,QYHQWLQJ+XLQHQJWKH6L[WK3DWULDUFK+DJLRJUDSK\

DQG%LRJUDSK\LQ(DUO\&KDQUHYLHZ
-RKQ50F5DH

China Review International, Volume 14, Number 1, Spring 2007, pp.

132-147 (Review)
3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI+DZDL
L3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/cri.0.0004

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cri/summary/v014/14.1.mcrae.html

Access provided by University Of Texas-San Antonio (23 Jul 2015 06:10 GMT)

132 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

Hong Kong, the mainland, and Taiwan? I was staying in Toronto in July 2006
when the local Cantonese TV channel reported the suicide of one mainlander with
two doctorates earned in North America. His Chinese university alumni association in Toronto rushed to his widows comfort and financial aida sign of a recent
migrant community. But the Chinese diaspora extends around the world. Given
the page limit of a book, it is impossible to cover every geographic area. To be fair,
scholarship in the English language on Chinese diaspora has not kept up with its
extent. My questions above reflect not criticism but encouragement to expand the
research frontier to less-explored territory and to reach out to scholars who might
have already traveled in that direction. The coeditors evident choice of a thematic
organization serves the purpose well. This volume is a book well worth examining.
Maria W. L. Chee
Maria W. L. Chee is currently associate director of the Bachelor of Interdisciplinary
Studies Program at the University of Virginia.

John Jorgensen. Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch: Hagiography and

Biography in Early Chan. Sinica Leidensia, vol. 68. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
xxiii, 862 pp. Hardcover $250.00, isbn 9004145087.

2008 by University
of Hawaii Press

John Jorgensens Inventing Hui-neng is an extraordinary contribution to the study

of early Chn Buddhism. First of all, it is massivethat is not a typo in the information summary above, the book really is almost nine hundred pages in total
length. Of course, such a sizeable tome comes with a truly Brill-like priceat
$250, it is certainly worth its weight in dollar bills, if not quite in gold.
Second, these are well-packed pages, too. There is a certain amount of
repetition, primarily the restatement of previously made arguments, but certainly
no more than is reasonable; the author presents his analyses and interpretations
in economical language, without wasting words on airy nuance. There are only
a few inadvertant word processing duplications, not nearly as many as might
be expected for a book of this length. (Repetitions not otherwise mentioned
below include information concerning Shnhus [684758] exile [pp. 66,
140 n. 387] and two basically identical references at the beginning and end of
a four-line note [p. 288 n. 57]). Coverage is also comprehensive, in that having
selected the hagiography of Hunng as his focus Jorgensen attempts to treat
every possible aspect of the subject. He follows whatever direction this inquiry

Reviews 133

takes him, occasionally leading to excessive speculation and the investigation of

subjects best left for other occasions. (His discussion of the famed poet-monk
Jiorn [ca. 734ca. 791] is an example of the former tendency, with eight
occurrences of may, might, or probably, and so on, in just over two hundred words [p. 404]. The attempt to characterize Buddhism in different regions
of China, which he undertakes in order to understand the specific relevance of
the location of Hunngs teaching activity, Xnzhu in the far south, is too
demanding a topic even for this massive volume [pp. 473529].) However, Jorgensens self-discipline is such that he never strays into entirely different matters,
such as the doctrines attributed to this legendary figure but not relevant to the
hagiography. The hagiography of Hunng is not precisely virgin territory for
scholarly researchJorgensen himself reports how important for his work was the
Komazawa University volume containing annotated sources for the Sixth Patriarchs life and teachings (Komazawa Daigaku Zenshshi kenkykai 1978)but he
has certainly carried this inquiry into previously uncharted territory.
Third, an incredible amount of research has gone into the composition of
this important volume. Although the authors interests in using previous scholarship wax and wanecuriously, almost in inverse proximity to his subject matter,
as we will see belowhe has provided a truly amazing number of references to
both primary and secondary sources, a veritable gold mine of assistance for future
researchers. For example, Jorgensen has explored the mummification of Hunng
through a variety of English, Chinese, and Japanese resources to an extent that is
thoroughly unprecedented (pp. 237273). He also explores the potential relationship between mid-Tng intellectual and political developments and the emergence
of new forms of Chn in a manner both exhaustive and inspired, making excellent use of ideas drawn from the writings of Peter Bol, Mark Lewis, John Makeham, and David McMullen (primarily Bol 1992, Lewis 1999, Makeham 2003, and
McMullen 1988). Jorgensen also makes some very insightful remarks concerning
the role of Buddhism in sinification and as a catalyst for change in Chinese
culture (pp. 194195, 202, 209, 374, 384). In all these cases Jorgensens treatment
provides the foundation on which any further analysis will inevitably be based.
Fourth, this immense research project has been carried out with a very high
degree of accuracy. There are only a very few errors of fact, for example, not
recognizing a Japanese transliteration *Zabiel as referring to Francis Xavier (p.
266 n. 325); misspelling the important St Zen temple Sji-ji as Sjo-ji
(p. 270); misidentifying Doxuns fellow student Dosh as his teacher
(p. 275); claiming that Bodhidharma is referred to in the Ldi fbo j
as Dharmatrta, when he is actually referred to as Bodhidharmatrta (p. 280;
cf. T 2075, 51.180b1415); reading the Chinese foot ch as shih (p. 304); and
misunderstanding the questions about things in the Lngqi shz j
(p. 333 n. 38). The book is beautifully produced throughout, with no typographical
errors. As for the translations, the spot-checking I have done has turned up not a

