Huangbo Xiyun

Main texts

Huangboshan Duanji chanshi chuanxin fayao 黄檗山断际禅师传心法要 (Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, compiled by Pei Xiu of Hedong, preface dated Dazhong 11 [857], T48 no.2012A); Huangbo Duanji chanshi Wanling lu 黄檗断际禅师宛陵录 (Record of Wanling, T48 no.2012B); early witnesses: quotations in the Zongjing lu (961), the appended text in fascicle 9 of the Jingde chuandeng lu (appended no later than 1048; whether it belongs to the original compilation of 1004 is undetermined), fascicle 8 of the Tiansheng guangdeng lu (1036), fascicles 2–3 of the Gu zunsu yulu (1267).

Core-text marks

唯是一心更無別法｜但能無心便是究竟｜不即不離｜即心是佛無心是道

Current six-position placement

② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C; the ①/② boundary substantively open)

The first three marks come from the main body of the Chuanxin fayao and already appear in the appended text in fascicle 9 of the Jingde chuandeng lu (appended no later than 1048); the first and second also appear in quotations in the Zongjing lu (961) (T1).

Most distinctive feature: Huangbo not only dismantles cultivation, realization and names; he also opposes turning concentration and wisdom, mirror-like illumination, alert stillness, and seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing into “interpretations made upon objects” (E-23), denies one who realizes (E-26), and denies treating “a single pure brightness divided into six harmonized combinations” as a formula of knowledge (E-28); at the same time the original mind “does not belong to seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing, nor is it apart from seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing” (E-19), and there is the positive self-inclusion material “the one speaking right now is precisely your mind” (E-41). “The existence and functioning of seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing” must be strictly separated from “clinging to seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing as the mind or raising views upon them”; the original texts do not delete all perceptual life, but dismantle objectification and second-order cognition.

The last load-bearing point must be divided into three layers. (1) The layer of the ground: the One Mind is originally complete and does not increase; without realization nothing is lacking (E-09, E-11, E-17, E-21); this layer still holds when recognition is deleted. (2) The layer of path / withdrawal: no stages, no contemplation, no contrivance, no “using the mind to make no-mind” (E-13, E-16, E-23);

whether “no-mind” is deliberately carried out by the student is directly called into question in E-16; but opposing “using the mind to make no-mind” does not cancel every difference of awakening. (3) The layer of ultimate completion: the T1 Chuanxin fayao connects “if only you can be without mind / awakening to the One Mind / sudden full comprehension” with the ultimate, with liberation, and with not being bound (E-12, E-14, E-20, E-24, E-25, E-29); E-37 and E-42 are T2 accounts in the same direction. The existence of the conditional relation in the third layer can be established; but whether there is a non-deletable function of “correctly cognizing the ground” independent of this description of the result is not sufficient for B, and is recorded as C.

The most delicate point: no-mind and tacit accord are not merely non-epistemic; the original texts further say “without subject and object”, “nor is there one who is without mind”, “using the mind to make no-mind, the mind on the contrary becomes something”, and “to intend with the mind is already to miss”. One reading holds that awakening, realization, recognizing and decisive knowing show that there is still an awakening-type mediator of completion; the other holds that these words are only pointers within teaching, while “no-mind” is precisely the cessation of cognitive functioning, and the cessation itself cannot be renamed a cognitive function that must be completed. Both sides are supported by T1 texts.

The ② tendency of v1.3 in choosing the main class cannot automatically raise the A–D strength of proof; this archive therefore records ② (C), and positively retains the competing interpretation on the ①/② boundary.

Note on texts: Pei Xiu says he heard the teaching himself and recorded “one or two parts in ten” afterwards; the preface of 857 states that he gave his record to monks to take back and ask the assembly about agreements and differences, but records no result of verification (E-01, E-02). The front part of the Chuanxin fayao is visible in the appended text in fascicle 9 of the Jingde chuandeng lu, and some sentences are visible in quotations of 961 in the Zongjing lu; it belongs to a relatively early layer of transmission. It is worth adding: the extant appended text in the Jingde chuandeng lu ends with a colophon of the year Qingli wuzi (1048) stating “eleven places in the Chuanxin fayao have been changed”, with characters corrected by reference to the Sijia lu and another record; therefore the compilation date of 1004 cannot be equated directly with all the extant wording being free of later collation. The later question-and-answer part and the Wanling lu remain provisionally T2; “first seen in 1267” is limited to the complete witnesses checked this time, and cannot prove that there was no other text at all between the Tang and the Song.

