7. NIUTOU FARONG 牛頭法融

  牛頭法融 Niutou Farong (Niu-t'ou Fa-jung) 594-657

Nuitou Shan

 § Niutou Farong 牛頭法融  594–657 

§ Zhìyán 智巖 600–677

§ Huìfāng 慧方 629–695

§ Fǎchí 法持 635–702

§ Zhìwēi 智威  646–722

§ Huìzhōng 慧忠 683–769

§ Xuánsù 玄素 (Genso)

§ Jìngshān Dàoqīn 徑山道欽 714–792

There was an old school of Chan, long known as the School of the Oxhead Hill 牛頭山 (near the modern city of Nanking), which was founded by the monk Farong 法融, a contemporary of the Buddhist historian Daoxin (died 657).

Claims were once more made for a connection to Huineng through Daoxin much later in the eighth century, the monks of the Oxhead School were willing to acknowledge that their founder was at one time a student of Daoxin, whom orthodox history claims as the Fourth Patriarch after Bodhidharma. However, Daoxin wrote Fa-jung's biography Hsu kao-seng ch'uan in 2,433 words, without mentioning that he had any connection with the Lanka Model, and in Daoxin's own biography contained in the same collection we find no mention of Fa-jung.

The Oxhead model acually developed directly from the eighth century dispute caused by Shenhui, and it was one of the earliest identifiable divisions of the Chan school in China during the first half of the Tang dynasty (618-907). Yet once again politically it is not recognized as part of the mainstream tradition. Its detractors claimed that it was eclectic, drawing on what it regarded incorrectly as wisdom in other traditions.

Fa-jung's first years were devoted to a study of Confucianism and Taoism, but later he became disillusioned with these belief systems and turned towards Madhyaamika teachings under a monk called Kuei Fa-shih on Mao Shan, studying the Prajnaparamita doctrines of the San-lun School. Later he practised the Chih-kuan system (samatha-vipassana) of the T'ien-t'ai School.

After he became a master he went in 643 to Jun-chou (Nanking) and settled in the Yu-hsi temple on the southern slope of Niu-t'ou Shan. Here he lived in seclusion in a cave behind the temple proper; and it was during this time that he is said in error to have been visited by Daoxin, becoming his disciple.

He attracted a large number of followers, teaching at several temples in the region. In 657 he passed away at the age of 63.

After the master's death the school supposedly was continued by a monk called Chih-yen (600-677); however, it is doubtful that Chih-yen was a disciple of Fa-jung and records do not name him as such. Furthermore, once again we find political intrigue, for there could be no line of succession from Fa-jung to Chih-yen as the latter died before the former.

What do we know of Chih-yen? He became a monk at 45, speding his earlier years as an officer. Yet all his early meditations were those generated in India, the Buddha's contemplation of impurities, compassion and birthlessness. We are told by orthodox teachings that there was a traditional lineage in which Chih-yen was included. That lineage is given as:

Fa-jung 594-657

Chih-yen 577-654

Hui-fang 627-695

Fa-ch'ih 635-702

Chih-wei 646-722

Then came three disciples of Chih-wei named An Ko, Nuitou Hui chung 730-771, and Ho-lin Hsuan-ssu 683-769.

The first part of this lineage is considered by modern scholars to be false, although it is most probable that Fa-jung, Hui-fang and Fa-ch'in were at Oxhead mountain at the same time.

Later four factions at different locations on the mountains were started. Two were headed by Nuitou Hui-chung and his disciple Foku-I'tsi and the other two by Ho-lin Hsuan-ssu and his student Ching-shan Fe-ch'in.

Apart from the fact that deceptions within Dharma teachings weaken the strength of the teachings themselves, the artificial lineage in and of itself has little importance unless it camouflages the teachings and in particular the Contemplation systems used that might be important for students.

We do know that both Farong and Chih-yen had an impact upon the contemplations used on Oxhead mountain itself.

During the controversy between the Northern trends and the Southern trends, the Oxhead school represented a third way, and sought to find a middle path between the extreme positions each of the other schools had taken while the debate was at its height.

It joined the Southern School in its insistence that meditative practice be joined to the realization of perfect wisdom, but, agreeing  with the Northern School, did not insist on the abandonment of all other practices and Buddhist scriptures in favour of an exclusive reliance on meditation.

The Oxhead school appears to have died out after eight generations, and the last name given in its patriarchal line is that of Ching-shan Tao-ch'in (714-792).

It is through Zongmi's critical study of Farong (calling it utter annihilation and non-dwelling) that we learn about his beliefs, and we can see that it was a radical Madhyaamika (chung-tao) oriented denomination of Chan Buddhism. Its emphasis was upon universal emptiness (hsu-k'ung), sunyata in a direct and practical way of application.

As John R. McRae states,

"It declared that all phenomena (worldly and spiritual inclusive) are all like illusions, completely non-existent. Fundamentally empty stillness does not take its beginning in nothingness and even the wisdom with which one reaches beyond emptiness cannot be obtained.

In the sameness of Dharmadhaatu there are neither Buddhas nor sentient beings. In non-cultivation there is no cultivator and as the Buddha is non-existent there is no Buddha(hood).

There is no Dharma that can be grasped, and no Buddha(hood) that can be attained. If there is anything that can be accomplished, then it is all delusion and falsehood. If one is able to penetrate into this, then fundamentally there is not a thing to which the mind can attach.

All phenomena including the Buddhist Dharma are essentially without own being, i.e. they do not possess any inherent mark of existence and are therefore empty and non-existent. This very lack of inherent existence is at the same time the "nirvanic" imprint on all phenomena, meaning that everything fundamentally is in the absolute state of suchness (chen-ju).

This is a perfect set of statements that could well hve been included in the Diamond Sutra, so there can be no Buddha Dharma complaint against it. Furthermore it demonstrates that the Farong contemplations were upon the Emptiness of Emptiness and were typically San Lun in their approach.

The criticism directed at this Oxhead position was that it ignored the the two truths (erh-ti), the absolute (chen-ti) and the relative (shih-su ti). Niutou's doctrine focused upon the absolute level at the expense of the relative. Since all is illusion, that fact continued to its extreme point is not to be found surprising and has little effect upon the actual contemplations upon emptiness.

Any emphasis upon phenomena would appear to be folly certainly, and virtue, if it is to be considered at all, must be considered as the outcome of what is natural beyond emptiness itself. Therefore acts of purification by any means appear to be fruitless if one is dedicated to the contemplations. The mind simply has to be liberated from its illusory chains and there will be a direct communication with the Feminine Principle itself.

Apart from evidence provided by other Chan commentators of the times there is just one text attributed to Farong. It is the so-called Mind Inscription.

        Note: It was also an Oxhead member, Fa-hai that was responsible for the first recension of the Platform Sutra.

Strangely, that first recession actually shows criticism of Shenhui's teachings, as well as criticism of Shenhui's introduction of teachings

attributed to Huineng. This further suggests appropriate political doctoring of the final text of the sutra.