134 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

single error in which Jorgensens basic understanding of the passage in question

was incorrect. There are a number of idiosyncratic renderings in the translations
and some interpretations with which one might disagree, but such occasional
oddities do not undercut the utility of the volume as a whole. As we will see
below, however, these minor oddities are accompanied by a number of analytic
quirks that represent more serious obstacles to the authors rhetorical goals.
Jorgensen, a senior lecturer in Japanese at Griffith University, has been an
innovative contributor to Chn studies over the years. His masters dissertation
on the Dnhung manuscript containing the Treatise on the Two Entrances
and Four Practices attributed to Bodhidharma, the legendary founder
of Chinese Chn Buddhism, and associated material (Jorgensen 1979) was more
notable for its innovative exhuberance and early publication date than for the reliability of its translations and interpretations, but it was an important contribution
by a beginning scholar. A few years later Jorgensen published a seminal article
on what he called the imperial lineage of Chn Buddhism (Jorgensen 1987), in
which he showed that the lineage theory advanced by the factionalist advocate
of the Southern school of early Chan, Shnhu, mimicked the expectations of
contemporary Chinese domestic genealogies, most notably that of the imperial
house. More recently Jorgensen finished a PhD dissertation dealing with issues of
Chn and Chinese poetry (Jorgensen 1989), which unfortunately I have not yet
been able to consult. Jorgensen has also written extensively on Korean Buddhism
in ways that are of at least tangential relevance here (p. 776). Although this seems
to be Jorgensens first single volumea 900-page first book!it is certainly fair to
say that Inventing Hui-neng is the mature product of years of scholarship.
In order to evaluate this book in greater detail, let us begin by looking at two
translated passages. The following is from the writings of Shnhu, who played a
major role in the production of Hunngs hagiography. At one point Shnhu is
recorded as denigrating the style of meditation practiced by the so-called Northern school as
the dharma (method) of stupid people. The practice mode of Meditation
Teacher Neng is divorced from these two Dharmas of suppression and
nonsuppression. For this reason the sutra said, The mind not residing inside
or outside; this is sitting in peace. One who sits like this the Buddha then
seals (p. 392).

One cannot help chuckling at the rendering of ynk , seal of certification, with the simple English verb to sealis it like sealing a plastic bag, or
an envelope? As background to this term Jorgensen introduces a passage from a
commentary on the Confucian Lny popular during the Tng (the same
information is repeated on pp. 546547), a citation drawn from John Makehams
Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the
Analects (2003, p. 86). However, although the usage might conceivably have

Reviews 135

become more popular around this time due to its Confucian usage, it already
occurred centuries before in Kumrajvas translation of the Vimalakrti Stra (see
just below). This usage (which occurs again on p. 546) is indicative of Jorgensens
work, in that it is reliable but occasionally quirky. From my own perspective the
rendering of xngch as practice mode is also a bit overdone, and suppression is not quite transparent as a rendering of tiof , regulate-suppress.
I would render this passage as follows: This is the teaching of fools! Meditation
Master Hunngs practice transcends the two Dharmas of regulating and not
regulating [the mind]. Therefore, the text of the [Vimalakrti] Stra [reads], To
have the mind neither abide internally nor locate itself externally: this is sitting
in repose (ynzu )... Those who are able to sit in this fashion [will receive]
the Buddhas seal of certification. The ellipsis in the scriptural quotation indicates
how Shnhu has selectively cited the Vimalakrti Stra passage (T 14.539c23 and
2526; cf. McRae 2004, p. 95), a detail not indicated in Jorgensens rendition.
Here is another characteristic translation passage, from another text of
Shnhus:
In the sixth generation, the Tang court Chan teacher (Hui-)neng succeeded
to Master (Hung-)jen. His lay surname was L, and his ancestors were from
Fan-yang. Because his father was made an official beyond the Ranges, he
lived in Hsin-chou. When he was twenty-two, (he went) to pay his respects
at Tung-shan to Master (Hung-)jen. Master (Hung-)jen said, Where are you
from? Why do you pay reverence to me? What thing are you seeking? Chan
Teacher (Hui-)neng replied, I came from Hsin-shan in Ling-nan (South of
the Ranges). Therefore I have come to pay obeisance. I only seek to become
Buddha, I do not seek anything else.
Master (Hung-)jen said, You are a Ling-nan Hunting Lao.359 How can
you become a Buddha? Chan Teacher (Hui-)neng said, What difference
is there between the Buddha-nature of a Hunting Lao and your Buddhanature? (pp. 133134)

