Bodhidharma

Short phrases quoted in the analysis are given in English; the glossary in Part 5 gives the Chinese terms.

Item

Content

Number

No.04

Figure

Bodhidharma (菩提达摩; c. late 5th – early 6th century; dates of birth and death unknown)

Tradition

Buddhism / early Chan (Laṅkā tradition)

Main texts

The Tanlin-preface version of the Lüe bian dasheng ru dao sixing (commonly called the Erru sixing lun, Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices); the abridged “Two Entrances and Four Practices” recorded in the biography in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, fascicle 16

Core-text marks

藉教悟宗｜深信含生同一真性｜凝住壁觀｜與理冥符Awakening to the essential by means of the teachings｜Deep faith that all living beings share one and the same true nature｜Abiding fixedly in wall-contemplation｜Tacitly according with the principle

The sources of the core-text marks and the main variants between versions are given in Part 16. The marks serve only to identify the thought; they do not replace the evidence in the body.

Bodhidharma is the figure later recognised as the first patriarch of Chinese Chan, but “the historical Bodhidharma”, “the teaching texts attributed early to Bodhidharma” and “the patriarch image shaped by later Chan” are three different levels. The object of philosophical analysis in this archive is limited to the teaching structure of the Lüe bian dasheng ru dao sixing, which carries a preface by Tanlin and was attributed early to Bodhidharma. Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan abridges similar content in the seventh century; it is a historiographical witness to early attribution and circulation, but it does not guarantee a source mutually independent of the Tanlin line. The historical authorship of the text is genuinely disputed, including Ibuki Atsushi’s (2006) negative hypothesis;

this archive does not treat every claim in the text as something the historical Bodhidharma himself said. Nine years facing the wall, the dialogue with Emperor Wu of Liang, the return west carrying a single sandal, “Bring me your mind and I will pacify it”, and “a separate transmission outside the teachings, not depending on words and letters, pointing directly at the human mind, seeing one’s nature and becoming a buddha” do not serve as direct doctrinal evidence for the early Bodhidharma himself.

In this early attributed teaching text, entering the path is divided into entry by principle and entry by practice. Entry by principle unfolds from “relying on the teachings to awaken to the essential, deeply believing that all living beings share one and the same true nature”; it diagnoses that this nature, covered by adventitious dust and deluded thinking, “cannot become manifest”; it describes the turn and abiding of “abandoning the false and returning to the true, abiding fixedly in wall-contemplation”; and it names entry by principle as “tacitly according with the principle, without discrimination, still and non-acting”. Entry by practice sets out four practices — requiting enmity, according with conditions, seeking nothing, and according with the Dharma — and carries the fundamental stance into suffering, honour and disgrace, craving, and giving for the benefit of others.

Structural judgment: the six-position placement is ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground”, judgment grade B.

The independent positive proof does not come from “① fails”; it comes from the defining chain in entry by principle — “awakening to the essential through the teachings → deep faith in the one true nature → abandoning the false and returning to the true → tacit accord with the principle” — and from the explicit role that “because of discerning penetration”, “the wise awaken to the true / thoroughly understanding this, therefore …” and “believing and understanding this principle” play in the transformation of action within entry by practice. “Cognition” here means the completing function by which delusion / non-manifestation turns into awakening to the essential, penetration, and faith-and-understanding; it does not require that an entitative knower, or a continuing objectifying gaze, remain after completion. The practice of according with conditions does not state an independent condition of prior awakening, and whether entry by principle and entry by practice can each enter the path completely on their own remains a C-grade question; but no text yet shows that “the practice of according with conditions alone is complete ultimate fulfilment”, so this question is not at present sufficient to overturn the overall ② (B). How cognition exists after completion remains C. Historical authorship is also a separate C and must not be merged into a philosophical judgment of A.

A single book can carry different levels at once: for example, the main text of the Two Entrances and Four Practices “quoted” in the Lengqie shizi ji belongs, as a textual witness, to the transmission of the T1 text, while the Lengqie shizi ji’s own “narrative” about the division of authorship belongs to T3.

The Lüe bian dasheng ru dao sixing in fascicle 30 of the Jingde chuandeng lu is a late witness to the T1 text, while the account of Bodhidharma’s life in fascicle 3 belongs to T4.

