[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I have always thought Chan is a Buddhist sect mixed with Daoist ideas, but the chan technique itself is a Buddhist creation, however as I looked for more evidence, Chan meditation was a Chinese invention and has no precedence in India. Although it took methods from Indian meditation its as different from Theravada meditation as Karate is to Chinese martial arts.
Some differences are:

1) Zazen meditators keeps their eyes open in order to "forget" the world, the self, and achieve enlightenment.
2) Theravada meditation revolves around the Vippassana meditation and Jhanic meditations(yogic concentration methods) while Zen does not.
3) Zazen meditators use koans and short circuiting to achieve sudden realizations while Theravada Buddhists prefer gradual enlightenment, going through each Jhanic states, although there were records of sudden realizations in the sutras, these methods are little known.
4) Zen meditators attempt to achieve satori(wu) which is different from the mainstream Buddhist goal of Nibbana(cessation). The former is only a temporary glance of "selflessness" while the later is the complete cessation of thoughts and perception. This is due to both philosophical and practical differences; Zen regards all human as enlightened already and everything to be transient, including Nirvana, while most other Buddhist sects regard Nirvana as a complete escape from samsara(cycle of cause and affect). In mainstream Buddhism, Nirvana is a permanent state, not a temporary one like satori. This is also due to the fact that Buddhist jhanic meditation which allows people to project the meditator into cessation and hold them there for a definite amount of time. This meditation method is not in the Zen tradition.



Since Chan focus on the practice and not the scripture or philosophy, by that definition it is a different religion. Just because it shares the same philosophy as Buddhism, doesn't mean that they are the same. Taichi and aikido shares the same pseudo scientific daoist philosophy too( where the highest state is where one forgets all techniques and react accordingly like water) There is no scientific evidence that Zen meditation produces the same affect as Theravada meditation. In fact, we have every reason to suppose that the results are different since the texts indicate that the Theravada trance of Nirvana is permanent, while the Zen satori is only temporary due to its lack of jhanic concentration methods.

According to Carl Jung, Zen often produce an ecstatic state of awareness through its koans that is quite unlike other Buddhist meditational methods. We have no scientific grounds to suppose that Zen meditation produce the same result as Theravada meditation as the Buddhists claimed.(Just like how we have no scientific prove that Tai Chi masters eventually reach the "non-action" state of martial art along with Aikido, even if they do, Taichi is still a different thing than Aikido.)




The basic methods of Zazen also seems to exist in Daoism known as 坐忘 even before Buddhism entered China. If modern Zuo Wang is the same tradition as that of ZhuangZi, it is very similar to Zazen:

In ZhuangZi:
庄子·大宗师》中载有：

颜回曰：“回益矣。”仲尼曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回忘仁义矣。”曰：“可矣，犹未也。”他日，复见，曰：“回益矣。”曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回忘礼乐矣。”曰：“可矣，犹未也。”他日，复见，曰：“回益矣。”曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回坐忘矣。”仲尼蹴然曰：“何谓坐忘？”颜回曰：“坠肢体，黜聪明，离形去知，同于大通，此谓坐忘。”仲尼曰：“同则无好也，化则无常也。而果其贤乎！丘也请从而后也。”


It seems to be very similar to the Zazen technique of Buddhism.
If even the basic Zazen is also not a sole Buddhist technique, Chan really seem to be Daoist rather than Buddist since unlike normal Buddhists it pays no attention to scriptures.

This post has been edited by warhead: 05 June 2008 - 11:29 PM

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 21 2005, 04:29 AM, said:

I have always thought Chan is a Buddhist sect mixed with Daoist ideas, but the chan technique itself is a Buddhist creation, however as I looked for more more evidence, it seems a style like Chan already exist in Daoism known as 坐忘 even before Buddhism entered China. If modern Zuo Wang is the same tradition as that of ZhuangZi, it is very similar to Zazen, only certain posture and breathing exercise is different, but the core is the same.

In ZhuangZi:
庄子·大宗师》中载有：

颜回曰：“回益矣。”仲尼曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回忘仁义矣。”曰：“可矣，犹未也。”他日，复见，曰：“回益矣。”曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回忘礼乐矣。”曰：“可矣，犹未也。”他日，复见，曰：“回益矣。”曰：“何谓也？”曰：“回坐忘矣。”仲尼蹴然曰：“何谓坐忘？”颜回曰：“坠肢体，黜聪明，离形去知，同于大通，此谓坐忘。”仲尼曰：“同则无好也，化则无常也。而果其贤乎！丘也请从而后也。”
It seems to be very similar to the Zazen technique of Buddhism.