This is a famous encounter in Chn literature, although it is remembered in later

years primarily through a version found in Mng-dynasty editions of the Platform
Stra. We may note a minor inconsistency in format with respect to the passage
cited above, in which parentheses were used to indicate a synonym: method was
equivalent in the given context to dharma. Here parentheses are used to indicate
elided characters in the personal names that occur, a detail that was not made
explicit in the Meditation Teacher Neng of the other passage. Oddly, Hunngs
lay surname is given as L, whereas the character is pronounced l; the same
transcription error occurs throughout for both Hunngs lay surname and the
state of L in which Confucius lived (p. 84). Incidentally, Jorgensen has found
a potential model for Hunngs father, L Zngyng (also mistakenly
transcribed as L), whom he describes as a Taoist-cum-Buddhist who was active

136 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

around court and opposed Empress Wus extravagance in the period 700 to 705
(p. 152 n. 466). It is an interesting suggestion, although not much can be made of
it at this point.
More than the spelling of Hunngs lay surname, it is the rendering of
the term glo that draws ones attention: Hunting Lao seems to render the variant lilo , which occurs in similar contexts in later versions of
the Platform Stra and elsewhere. In my own translation of the Mng-dynasty
text (McRae 2000, pp. 2829), which Jorgensen does not cite, I followed an
interpretation given by Richard von Glahn (von Glahn 1987, pp. 2021) to the
effect that glo referred to a specific ethnic group, the Klao, who had migrated
from the Guzhu Plateau across the Yngzi from the fourth century onward, and
who by the mid Tng had spread so widely that the term was applied to various
non-Hn ethnic groups that were perceived by the Hn to be shiftless and lazy.
(See Hny dcdin Va107a in the twenty-one-volume edition for
this usage.) But Jorgensens term Hunting Lao is based on Chinese research
(cited in p. 133 n. 359 and repeated on p. 327). The rendering Hunting Lao thus
may be justified, even though the specific equivalent is not used in the passage
translated here; it is an odd usage, but one based on a solid research foundation.
A few other minor oddities of rendering may be mentioned at this point.
First, the name of the Buddha is given as kya Muni (e.g., p. 16), while
tathgata is given as Thus Come. At least once Jorgensen refers to the Buddha
as kya Thus Come (p. 277), which is both mechanical and awkward. Also,
Sanskrit consonants usually indicated with a dot underneath the roman letter are
given using cedillas, hence ua rather than ua. In some cases the diacritical
marks are simply omitted, hence Lankvatra rather than Lakvatra and
Tripitaka rather than Tripiaka. In addition, Jorgensen refers to the transmission of the lamp texts of Chn as lamplight transmission histories (p. 3),
and lamplight is used throughout where simply lamp would have sufficed.
And why are Jingnn and similar locations transliterated with outdated
postal spellings: Kiangnan and so on (p. 455)? There are capitalization and
format inconsistencies in the bibliographical citations both in the notes and at the
end of the book, and several different terms used indiscriminately for Buddhist
groupings (i.e., lineage [p. xi], Order [p. xi], school [p. 42], and sect [p.
xi]). Readers may find it frustrating that the listing of abbreviations is done with
cross-references to the bibliography, making it necessary to consult two locations
at the front and back of the book, while additional abbreviations are given (with
greater detail) in the Conventions section (pp. xixxxi).
Earlier I mentioned that Jorgensen never cites my translation of the Mngdynasty version of the Platform Stra. This is a general feature of his research
style, which is to exhaustively explore everything but previous research directly
relating to his own topic. The following are important studies on topics (limited
to those in English, for convenience) directly related to his subject matter that

Reviews 137

Jorgensen either underutilizes or does not cite at all (only representative relevant
pages in Jorgensen are given):
Barrett, T. H. 1990. Kill the Patriarchs! Buddhist Forum 1: 8798. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 168.)
Bielefeldt, Carl, and Lewis Lancaster. 1975. Tan ching (Platform Scripture),
Philosophy East and West 25, no. 2 (1975): 197212. (Relevant to Jorgensen p.
406.)
Bodiford, William M. 1993. St Zen in Medieval Japan. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 314 n. 179.)
Broughton, Jeffrey L. 1999. The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen.
Berkeley: University of California Press. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 546.)
Chen Jinhua. 1999. Making and Remaking History: A Study of Tiantai Sectarian
Historiography. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 14, Tokyo:
International Institute for Buddhist Studies in Tokyo. (Relevant to Jorgensen p.
219 n. 116.)
. 2002. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism
and Politics. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies. (Relevant to Jorgensen
p. 47, where a Toung Pao article by Chen is mentioned in n. 48 that is not listed
in Jorgensens bibliography.)
Chinese Buddhist Electronic Texts Association (CBETA). Electronic texts of the
Taish shinsh daizky. (Vols. 155 and 85 have been available since 2001.)
Eckel, Malcolm David. 1992. To See the Buddha: A Philosophers Quest for the
Meaning of Emptiness. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Relevant to
Jorgensen pp. 233234.)
Faure, Bernard. 1997. The Will to Orthodoxy: A Critical Genealogy of Northern
Chan Buddhism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Relevant to
Jorgensen p. 45.)
Forte, Antonino. 1988. Mingtang and Buddhist Utopias in the History of the
Astronomical Clock: The Tower, Statue and Armillary Sphere Constructed by
Empress Wu. Roma: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente; Paris:
Ecole franaise dExtrme-Orient. (Relevant to Jorgensen pp. 5354.)
Gregory, Peter N. 1991. Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. (Relevant passim.)
Gregory, Peter N., and Daniel Getz, eds. 1999. Buddhism in the Sung. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant passim.)
Gregory, Peter N., and Robert Gimello, eds. Studies in Early Chan and Hua-yen.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant passim.)
Jia Jinhua. 1999. The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism and the Tang Literati.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder. (Relevant passim.)
Kloppenborg, Ria. 1974. The Paccekabuddha: A Buddhist Ascetic: A Study of the
Concept of the Paccekabuddha in Pli Canonical and Commentarial Literature.
Leiden: Brill. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 37.)
McRae, John R. 1983. The Ox-head School of Chinese Buddhism: From Early Chan
to the Golden Age. Pp. 169253 in R. M. Gimello and P. N. Gregory, eds.,
Studies in Chan and Hua-yen. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant
to Jorgensen p. 436.)