2.2 Authorship

1. Tanlin’s preface states that the text is Tanlin’s record of what Bodhidharma taught (“the Dharma master was moved by their sincerity and instructed them in the true path”).

2. The Lengqie shizi ji says, “these four practices were spoken by Chan master Damo himself; the rest was recorded by his disciple Tanlin, who collected the master’s words and deeds into one fascicle, called the Treatise of Damo” (T3 narrative; grade A only proves “that book says so”). Whether “four practices” in this sentence refers only to the four practices of entry by practice or to the whole “Two Entrances and Four Practices” is unclear in the text; therefore whether the section on entry by principle was “spoken by Damo himself” or formulated through Tanlin’s editing can only remain C.

3. Daoxuan, in a seventh-century biography, abridges a similar teaching and says, “Mo converted the land of Wei with this Dharma; those who recognised the true followed it and returned to awakening;

his words were recorded in scrolls that circulated in the world.” This can serve as a historiographical witness that such teaching existed and was attributed to Bodhidharma by the seventh century (T2); whether it is independent of the Tanlin line of transmission must not be presupposed.

4. Overall judgment: the text suffices to support an analysis of thought structure of “the teaching tradition of the Two Entrances and Four Practices attributed early to Bodhidharma” (B); this does not prove sentence by sentence that it comes from the historical Bodhidharma (historical attribution C). Ibuki Atsushi (2006) has raised an explicit counter-argument against the traditional source; it can neither be erased nor be treated, without further evidence, as the final verdict of scholarship. The formal title still uses the archive index “No.04 Bodhidharma”, and every core assertion about the six-position placement, the last load-bearing points and the summary must carry the scope restriction “the teaching text attributed early to Bodhidharma”.

2.3 Main variants between versions (those that directly affect interpretation)

T1 quotations use the public electronic transcription of the Wan Xinzuan Xu zangjing X63 No.1217-A / 1217 as the uniform base text, checked against the relevant transcriptions of the Xu gaoseng zhuan fasc. 16 and the Lengqie shizi ji. The Dunhuang manuscripts and the complete critical editions of Yanagida Seizan and Broughton have not been collated word by word; the archive therefore does not claim that the manuscript genealogy or all variants have been exhausted.

2.4 Method

1. First analyse T1 independently, then check it against T2, and finally treat T3–T4 as a contrast showing “how later generations read Bodhidharma”, not as evidence.

2. Qualitative analysis centred on the core question (what non-deletable functional mediators remain in the final structure), without scoring.

3.2 Chain of thought structure

The relation between step 3 (awakening to the essential) and step 8 (tacit accord) is the most delicate question of this archive: is awakening merely an entrance discarded at step 7 like the “written teachings”, or does it run through to step 8 and form a condition of completion? See “Cognitive deletion test” in Part 7 and Part 9.

3.3 Relation between entry by principle and entry by practice

The text sums up entering the path as two kinds, entry by principle and entry by practice, but it neither declares directly that both must be completed together nor declares that they are fully exclusive and each an unconditional, independent ultimate route: their relation remains C. But “the two entrances may each enter the path” does not equal “entry by practice can be completed without any correct understanding”; the four practices are types of practice listed under the overall statement “entry by practice means the four practices; all other practices are included in them”, and the single section on “according with conditions” cannot be presupposed to be an independent mode of completion capable of replacing the whole structure of the two entrances and four practices. Three of the practices explicitly state discerning penetration, awakening to the true / thorough understanding, and faith-and-understanding; the practice of according with conditions grounds itself in the reasons “living beings have no self” and “all arise from conditions” without stipulating an independent conditional clause of prior awakening. Therefore the C of the relation between the two entrances and the C of the sufficiency of the single section on according with conditions are different questions from the B of “the overall cognitive completing function is load-bearing”;

4.1 T1｜Tanlin-preface version of the Lüe bian dasheng ru dao sixing

4.2 T2｜Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan and the Luoyang qielan ji

4.3 T3｜Early Chan histories

After the preface and main text, the long Dunhuang scroll of the Erru sixing lun contains extensive “miscellaneous records” (dialogues between master and disciples, sayings of Huike and others), edited and translated by Yanagida Seizan in Daruma no goroku and by Broughton in The Bodhidharma Anthology. Its authorial layers are mixed; it is classed as T3 and not merged directly into T1 evidence for Bodhidharma’s own teaching; where concepts such as “pacifying the mind” or “mind” are involved, any comparison presupposes a verifiable transmitted text.