I feel like I'm over-reliant on the idea that "definitions are constructions, not facts," but once again this idea is useful here.

Let me use an analogous example: Neo-Confucianism, or Li Xue, can be argued as "Confucianism that adopted Daoist and Buddhist ideas", but I don't forbid the argument that it is "Buddhism that adopted Confucianism and Daoism." The former, of course, is more logical because the masters of Neo-Confucianism claim to be true inheritors of an orthodoxy that traces back to Yao, Shun, Kongtzi, Mengtzi, etc, but they don't seem to make the claim that their orthodoxy traces back to Buddha, and regretably, some Neo-Confucians spoke condecsendingly towards Daoism and Buddhism. However, some Buddhist concepts are very, very central to Li Xue -- the very idea of "Li" is drawn from Buddhism. Even though the word already existed in pre-Qin and has some implication of the meaning that Li Xue finally adopted, and the concept has become quite developed in Neo-Daoism, the concept of "Li" in the form adopted by Neo-Confucianism is first and foremost a Buddhist idea. From this perspective, the idea that Buddhism forms the heart of Li Xue becomes stronger. Of course, considering all factors, the first view, that Neo-Confucianism is Confucianism that adopted Daoism and Buddhism, seems stronger still.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm going off a tangent, but I'm using this example (which is more familiar to me) to illustrate a point: it is difficult to decide whether Daoism or Buddhism forms the heart of Ch'an. The decision can easily become a value-laden judgement based on one's emphasis. I opine that Buddhism is more central to Ch'an for the reason that the ultimate goal of Ch'an Buddhism is still a Buddhist one -- to achieve Nirvana. Even if a Ch'an Buddhist equates "Nirvana" with "attaining Dao", the former takes on a precedent, because "attaining Dao" would be used viewed as an alternative explanation of Nirvana, rather than the other way around, and Nirvana would still be treated as the primary concept.

Thus I'd say that Buddhism is probably the most central to Ch'an, somewhat similar to the way that I'd say that Confucianism is probably the most central to Neo-Confucianism. It is, however, not an easy thing to prove with absolute certainty.

Quote

If even the basic Zazen is also not a sole Buddhist technique, Chan really seem to be Daoist rather than Buddist since unlike normal Buddhists it pays no attention to scriptures and in fact reads the ZhuangZi(nan hua Jeng Jing) more than most other works.

I'm not an expert of Ch'an, but this doesn't seem accurate: the Ch'an Buddhists, as far as I understand, do read a lot of Buddhist Sutra. This might be ironic, as they emphasis "non-institution of words," but this seems to be the reality. Also interesting is that Ch'an produced a huge number of literary word, even a work that was elevated to the status of Sutra in Chinese Buddhism -- Lu Zhu Tan Jing (The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Master,) the first Chinese Buddhist work to be considered a Sutra.

One thing I would agree though: it seems that more attention is paid to Buddhism than Daoism, and when there are mutual borrowing and joint development, Buddhism seems to be emphacized. I believe it would be more responsible to focus on both.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm going off a tangent, but I'm using this example (which is more familiar to me) to illustrate a point: it is difficult to decide whether Daoism or Buddhism forms the heart of Ch'an. The decision can easily become a value-laden judgement based on one's emphasis. I opine that Buddhism is more central to Ch'an for the reason that the ultimate goal of Ch'an Buddhism is still a Buddhist one -- to achieve Nirvana. Even if a Ch'an Buddhist equates "Nirvana" with "attaining Dao", the former takes on a precedent, because "attaining Dao" would be used viewed as an alternative explanation of Nirvana, rather than the other way around, and Nirvana would still be treated as the primary concept.