138 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

. 1987. Shen-hui and the Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment in Early

Chan Buddhism. Pp. 227278 in Peter N. Gregory, ed., Sudden and Gradual:
Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought, Studies in East Asian
Buddhism 5. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant to Jorgensen p.
61.)
. 19931994. Yanagida Seizans Landmark Works on Chinese Chan. Cahiers
dExteme-Asie 7: 51103. (Relevant passim.)
. 2000a. The Antecedents of Encounter Dialogue in Chinese Chan
Buddhism. Pp. 4674 in Steven Heine and Dale S. Wright, eds. The Kan: Texts
and Contexts in Zen Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. (Relevant
to Jorgensen p. 366.)
, trans. 2000b. The Platform Stra of the Sixth Patriarch. BDK English
Tripiaka 73-II. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and
Research. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 69.)
. 2001. Religion as Revolution in Chinese Historiography: Hu Shih (1891
1962) on Shen-hui (684758). Cahiers dExteme-Asie 12: 59102. (Relevant to
Jorgensen p. 28.)
. 2003. Seeing through Zen: Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in
Chinese Zen Buddhism. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Relevant
passim.)
Nagashima Takayuki. 1976. Hypothesis: Shen-hui Was Not Acquainted with
Hui-neng . Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 49 (25, no. 1): 4246.
(Relevant to Jorgensen p. 155.)
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to the Inquiry
of Ugra (Ugraparipcch). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant to
Jorgensen p. 233.)
Nguyen, Cuong Tu. 1997. Zen in Medieval Vietnam: A Study and Translation of Thin
uyn tp anh. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Relevant to Jorgensen pp.
304305.)
Poceski, Mario. 2000. The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism during the
Mid-Tang Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
(Relevant passim.)
Schltter, Morten. 1989. A Study in the Genealogy of the Platform Stra. Studies in
Central and East Asian Religions 2: 53114. (Relevant to Jorgensen pp. 631640.)
Strong, John S. 1992. The Legend and Cult of Upagupta: Sanskrit Buddhism in North
India and Southeast Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Relevant to
Jorgensen p. 47.)
Weinstein, Stanley. 1987. Chinese Buddhism, Schools. In Encyclopedia of Religion
2:482a87b. (Relevant to Jorgensen p. 42.)
Yifa. 2002. The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China: An Annotated Translation and Study of the Chanyuan qinggui. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
(Relevant to Jorgensen p. 42.)

This is a substantial list, including some of the very best of recent Englishlanguage scholarship. Part of the issue, of course, is the date of publication. In
spite of bearing a 2005 publication date, nothing listed in Jorgensens bibliography
(other than two of his own publications) is later than 2003. Two items, in fact,
bear a March 2003 date (see pp. 775 [Ishii Ksei] and 777 [Kinugawa Kenji]),

