purify self-nature, let the six thieves go out through the six gates” (E-14).
Evidence for the reply: watching the mind and watching purity are explicitly negated: “the mind is originally deluded … there is nothing to watch”, “giving rise to mind to watch purity gives rise instead to a delusion of purity” (E-15); “if there is no thought, no-thought too is not set up” (E-12); thought is “the function of suchness”, “self-nature gives rise to thought” (E-13); giving rise to thought and not being defiled are not two levels; the unity of concentration and wisdom (E-07).
Decidable boundary: whether “contemplation” is a second-level supervisor, or the undefiled texture of thought itself; whether “thought after thought not abiding” is an effort or a state.
Current conclusion: the text explicitly opposes building practice as a second-level observer standing outside the mind and “watching the mind / watching purity” (A), and places not abiding in the actual functioning of thought and object. But “in every thought there is prajñā contemplation” still keeps a continuing cognitive function; whether it is an independent supervising subject or a functional aspect of the same functioning, the text cannot decide; it remains C. Therefore this objection should not simply be judged “rather weak”, but should be kept as an important stress test of the “Cognitive deletion test” item.
Strongest version of the objection: “with one awakening you reach the ground of the Buddha” and “if for one thought one awakens, the sentient being is the Buddha” describe the transformation as extremely compressed; if after awakening there are still habitual tendencies, continued practice and correction of conduct, has the continuing mechanism between “one thought of awakening” and “thought after thought not abiding / practising the Buddha’s practice” been made clear? The point at issue is structural continuity; “having no complete ethical / social theory” is not treated as a defect.
Evidence for the objection: E-24, E-23, E-29; the later layer’s “sudden awakening, sudden practice, also without gradual steps” (E-27) and “unmoved, not cultivating good; free, not making evil” (E-32).
Evidence for the reply: “the Dharma is neither sudden nor gradual … the deluded are encouraged gradually; the awakened practise suddenly” (E-09);
after awakening, “thought after thought practise the Buddha’s practice”, “practising the Buddha’s practice is being a buddha” (E-28); “always see your own faults” (E-26); the formless repentance, “thought after thought not defiled by foolishness and delusion” and “cut off for ever and never do it again” (Dh. p.339b27–c06); “strive to cultivate the Way, do not be idle” (Dh. p.341a15).
Decidable boundary: whether “sudden” refers to the way seeing happens, or to the completion of practice; whether practice after awakening is simply “not abiding” itself.
Current conclusion: the earlier layer does not cancel continued practice and self-examination after awakening (A); “the awakened practise suddenly”, “thought after thought practise the Buddha’s practice”, “always see your own faults” and the like show that sudden awakening and continued functioning can coexist. But how “one thought of awakening” stabilises into “thought after thought not abiding”, how habitual tendencies are transformed, how people of different faculties change, the text expresses mainly through commands, similes and distinctions of type, and the degree of mechanical explanation is limited (B/C).
“Cultivation after awakening”, as a fixed two-stage term of later times, should not be read back as an original teaching of the earlier-layer Huineng.
Strongest version of the objection: in the image of Huineng current today, several signature lines and passages are not found in the Dunhuang version, for example “originally there is not a single thing”, the five “who would have thought that self-nature” lines, the wind and the banner, the original face, “discussing only seeing the nature”, “sudden awakening, sudden practice” and so on. But these materials appear at different times: “originally there is not a single thing” is found at the latest in the Zutang ji (952), and the Huixin version also has it; “who would have thought that self-nature” already appears in the Huixin version; the wind and the banner and “discussing only seeing the nature” have separate 8th-century variant traditions.
The question should therefore be “how a multi-layered transmission shaped today’s Huineng”, not a blanket description of all non-Dunhuang material as late creations of the Zongbao version.
Evidence for the objection: E-01, E-02, E-04, E-26, E-27, E-34–E-36; in addition, the word-frequency snapshot of the two endpoints shows that in the Zongbao version “seeing the nature / Buddha-nature / one’s own mind” increase relatively, and “non-abiding / prajñā / sudden” decrease relatively. But word frequency serves only as a hint, not as independent proof of a linear version history.
Evidence for the reply: most of this archive’s core conclusions are built on material stable at both endpoints: the three positions of no-thought / no-mark / non-abiding (E-10), concentration and wisdom as one substance (E-07), the single-practice samādhi (E-08), self-nature deluded and awakened (E-25), the verse on the true and the false, motion and stillness (E-31); the equality of concentration and wisdom and no-thought as the tenet also have Shenhui’s corroboration (E-07, E-10); the wind and the banner, “discussing only seeing the nature” and “without name or word” already appear in the 8th-century Separate Biography (E-35, E-36).
Decidable boundary: the formation of the Dunhuang version itself and the degree of editing by the Shenhui line; the intermediate state of the Huixin and Qisong versions (not checked); whether variant traditions such as the Separate Biography are independent ancient accounts or sectarian shaping.
Current conclusion: the popular image of “Huineng” does contain a considerable amount not found in the Dunhuang version (A: version fact); seen from the two checked endpoints, Dunhuang — Zongbao, part of the positive language of seeing the nature / self-nature is more concentrated in the later versions (B), but the intermediate versions show that the change did not happen suddenly with the Zongbao version, and the differences between the two endpoints cannot be written as a single-line history of evolution. The core judgments of this archive should be based first on the earlier Dunhuang layer, and the distance between the historical Huineng and any single version of the Platform Sūtra is kept at C.
