That this feeling was just is shown by the fact that the school of Bodhidharma is still practically one in teaching. But its small regard for scripture and insistence on oral instruction caused the principal monasteries to regard themselves as centres with an apostolic succession of their own and to form divisions which were geographical rather than doctrinal. They are often called school (tsung), but the term is not correct, if it implies that the difference is similar to that which separates the Ch'an-tsung and Lü-tsung or schools of contemplation and of discipline. Even in the lifetime of Hui-nêng there seems to have been a division, for he is sometimes called the Patriarch of the South, Shên-Hsiu[807] being recognized as Patriarch of the North. But all subsequent divisions of the Ch'an-tsung trace their lineage to Hui-nêng. Two of his disciples founded two schools called Nan Yüeh and Ch'ing Yüan[808] and between the eighth and tenth centuries these produced respectively two and three subdivisions, known together as Wu-tsung or five schools. They take their names from the places where their founders dwelt and are the schools of Wei-Yang, Lin-Chi, Ts'ao-Tung, Yün-Mên and Fa-Yen[809]. This is the chronological order, but the most important school is the Lin-Chi, founded by I-Hsüan[810], who resided on the banks of a river[811] in Chih-li and died in 867. It is not easy to discriminate the special doctrines[812] of the Lin-Chi for it became the dominant form of the school to such an extent that other variants are little more than names. But it appears to have insisted on the transmission of spiritual truths not only by oral instruction but by a species of telepathy between teacher and pupil culminating in sudden illumination. At the present day the majority of Chinese monasteries profess to belong to the Ch'an-tsung and it has encroached on other schools. Thus it is now accepted on the sacred island of P'uto which originally followed the Lü-tsung.
Although the Ch'an school did not value the study of scripture as part of the spiritual life, yet it by no means neglected letters and can point to a goodly array of ecclesiastical authors, extending down to modern times[813]. More than twenty of their treatises have been admitted into the Tripitaka. Several of these are historical and discuss the succession of Patriarchs and abbots, but the most characteristic productions of the sect are collections of aphorisms, usually compiled by the disciples of a teacher who himself committed nothing to writing[814].
In opposition to the Contemplative School or Tsung-mên, all the others are sometimes classed together as Chiao-mên. This dichotomy perhaps does no more than justice to the importance of Bodhidharma's school, but is hardly scientific, for, whatever may be the numerical proportion, the other schools differ from one another as much as they differ from it. They all agree in recognizing the authority not only of a founder but of a special sacred book. We may treat first of one which, like the Tsung-mên, belongs specially to the Buddhism of the Far East and is both an offshoot of the Tsung-mên and a protest against it—there being nothing incompatible in this double relationship. This is the T'ien-t'ai[815] school which takes its name from a celebrated monastery in the province of Chê-kiang. The founder of this establishment and of the sect was called Chih-K'ai or Chih-I[816] and followed originally Bodhidharma's teaching, but ultimately rejected the view that contemplation is all-sufficient, while still claiming to derive his doctrine from Nâgârjuna. He had a special veneration for the Lotus Sûtra and paid attention to ceremonial. He held that although the Buddha-mind is present in all living beings, yet they do not of themselves come to the knowledge and use of it, so that instruction is necessary to remove error and establish true ideas. The phrase Chih-kuan[817] is almost the motto of the school: it is a translation of the two words Samatha and Vipassanâ, taken to mean calm and insight.
The T'ien-T'ai is distinguished by its many-sided and almost encyclopædic character. Chih-I did not like the exclusiveness of the Contemplative School. He approved impartially of ecstasy, literature, ceremonial and discipline: he wished to find a place for everything and a point of view from which every doctrine might be admitted to have some value. Thus he divided the teaching of the Buddha into five periods, regarded as progressive not contradictory, and expounded respectively in (a) the Hua-yen Sûtra; (b) the Hînayâna Sûtras; (c) the Lêng-yen-ching; (d) the Prajnâ-pâramitâ; (e) the Lotus Sûtra which is the crown, quintessence and plenitude of all Buddhism. He also divided religion into eight parts[818], sometimes counted as four, the latter half of the list being the more important. The names are collection, progress, distinction and completion. These terms indicate different ways of looking at religion, all legitimate but not equally comprehensive or just in perspective. By collection is meant the Hînayâna, the name being apparently due to the variously catalogued phenomena which occupy the disciple in the early stages of his progress: the scriptures, divisions of the universe, states of the human minds and so on. Progress (T'ung, which might also be rendered as transition or communication) is applicable to the Hîna and Mahâyanâ alike and regards the religious life as a series of stages rising from the state of an unconverted man to that of a Buddha. Pieh, or distinction, is applicable only to the Mahâyanâ and means the special excellences of a Bodhisattva. Yüan, completeness or plenitude, is the doctrine of the Lotus which embraces all aspects of religion. In a similar spirit of synthesis and conciliation Chih-I uses Nâgârjuna's view that truth is not of one kind. From the stand-point of absolute truth all phenomena are void or unreal; on the other hand they are indubitably real for practical purposes. More just is the middle view which builds up the religious character. It sees that all phenomena both exist and do not exist and that thought cannot content itself with the hypothesis either of their real existence or of the void. Chih-I's teaching as to the nature of the Buddha is almost theistic. It regards the fundamental (pên) Buddhahood as not merely the highest reality but as constant activity exerting itself for the good of all beings. Distinguished from this fundamental Buddhahood is the derivative Buddhahood or trace (chi) left by the Buddha among men to educate them. There has been considerable discussion in the school as to the relative excellence of the pên and the chi[819].