Reviews 139

implying that this was the effective cutoff for his research. Nevertheless, even
with the materials he does cite Jorgensen underutilizes previous research on the
early Chn throughout the volume. One example is Bernard Faures short but
very important article on Bodhidharma (Faure 1986), which Jorgensen dutifully
cites (p. 21) without seriously considering its profound implications. Jorgensen
cites other authors abundantly, but usually without identifying precisely how
the resource in question was helpful, and he almost never critiques the work of
others. I noticed only a single occasion on which he explicitly disagrees with
another scholar (p. 119 n. 318), and in the discussion cross-referenced there I find
Jorgensens ex silentio argumentation to be questionable (pp. 418420; in chapter
5 rather than chapter 7 as stated in the note). Sometimes Jorgensen misconstrues
a source he cites (e.g., p. 438 n. 347), but in a far larger number of cases he cites
multiple works dealing directly with his subject matter without any indication that
he has actually apprehended the implications of the previous scholars work.
What is noteworthy about this is the unparalleled effort Jorgensen has
undertaken to use scholarship concerning European Christianity and Chinese
intellectual history, the former to introduce his conceptual terms and the latter for
purposes of cultural context. In fact, there is a regular pattern to his discussions,
in that he generally begins each chapter or major section by introducing some
concept or category on the basis of Western scholarship and then applies those
findings to the study of the hagiography of Hunng. In the introduction he
defines the cult of the relics and the cult of the book, which he goes on to
identify with the Coq dsh zhun and Platform Stra, respectively (pp. 78; see
further discussion at the end of this review). In chapter 1 he introduces the subject
of hagiography on the basis of research on eastern Christianity (p. 35); similar
generalizations are repeated at the beginning of chapter 5. At the beginning of
chapter 4 he draws on research into the theft of relics in the European middle
ages (p. 322), at the beginning of a major section in chapter 5 he cites a Western
authority on authority (p. 385; discussed below), and at the beginning of chapter
6 he cites a European historian on the role of place in hagiography (p. 451). In
other cases his references to Western concepts give the impression that he takes
them as universally valid, such as in his implication that the medieval was a
specific cultural characteristic identically applicable to Europe and China. Given
this identity, Jorgensen can then state that Chn was simultaneously medieval
and modernising, whatever that means (p. 30). In general, Jorgensens approach
is relentlessly deductive. In the introduction to part 2, The Writing of the Hagiography, for example, he writes that Having examined the contents of the hagiographies of Hui-neng...I now shift my attention to the formation of the hagiographies as documents. But this approach is backward: he should have considered
the evidence as given in the texts first, then drawn his inferences.
One indicator of Jorgensens perspective is the presence of more than twenty
citations of Reginald Rays Buddhist Saints in India (1994) throughout the book.

140 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

Jorgensen has accepted as canonically accurate Rays description of forest monks

as maintaining an ascetic ideal, in contrast to the sometimes degenerate and
inevitably distracted monks residing in the monasteries. Here the early 2003 cutoff
for other scholarship used in Inventing Hui-neng is particularly disappointing, for
Jan Nattiers A Few Good Men, which came out at the end of that year, includes
a substantive and nuanced critique of Rays thesis (see Nattier 2003, pp. 9396 in
particular). (I should point out that I am indeed prejudiced regarding the value of
Nattiers scholarship, being married to her!)
What is more significant here than the possible flaws in Rays interpretation,
though, is the manner in which Jorgensen takes the Indian categories of
establishment monastic and forest renunciant as immediately and inflexibly
applicable to the Chinese situation. At one point Jorgensen suggests that the
Northern Chinese successors to Bodhidharma had an ascetic outlook that
probably also inclined them toward the veneration of a group of early Buddhist
saints, beginning with Mahkyapa and ending with Upagupta, because they
practiced ascetic meditation and could be viewed as taking the place of the Buddha, and even be called Buddha.46 Thus it was in later Chan hagiography, beginning with the works of Shen-hui, if not earlier, that Mahkyapa and those
other forest saints were made members of the Chan lineage. (p. 47; note 46 cites
five different pages in Ray 1994)

There was, however, an important contrast between those who did Chn and
those who wrote about it:
The Chan historians were probably monastic rather than ascetic meditators,
were probably from the upper classes, and so when they wrote about the saints
tended to do so from a conservative perspective, sanitising their subjects or
placing them into set formulae accepted by the normative tradition. So as a general rule, until recently, the histories written from the bottom up were usually
hostile, reformist polemics, or anti-clerical. (pp. 192193)

This statement seems to be based on a priori assumptions from Western studies.

Methodologically, the most troubling point is when Jorgensen (p. 192 n. 7) cites
Rays inference that in India monastics treated lay people and women as lower
castes (Ray 1994, p. 401). The implication, clear if unstated, is that this questionable assertion describes medieval Chinese Buddhism as well.
Jorgensens attraction to Rays sharp distinction between establishment
monastics and forest renunciants is not merely the appreciation of another
scholars analysisit also fits Jorgensens understanding of his own personal
identity, which he has chosen to foreground in several ways. Jorgensen describes
himself as having led a marginalized professional existence. (Certainly, given
his research productivity he is underemployed as a senior lecturer in Japanese.)
Even though he has a scepticism that comes from my experience of life on the
margins, he writes, this does not mean I think Chan is valueless (p. ix), surely
an apophatic indication of his own true opinion. He observes correctly that the