• For the texts completely preserved in fascicles 2–3 of the Gu zunsu yulu, this archive records the checked edition of 1267; “the earliest complete witness among the materials checked” is not “the first historical existence”, nor does it exclude earlier Song prints or variant texts, and not being detected cannot be treated as disproof.
• T3 = biography, encounters and hall-sermon sayings: fascicle 16 of the Zutang ji (952), the Huangbo chapter in fascicle 9 of the Jingde chuandeng lu, etc. (E-03, E-47).
• T4 = the editor’s own statements in Pei Xiu’s preface serve only as textual history (E-01 and E-02 are recorded as T2 editor’s preface; see the cards); the biography in fascicle 20 of the Song gaoseng zhuan (988) (E-04); the late-added passage (E-08). These serve only as biography and history of transmitted texts, not as evidence of thought.

Version collation: the CBETA transcriptions were compared by machine string search against the Zongjing lu, the Jingde chuandeng lu, the Tiansheng guangdeng lu, the Gu zunsu yulu and the Zutang ji; about 4,050 characters of the front part of the Chuanxin fayao are visible in the earlier system, while for the later part and the Wanling lu many items can at present only obtain later complete witnesses. Runs of eight consecutive characters and fuzzy matching cannot exclude rewriting, paraphrase and fragments;

the extant appended text in fascicle 9 of the Chuandeng lu is followed by the collation colophon of 1048, and has the variant tenth / eleventh month at the end of the preface. Facsimiles, other early prints and the Sijia lu have not been collated one by one, so both T1 and T2 should be marked as “relative levels of the existing witnesses”, and no claim is made to have settled the whole of Tang and Song transmission.

Method: first ask whether, once “correctly recognizing the ground” is deleted, the original completeness of the One Mind, the place of awareness and speech within the One Mind, and no cultivation and no realization still hold; then ask whether the same texts’ no-mind / awakening / sudden comprehension and the consequence of liberation can still be explained. An additional strict threshold is added: no “necessary state for becoming a buddha / for leaving” may be automatically equated with “a non-deletable cognitive function”, otherwise “ceasing contrivance” and “not giving rise to deluded thoughts” would all be misjudged as cognitive mediators. One must distinguish (a) whether the original has a conditional sentence, (b) whether the condition is a cognitive function such as awakening / entering-into-accord, and (c) whether that function is non-deletable relative to the originally complete One Mind;

1. this mind neither arises nor ceases and surpasses all limits, measures and names (E-09). The six perfections, the ten thousand practices and merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges are originally complete (E-11).
2. Dismantling cultivation and realization: cultivating the six perfections and ten thousand practices to seek buddhahood is “stages”, and from beginningless time there has been no buddha of stages (E-12); attaining in a single thought-moment and attaining through the ten grounds are exactly equal in effect (E-15); at the time of realization one realizes only the buddha one originally is, and not a single thing is added beyond it (E-17).
3. Dismantling the forms of cognition: the numinous awareness-nature cannot be known by wisdom (E-21); turning concentration and wisdom, mirror-like illumination, alert stillness, and seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing into “interpretations made upon objects” is rejected (E-23); the mind that illumines objects is only a reflection (E-31); “I can realize, I can attain” is overweening pride (E-26); “the interpretation of a single pure brightness and six harmonized combinations” also becomes bondage by the Dharma (E-28).
4. The place of cognition: the original mind does not belong to seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing, nor is it apart from them (E-19);

• “此本源清淨心……常自圓明遍照” (“this original pure mind … is always of itself perfectly bright and illuminates everywhere”; E-18); “十方虗空世界不出我之一心，一切微塵國土不出我之一念” (“the empty-space worlds of the ten directions do not go outside my One Mind, and all lands as numerous as dust motes do not go outside my one thought”; E-46, T2). The ground is the One Mind, which encompasses sentient beings, buddhas, the world, mountains and rivers.
• Layer of specification: the One Mind neither arises nor ceases, is neither blue nor yellow, without form or mark, surpassing all limits, measures, names, traces and oppositions (E-09); the numinous awareness-nature is as long-lived as empty space, “不可以智慧識。不可以言語取。不可以境物會。不可以功用到” (“it cannot be known by wisdom, cannot be grasped by words, cannot be met through objects, cannot be reached by effort”; E-21). “Perfectly bright and illuminating everywhere” and “numinous awareness” are specifications of the clear illumination of the ground itself, not of the student’s acts of cognition; their meaning in Tang Chan still needs checking against lexical history.
• Layer of negation: mind is no-mind, attaining is no attaining (E-27); “心自無心。亦無無心者” (“the mind of itself is without mind, nor is there one who is without mind”; E-16);

• “佛真法身猶若虛空” (“the Buddha’s true dharma body is like empty space”; context of E-36). The ground is not an entity and cannot be objectified; not even “no-mind” can be set up as a thing.

