There is a major distinction between the Northern School of Chan and the Southern School of Chan – the Northern School taught gradual enlightenment; The Southern School taught sudden enlightenment. In this essay, I will begin by analyzing the two poems written by Shenxiu and Huineng, to see how the two schools diverge theoretically.

Shenxiu’s poem says (Mou-Lam and Price, p. 72):

Our body is the bodhi tree,

And our mind a mirror bright.

Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,

And let no dust alight.

Shenxiu’s verse starts with an assumption that we have an originally pure mind, which, I argue, is the theoretical foundation of the Northern School. Shenxiu further explores the properties of the mind in his work Guan Xin Lun, “Of the myriad dharmas, the mind is the most basic…There are two different minds…The first is the pure mind. The second is the defiled mind.” The two states of mind can be explained in the following ways: Our mind is initially pure and clean, but it is venerable to the distortions by defilements (dust) caused by “Three Poisons,” namely greed, anger, and ignorance. The purpose of Buddhist practice is thus to purify our mind and get rid of all defilements. In particular, Shenxiu’s teaching focuses on “beholding the mind (guanxin),” which means to keep a vigilant watch over the mind through solitary meditation. By keeping our mind and our initial purity in view, one can identify and avoid all sorts of defilements, and thus “let no dust alight”. Moreover, since our mind is being constantly defiled, one cannot preserve the initial purity without the assiduous and continuous efforts of the watchful mind. We have to “wipe hour and hour” until our mind is cleansed of all defilements to reach Nirvana. Therefore, it is a tireless process to attain enlightenment, and this is why Shenxiu’s verse supports the claim that the Northern School teaches gradual enlightenment.

Huineng’s poem says (Mou-Lam and Price, p.74):

There is no bodhi tree,

Nor stand of a mirror bright.

Since all is void,

Where can the dust alight?

Huineng’s verse, on the other hand, contradicts sharply with Shenxiu’s teaching of the mind. Huineng believes that there is no duality between the pure mind and the defiled mind. By taking “All is void” as the fundamental assumption of their teaching, the Southern School rejects the existence of a mind as an entity that needs to be preserved. Since there is no mirror to be attached to, how can any “dust” alight in the first place? In other words, since there is no mind, there can be no defilement.

Instead of using the metaphor of mirror and dust, Huineng claims that the state of mind of an unenlightened individual is “the same way as the sun may be thickly veiled by cloud and unable to show his light.” (Mou-Lam and Price, p.85) This contrasts with Shenxiu’s metaphor as even if one cannot see the sun, it is still bright and clear. The clouds do not affect the brilliant nature of the sun, in the same way as erroneous views and false conceptions do not change the pure nature of our mind. Based on this metaphor, I present what I take to be the strongest argument put forward by Huineng simply as follows: instead of “beholding the mind”, one should employ inborn wisdom to realize his/her essential nature. The most crucial distinction between “mind” and “nature” is that we can never lose our nature, but we might lose our mind. “Nature” is essential, meaning that without which no existence can be possible. One should take note that although Huineng still uses the term “mind” on many occasions, he often interprets “mind” in the way that “nature” is normally understood. For example, Huineng says in the platform sutra, “our essence of mind is intrinsically pure” (Mou-Lam and Price, p.86).  In other words, our mind (nature) is originally pure and clean and it remains pure and clean at all times. Huineng further associates the intrinsic mind with Buddha-nature by saying “Clear, free, empty, and silent, perception and action equally enlightened, mirrorlike awareness unobstructed – this is truly the inherent Buddha-nature” (Cleary, p.108). Therefore, our intrinsic mind is also our Buddha nature, which implies that all of us can become Buddhas. If one can see this point, one immediately gains enlightenment. Since all we have to do is to see our own mind, be our own teacher, and realize our own Buddhahood, the enlightenment process is innate, sudden, and spontaneous, as stated in the Platform Sutra, “A foolish passing thought makes one an ordinary man, while an enlightened second thought makes one a Buddha” (Mou-Lam and Price, p.83).   As a result, one may say that the Southern School teaches sudden enlightenment.

All in all, it could be seen that the Northern School of Chan emphasizes self-purification, which is an accumulated effort. Hence, enlightenment has to be a gradual process. While for the Southern School of Chan, one has to employ inborn wisdom to realize his/her essential nature.

Despite finding arguments from both the Northern and Southern Schools compelling and sound, I am personally more inclined to the teachings of the Southern School for their close connections with my favorite branch of Chinese Philosophy – Daoism. For example, Zhuangzi takes Dao to be universal and permanent and claims that our ability to perceive Dao is innate, which is similar to Southern School’s idea of realizing the intrinsic mind and buddha-nature. In practice, Daoism also emphasizes the importance of following our intuitions instead of obeying a particular sutra or authority. I believe the similarities and differences between Daoism and Chan would be an interesting topic for future explorations.

Works Cited

Shenxiu. Guan Xin Lun.

Wong Mou-Lam, A. F. (2005). The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui-nen. N/A: Shambhala Publication.

Cleary, T. (1998). The Sutra of Hui-neng, Grand Master of Zen: With Hui-neng’s Commentary on the Diamond Sutra. N/A: Shambhala.