Reviews 141

evidence for the fabrication or invention of the legend of Hui-neng has come
almost entirely from the margins of China (p. 6), although he does not consider
whether this might be largely an accident of transmission. Instead, he writes
frequently of how Chn developed on the geographical and social margins of Chinese culture, sometimes characterizing medieval Chinese monastics as either marginal or anti-establishment figures (pp. 47, 48, 59, 190, 192, 339, 532). He actually
devotes a lengthy footnote (pp. 190191 n. 2) to an enumeration of which Chn
monks were possibly/probably/definitely from or not from the elite; the numbers
he gives are intriguing, and it would be interesting perhaps to see the data and
how it has been analyzed, but one wonders about its implications. Would we not
expect that all monks listed in these sources would have either been born into or
have achieved elite status?
Related to this self-image of life on the margins is a sense of moral outrage,
which Jorgensen feels entitled to express even toward his eighth-century subjects:
Throughout this study, words such as fabrication, forgery, invention, fiction, and contrivance are frequently used, for the central subject matter is the
construction of an elaborate, legitimizing hagiography from little more than
the name of a monk, his location, and evidence that he was the pupil of a wellknown, influential monk. Although these words have a moral judgment implicit
in them, they are not used here as a blanket or absolute condemnation. All can
be viewed as kinds of innovation and creativity, even while inventing historic
continuity.27 Fiction, the expedient that gives meaning to existence, is in some
estimates quintessentially human, as humans invent the symbols with which to
interpret the world in an artificial manner, through language, and to create their
own identities. As most of human aspirations are fictitious,28 surely religion
itself is a fiction, as is history. (p. 10)

And, indeed, the pages of Jorgensens book are filled with words such as those he
lists in the passage quoted just above, and even worse. Here is a partial list: lie
(p. 18) or lies (p. 283); megalomaniac (p. 64); ludicrous allegations (p. 131)
or outrageous allegations (p. 177); diatribes (p. 156); fabrication (pp. 274, 283,
334) or fabricators (p. 312); forgery (p. 64), forgers (p. 156), or forging (p.
312); and bigotry (p. 438). No doubt more examples could be found. I did not
consciously search his text for more positive phrasings and thus cannot state the
following definitively, but after the passage just cited I do not recall him using
anything like innovation or creativity ever again.
Continuing from the passage quoted just above, Jorgensen writes:
These are social or cultural fictions, which should be distinguished from lying
and deception. Fiction is not consciously intended to mislead, for in a sense it is
both a self-deception and a willing suspension of disbelief, to which we consent.29
Religion is not exempt; in fact, it is a prime perpetrator of lying... (p. 10)

142 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

Jorgensens notes are to works by Eric Hobsbawm, Ernest Becker, and Sissela Bok,
the last of whom he goes on to quote regarding lying and pious fraud. A few pages
later Jorgensen continues, with notes to Bok and Elaine Pagels:
It is here that I join those critics in moral censure, for evidence points to Shenhui acting to make he himself the seventh patriarch and true heir to orthodox Buddhism as authenticated by a surety of transmission. This aristocratic
assumption of the noble lie61 and recognition of the coercion or violence implicit
in this deception62 on the part of Shen-hui (684758) and his imitators, the main
hagiographers in this study, taints the very positive results of their creations and
fictions. The very formation of a key definition of Chan, the lineage of transmission from the Buddha, was initially meant to benefit Shen-hui himself and
exclude others. In other words, the transmission of the patriarchal robe in Chan
had a legitimising function, rather like the fiction of the bodily resurrection in
early Christianity, which provided the authority of certain men who claim to
exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle
Peter.63 (p. 17, citing Pagels 1979, p. 6)

The citation of luminaries of recent anglophone scholarship as authorities for

Jorgensens ideas reveals another concern of his, which seems implicitly related
to his self-image as a marginal scholar. That is, the latter part of his book is
particularly concerned with matters of authority. As already mentioned above,
at the beginning of a major section in chapter five called Wen, Authority and
the Lives of Hui-neng (p. 385), Jorgensen begins with the following quotation
from Paul Corcorans Political Language and Rhetoric: One must have a certain
status to produce a myth: one must be an authority, a source. A writer or speaker
having this status is thus able to produce a myth or lie, the very success of which
reinforces his status (1979, p. 6). This passage serves as the template for next
hundred pages or so of Jorgensens text, in which the word authority abounds.
The word is used in the titles of section A and both its chapters (5 and 6). In a
quotation from a modern Chinese article, he glosses zu creator as authority (p. 387). Invoking the specific terms used by Corcoran, Jorgensen writes that
at a certain time Hui-neng was not yet accepted as an authority; nor Shen-hui as
his author (p. 400). After a lengthy paragraph of speculation, he concludes that
the Boln zhun , an important text associated with Mz Doy
(709788), lacked authority at the centre and was condemned to marginality
and the periphery (p. 414). A few pages later he refers to the usurpation or abuse
of the authority of the Buddha by the compiler of this text, in a manner which
seems to conflate modern interpretive notions of authority with eighth-century
Chinese ideas (p. 424). And, in the conclusion to the section he uses authority
fourteen times, plus once in a quotation (pp. 446450).
The heart of Jorgensens exposition is the assertion of a closely interlocking
set of propositions. He devotes extensive energy to the investigation of the
hagiographies of Confucius, Bodhidharma, and Hunng, for example, covering