4.4 T4｜Later constructions and pseudepigraphic texts (for contrast, not direct evidence)

4.5 Summary of the evidence base

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.

The textual situation:

1. The chain begins cognitively (“relying on the teachings to awaken to the essential”), but its end is described in non-cognitive language (“tacit accord”, “without discrimination”, “still and non-acting”).

2. What the text explicitly withdraws is dependence on the “written teachings”; it does not directly say that “awakening to the essential” is withdrawn, but neither does it require “awakening” to become a lasting object or mental activity after completion. The correct test is whether the transformation can be deleted, not whether awakening is statically retained after completion.

3. The practices of requiting enmity, seeking nothing and according with the Dharma in entry by practice contain respectively “discerning penetration”, “awakening to the true / thorough understanding” and “believing and understanding this principle”; the practice of according with conditions is based on “living beings have no self; suffering and pleasure all arise from conditions”, but does not state independent prior awakening. Nor does the text explicitly declare the single section on according with conditions to be a sufficient route to “complete ultimate fulfilment”.

4. The practice of seeking nothing gives the causal order “thorough understanding → abandoning existence → stopping thought”, showing that cessation is grounded in cognition.

Current judgment:

1. ② (B): the relations of completion in entry by principle and in several items of entry by practice, as stipulated by the text itself, all take awakening to the essential, thorough understanding or faith-and-understanding as positive conditions; deleting them produces a structural break. This judgment does not rely on inferring ② backwards from “not ①”, does not rely on authorship having been confirmed, and does not presuppose that every single practice contains the same word “awakening”.

2. Restricted to grade C: the mode of existence of cognition after completion; whether “deep faith” itself suffices to count as direct seeing; whether the two entrances of principle and practice can each enter the path completely; the necessity and independent sufficiency of the practice of according with conditions in complete practice. The scope of influence of each of these Cs must be defined item by item.

3. Within the scope of the texts relied on, ① does not receive the support of the double condition;

7.2 Special analysis of the ① / ② boundary

The six-position framework requires that the burden of proof for ① be higher than for ②; de-reification, no-self, non-duality, non-attainment and ineffability cannot replace the deletion test.

The features of Bodhidharma’s text closest to ① are: “neither self nor other, ordinary and sage equally one”, “without discrimination”, “still and non-acting”, “living beings have no self”, “with nothing practised”. These all show a high degree of de-reification and a tendency toward non-duality. But under the six-position framework: de-reification ≠ deletion of function; no-self ≠ the cognitive function already deleted; non-duality ≠ the disappearance of all cognitive relations.

Key checkpoints:

1. Does the core text positively place “awakening / knowing” as an operation within a structure of occurrence more basic than cognition? — Not yet found in the T1 sentences examined. Not finding it does not prove that it could never appear in any early related literature; the positive proof for ① has not been completed within the scope of this archive.

2. Does the core text positively establish “a route that needs no correct awakening or understanding and yet suffices to complete the whole ultimate entry into the path”? — Not seen. The single section on according with conditions does not state “prior awakening”, but its “living beings have no self; suffering and pleasure all arise from conditions” are reasons for action, and the text does not specify that “the practice of according with conditions completes on its own” sufficiently to replace the complete model of the four practices or the two entrances. Both the independence and the sufficiency for completion of such a counter-example remain to be proved, not already established.

3. Does the text say that delusion and awakening are originally no different, so that transformation is unnecessary? — “Ordinary and sage equally one” describes the equality within abiding fixedly in wall-contemplation, not the abolition of transformation; the same text contrasts “worldly people are long deluded” with “the wise awaken to the true” (E-07) and requires “abandoning the false and returning to the true”.

Therefore that ① has no positive proof and that ② has an independent positive proof must be stated separately; the former cannot be used as the reason for the latter. At present there is not enough evidence to set ① and ② up as equally valid competing readings; the candidate remains ② (B);

the Cs concerning the path relation of entry by principle / entry by practice, the independent sufficiency of the practice of according with conditions, and the form of cognition after completion must all be kept.

