Zhēn xīn zhí shuō 真心直說
Direct Exposition of the True Mind
“Direct Exposition of the True Mind” — a short Q-and-A doctrinal treatise on the nature of the zhēn xīn 真心 (“true mind”) and its recognition, attributed in the Taishō recension to the Koryŏ Sŏn master Pojo Chinul 普照知訥 (Korean Pojo Chinul, 1158–1210), the founder of the Korean Chogye-order 曹溪宗 and the principal articulator of the Korean Sŏn integrative synthesis
About the work
A one-juan doctrinal-pastoral treatise, Taishō T48 n2019A. Structured as fifteen sequential Q-and-A sections each treating an aspect of the true-mind doctrine: Zhēn xīn zhèng xìn 真心正信 (“correct faith in the true mind”), Zhēn xīn yì míng 真心異名 (“alternate names for the true mind”), Zhēn xīn miào tǐ 真心妙體 (“the subtle substance of the true mind”), Zhēn xīn miào yòng 真心妙用 (“the subtle function”), Zhēn xīn tǐ yòng yì bù èr 真心體用一不二 (“substance and function are one, not two”), and so on through Zhēn xīn zhí jiàn 真心直見, Zhēn xīn wú rén 真心無忍, Zhēn xīn chū sǐ 真心出死, and concluding reflections on practice-and-verification.
Non-commentary; commentedTextid omitted. The work’s primary doctrinal debt is to Yǒngmíng Yánshòu’s Zōngjìng lù 宗鏡錄 (KR6q0092) and Wéi xīn jué 唯心訣 (KR6q0094) — Chinul’s mind-only integrative framework derives directly from Yánshòu, whom Chinul explicitly acknowledges as the principal Chinese-side authority for his own synthesis.
Tiyao
Not a WYG text; no 四庫 tíyào exists.
The received text carries an opening preface in the voice of Chinul himself (though presented as anonymous), structured as a dialogue with a hypothetical sceptic: “Someone asked: Is the subtle Way of the patriarchs something one can get to know? I said: did the ancients not say, ‘the Way is not known or not-known; knowing is delusive thought, not-knowing is unintelligible reckoning; if one genuinely reaches the place of no-doubt, it is like the wide openness of the great void — how could one forcefully adjudicate right and wrong?‘” The preface concludes with Chinul’s rationale for composing the treatise despite the ineffability of its subject: “Now, not begrudging my eyebrows [to the reader], I reverently write several sections to illuminate the true mind, that they may serve as a gradual basis for entering the Way. This is the preface.”
A Yuán/Míng-period reprint preface (Chóngkè Zhēn xīn zhí shuō xù 重刻真心直說序) dated Chénghuà 5.5.5 (wǔ rì 端陽 = Duānyáng festival, 1469) is signed 文定 Wéndìng, recording the Míng re-cutting at the request of the bǐqiū 淨林 Jìnglín.
Abstract
The attribution to Pojo Chinul is the received tradition but has been questioned since the early 20th century: the text’s language and formulations cite extensively from Yǒngmíng Yánshòu, Zōngmì, and Táng / Sòng Chinese Chán sources (as does all of Chinul’s oeuvre), but the text lacks the distinctive synthesis-moves characteristic of Chinul’s undoubtedly-authentic works (Kwŏnsu chŏnghye kyŏlsa mun 勸修定慧結社文, Hwaŏmnon chŏryo 華嚴論節要, Pŏpchip pyŏrhaengnok chŏryo pyŏngip sagi 法集別行錄節要幷入私記). Some modern scholars (Robert Buswell, Jr., notably) suggest the text may be a Chinese Chán work misattributed to Chinul in later Korean tradition. Others (most of the Korean-language scholarship) maintain the traditional attribution. The Taishō presents the text under the Chinul attribution, following the received Koryŏ-to-Japan transmission route.
Pojo Chinul 普照知訥 (1158–1210; DILA A001227), hào Mùniúzi 牧牛子 (“Ox-herding Master”), was a Koryŏ Sŏn master native of Jīngxī Dòngzhōu 京西洞州 (in Koryŏ). Ordained at eight at the Jogye-san Chonghwi 曹溪山宗暉 temple. Passed the sŭnggwa 僧科 Sŏn examination in 1182 but refused ecclesiastical office. Founded the Jŏnghyesa 定慧社 practice-community in 1190 at the Hajŏng-gŏ, relocated it to Songgwang-san in 1200, and reorganised it as the Suseonsa 修禪社 in Hŭijong 1 (1205) — the foundational institution of the later Chogye-order. Died on 1210.3.27, aged 53, sŭng-lap 36. Posthumous title Pulil Pojo Kuksa 佛日普照國師 (from which the alternate name 普照 is taken). Chinul’s integrative Sŏn synthesis — explicitly indebted to Yánshòu — brought together the hwadu 話頭 / kànhuà 看話 Chán of Dàhuì Zōnggǎo, the Huáyán doctrinal framework of 澄觀 Chéngguān and 宗密 Zōngmì, and the Pure Land dual-cultivation of 延壽 Yánshòu, producing the syncretic-Sŏn position that is the signature feature of Korean Buddhism from the Koryŏ onward.
Dating bracket: notBefore 1190 (beginning of Chinul’s Jŏnghyesa practice-community), notAfter 1210 (his death). Dominant compositional period probably 1200–1210.
Translations and research
- Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 1983. The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul. Hawai’i. The standard English translation of Chinul’s works, including the Chinsim chiksŏl 真心直說 (Korean Hangul reading); Buswell’s introduction questions the traditional Chinul attribution of the text.
- Robert E. Buswell, Jr. 1991. Tracing Back the Radiance: Chinul’s Korean Way of Zen. Hawai’i. Abridged / reorganised version with commentary.
- 李智冠 (Yi Chi-gwan) 1989. 《韓國禪學史》. Chūngang Ilbosa.
- 吉津宜英 1986. 《華厳禅の思想史的研究》. Daitō Shuppansha. Chapter on Chinul’s Huáyán-Chán synthesis.
- Keel Hee-sung 1984. Chinul: The Founder of the Korean Sŏn Tradition. Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series. Monograph treatment.
- Park, Sung-bae. 1983. Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment. SUNY. Background.
- Buswell, Robert E., Jr. 2016. Numinous Awareness Is Never Dark: The Korean Buddhist Master Chinul’s Excerpts on Zen Practice. Hawai’i. Translations of further Chinul texts.
Other points of interest
The Chinul-corpus transmission into Japan via the Koryŏ-Japan Buddhist-diplomatic route in the late Koryŏ period is the reason these three short Chinul-attributed texts (KR6q0095, KR6q0096, KR6q0097) entered the Taishō; they are preserved in the East Asian Buddhist canon through Japanese rather than Chinese channels. In Korean tradition, the Chinul corpus is vastly larger than the three Taishō texts and circulates in numerous editions, of which the modern standard is Pojo chŏnsŏ 普照全書.
The Chinul-attribution question bears on the broader problem of identifying distinctively Korean Buddhist literature within a corpus that is predominantly Chinese: the Zhēn xīn zhí shuō if genuinely Chinul’s is one of the earliest major Korean-authored Sŏn treatises; if not, it represents a Chinese Chán text re-attributed to a Korean figure in the later Korean tradition. Either reading is of historical interest for the question of how canonical authorship is assigned and revised in premodern East Asian Buddhist traditions.