Reviews 143

the following hagiographical elements: ancestry, birth, place of birth; center versus
periphery; predictions or omens of an illustrious future; upbringing; early career;
assassination attempts on the sage teacher; relations with rulers; predictions on
the future of their teaching; premonition of death; miracles associated with death;
tombs, relics, shrines; and number of pupils (pp. 170183). His conclusion (stated
and repeated at pp. 71, 169170, 183184, and 215) is that the hagiographies of Confucius and Hunng are structurally alike, although there are minor flourishes in
the latter similar to those in Bodhidharmas biography. I do not find the evidence
to point in this direction, and there are so many different elements and nuances in
the biographical materials that Jorgensen himself introduces as to make the analysis exceedingly complex.
The Confucian structure of the Hunng hagiography has an important corollary, though: that the originator of that hagiography, Shnhu, was himself deeply
influenced by Confucianism. Jorgensen takes as a significant and distinctive fact
of Shnhus identity that he was trained in the Confucian classics (p. 62), as is
stated in his biographysurely a standard hagiographical trope if there ever was
one! The identification of Shnhu as Confucian is repeated often (pp. 71, 168, 434,
456, 469, 532), but without ever considering the implications that Shnhu was
simultaneously (in Jorgensens depiction) deeply influenced by Confucianism,
which is profoundly concerned with human morality, and a bald-faced liar as well.
The identification of Shnhu as Confucian does important work for Jorgensens overall thesis, in which Shnhus teachings are associated closely with the
Southern Learning school of Tng-dynasty Confucianism. That is,
For Shen-hui, not only was the sudden (South) versus gradual (North) significant
in this dichotomy, but also the Confucian Southern Learning Schools theory of
only one heir per generation in a lineage (tsung) versus the Confucian Northern
Learnings permission of more than one heir per generation, for that provided
ammunition for his definition of tsung. (p. 76, citing Jorgensen 1987, pp. 111114)

and
[Shnhu] adopted the Southern Learning Confucian theories of the Chinese
imperial lineage or tsung, merging it with the Indian Buddhist theories of
the cakravartin king, recently used by Empress Wu Tse-tien. Empress Wu had
claimed to be the legitimate Confucian ruler of the Chou Dynasty, a cakravartin
ruler and an incarnation of Bodhisattva Maitreya...Shen-huis use of a Confucian concept for a Buddhist lineage cast the die: Hui-neng was then predominantly modelled on Confucian motifs and paradigms, perhaps the transmission
of the throne to sage emperors. (p. 168)

Of course, according to Antonino Fortes exhaustive research on Empress W,

she generally avoided reference to the cakravartin ideal of traditional Buddhist
doctrine, presumably because it was so closely identified with being male (Forte
1976 and 1988, the latter of which Jorgensen does not consult). For Jorgensen,
however, Empress W represented Northern Chan and hence opposition to

144 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

Hui-neng (p. 336)although to whom she represented this is not made clear.
Not only this, but because of the association between women and the Bodhisattva
Avalokitevara in China, Jorgensen actually wonders whether Shnhu disapproved
of Avalokitevara (p. 333 n. 38)!
The assumptions that Shnhu was both a Confucian and a liar lead Jorgensen
to conclude that he never actually met his supposed teacher Hunng, and moreover
that he never even went to Coq . This inference was made decades ago in a
series of articles and a University of Lancaster dissertation by Nagashima Takayuki
(published as Nagashima 1978, which Jorgensen lists but does not use). Jorgensens
bibliography lists one Japanese article by Nagashima from 1993; as mentioned
above, neither does he refer to Nagashima 1976. Nagashimas work did not, shall we
say, maintain a high standard of scholarship, and the argument made both by him
and by Jorgensen is done entirely ex silentio. My own understanding is that Shnhu
used Hunng for his own legitimation and virtually nothing else, but that this does
not allow us to infer that the two men were totally unacquainted. For Jorgensen,
though, the logic is clear: Shnhu is an establishment monk and therefore degenerate, and his obvious fabrications in other areas mean that he lied in this case as
well. Since he was not a true meditation specialist (in this Jorgensen seems to follow
McRae 2002) and thus lacks the religious purity of Rays Indian forest ascetics, his
teachings do not matter nearly so much as his hagiographical fabrications.
Fortunately, Jorgensens sequence of propositions culminates in a manner
that is genuinely helpful as a framework for future analysis. After Shnhu and
the Ldi fbo j , which Jorgensen asserts suggests no distinctive
additions to the hagiography of Hunng, the Coq dsh zhun ,
Platform Stra, and Boln zhun emerged from different cultural and
religious milieux and made significant contributions to the hagiography. As
already mentioned above, he identifies the Coq dsh zhun with the cult of the
relics and the Platform Stra with the cult of the book, correspondences that
seem to work fairly well. Jorgensen of course cites publications by his one-time
fellow student, Gregory Schopen, but he has actually relied more on an article
by Donald Lopez (1995, p. 41) and of course on the writings of Reginald Ray. For
his own part, Jorgensen has noticed that the Coq dsh zhun and Boln zhun
emphasize the importance of Hunngs relics. In contrast, the Platform Stra
derives, in Jorgensens interpretation, from a community of Shnhus successors
in southern China that had no relics of Hunng in its possession. As a result, this
text describes the transmission using Bodhidharmas robe as at an end, substituting
transmission through possession of the text of the Platform Stra itself (p. 672).
True scholarshipespecially a project decades in the making such as this
onemay be the outcome of a personal quest. The volume under review here is
certainly such a product, and it contains a splendid wealth of information not
found in any other source. The author has chosen to adopt a judgmental moral
stance, which I am tempted to label the hermeneutics of resentment. In spite