7.3 Current candidate position

Six-position placement: ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” — judgment grade B.

The local Cs are: (a) in what way awareness exists in the completed state of “tacit accord / without discrimination”; (b) whether “deep faith” itself is a cognitive commitment confirming truth or a non-realising trust; (c) whether the true nature / principle is finally subjected to its own sense of emptiness; (d) how entry by principle and entry by practice make up one or two routes of completion, and whether the practice of according with conditions alone suffices; (e) the authorship of the early teaching text by the historical Bodhidharma himself. They cannot be merged into a single C, nor transmitted to the six-position placement without argument.

The independent ground of six-position placement ② (B) is the explicit relations of entry by principle, “awakening to the essential → deep faith → abandoning the false and returning to the true”, and of entry by practice, “awakening to the true / thorough understanding → stopping thought” and “faith-and-understanding → according with the Dharma”.

2. Setting the fundamental problem as “covering” rather than “lack”. “All living beings share one and the same true nature, which, covered by adventitious dust and deluded thinking, cannot become manifest” makes entering the path a removal rather than an acquisition: nothing need be added; one need only abandon the false and return to the true. This setting provided an early framework for the later Chan discourse of original endowment and sudden awakening (a judgment about lineage, C; the specific path of influence still requires separate documentary verification).

3. Relying on the teachings at the start of the path, going beyond the written teachings at completion. “Relying on the teachings to awaken to the essential” and “no longer following the written teachings” form a clear two-stage structure: the teaching is a necessary entrance, not the end. This is more nuanced than the later slogan “a separate transmission outside the teachings”, and fits the early text better.

4. Applying the principle of emptiness to the hardest places of daily life. The four practices are not an abstract contemplation of emptiness but the concrete practice of no-self and the three emptinesses amid suffering, insult, gain and loss, desire and giving, bringing de-reification truly down to the level of action.

the present judgment is that it is load-bearing, six-position placement ②; the static subject–object mode of existence after completion is kept at C.

Comparison: Bodhidharma and the Buddha are structurally of the same type — both turn from “not knowing / delusion” to “knowing as it is / awakening”, and both keep the mode of existence after completion at C. The difference is that the Buddha’s object of cognition is the four noble truths (the structural truths of suffering, origin, cessation and path), while Bodhidharma’s object of cognition is “all living beings share one and the same true nature” (a ground originally present yet covered). Bodhidharma’s completion term “tacit accord” leans more toward silent conformity than “realisation”. This difference is a difference of style in the ultimate relation and does not change the judgment that both belong to ②. (Specific quotations still need to be checked against the formal No.01 archive)

11.2 Comparison of the same structure｜No.02 Nāgārjuna (conclusion of the existing archive)

According to that archive’s conclusion: the most delicate point of the Nāgārjuna archive is “whether a function of ‘knowing / seeing / attaining’ that has no self-nature and no real attainment can still be a non-deletable condition of the completion of nirvāṇa”;

the present judgment, on the basis of the conditional relation of the E-10 type, is that it is load-bearing, six-position placement ②; its non-entitative mode of standing is kept at C.

Comparison: Bodhidharma’s the “Self-reflexivity and self-inclusion” item sits exactly where Nāgārjuna is strongest. According to the established archive conclusion, Nāgārjuna’s core texts have strong evidence of turning the sense of emptiness back to test emptiness itself (specific quotations still need to be checked against the formal No.02 archive); Bodhidharma in T1 applies emptiness to marks, self, dharmas, practice and method, but makes no explicit reflexive statement about “one and the same true nature” itself (C). On the other hand, the two are structurally similar in the “Cognitive deletion test” item: both have a de-reified cognitive function as a condition of completion. (The specific content of E-10 in the Nāgārjuna archive needs to be checked; this archive does not restate its argument)

11.3 Comparison of lineage and method｜No.03 Huineng (conclusion of the existing archive)

According to that archive’s conclusion: the most delicate point of the Huineng archive is “whether seeing the nature / recognising the original mind / prajñā contemplation can be deleted from the complete structure of awakening”;

the present judgment is that it cannot, six-position placement ②; the picture of an independently subjectivised “seer — self-nature” is kept at C.