But the problem is that its not the case, in the ZhuangZi, attaining the Dao do in fact correspond with Nirvana quite well. It is described as permanent, birthless and deathlessness. Only later Daoists consider it as immortality, ignoring the fact that Lao Zhuang actually openly deny such thing. In chapter 13 of Dao De Jing, Lao Zi clearly mentioned that a body is the cause of troubles.
Unlike Buddhism, in which the teaching of the Buddha in scriptures is a essential theme. Chan doesn't follow it, Zazen is actually only ONE of the way to attain the goal. Keeping with nature and living a Daoist's live is actually a major theme in Chan. If you realize, Chan Buddhism also doesn't stress suffering as much as other Buddhists. It treats life as part of reality which one has to accept. That is very Daoist.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 21 2005, 04:56 AM, said:

But the problem is that its not the case, in the ZhuangZi, attaining the Dao do in fact correspond with Nirvana quite well.

I've talked about this already:

MengTzu said:

Even if a Ch'an Buddhist equates "Nirvana" with "attaining Dao", the former takes on a precedent, because "attaining Dao" would be used viewed as an alternative explanation of Nirvana, rather than the other way around, and Nirvana would still be treated as the primary concept.

Many did in fact equate Nirvana with attaining Dao, or would at least call someone very cultivated in the way of Buddhism as someone who have attained Dao. For example, "De Dao" is used to describe Buddhist monks who are very wise and sagacious.

The point here is that the issue is not whether Ch'an identify Nirvana with attaining Dao. In such an identification, a Ch'an Buddhist would choose Nirvana as the focal "description" if you will, while attaining Dao is an alternative "description." In a collective conscious perspective, Ch'an practitioners would identify themselves more closely to Buddhism.

warhead said:

Unlike Buddhism, in which the teaching of the Buddha in scriptures is a essential theme. Chan doesn't follow it, Zazen is actually only ONE of the way to attain the goal. Keeping with nature and living a Daoist's live is actually a major theme in Chan. If you realize, Chan Buddhism also doesn't stress suffering as much as other Buddhists. It treats life as part of reality which one has to accept. That is very Daoist.

Ch'an Buddhism is certainly very influenced by Daoism, there is little doubt about that. The question is whether it is more Buddhist or more Daoist. That's not easy to answer, as it is meaningless to quantify a tradition and mathematically investigate what takes a higher proportion. A better approach is to find which tradition has a more central place in Ch'an, and/or figuring out how Ch'an practitioners identify themselves (the latter is important because we are discussing definitions.)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Many did in fact equate Nirvana with attaining Dao, or would at least call someone very cultivated in the way of Buddhism as someone who have attained Dao. For example, "De Dao" is used to describe Buddhist monks who are very wise and sagacious.

The point here is that the issue is not whether Ch'an identify Nirvana with attaining Dao. In such an identification, a Ch'an Buddhist would choose Nirvana as the focal "description" if you will, while attaining Dao is an alternative "description." In a collective conscious perspective, Ch'an practitioners would identify themselves more closely to Buddhism.

Actually I've seen the word "attaing the Dao" more often then attaining Nirvana, but that might just be me. However from personal observation, the word Dao is used on every occasion. There is no question that they identify themselves with Buddhism, however if you want to categrorize by sheer identification, a Christian can identify himself with Jesus and have buddhist concepts completely. That in my opinion, isn't Christian. Not to mention many sect of Chan do not identify themselves with either Lao Zi or Sakyamuni, they stress independent achievements and view Dao and Buddhism as the same thing. You can't say they are Buddhists, they are a separate religion, closer to Lao Zhuang Daoism in concept.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 22 2005, 01:58 AM, said:

Actually I've seen the word "attaing the Dao" more often then attaining Nirvana, but that might just be me.

I think you're right. Nirvana in Chinese is Ni Pan, and it's not often said. What Chinese usually say, I think is "Cheng Fo," or "becoming Buddha," as the term for reaching Nirvana.

Quote

However from personal observation, the word Dao is used on every occasion. There is no question that they identify themselves with Buddhism, however if you want to categrorize by sheer identification, a Christian can identify himself with Jesus and have buddhist concepts completely. That in my opinion, isn't Christian. Not to mention many sect of Chan do not identify themselves with either Lao Zi or Sakyamuni, they stress independent achievements and view Dao and Buddhism as the same thing. You can't say they are Buddhists, they are a separate religion, closer to Lao Zhuang Daoism in concept.