Huangbo’s ground is therefore neither an object that is cognized nor a cognizer, but the One Mind that is “neither identical with nor separate from” seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing (E-19). E-09, E-17, E-21 and E-43 support the ground as originally endowed and not waiting for recognition; the inference to ② comes not from the layer of the ground but from the layer of completion: the whole text’s account of “delusion — awakening”, “bondage — going beyond the world”, “not accomplished in kalpas — attained in a single thought”.

The differences of all that exists: Huangbo says that the One Mind encompasses mountains, rivers and the great earth (E-39, E-46), and also that “法不孤起，仗境方生” (“a dharma does not arise alone; it arises relying on objects”; context of E-40), “萬法皆依此心建立。遇境即有。無境即無” (“the myriad dharmas are all established on this mind; when there are objects they exist, when there are no objects they do not”; context of E-23), and uses the image of quicksilver scattered into drops, each perfectly round, for the differences of sentient beings in the six destinies (T48, 386a04–10).

The earlier proposition “the One Mind is originally endowed and does not wait for recognition” remains as the first layer of the deletion test, rather than being mixed with these three propositions.

(1) The ground holds: the One Mind is originally present, “為眾生時此心不減。為諸佛時此心不添” (“when one is a sentient being this mind does not decrease; when one is a buddha this mind does not increase”; E-11); “秖證元來自佛。向上更不添得一物” (“one realizes only the buddha one originally was; beyond this not a single thing can be added”; E-17); “此性縱汝迷時亦不失。悟時亦不得” (“this nature is not lost even when you are deluded, and not gained when you awaken”; E-43, T2). Delete awakening and realization, and the One Mind does not decrease. The first layer of deletion passes; these are substantive positive proofs in the ① direction and must not be described as existing only after awakening. (A: stated explicitly in the text)

(2) Path and withdrawal: gradual cultivation and realization, seeking realization while clinging to forms, and making “interpretations upon objects” with concentration and wisdom and alert stillness are all criticized (E-11, E-16, E-23, E-24), but it cannot be said that seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing themselves are all abolished. E-16’s “心自無心，亦無無心者，將心無心，心却成有” (“the mind of itself is without mind, nor is there one who is without mind;

using the mind to make no-mind, the mind on the contrary becomes something”) excludes an executor who actively “makes the mind into no-mind”, so P1 cannot hold in the sense of “a deliberate operation”. This negation does not mean that the textual differences of “awakening, seeing, according, comprehending” are all withdrawn.

(3) The completion relation and common source: T1’s E-14 “但能無心，便是究竟／若不直下無心，累劫修行終不成道” (“if only you can be without mind, that is the ultimate / if one is not without mind right here, one cultivates for kalpas and never accomplishes the Way”) establishes the link between no-mind and the consequence of liberation; by itself it is not sufficient to determine whether the condition is a cognitive function, nor can it be judged as leaning to ① or ② merely from the two characters “no-mind”. E-12 “但悟一心” (“just awaken to the One Mind”), E-20 “決定知” (“decisively know”), E-24 “唯直下頓了自心” (“only by suddenly and fully comprehending one’s own mind right here”) and E-29 “於心法上悟” (“awaken at the mind-dharma”) give P2 the support of early sentences; E-25’s not being bound by the three times describes the consequence of completion. E-12, E-14, E-20, E-24, E-25 and E-29 all belong to the mutually connected meanings of a single system of Pei Xiu’s recollection, not six independent historical witnesses; T2’s E-37 and E-42 serve only as side evidence.

