Dharma transmission

[2] In Rinzai-Zen, inka shōmei (印可証明) is ideally "the formal recognition of Zen's deepest realisation",[3] but practically it is being used for the transmission of the "true lineage" of the masters (shike) of the training halls.

According to McRae, it is not clear that the practitioners surrounding Bodhidharma and his disciple Huike considered themselves as belonging to a unified movement or group, such as a "Chan school," nor did they have any sense of sharing any continuity with the later tradition.

Historic research reveals that this story was created around the middle of the 8th century, beginning in 731 by Shenhui, a successor to Huineng, to win influence at the Imperial Court.

"[23] Though dharma transmission implies the acknowledgement of insight into the teachings of Buddhism as understood by the Zen tradition, especially seeing into one's true nature, dharma transmission is also a means to establish a person into the Zen tradition:[24] The procedure establishes the disciple as a transmitting teacher in their own right and successor in an unbroken lineage of teachers and disciples, a spiritual 'bloodline' (kechimyaku) theoretically traced back to the Buddha himself.

"[25] This polarity is recognizable in the emphasis that the Zen-tradition puts on maintaining the correct Dharma transmission, while simultaneously stressing seeing into one's nature: The matter of learning from a teacher is most essential.

[27][b]Nevertheless, while the Zen tradition has always stressed the importance of formal Dharma transmission, there are well known examples of Mushi dokugo, such as Nōnin, Jinul and Suzuki Shōsan who attained awakening on their own, though all of them were familiar with the Zen-teachings.

[42] Through Hakuin, all contemporary Japanese Rinzai-lineages relate themselves to the Ōtōkan lineage, brought to Japan in 1267 by Nanpo Jomyo, who received dharma transmission in China in 1265.

Ideally inka shōmei is "the formal recognition of Zen's deepest realisation",[3] but practically it is being used for transmission of the "true lineage" of the masters (shike) of the training halls.

Only when a master is satisfied that a disciple can comment appropriately on a wide range of old cases will he recognize the latter as a dharma heir and give him formal "proof of transmission" (J. inka shomei).

[55] To make the history of Sōtō even more complicated, the Caodong-lineage that Dogen inherited through Rujing was passed on previously from the Caodong-master Dayang Jingxuan to Touzi Yiqing via the Rinzai-master Fushan Fayuan.

To attain supervisory certification requires not just high ecclesiastical grades and dharma seniority but also at least three years' experience as an assistant supervisor at a specially designated training hall (tokubetsu sōdō), during which time one undergoes an apprenticeship.

[74] According to Robert Sharf, early Indian Buddhist materials explicitly reject the paramparā ideal of lineal-succession, the "notion that sacred teachings are authorized through an unbroken line of enlightened sages.

"[82] The Mahāparinibbāna-sutta also denies any distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrine and rejects the idea that the sangha should depend on a teacher who holds some things back with a "closed fist.

Wu writes that at this time "eminent monks, who practiced meditation and asceticism but without proper dharma transmission, were acclaimed as acquiring 'wisdom without teachers' (wushizhi).

Because true enlightenment experience was valued, a few self-proclaimed Chan masters in the late Ming gained reputations as eminent monks without acquiring dharma transmission.

[88] Some of these figures were even considered "self-enlightened and self-certified" (jigo jishō), since they claimed to have achieved "wisdom without a teacher" (無師智, pinyin: wúshīzhì; Japanese: 無師独悟, mushi-dokugo).

"[92] Such idealization is connected to mythologized lineage claims going back to medieval China of a direct mind-to-mind transmission from one enlightened master to another by which a living teacher derives their prestige and privileged position.

And in the east, particularly in the Japanese institutions, we've learned how masters and whole schools were at various times co-opted by the state, most notoriously in the years leading up to and including the Second World War.

Where the actions of a teacher, defined by the institutional role, are necessarily considered good and pure, critical thinking on the part of the student can be dismissed as ego-driven and self-centered.

[100]According to Alan Cole, the goal of Zen genealogical texts is to privatize enlightenment, which is presented as something no longer openly available to the general public, or to those lacking a lineage.

[107] According to Mario Poceski, during the formative years of its development in the Tang era, Chan was a diffuse and heterogeneous movement which lacked rigid orthodoxy and an independent institutional structure.

[112] Sharf observes that the rise of Chan was closely associated with ideological tropes in which the authority of teachers was based on myths of lineal descent, and this involved "the production and manipulation of pseudo-historical lineages.

"[113] Likewise, Foulk writes that lineages belong, either partly or wholly, to the realm of ideology and myths fabricated retrospectively to gain authority, political power, and patronage.

[115] As Poceski points out, well-known genealogical schemata were used to situate individual masters within illustrious spiritual ancestries, which served as sources of religious legitimacy and authority.

[117] According to Poceski, preoccupation with lineage helped to create "an ahistorical sense of continuity" between the Chan of the Tang and Song dynasties, as it served to conceal certain paradigm shifts and ruptures that occurred during the Tang-Song transition.

[121] For example, Foulk points out that monastic institutions were so controlled by the state that they were nearly an extension of the national polity, with matters of doctrinal orthodoxy even being decided by imperial edict.

[123] At the same time, as the position of abbot required official membership in a Chan lineage, ambitious monks sought to obtain inheritance certificates (sishu 嗣書) to advance their careers, sometimes by dishonest means.

[124] Foulk observes the many abuses of this situation recounted by Dōgen, and states that "inheritance certificates were routinely given to senior monastic officers, presumably so that their way to an abbacy would not be blocked.

Consequently, the Chan master came to act as a sanctioned religious functionary, a prominent prelate endorsed by the state, rather than an independent spiritual virtuoso whose authority was to a large extent based on his personal charisma and unique vision.

[130] Later in Tokugawa Japan as well, Michel Mohr observes that "the misuse of Dharma-succession practices had become a plague that affected the credibility of the entire Zen Buddhist clergy.