I'm not sure if there's a real method showing whether they are closer to Daoism or Buddhism, because it's not easy to quantify which has more influence (you're welcome to try, of course.) What is a greater issue, I think, is what constitutes a more central part of Ch'an. Identification is also important because it might tell you what Ch'an practitioners see as the focal point of their religion.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I think it should be a separate religion of its own, since one of the most essential part of religion is their teacher. If Chan denies the teacher, it is as good as another religion.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 22 2005, 04:11 AM, said:

I think it should be a separate religion of its own, since one of the most essential part of religion is their teacher. If Chan denies the teacher, it is as good as another religion.

Are you suggesting that we deny the Ch'an Buddhists' right to claim their lineage through the Chinese patriarches, then the Indian patriarches, and finally to Buddha himself? You might claim that this lineage was probably more imagined than real, or that alongside this lineage is an equally strong Daoist influence, but religion is a matter of belief, hence, if Ch'an Buddhists believe themselves to be Buddhists, tracing back to Buddha through succession of teachers, I personally won't deny their right to identify their religions.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Are you suggesting that we deny the Ch'an Buddhists' right to claim their lineage through the Chinese patriarches, then the Indian patriarches, and finally to Buddha himself? You might claim that this lineage was probably more imagined than real, or that alongside this lineage is an equally strong Daoist influence, but religion is a matter of belief, hence, if Ch'an Buddhists believe themselves to be Buddhists, tracing back to Buddha through succession of teachers, I personally won't deny their right to identify their religions.

The point however is that they DON'T claim lineage to Buddha. Thats why Lin Chi sects told disciple to kill Buddha when they see him. Buddha in their eyes, is just someone that acheived Enlightenment, some sects of Chan would believe that Lao Zi acheived the same. That makes Chan as different from Buddhism in every sense as Muslim is to Christianity, since Muslims also consider Jesus to be a prophet, just not the son of God, and their ideas of salvation is also quite different.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 22 2005, 05:17 PM, said:

The point however is that they DON'T claim lineage to Buddha. Thats why Lin Chi sects told disciple to kill Buddha when they see him. Buddha in their eyes, is just someone that acheived Enlightenment, some sects of Chan would believe that Lao Zi acheived the same. That makes Chan as different from Buddhism in every sense as Muslim is to Christianity, since Muslims also consider Jesus to be a prophet, just not the son of God, and their ideas of salvation is also quite different.

You're very mistaken here. They absolutely did claim lineage to Buddha. One of the students of Buddha was the first Indian patriarch of Ch'an. The story goes that Buddha held a flower and smiled, none of the students understood what this meant, except one who smiled back. Thus began the teaching without words of Ch'an. From this patriarch the line continued to the 26th(?) patriarch who was Damo, who went to China, and became the first Chinese patriarch. The line continued until the fifth patriarch, and there was a split of the school regarding who should be the sixth patriarch. Whether this story of lineage is simply imagined is not the issue here: the issue is that this is, in fact, the perceived history they identified with.

This idea of lineage is very essential to Ch'an tradition, and very well known (I'm surprised that you are not aware of it!) The concept of "kill the Buddha" is a philosophical concept that has no relation to the claim of lineage. What the concept means is that insisting on thinking about Buddha, one is nonetheless clinging on to a thought, and such a thought must be vanquished. This concept has no relation to their claim of lineage, which traces the history of where the teaching comes from.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

You're very mistaken here. They absolutely did claim lineage to Buddha. One of the students of Buddha was the first Indian patriarch of Ch'an.

Again, it also depends which sect of Chan you are taliing about! The one I'm talking about is the Lin Chi sect. And many Chan masters don't give much about who found Chan. All they care about is practicing it.

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 22 2005, 10:34 PM, said:

Again, it also depends which sect of Chan you are taliing about! The one I'm talking about is the Lin Chi sect. And many Chan masters don't give much about who found Chan. All they care about is practicing it.

1) Did the Lin Chi sect denounce the lineage? Never heard of that. "Kill the Buddha," as I illustrated, is not a proof that they did not have or they ignored the lineage story.

2) You have to understand the meaning of the lineage story: Ch'an is an oral tradition, taught from master to student. Hence legitimacy is derived from the lineage story -- hence it's not merely a story, but a claim to authority that is not to be taken lightly by a serious Ch'an student.

3) You are looking from the hindsight of where Ch'an has practically lost its independence and become mixed with Pure Land Buddhism in the general mix of Chinese Buddhism. But we are discussing a historical question, are we not? We are talking about whether Ch'an Buddhism, as a historical school, identified itself as Buddhist. Note: not that temples that identify themselves as Ch'an don't exist anymore, just that they seem to have mixed a lot of Pure Land Buddhism into their tradition.

