Editing Koan (section)

=== "Observing the phrase" ===
During the late [[Song dynasty]] (11th–12th century), the practice of assigning specific {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}} to students for contemplation had become quite common and some sources contain examples of Zen masters (e.g. Touzi Yiqing) who became enlightened through contemplating a {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}}.{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=111}} 
[[File:Dahui_49th_generation.jpg|thumb|[[Dahui Zonggao]] (1089-1163)]]

Thus, by the time of [[Dahui Zonggao]] (1089–1163),{{refn|group=note|{{lang-zh|c=大慧宗杲|w=Ta-hui Tsung-kao}}; Japanese: {{transliteration|ja|Daie Sōkō}}}} this practice was well established.{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=112}} Dahui promoted and popularized the practice extensively, under the name of "observing the phrase zen" ({{transliteration|zh|kanhua chan}}). In this practice, students were to observe ({{transliteration|zh|kan}}) or concentrate on a single word or phrase ({{transliteration|zh|[[Hua Tou|huatou]]}}), such as the famous {{transliteration|ja|mu}} of the {{transliteration|ja|[[Mu (negative)|mu-kōan]]}}, and develop a sense of "great doubt" within until this ball of doubt "shattered", leading to enlightenment.{{sfn|Foulk|2000|p=22}}{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=112}} Dahui's invention was aimed at balancing the [[Vipassana|insight]] developed by reflection on the teachings with developing [[samatha|śamatha]], calmness of mind.{{sfn|Foulk|2000|p=23}}

This idea of observing a key phrase or word was Dahui's unique contribution, since the earlier method of {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}} contemplation never taught the focusing on a single word, nor did it teach to develop a "ball of doubt that builds up before finally shattering."{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=112}} According to Wright, instead of focusing on the full narrative of a {{transliteration|ja|kōan}}, Dahui promoted "intense focus on one critical phrase, generally one word or element at the climax of the {{transliteration|ja|kōan}}."{{sfn|Wright|2000|p=208}}

Dahui also taught that meditation on just one {{transliteration|zh|huatou}} of a single {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}} was enough to achieve enlightenment, since penetrating one {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}} was penetrating into all of them.{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=114}} He went even further, arguing that this new meditation technique was the only way of achieving enlightenment for Chan practitioners of his day. Thus, Schlütter writes that "in this insistence, he was unusual among the Song Chan masters, who generally tended to take a rather inclusive view of Buddhist practice. It is therefore fair to say that Dahui not only developed a new contemplative technique, he also invented a whole new kind of Chan in the process."{{sfn|Schlütter|2008|p=116}} Whatever the case, Dahui was extremely influential in shaping the development of the Linji school in the Song.{{sfn|McRae|2003|pp=123–133}}

[[Dale S. Wright]] also writes that Dahui: {{sfn|Wright|2000|p=208}}

{{blockquote|[...] maintained that the {{transliteration|zh|hua-t'ou}} had no meaning and that any intellectualization, any conceptual thinking at all, would obstruct the possibility of break-through. As a corollary to this, Ta-hui warned that the intellectuals who in his day were the ones most interested in {{transliteration|ja|kōan}} meditation would be the least likely to succeed at it, given their tendency to think. His advice to them, therefore, was to cease completely any effort to resolve the {{transliteration|ja|kōan}} and "to give up the conceit that they have the intellectual tools that would allow them to understand it." The primary effort required in this enterprise was a negative one, "nonconceptualization,"...{{sfn|Wright|2000|p=208}}}}

As Robert Buswell explains, this emphasis on non-conceptual meditation on a {{transliteration|zh|gōng'àn}} meant that "there is nothing that need be developed; all the student must do is simply renounce both the hope that there is something that can be achieved through the practice as well as the conceit that he will achieve that result."{{sfn|Wright|2000|p=208}}

Wright argues that since "the narrative structure of the {{transliteration|ja|kōan}} was eliminated in the focus on a single point", that is the {{transliteration|zh|hua-t'ou}} (which was said to have no meaning), such a practice became a [[samatha|śamatha]]-like {{transliteration|ja|zazen}} practice (which even resembles Caodong [[Shikantaza|silent illumination]]), even if this was never acknowledged by the masters of the Linji school in the Song.{{sfn|Wright|2000|p=209}}  Furthermore, Wright also argues that this practice was anti-intellectual since all learning was to be renounced in the practice of {{transliteration|zh|kanhua chan}}.{{sfn|Wright|2000|pp=209–210}} According to Wright, this development left Chinese Chán vulnerable to criticisms by a resurgent neo-Confucianism.{{sfn|Wright|2000|pp=210–211}}

According to Mario Poceski, although [[Dahui Zonggao|Dahui's]] ''kanhua'' Chan (in which one focuses on a ''huatou'') purports to be a sudden method, it essentially consists of a process of gradually perfecting concentration. Poceski also observes the role the ''kanhua'' technique played in standardizing Chan practice. He argues that this contributed to the routinization of the tradition, resulting in a loss of some of the more open and creative aspects of earlier Chan.<ref>Mario Pockeski, Chan and the Routinization of Charisma in Chinese Buddhism, in ''The Theory and Practice of Zen Buddhism: A Festschrift in Honor of Steven Heine,'' Chinese Culture 6, edited by Charles S. Prebish and On-cho Ng, pages 55-56, Springer 2022</ref>