Comparison (back-projection must be prevented):

1. Terminology: the Huineng archive centres on “seeing the nature” and “recognising the original mind”; Bodhidharma’s T1 has no term “seeing the nature”, and its core is “awakening to the essential”, “deep faith”, “tacit accord”.

2. Structure: Bodhidharma’s entry by principle contains an aspect of continuing abiding, “abiding fixedly in wall-contemplation … firmly abiding without moving”, and its completion terms lean toward “tacit accord” and “stillness”; according to the archive conclusion, Huineng centres on seeing the nature / contemplation. The difference between Bodhidharma and Huineng should not be simplified into “gradual / sudden”, because Bodhidharma’s T1 itself does not discuss the gradual–sudden question.

3. Scriptural teaching: Bodhidharma’s “relying on the teachings to awaken to the essential” explicitly affirms the scriptural teachings as an entrance;

the later projection of “not depending on words and letters” back onto Bodhidharma cannot simply be equated with the early “relying on the teachings to awaken to the essential”; the later slogan and the early emphasis on the teachings as an entrance form a historical tension that needs explanation.

4. Lineage: there is a possible intellectual lineage between “all living beings share one and the same true nature” and “covered by adventitious dust” and the later Chan doctrines of “original mind” and “self-nature”, but its specific path of transmission (through Huike, Sengcan, Daoxin and Hongren to Huineng) relies mostly on the patriarchal narratives of T3–T4, and this archive does not use it as evidence.

11.4 Wenzi’s Zai and Sheng (No.073)

This archive does not use the two books Zai and Sheng, which are not quoted item by item, as neighbouring evidence. Any cross-textual comparison would have to use each one’s formal final text together with original material of the same grade; no cross-textual comparative judgment is made here.

11.5 Comparative hypotheses awaiting verification (figures not yet completed)

The “three emptinesses” have significant textual variants in different base texts and cannot without evidence be turned into a complete system of the emptiness of the three wheels.

Second, having gone to the end, what still cannot be deleted?

According to the teaching text of early attribution, the last load-bearing points include: (1) the ultimate position of “all living beings share one and the same true nature / the principle of the purity of nature”; (2) the transforming structure of adventitious covering and of abandoning the false and returning to the true; (3) the completing cognitive relations of awakening to the essential in entry by principle and of thorough understanding and faith-and-understanding in entry by practice (B). Remove (1) and (2), and entry by principle loses its aim and its reason; remove (3), and the definition of awakening to the essential / returning to the true in entry by principle and the explicit conditions of seeking nothing and according with the Dharma break structurally. The particular grammar of the practice of according with conditions differs; it should not be falsely claimed that all four practices state prior awakening item by item; whether it alone constitutes a complete fulfilment that needs no awakening remains C.

Third, the most delicate place — the relation of “knowing, seeing, awakening, attaining” to the ground — what function does it bear, and to what grade can it be determined?

This archive supports ② (B) for the restricted textual structure, not because ① lacks evidence, nor because historical attribution is settled. Entry by principle links awakening to the essential and deep faith with abandoning the false and returning to the true and tacit accord; seeking nothing and according with the Dharma define the conditions of transformation / action through thorough understanding and faith-and-understanding. The completed state is described with tacit accord, non-discrimination, stillness and non-action, and how awareness exists after completion remains C. The independence of the two entrances and the sufficiency of the single section on according with conditions remain C, but are not enough to prove automatically another route of completion that needs no awakening at all. Historical authorship is an independent C.

Six-position placement: ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B, restricted to “the teaching structure of the Two Entrances and Four Practices attributed early to Bodhidharma”; historical authorship C). Historical authorship, the mode of existence of awareness after completion and several manuscript variants remain open questions;

14.2 Modern scholarship (for checking and supplementation, not evidence in the main text)

15.2 Entry points for checking the sources

X63 No.1217-A / 1217, Lüe bian dasheng ru dao sixing: https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀

Daoxuan, Xu gaoseng zhuan, fasc. 16: https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/續高僧傳/卷16

Daoxuan, Xu gaoseng zhuan, fasc. 20, discussion on meditation practitioners: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/續高僧傳/卷20

Jingjue, Lengqie shizi ji T85 No.2837: https://tripitaka.zensoul.org/T/T2837/1