4) Even today, the lineage story is not forgotten, and has become a history (or a legend) of Chinese Buddhism. Even if we speak of Ch'an Buddhism today as subsumed in the general mix of Chinese Buddhism, this story is still very much a part of Buddhist history (or legend.)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

1) Did the Lin Chi sect denounce the lineage? Never heard of that. "Kill the Buddha," as I illustrated, is not a proof that they did not have or they ignored the lineage story.

Like I said, it all boils down to definition and thats where Judeo-Chritian tradition and many Eastern religion differs. In Christianity and Islam, lineage is perhaps the most important part of their religion, yet in Buddhism, lineage is not so much emphasized, whats emphasized is the teaching and the practice. The Lin Chi sect, along with many other Chan sects, simply do not care about lineage, or at least that is their philosophical standpoint. If method is their primary concern, then Zen is a different religion since its meditations and cultivation techniques were quite different than those of other Buddhist practices.

Quote

2) You have to understand the meaning of the lineage story: Ch'an is an oral tradition, taught from master to student. Hence legitimacy is derived from the lineage story -- hence it's not merely a story, but a claim to authority that is not to be taken lightly by a serious Ch'an student.

The claim that Chan derived directly from Buddha through oral tradition has no historical evidence. It is most likely an invention of the 7th century in order to produce more credibility to the sect.

Quote

3) You are looking from the hindsight of where Ch'an has practically lost its independence and become mixed with Pure Land Buddhism in the general mix of Chinese Buddhism. But we are discussing a historical question, are we not? We are talking about whether Ch'an Buddhism, as a historical school, identified itself as Buddhist. Note: not that temples that identify themselves as Ch'an don't exist anymore, just that they seem to have mixed a lot of Pure Land Buddhism into their tradition.

Identity itself is quite meaningless if the religion is different. If I call Aikido a type of Taichi, it doesn't mean it really is Taichi.

Quote

4) Even today, the lineage story is not forgotten, and has become a history (or a legend) of Chinese Buddhism. Even if we speak of Ch'an Buddhism today as subsumed in the general mix of Chinese Buddhism, this story is still very much a part of Buddhist history (or legend.)

Yet any Chan master would tell you that if you truly understood the teachings of Chan, lineage is quite irrelevant.

This post has been edited by warhead: 14 March 2008 - 01:49 PM

[MengTzu]

warhead, on Nov 26 2005, 11:14 PM, said:

The essential teaching of Buddhism, the three jewels are missing in Chan.

Are they really missing in Chan? Do you have any documentations? We need more than a "Chan Buddhists hold a religiosity not heavily dogmatic" statement, but a real proof that they do not rely on the three jewels. What about the 4 truths and 12 paths? Again, you'll have to quote more than the Heart Sutra that says, "there is no suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering," since this statement treats of the inexplicable reality of sunyata, not basic Buddhist doctrines.

Quote

That makes it another belief in its essence. Especially since they consider other teachers just as enlightened as Siddartha whose words have equal authority with Guatama.

Proof? (Not asking rhetorically, I mean for real.)

Quote

Again, you can’t apply a double standard to Muslim and Christianity and do the same with Chan and other Buddhism.

What double standard? (Not asking rhetorically, I'm really not sure what you're referring to.)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Are they really missing in Chan? Do you have any documentations? We need more than a "Chan Buddhists hold a religiosity not heavily dogmatic" statement, but a real proof that they do not rely on the three jewels. What about the 4 truths and 12 paths? Again, you'll have to quote more than the Heart Sutra that says, "there is no suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering," since this statement treats of the inexplicable reality of sunyata, not basic Buddhist doctrines.

There are plenty of documents. The three jewels are literally irrelevant.
Boddhidharma said it blankly that all of these are useless.

According to the Luoyang Qielanji and Zutangji, Bodhidharma was invited to an audience with Emperor Wudi of the Liang Dynasty.

When the Emperor asked him how much merit he had accumulated through building temples and endowing monasteries, Bodhidharma replied, "None at all."

Perplexed, the Emperor then asked, "Well, what is the fundamental teaching of Buddhism?"

"Vast emptiness, nothing sacred," was the reply.