(4) Separated deletion test: first step, delete knowledge, propositional understanding and objectifying recognition — the One Mind is originally endowed, neither increasing nor decreasing, and still holds; the ① direction passes. Second step, delete further “awakening / sudden comprehension / decisive knowing” as an independent mediator, while still retaining “the mind of itself is without mind, nor is there one who is without mind” and the state of not contriving by discrimination: here the self-nature and the building-in of seeing, hearing and speech remain complete; whether the difference from the student’s deluded clinging to liberation can be fully explained without setting up an additional function of correct entering-into-accord — the T1 materials admit two reasonable readings, so the deletion cannot be declared to pass or to fail. Third step, if all differences of no-mind / clinging to forms and freedom / bondage are deleted, E-14 and other original texts lose their relation of consequence; but this proves only that the difference has a textual role, not automatically that what breaks is a cognitive mediator.

(5) Independence and semantic threshold: P1’s “doing no-mind” is opposed by E-16; P2’s “awakening, recognizing, decisive knowing, sudden comprehension” are supported by E-12, E-16, E-20, E-24 and E-29;

P3 requires proving that these verbs are not different teaching expressions of the same no-mind / cessation, but a finally non-deletable function of correct entering-into-accord. The opposing side can argue “awakening is no longer chasing / no-mind is the absence of any additional cognitive procedure”; the affirming side can argue “although there is no subject who realizes, the student still distinguishes delusion from liberation by according awakening”. Neither side may take the number of occurrences of words as structural proof.

(6) Documentary threshold: the load-bearing sentences of the completion layer, E-12, E-14, E-20, E-24, E-25 and E-29, come from one chain of Pei Xiu’s records; the excerpts of 961 (covering only E-12 and the first half of E-14) and the appended text in fascicle 9 of the Chuandeng lu prove relatively early circulation, but provide no sixfold independent corroboration. The extant appended text in fascicle 9 of the Chuandeng lu ends with a colophon of 1048 stating that eleven places were changed on the basis of the Sijia lu and another record (T51, 273a22–23), but the colophon does not list the places one by one: no usable collating base text sufficient to reconstruct the form before collation has so far been obtained. Whether it touches load-bearing wording is a risk awaiting checking;

it cannot be presumed untouched on the basis of the colophon, nor can it be claimed that the eleven places have overturned the main class. The non-standard grade “C-” may not be used.

Item-by-item counterfactuals for the strong proofs in the ① direction: E-17 “秖證元來自佛” (“one realizes only the buddha one originally was”): without realization, what is realized does not decrease; E-21 “不可以智慧識” (“it cannot be known by wisdom”): without awakening, the numinous awareness-nature still does not have being cognized as the condition of its holding; E-26 “謂我能證能得。皆增上慢人” (“those who say ‘I can realize, I can attain’ are all people of overweening pride”) always excludes a cognizing subject who completes the ground; E-43 “迷時亦不失。悟時亦不得” (“not lost in delusion, not gained in awakening”): without awakening, the self-nature is still not lost. None of the four is withdrawn because recognition is absent — this is the part in which the ① direction passes. Conversely, E-14, E-20 and E-25 themselves draw, by no-mind and sudden comprehension, the different consequences of liberation and bondage, so the relation of the student’s ultimate completion cannot yet be retained intact. Both sides belong to the original texts, and neither may be silenced in favour of the other.

What has been withdrawn or de-substantialized: the difference between buddhas and sentient beings (E-09, E-10); cultivation, realization, stages and effortful practice (E-11, E-12, E-15, E-24); views raised upon concentration and wisdom, mirroring, alert stillness, and seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing (E-23); the mind that illumines objects (E-31); one who can realize and attain (E-26); the understanding of “a single pure brightness and six harmonized combinations” (E-28); no-mind as a thing (E-16); “attaining” as acquisition (E-27, E-34); his own teaching and all teachings (E-30, E-33); the written record (E-47, T3).

The last load-bearing point: the textual relation of consequence between “no-mind / awakening / sudden comprehension” and liberation and bondage has been confirmed; it has also been confirmed that T1 explicitly denies taking “no-mind” as an executed operation, and positively includes seeing, hearing and speech. What is truly unresolved is P3: whether awakening / sudden comprehension / decisive knowing constitutes a non-deletable function of correct entering-into-accord independent of the withdrawal that no-mind is. The main class is recorded as ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (C), with the ①/② boundary substantively open.