The T'ien-T'ai school is important, not merely for its doctrines, but as having produced a great monastic establishment and an illustrious line of writers. In spite of the orders of the Emperor who wished to retain him at Nanking, Chih-I retired to the highlands of Chê-Kiang and twelve monasteries still mark various spots where he is said to have resided. He had some repute as an author, but more as a preacher. His words were recorded by his disciple Kuan-Ting[820] and in this way have been preserved two expositions of the Lotus and a treatise on his favourite doctrine of Chih-Kuan which together are termed the San-ta-pu, or Three Great Books. Similar spoken expositions of other sûtras are also preserved. Some smaller treatises on his chief doctrines seem to be works of his own pen[821]. A century later Chan-Jan[822], who is reckoned the ninth Patriarch of the T'ien-t'ai school, composed commentaries on the Three Great Books as well as some short original works. During the troubled period of the Five Dynasties, the T'ien-t'ai monasteries suffered severely and the sacred books were almost lost. But the school had a branch in Korea and a Korean priest called Ti-Kuan[823] re-established it in China. It continued to contribute literature to the Tripitaka until 1270 but after the tenth century its works, though numerous, lose their distinctive character and are largely concerned with magical formulæ and the worship of Amida.
The latter is the special teaching of the Pure Land school, also known as the Lotus school, or the Short Cut[824]. It is indeed a short cut to salvation, striking unceremoniously across all systems, for it teaches that simple faith in Amitâbha (Amida) and invocation of his name can take the place of moral and intellectual endeavour. Its popularity is in proportion to its facility: its origin is ancient, its influence universal, but perhaps for this very reason its existence as a corporation is somewhat indistinct. It is also remarkable that though the Chinese Tripitaka contains numerous works dedicated to the honour of Amitâbha, yet they are not described as composed by members of the Pure Land school but appear to be due to authors of all schools[825].
The doctrine, if not the school, was known in China before 186, in which year there died at Lo-yang, a monk of the Yüeh-chih called Lokâkshi, who translated the longer Sukhâvatî-vyûha. So far as I know, there is no reason for doubting these statements[826]. The date is important for the history of doctrine, since it indicates that the sûtra existed in Sanskrit some time previously. Another translation by the Parthian An Shih-Kao, whose activity falls between 148 and 170 A.D. may have been earlier and altogether twelve translations were made before 1000 A.D. of which five are extant[827]. Several of the earlier translators were natives of Central Asia, so it is permissible to suppose that the sûtra was esteemed there. The shorter Sukhâvatî-vyûha was translated by Kumârajîva (c. 402) and later by Hsüan Chuang. The Amitâyurdhyânasûtra was translated by Kâlayaśas about 424. These three books[828] are the principal scriptures of the school and copies of the greater Sukhâvatî may still be found in almost every Chinese monastery, whatever principles it professes.
Hui Yüan[829] who lived from 333 to 416 is considered as the founder of the school. He was in his youth an enthusiastic Taoist and after he turned Buddhist is said to have used the writings of Chuang-tzŭ to elucidate his new faith. He founded a brotherhood, and near the monastery where he settled was a pond in which lotus flowers grew, hence the brotherhood was known as the White Lotus school[830]. For several centuries[831] it enjoyed general esteem. Pan-chou, one of its Patriarchs, received the title of Kuo-shih about 770 A.D., and Shan-tao, who nourished about 650 and wrote commentaries, was one of its principal literary men[832]. He popularized the doctrine of the Pai-tao or White Way, that is, the narrow bridge leading to Paradise across which Amitâbha will guide the souls of the faithful. But somehow the name of White Lotus became connected with conspiracy and rebellion until it was dreaded as the title of a formidable secret society, and ceased to be applied to the school as a whole. The teaching and canonical literature of the Pure Land school did not fall into disrepute but since it was admitted by other sects to be, if not the most excellent way, at least a permissible short cut to heaven, it appears in modern times less as a separate school than as an aspect of most schools[833]. The simple and emotional character of Amidism, the directness of its "Come unto me," appeal so strongly to the poor and uneducated, that no monastery or temple could afford to neglect it.
Two important Indian schools were introduced into China in the sixth and seventh centuries respectively and flourished until about 900 A.D. when they began to decay. These are the Chü-shê-tsung and Fa-hsiang-tsung[834]. The first name is merely a Chinese transcription of the Sanskrit Ko'sa and is due to the fact that the chief authority of the school is the Abhidharmakośaśâstra of Vasubandhu[835]. This work expounds the doctrine of the Sarvâstivâdins, but in a liberal spirit and without ignoring other views. Though the Chü-shê-tsung represented the best scholastic tradition of India more adequately than any other Chinese sect, yet it was too technical and arid to become popular and both in China and Japan (where it is known as Kusha-shu) it was a system of scholastic philosophy rather than a form of religion. In China it did not last many centuries.
The Fa-Hsiang school is similar inasmuch as it represented Indian scholasticism and remained, though much esteemed, somewhat academic. The name is a translation of Dharmalakshaṇa and the school is also known as Tz'ŭ-ên-tsung[836], and also as Wei-shih-hsiang-chiao because its principal text-book is the Ch'êng-wei-shih-lun[837]. This name, equivalent to Vidyâmâtra, or Vijnânamâtra, is the title of a work by Hsüan Chuang which appears to be a digest of ten Sanskrit commentaries on a little tract of thirty verses ascribed to Vasubandhu. As ultimate authorities the school also recognizes the revelations made to Asanga by Maitreya[838] and probably the Mahâyânasûtrâlankâra[839] expresses its views. It claims as its founder Śîlabhadra the teacher of Hsüan Chuang, but the latter was its real parent.