"Listen," said the Emperor, now losing all patience, "just who do you think you are?"

"I have no idea," Bodhidharma replied.

With this, Bodhidharma was banished from the Court, and is said to have sat in meditation for the next nine years "listening to the ants scream".

Simiarlity the patriarch Hui-neng grasped of the truth of enlightenment, and he was illiterate!!
Another story goes, when the patriarch was given a scripture to read, he said, I can't read. The student was shocked and asked how could you be a master if you can't even read. He answered, if the truth is like the moon, then scriptures and words are merely fingers that points to the moon. To look at the fingers would never tell you what the Moon is. You have to KNOW what the moon is.

Quote

Proof? (Not asking rhetorically, I mean for real.)

The prove is quite straight foward. In Chan, instead of using the term "reaching Nirvana" the term is simply Chen Fo, or becoming a Buddha. In this case, the first few Chan patriarchs were all enlightened Buddhas. Boddhidarma included.

For a better biography of Chan Buddhas, you can read Zutangji(Anthology of the patriarch hall) as well as the later
"the miracles of ancient immortals and Buddhas" in the Dao Zang. They have a biography of every high level Chan master who became Buddhas. Sakyamuni is but one of them. Not even the first. (although the other Buddhas before him were legendary)

Some stories:

Boddhidharma meditated for 9 years, achieved cessation, when he was ordered to be killed by troops, his biography mention that none of the weapons could hurt him. He just sat in a cave in meditation and even carts couldn't move him. Once he is out of his meditation, he opened his eyes and like Siddartha became a Buddha. Da Mo's teaching is quite different from the other schools of Buddhism, he taught sudden enlightenment opposed to the Hinayana schools. He taught the practice of "wall-gazing" and espoused the teachings of the Lankavatara Sutra(whose chief doctrine is that of "consciousness-only; which he passed on to his successor Hui Ko). This is a school from Da Mo only.

Other masters have their own teachings. For example:
The Fifth Patriarch Hung-jen inherited the Lankavatara as passed from Bodhidharma through the Fourth Patriarch along with the robe and bowl. Hung-Jen passed he Lankavatara to the Shen-hsiu (who became leader of the Northern School), but Hung-jen also acknowledged Hui Neng's emphasis on the Diamond Sutra and approved that for Hui Neng (who became leader of the Southern School) by giving him the robe and bowl.

The Lankavatara (which I really like) emphasizes meditation practice and understanding how the eight consciousnesses function to become the four wisdoms when awareness it "turned back," "revolved," or "turned within." This was the practice that became misunderstood as "wiping the dust" leading to gradual awakening. The Diamond Sutra emphasis is on direct awareness of emptiness and removing all duality from thinking and became the bell sounding for for sudden awakening. Both Sutras are clearly Zen and Hui Neng in his Platform Sutra acknowledges that the Lanka's teaching on the 8 consciousnesses and 4 wisdoms is also central to his teaching.

It is in this change of emphasis in Zen from the Lankavatara to the Diamond Sutra that we see the transition from the generally Indian style of appreciation of analytical elegance leading to direct awareness as represented by the Lankavatara to the style more close to the Chinese appreciation of direct wiping away of even analysis to lead to awareness found in the Diamond Sutra. Obviously the DIamond Sutra was written in India also and so represents a certain stream of style there as well, but as the Zen school moved from India to China, it was seen that the Diamond Sutra's approach was more compatible to the general Chinese style compared to the Lankavatara's style.

Other sutras such as the Vimalakirti and the Surangama were also very popular and important in the Chan circles, but the focus and shift from the Lanka to the Diamond Suttra was what expressed the characer of the Sinification of the Dhyana School as it became Chan in China.

The 8th and 9th century were the "golden age" of Chan, producing such great masters as Nan-chuan, Huang-po, and Lin-Chi. Their schools teaching were all original and many simply didn't care where the lineage is from,
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" And not just him but all the other Buddhas, and that is not even enough. " the concepts that comprise the shell of their teachings must also be forgotten. For only then can the kernel of truth be released."

There is nothing in other schools of Buddhism that teaches anything as radical as this. Chan is simply a different religion if we are forced to give it a category in the western sense.

Quote

What double standard?

On why Christianity is different from Islam while typical(say Hinayana Buddhism) is not from Chan. Their difference is even greater than Christianity and Islam.