This article explores Dōgen’s critique of two approaches of Chan meditation and his creative interpretation on two of the Chinese Chan masters’ question-and-answer dialogues, as found in Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō: Zazen shin《正法眼藏．坐禪箴》. It also examines Dōgen’s critique of several Chan maxims / inscriptions / rituals from Song Dynasty, as well as his identification of Hongzhi Zhengjue’s Zuochan Zhen《坐禪箴》. Through these analyses, the article sheds some light on Chan practice during the Song Dynasty and the distinctive characteristics of Dōgen’s Zen. In comparison with previous research, this article makes three contributions. Firstly, it elucidates the targets of Dōgen’s criticisms regarding these two approaches of Chan meditation, namely those engaged in superficial meditation and the remnants of Linji Chan 臨濟禪, and then reveals the characteristic features of Dōgen’s Zen practice, such as the emphasis on “just sitting” 只管打坐 and “identity of practice and realization” 修證一如 in Dogen’s Zen. Secondly, it analyzes the three Chan maxims / inscriptions / rituals criticized by Dogen, finding that Dogen’s strong critique is based on the fact that the meditation approached implied in these Chan works embody the concepts of “returning to the fundamental source” 還源返本 and “tranquility and stillness beyond concern” 息慮凝寂, therefore providing evidence for the continued prominence of wushichan during the Song Dynasty. Thirdly, by comparing Dōgen’s interpretation with the contemporary master Sheng Yen’s interpretation of Hongzhi Zhengjue’s Zuochan Zhen, the article discovers that Dōgen incorporated his own distinctive features of Zen practice, such as the notions of “spontaneously appearing” 現成 and “Being-Time”有時, into his interpretation. By examining the differences in textual expressions between Dōgen and Hongzhi’s Zuochan Zhen, thus reveals the unique characteristics of Dōgen’s Zen. Through this comparison, it elucidates the distinctive features of Dogen’s Zen. The article argues that Dōgen’s Zen encompasses both aspects of inheriting from Hongzhi’s Chan and its own distinctive features, as well as criticisms of certain aspects of the Chinese Chan tradition.
