PART 4 | Bodhidharma in the Lidai Fabao Ji: Transmission, Gesture, and the Silent Seal
“If you can realize this directly, only then can you participate with the masters.”
—Wumen Huikai, The Gateless Gate (無門關), Case 1 Commentary
Who was Bodhidharma, really? While earlier sources like the Xu Gaoseng Zhuan (續高僧傳, Further Biographies of Eminent Monks) covered in the previous post offer only a brief historical sketch, it is the Lidai Fabao Ji (歷代法寶記, Record of the Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations), compiled in the 8th century, that provides the first full narrative of Bodhidharma as a Chan patriarch. This early Chan text presents him as a transmitter of the true Dharma—not through scriptures, but through a direct, wordless seal of the mind.
The text famously declares:
達摩祖師宗徒禪法不將一字教來。默傳心印。
“Patriarch Bodhidharma’s Chan Dharma did not bring a single written word. He transmitted the seal of mind in silence.”¹
This is one of the earliest known uses of the phrase “seal of mind” (心印, xin yin) in a Chan context. The seal metaphor suggests that awakening is directly impressed from mind to mind, without the intermediary of doctrine or explanation. In this view, silence becomes the highest form of teaching—conveying unmediated realization itself.
Read Part One: Who Was Bodhidharma?
Historical Context of the Lidai Fabao Ji
The Lidai Fabao Ji must be read critically: it is a sectarian work that blends lineage claims, doctrinal assertions, and mythic storytelling to legitimize the Baotang school of Chan.
Compiled around 774 CE at Qingyuan Monastery in Sichuan by disciples of Chan Master Wuzhu (無住), the founder of the Baotang school, the text survives in both canonical and manuscript forms. It is preserved in the Taishō Tripiṭaka as text T2075, and exists in multiple manuscript versions discovered in the Dunhuang caves, including Stein manuscript S.5475 and Pelliot manuscript P.3717.²
The Lidai Fabao Ji is the earliest extant Chan lineage text to trace an unbroken transmission from Śākyamuni Buddha through 28 Indian patriarchs, culminating with Bodhidharma as the first Chinese patriarch.³ Its purpose was not merely historical but also polemical: to validate Baotang teachings—especially their emphasis on sudden awakening and non-reliance on scripture—by grounding them in an authoritative ancestral lineage. Scholars such as Wendi Adamek and John McRae have demonstrated how the text promotes the Baotang vision of Chan while subtly marginalizing rival traditions.⁴
What the Lidai Fabao Ji Tells Us About Bodhidharma
The Lidai Fabao Ji presents Bodhidharma as a royal prince from southern India who awakened upon hearing his teacher's words. He spread the Dharma throughout India, then observed that the people of China had the capacity for Mahāyāna. Motivated by compassion, he crossed into the Han regions, sending two disciples ahead of him to introduce the "sudden teaching" (dun jiao, 頓教).
When his disciples presented this direct path in Qin, they were rejected by established Buddhist scholars. Bodhidharma was forced to leave and traveled to Mount Lu, where he encountered Master Yuangong. There, in a pivotal moment, his disciples offered a teaching through gesture, not words—asking whether a fist turning into a hand and vice versa was “right or wrong.” When Yuangong answered, “It is extremely wrong,” the disciples replied cryptically, “This is not yet…”—before the manuscript breaks off.5 (The Dunhuang manuscript is incomplete at this point, and the rest of the dialogue has been lost due to physical damage or missing text.)
Chinese Text and Line-by-Line Translation
(T2075, vol. 51, Dunhuang recension)6
梁朝第一祖菩提達摩多羅禪師者，
The First Patriarch of the Liang dynasty, Chan Master Bodhi-dharma-duoluo,
即南天竺國王第三子。幼而出家。早稟師氏於言下悟。
was the third son of the king of southern India. He became a monk in youth and, upon hearing the teacher’s words, awakened immediately.
闡化南天，大作佛事。
He spread the teaching in southern India and performed extensive Buddha activities.
是時觀見漢地眾生有大乘性。
At that time, he observed that beings in Han lands had the nature for Mahāyāna.
乃遣弟子佛陀耶舍二人往秦地，說頓教悟法。
He dispatched two disciples—Buddhayaśa and Yeśa—to the Qin region to teach the sudden path and awaken understanding.
秦中大德乍聞狐疑，都無信受，被擯出遂於廬山東林寺。
The great worthies in Qin, upon first hearing this, were suspicious and did not accept it; they were expelled and thus traveled to Donglin Monastery on Mount Lu.
時有法師遠公問曰：“大德將何教來？”
At that time, Dharma Master Yuangong asked, “Venerable One, what teaching have you brought?”
於是二婆羅門申手告遠公曰：“拳作手，手作拳，是事疾否？”
The two Brahmin disciples raised a fist, opened it into a hand, and asked Master Yuangong: “If a fist becomes a hand, and a hand a fist, is this right or wrong?”
遠公答曰：“甚疾。”
Master Yuangong replied, “It is extremely wrong.”
二婆羅門言：“此未為...”
The two Brahmins said, “This is not yet…”
(The rest of the reply is lost in the fragment.)