Reviews 145

of the air of negativity that pervades the text, however, many readers will strive
to look past Jorgensens idiosyncratic personal stance and problematic inductive
style in order to benefit from the impressive efforts he has made in producing this
massive research report. Given its scale and level of detail this book is certainly
not appropriate for general readers or novices in the study of early Chn Buddhism, but it is truly a boon for researchers.
John R. McRae
John R. McRae taught at Cornell and Indiana Universities prior to his retirement
and move to Japan in 2005. His initial research specialization was in the study of
Chinese Chan or Zen Buddhism, but recently he has been exploring wider issues
involving state formation and the indigenization of Buddhism throughout East Asia.
He currently lives in Hachioji, Japan.

References

Bol, Peter K. 1992. This Culture of Ours: Intellectual Transitions in Tang and Sung China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Corcoran, Paul E. 1979. Political Language and Rhetoric. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland Press.
Faure, Bernard. 1986. Bodhidharma as Textual and Religious Paradigm. History of Religions 25,
no. 3: 187198.
Forte, Antonino. 1976. Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh
Century: Inquiry into the Nature, Authors and Function of the Tunhuang Document S.6502,
Followed by an Annotated Translation. Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, Seminario di
studi asiatici.
. 1988. Mingtang and Buddhist Utopias in the History of the Astronomical Clock: The Tower,
Statue and Armillary Sphere Constructed by Empress Wu. Roma: Istituto italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente; Paris: Ecole franaise dExtrme-Orient.
Jorgensen, John. 1979. The Earliest Text of Chan Buddhism: The Long Scroll. MA dissertation,
Australia National University.
. 1987. The Imperial Lineage of Chan Buddhism: The Role of Confucian Ritual and
Ancestor Worship in Chans Search for Legitimation in the mid-Tang Dynasty. Papers on
Far Eastern History 35: 89133.
. 1989. Sensibility of the Insensible: The Genealogy of a Chan Aesthetic and the
Passionate Dream of Poetic Creation. PhD dissertation, Australia National University.
Komazawa Daigaku Zenshshi kenkykai . 1978. En kenky .
Tokyo: Taishukan shoten .
Lewis, Mark Edward. 1999. Writing and Authority in Early China. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Lopez, Donald S., Jr. 1995. "Authority and Orality in the Mahyna." Numen 42: 2147.
Makeham, John. 2003. Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on
the Analects. Harvard East Asian Monograph. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McMullen, David. 1988. State and Scholars in Tang China. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McRae, John R. 2002. Shenhui as Evangelist: Re-envisioning the Identity of a Chinese Buddhist
Monk. Journal of Chinese Religion 30: 123148.

146 China Review International: Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2007

McRae, John R., trans. 2004. The Vimalakrti Stra. BDK English Tripiiaka. Berkeley: Numata
Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
Nagashima Takayuki Shono. 1976. Hypothesis: Shen-hui Was Not Acquainted with Huineng . Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 49 (25, no. 1): 4246.
Nagashima, Takayuki Shono. 1978. Truths and Fabrications in Religion: An Investigation from the
Documents of the Zen (Chan) Sect. London: A. Probsthain. (This is based on the authors
1975 Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lancaster.)
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra
(Ugraparipcch). Honolulu: Univeristy of Hawai'i Press.
Pagels, Elaine. 1979. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House.
Ray, Reginald A. 1994. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations.
New York: Oxford University Press.
von Glahn, Richard. 1987. The Country of Streams and Grottoes: Expansion, Settlement, and the
Civilizing of the Sichuan Frontier in Song Times. Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian
Studies.

William C. Kirby, Robert S. Ross, and Gong Li, editors. Normalization of

U.S.-China Relations: An International History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Asia Center, 2005. xix, 376 pp. Hardcover $49.50, isbn 0674
019040.

2008 by University
of Hawaii Press

This collection of essays is the result of collaboration between the Center of International Strategic Research of the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party and the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University.
It claims to have pursued a more comprehensive approach to the normalization
of Sino-U.S. relations, and consequentially it offers a more multilateral perspective on bilateral Sino-U.S. relations (preface, p. ix). Indeed, it has. All of the eight
essays address the dynamics of the normalization process during that crucial
decade of 19691979, but each follows a different path in his or her research. As
the subtitle of the book suggests, the result is An International History. True to
its promise of an international scope, the volume comprises essay by writers who
come from not only China and the United States, but also from Taiwan, Canada,
Great Britain, and Russia, bringing with them perspectives firmly grounded in
their close examinations of myriad historical materials, many of which are official
documents recently declassified by their respective governments.
This volume, designed to study the making of Sino-American bilateral relations
in the 1970s, goes an extra mile in the direction of making it an international history.