Return: Huangbo’s return appears in “遇緣即施。緣息即寂” (“when conditions arise it functions; when conditions cease it is still”;

Textual evidence of positive building-in: Huangbo not only negates his own teaching but also positively explains the place of speech, awareness, seeing and hearing within the One Mind: “即如今言語者正是汝心” (“the one speaking right now is precisely your mind”; E-41, already quoted in 961); “語默動靜一切聲色。盡是佛事” (“speech and silence, movement and stillness, all sounds and forms are entirely the Buddha’s work”; E-39); “汝今覺妄起時。覺正是佛” (“when you are now aware of deluded thought arising, that awareness is precisely the Buddha”; E-38); “終日說何曾說。終日聞何曾聞” (“speaking all day, when has one spoken? hearing all day, when has one heard?”; E-40); “性即是見。見即是性。不可以性更見性” (“the nature is seeing, seeing is the nature; one cannot use the nature to see the nature again”; E-45); the original mind “不屬見聞覺知。亦不離見聞覺知” (“does not belong to seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing, nor is it apart from them”; E-19, T1). E-19 and E-41 directly place seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing and the speaker within the One Mind, and T2 adds awareness / seeing and the like, rather than placing them outside the One Mind to cognize the One Mind — this goes a step beyond No.07 Linji’s “names and phrases are established by the one who discerns, perceives, hears and knows”, and is genuine positive material for what v1.3 requires: “the place of the thought’s own formulation and utterance within the whole”.

Then, is deleting the function of “correctly cognizing the ground” entirely harmless for Huangbo — because his completion was never cognition?

Why it looks like ①:

(1) The layer of the ground: the One Mind is originally endowed, neither increasing nor decreasing (E-11, E-17), cannot be known by wisdom (E-21), is not lost in delusion and not gained in awakening (E-43); these are direct texts that the ground does not wait for recognition.

(2) The layer of cognition: Huangbo systematically dismantles all forms of cognition — objectifying seeing (E-31), the one who realizes (E-26), contemplation (E-23), the understanding of a correct formula (E-28), no-mind as a thing (E-16); “obtaining” and “knowing” are separated (E-34).

(3) The layer of self-inclusion: the one speaking is the mind (E-41), awareness is the Buddha (E-38), seeing is the nature (E-45), speech and silence, movement and stillness are all the Buddha’s work (E-39). Cognition and speech are placed within the One Mind.

Synthesis: the ① direction does not come only from the negative denial “no cultivation, no realization”.

E-19 and E-41 already positively specify, in the early layer, the relation of seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing and speech to the One Mind, and E-16 denies a subject who carries out “using the mind to make no-mind”; together with original endowment not being lost, they form strong ①-direction structural material. But how Huangbo understands the final function of “awakening / sudden comprehension / decisive knowing” is still disputed; one cannot jump directly from positive building-in to the whole philosophy reaching ①, nor infer ② (B) directly from the word “awakening”.

Why it is still placed at ② (C):

(1) The verifiable ground of ② is not that E-14 alone proves “no-mind is cognition”, but the positive language of completing functions: awakening to the One Mind in E-12, decisive knowing in E-20, sudden comprehension in E-24, awakening at the mind-dharma in E-29. They mark on the student’s side the difference between entering into accord and not, and provide the interpretive entry to ②; whether they are a truly non-deletable independent mediator has not obtained B-grade proof.

(2) The competing reading for ① holds: E-16 has already excluded “doing no-mind”, and awakening, realization, accord and comprehension are only expressions, in different teaching situations, of “nothing added, nothing obtained / cessation of contrivance”, with no independent completing function; the competing reading for ② holds: although there is no executing subject and no objectifying knowledge, the awakening difference of correct entering-into-accord cannot be deleted. Both sides have grounds in T1; P3 is suspended.

(3) Delete deliberate operations of knowledge, and the ground is still originally endowed; delete awakening / sudden comprehension / decisive knowing as an independent mediator while retaining no-mind, and the breaking point of the account of completion remains disputed; delete all differences of no-mind / bondage, and the original texts’ accounts of consequence are destroyed, but this does not prove that a cognitive mediator exists. Therefore the main class remains the working choice ②, and its strength can only be marked C.

Boundaries of terminology and collated texts: E-19 “本心不屬見聞覺知亦不離見聞覺知” and E-41 “言語者正是汝心” already provide T1 structures of positive building-in; “numinous awareness” and “perfect brightness” are only specifications of the original mind and may not be silently replaced by the student’s cognitive activity.