Who Are the Figures in This Text?
Bodhidharma (菩提達摩多羅): Identified here with the extended transliteration “duoluo,” he is framed as both an enlightened Indian master and the formal founder of Chinese Chan.
Buddhayaśa (佛陀耶舍) and Yeśa: Disciples sent ahead to China to teach the sudden Dharma. Their role mirrors that of missionary bodhisattvas.
Master Yuangong (遠公): This is a respectful epithet for Huiyuan (慧遠, 334–416), the founder of Donglin Monastery and key figure in early Pure Land Buddhism.7 He symbolizes institutional Buddhism—grounded in text and form—in contrast to Bodhidharma’s iconoclastic method.
Commentary: Gesture Beyond Words
In the Lidai Fabao Ji, Yuangong appears as a representative of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, which by the 8th century had become a widely practiced devotional movement centered on faith in Amitābha Buddha and rebirth in the Western Pure Land.
In this exchange, Yuangong’s answer, “It is extremely wrong,” to the Brahmins query about the hand and fist, seems to leave the disciples of Bodhidharma wanting more. Although their response is not completely preserved, the words, “This is not yet…” seem to indicate their dissatisfaction with his answer. This is likely because it reflects a doctrinal misunderstanding rather than direct realization.
For added context, Tanluan (476–542), a foundational figure in Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, synthesized Indian and Chinese thought to articulate a vision of Amitābha’s vows as expressions of enlightened compassion. He interprets these vows as manifestations of suchness—the true nature of reality as it is, before conceptualization, judgment, or dualistic thinking—and describes the Pure Land as arising from the activity of non-abiding mind (無住心), a mind that does not fixate on any object, view, or state, and thus responds freely and compassionately to all conditions.8
In this light, Yuangong’s declaration that the statement was “completely wrong” suggests he is offering an intellectual understanding of the Dharma by rejecting the characterization of the open hand and closed fist as merely conceptual states that fail to reflect the true nature of reality. However, from a Chan perspective, this absolutist judgment reveals a lingering attachment to dualistic thinking—right versus wrong—and indicates he remains bound by conceptual understanding.
The answer—while doctrinally “correct”—demonstrates delusion rooted in dualistic thought. Thus, he has not shown that he understands the subtlety of the Dharma through direct experiential insight. In the context of this encounter, Yuangong’s failure to respond beyond conceptual critique revealed that his understanding did not yet reflect the non-dual immediacy that Bodhidharma’s teachings demanded.
A Personal Reflection
Before I encountered this story, I used the hand and fist gesture as a koan in my own teaching.
I mentioned that everything we perceive in nature is a form of energy. All energy is an excited form of some other medium—in the same way that a wave is an excitation of water. I made a fist and said, (paraphrasing): “All forms are like this fist. When I change the shape of my hand, the fist disappears. All forms are impermanent, like this fist— they appear and disappear. If a hand creates a fist, what makes a hand change shape? What then creates a form of energy?”
I was surprised to discover that this exact gesture appears in the Lidai Fabao Ji. You can find an expanded version of my teaching on this gesture in my Dharma talk from last December:
Artifacts of Reality | Dharma Talk 24
What Comes Next
This story offers a window into the Chan vision of Bodhidharma—not as a distant mythic sage, but as a living transmitter of truth beyond form. In future blog posts, I’ll explore four more foundational stories that shaped Bodhidharma’s image:
His encounter with Emperor Wu of Liang
His miraculous river crossing on a reed
His nine years of wall-gazing at Shaolin
Huike cutting off his arm to receive the Dharma
These tales—part history, part myth—have informed Zen’s heart for over a thousand years. I look forward to exploring them with you.
Thank you for reading. I hope these explorations support your practice and offer something of value along the way.
In the near future, I plan to explore the origins of Zen in India, more on Bodhidharma, the Four Statements, the origins of Zen in India, the origin of the word Zen (dhyāna) and the teachings of several influential Zen Masters from China. If there are other topics you’d like to see covered in future articles, feel free to send us an email —I’d love to hear from you.
If you find these history blogs valuable and want to see more, consider supporting the Mind Light Way School of Zen, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Your support helps make this research possible and allows us to continue sharing Zen’s rich history with a wider audience.
This article was written by Sebastian Rizzon, Zen Master of the Mind Light Way School of Zen.
Footnotes
Lidai Fabao Ji 歷代法寶記, T2075, in Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經, vol. 51, eds. Takakusu Junjirō and Watanabe Kaikyoku (Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1932), 507c20.
Ibid., 507c17–21.
Ibid.
Wendi L. Adamek, The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and Its Contexts (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 78–82; John R. McRae, Seeing Through Zen: Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 57–60.
Lidai Fabao Ji 歷代法寶記, T2075: 507c20.
Stein manuscript S.5475, Dunhuang collection. For comparison and manuscript overview, see Philip B. Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), Appendix A.
Albert Welter, “Huiyuan and the Early Development of Pure Land Buddhism,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 20, no. 2 (1993): 209–230.
Dennis Hirota, Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creating a Shin Buddhist Theology in a Religiously Plural World (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 34–36.
Lidai Fabao Ji manuscript fragment from Dunhuang.
