The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch

Faith and tradition have held that the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (Liu Tsu T'an Ching) was preached by the sixth patriarch of the Ch'an school, Master Hui-neng (638-713). However, since the discovery of the Tunhuang edition of the text, there has been much controversy among Japanese and Chinese scholars concerning the authorship of this classic. Was it based on the Sixth Patriach's thought, or was it a forgery by Shen-hui (668-760)? In this paper I will not discuss these debates. Instead, I will concentrate on the thought of this text. There are two different editions of the Platforms Sutra contained in the 48th volume of the Taisho Tripitaka. The first one, which is commonly called ＂The Sixth Patriarch's Platform Sutraunearthed from Tun-huang＂, has a very long title: Southern School Sudden Doctrine, Supreme Mahayana Great Perfection of Wisdom: The Platform Sutra Preached by the Sixth Patriarch Great Master Hui-neng at the Ta-fan Monastery in Shao-chou (Nan-tsung t'un-chiao tsui-shang ta-cheng mo-ke-pan-jo p'olo- mi ching Liu Tsu Hui-neng Ta-shih yu Shao-chou Ta-faṅ ssu shih-fa t'an ching). The second edition is entitled The Dharma Treasure Platform Sutra of the Great Master the Sixth Patriarch (Liu Tsu Ta-shih fa-pao t'an ching). This edition is the most widely circulated and has been commonly usde in China. It was compiled by the monk Tsung-pao during the chih-yuan era (1335-1340) of the Yuan dynasty, while the Tun-huang edition was compiled by Fa-hai who was the disciple of the Sixth patriarch. It would seem that the Tun-huang text should be more reliable. Moreover, because the Tsung-pao edition reads more smoothly, we may presume that this was the result of improvements made by later generation through transmission, copying and literary embellishments of the text. Recently, a third edition which is known as the Ts'o-chi text has also come to light. This was a variant copy of the Tsung-pao edition. There are considerable differences among the three texts in terms of wording. The Tun-huang edition in particular differs from the other two in the sequence and order of its paragraphs. From these we can conclude that the three editions belong to two different textual traditions. We should not, however, assert that the original materials contained in Tsung-pao's edition necessarily postdated those found in the Tun-huang edition. Suchacademic questions concern evidential study of the redaction of texts-an issue which I shall not go into here.[1] What I would like to discuss instead in this paper is the thought of the Platform sutra. In doing so, I shall consult all available editions of this text. Using the commonly shared materials which are found in these editions, I will offer a comprehensive analysis of this scripture, synthesizing the key points emphasized in the three editions.[2]