The variant between the appended text and the current text in E-21 likewise denies grasping by knowledge and understanding; the “不可得” in E-13 must be judged in its grammatical direction together with the surrounding sentences, and cannot be counted directly by number of characters as a “winning vote” for ①; the two sentences of 961 in E-06 lean toward ② but their attribution is undetermined. The eleven collated places of 1048 have not yet been located.

Grades: that the original texts directly state “the One Mind is originally endowed”, “the mind of itself is without mind”, “awaken to the One Mind”, “no-mind is the ultimate” and the like are A-grade textual facts; the structural classification of the whole remains a C-grade interpretation. The withdrawal of operation in E-16 puts a different kind of pressure on the judgment of Huangbo compared with the positive “meeting / true and correct insight” of No.06 and No.07, but it cannot be said that those two archives have no self-reflexive dismantling at all, nor can differences between figures be taken as a ranking of value among the six positions.

Unresolved documentary matters and conditions for re-examination: obtain a comparable text for the eleven places changed in 1048, and confirm as far as possible whether they touch E-12, E-14, E-19, E-20, E-24 or E-29;

• Huangbo connects “no-mind / sudden comprehension” with liberation and bondage. Huangbo, in stating the formula, at once judges the understanding of it to be bondage by the Dharma, while Linji concludes with “一心既無” (“since the one mind is nonexistent”). The local C on the ①/② boundary in the two archives has different sources: for Linji, the variants of “若能如是（見得）” (“if one can be thus / see it thus”) and “no cultivation, no realization”; for Huangbo, “whether no-mind is a cognitive function”.
• No.05 Xinxin ming (②; ①/② boundary local C): “至道無難，唯嫌揀擇” (“the supreme Way is not difficult; it only dislikes picking and choosing”) can be compared structurally, within limits, with Huangbo’s “擬心即差” (“to intend with the mind is already to miss”) and “不即不離” (“neither identical nor separate”); the patriarch’s verse cited by Huangbo, “認得心性時，可說不思議” (“when you recognize the mind-nature, it can be called inconceivable”; E-34), also belongs to the same vocabulary circle. Textual attribution, versions and final structure must each be judged separately, and no ranking of grades is inferred from similarity of expression.

• Its front part is found in the appended text in fascicle 9 of the Jingde chuandeng lu (appended no later than 1048), but the extant appended text has a colophon of Qingli wuzi (1048) stating explicitly that eleven places of wording were changed on the basis of the Sijia lu and another record; no early base text allowing place-by-place collation before and after the changes has yet been obtained, so the specific wording of the eleven places before 1048 cannot be reconstructed, nor can their involving load-bearing sentences be excluded. All quotations follow the CBETA transcriptions, and are not regarded as a verified Tang original.
• Huangbo Duanji chanshi Wanling lu: T48 no.2012B. Many of the current records come from the Gu zunsu yulu or later transmitted texts, but the Zongjing lu already has partial quotations (such as E-41), so their thought cannot all be judged late on the basis of a relatively late date of preservation. The final passage, “看箇無字” (“contemplate the word ‘No’”), is not found in the early materials checked and carries the style of later kanhua Chan; it is a highly suspected late addition and is not used for now as positive evidence of Huangbo’s own thought; the exact date and source of the addition have not been determined.
• Zongjing lu: compiled by Yongming Yanshou, completed in Jianlong 2 (961) (T48 no.2016);

• five places in fascicles 5, 11, 24, 40 and 98 explicitly quote “黃蘗和尚” (“Venerable Huangbo”); these are the earliest extant quotations of Huangbo’s mind-teaching, with rewriting and inserted explanation.
• Jingde chuandeng lu: the Huangbo chapter in fascicle 9 (T51, 266a03–266c16) and the “黃蘗希運禪師傳心法要　河東裴休集” (T51, 270b02–273a08) and “裴休相國傳心偈” appended to fascicle 9; the lamp record was compiled in 1004; the appended text was attached no later than 1048, and whether it belongs to the original compilation awaits checking. The appended text and the front part of the current Chuanxin fayao belong to the same textual system.
• Tiansheng guangdeng lu: the Huangbo chapter in fascicle 8 (X78, 658a09–666b18), 1036; most of the encounters, long sermons and dialogues it contains are not found in the two Taishō records, and were later mostly included in the Gu zunsu yulu.
• Gu zunsu yulu: fascicles 2–3 (X68 no.1315); this archive takes the date of transmission of the checked complete text as the lower bound of the source, and does not claim that the whole text first appeared absolutely in 1267.