The Buddha (No.01) and Nāgārjuna (No.02) already have formal archives; all the rest are comparative hypotheses awaiting verification. The comparisons only show structural differences; neighbouring texts are not used to explain the Platform Sūtra in reverse.
| Category | Neighbour | Axis of comparison | Structural difference to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source in the same tradition | the Buddha (No.01) | Cognitive deletion test, Withdrawn | Knowing and seeing as it really is ↔︎ seeing the nature: the Buddha archive splits knowing and seeing into three questions — path / moment of liberation / final stage — and the Huineng archive can use the same split. To test: early Buddhist “not-self” sets up no positive “nature” of any kind, while Huineng takes “self-nature” as the locus of delusion and awakening; whether the two differ in how they handle “whether the final stage leaves an item that can be spoken of”. No-thought and self-nature must not be equated directly with non-self. |
| Category | Neighbour | Axis of comparison | Structural difference to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earlier development in the same tradition | Nāgārjuna (No.02) | Self-reflexivity and self-inclusion, Cognitive deletion test | Emptiness must not be clung to ↔︎ non-abiding, “in emptiness, apart from emptiness”; attaining the ultimate meaning ↔︎ seeing the nature. To test: Nāgārjuna subjects “emptiness” itself to the same principle, while the earlier-layer Huineng makes no equal reflexive move on “self-nature”; whether their final load-bearing points are respectively a “relational structure” and “the locus of delusion and awakening”. Madhyamaka theory is not used to explain Huineng’s “emptiness of the nature” (E-20). |
| Same school, same generation | Shenxiu / the Northern school | Withdrawn, Structural closure | The Shenxiu of the Platform Sūtra is a portrait of a debating opponent (E-02, E-27). Whether “watching the mind and watching purity” and “gradual practice” are as the Platform Sūtra describes should be tested against the Northern school’s own texts. |
| Category | Neighbour | Axis of comparison | Structural difference to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disciple in the same school | Shenhui | Cognitive deletion test | Shenhui explicitly “sets up knowing”, “knowing arises from the empty and still substance” (E-37); the Dunhuang Platform Sūtra does not set up “knowing”. To test: whether “the final cognitive mediator” was strengthened within the Southern school by the Shenhui line. |
| Different tradition, same problem | Zhuangzi | Cognitive deletion test, Return | Whether “the fasting of the mind” and “sitting and forgetting” are the same kind of not abiding as non-abiding / no-thought; Zhuangzi has no “self-nature” as the locus of delusion and awakening. |
| Category | Neighbour | Axis of comparison | Structural difference to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast of final structure | Wenzi, Being and Living (the thought of being and living) | Cognitive deletion test | The point of comparison is the structural position of the cognitive function, not whether there is a substantial knower: Huineng’s “seeing the nature / recognising the original mind / prajñā contemplation” cannot be deleted from the complete structure of awakening; the current texts of Being and Living positively place recognising, looking, knowing and awareness within “being / living”, and require testing whether the structure stays whole once right cognition is deleted. Both sides use the same deletion standard; “non-duality / no-self / not abiding” are not used in place of the functional judgment. |
《南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇經》 The Southern School Sudden Teaching, Supreme Mahāyāna Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra: the Platform Sūtra Preached by the Sixth Patriarch, Great Master Huineng, at the Dafan Monastery in Shaozhou (Dunhuang version), T48 no.2007, CBETA XML P5 (cbeta-org/xml-p5)
《六祖大師法寶壇經》 The Dharma-Treasure Platform Sūtra of the Great Master the Sixth Patriarch (Zongbao version), T48 no.2008, as above
《曹溪大師別傳》 Separate Biography of the Great Master of Caoxi, X86 no.1598 (locations cited by R146), as above
《歷代法寶記》 Lidai fabao ji, Record of the Dharma-Treasure through the Generations, T51 no.2075, as above
《祖堂集》 Zutang ji, Collection from the Hall of the Patriarchs, B25 no.144, as above
Shenhui, 《南陽和上頓教解脱禪門直了性壇語》 Platform Address of the Reverend of Nanyang on Directly Understanding the Nature through the Chan Gate of Sudden Teaching and Liberation and others (Hu Shi’s collated edition), B25 no.142, no.143, as above
The dates of the versions (Huixin version 967, Qisong version 1056, Deyi version 1290, Zongbao version 1291) follow the common text-critical framework adopted by this archive. Key lines were also spot-checked against comparative material for the Huixin — Dunhuang — later versions, the full collated text of the Dunhuang Museum copy, and studies of the textual collation of the Dunhuang manuscripts;
these spot-checks serve to remove over-strong statements such as “a single-manuscript isolated witness” or “unique to the Zongbao version”, and are not equivalent to completing a passage-by-passage collation of every version in full.
Aids to version collation: Huang Lianzhong (ed.), 《敦博本六祖坛经校订全文》 Full Collated Text of the Dunhuang Museum Copy of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (CBETA CC0002); Lin Chong’an (ed.), 《六祖坛经：惠昕、敦煌、法海后期本比对表》 The Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch: Comparative Tables of the Huixin, Dunhuang and Later Fahai Versions; Huang Lianzhong, 〈敦煌写本六祖坛经的发现与文字校订方法刍议〉 “The Discovery of the Dunhuang Manuscripts of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch and a Proposal on Methods of Textual Collation”.
— End of this archive.
Key themes
Quick machine summary
This archive examines the thought attributed to Huineng across different textual layers of the Platform Sutra, taking the Dunhuang manuscript as an earlier core witness while retaining significant differences found in later recensions. Its central topics include no-thought, no-mark, non-abiding, self-nature, the unity of concentration and wisdom, seeing one’s nature and sudden awakening. It does not equate the absence of a reified seer with the deletion of seeing, recognition or prajñā from the structure of awakening.
Related questions
Do not let AI infer
Related Archives