Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

According to the interpretation of Dao-xuan(道宣) Lanka-zen(Dar ma-zen) is not the school of study of doctrine(義學), also is different fromthe school of practice for Samādhi(定學). At the same time Lanka-zen has these both faces. Sengchou has becameknown to the representative of Hinayana-zen, however his practice ways, so-called four awakenings of mindfulness(四念處) inNirvana Sūtra, sixteen particular outstanding practices for Samādhi(十六特勝法), shamatha-vipashyanā(止觀) are possible to be practiced by the way of Mahāyāna. Besides the zen doctrine of dun-huang(敦煌) documents such as Dacheng-xinxing-lun(『大乘心行論』) written that the author is Seng-chou(僧稠) are in accord with Lanka-zen(Dar ma-zen) or Mahāyāna-zen. As regarding these points, although Dao-xuan distinguished Sengchou-zen from Darma-zen, it is possible that both zen doctrines have a thread of connection. How can elucidate the problem of discrepancy in both documents? This thesis wouldsuggest one opinion as follows.Lanka-zen can bedistinguished from other zen ways in aspect of that that is not attracted by object. In the primary stage Sengchou had practiced Hinayana-zen, and next time in proportion to progress, in the end he became to realize ultimate Mahāyāna-zen. Therefore his zen doctrine became to communicate with Lanka-zen and the members of that. Also this fact seems to have hand down the school of zen. but I wonder, not to have hand down the other school. The documents of zen-school from dun-huang speak for this fact.