TL;DR: In the Lý dynasty, Buddhism in Đại Việt had three Zen lineages named in old texts: Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi, Vô Ngôn Thông and Thảo Đường. The Thiền uyển tập anh records these three lineages following the Chinese transmission-of-the-lamp model; meanwhile, the modern study by Cuong Tu Nguyen (1997) sees them as the work of a 14th-century compiler restructuring the past, and shows that Lý-era Buddhism was richer and not the single, uniform Zen school that the texts portrayed.
What are the three Zen lines of the Lý era?
The three Zen lines of the Lý era are the three schools recorded in the Thiền uyển tập anh: the Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi line, the Vô Ngôn Thông line, and the Thảo Đường line. All three are tied to a founding monk who brought the transmission from outside into Đại Việt and then passed it down through many generations within the country. Old books tell of them as three separate lineages, while modern research rereads those accounts as a way the Trần-era compiler arranged the past.
How do old books record these three lines?
The main source for all three lines is the Thiền uyển tập anh, a text compiled around the 14th century that records biographies and sayings of Vietnamese Zen masters. In chapter three of Zen in Medieval Vietnam (University of Hawaii Press, 1997), Cuong Tu Nguyen rereads this text and argues that it was composed following the model of Chinese transmission-of-the-lamp records. From this, he suggests that the three lineages within it reflect how later compilers reconstructed the past, rather than being a faithful record of Lý-era Buddhist life. This is a scholarly argument, not a conclusion agreed upon by all researchers.
Another source, Phật giáo triết học by Phan Văn Hùm (Tân Việt, 1942), divides the history of Buddhism in the South into four periods. In this division, the second period is when Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi brought Zen transmission to Bắc Kỳ and established a school bearing his name in Bắc Ninh around 580. The third period belongs to the ninth century, when Vô Ngôn Thông came from Quảng Châu to An Nam, stayed at Kiến Sơ Temple, and founded a new Zen school using the Bích Quan method of Bodhisattva Đạt Ma. The fourth period is in the eleventh century, when the kings of that time chose a Chinese Zen master named Thảo Bưởng from Chiêm Thành to be their teacher, and Phan Văn Hùm calls this the period of the An Nam Zen school's emergence. It should be noted that Phan Văn Hùm wrote in the early 20th-century research style, and temple names and place names in his book have since changed.
Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi
Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi (Vinitaruci) is an Indian monk traditionally said to have come to Đại Việt around the sixth century and founded the Zen line bearing his name. Tradition attributes to him discipleship under the Third Patriarch Tăng Xán in China, but modern research does not consider this detail proven.
Vô Ngôn Thông
Vô Ngôn Thông is a Chinese monk who came to Đại Việt in the ninth century, traditionally staying at Kiến Sơ Temple and founding a new Zen line. Old books describe this line as passing down through many generations of Vietnamese masters. The practice is linked to the Bích Quan method recorded by Phan Văn Hùm, that is, the style of sitting meditation facing a wall according to the Đạt Ma tradition. As with the Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi line, details about Vô Ngôn Thông's birth year, arrival year, and teacher-disciple relationships in old books are not fully confirmed by modern research.
Thảo Đường
Thảo Đường is a Chinese monk. Phan Văn Hùm writes his name as Thảo Bưởng, places him in Chiêm Thành, and says the kings of the eleventh century chose him as teacher, calling that the period of the An Nam Zen school's emergence. This naming and evaluation should be read as the view of an early 20th-century researcher, not the general conclusion of scholars today[2].
How do these three Zen lines differ?
The table below compares the main points recorded in old books and modern research. The "according to old books" column draws on the Thiền uyển tập anh and Phan Văn Hùm's summary (1942); the "according to research" column draws on Cuong Tu Nguyen's argument (1997) and other critical studies.
| Point of comparison | Tì Ni Đa Lưu Chi | Vô Ngôn Thông | Thảo Đường |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founder according to old books | Indian monk, said to be a disciple of the Third Patriarch Tăng Xán | Chinese monk from Quảng Châu | Chinese monk, in Chiêm Thành according to Phan Văn Hùm |
| Time according to old books | Around 580, founded the school in Bắc Ninh (per Phan Văn Hùm) | Around the ninth century, entered Kiến Sơ Temple | Eleventh century |
| Practice method | Zen transmission from China | Bích Quan according to the Đạt Ma tradition | Zen |
| How modern research reads it | The lineage may have been reconstructed by later generations | The lineage may have been reconstructed by later generations | The lineage may have been reconstructed by later generations |
Why does modern research reread these lines?
Cuong Tu Nguyen (1997) argues that the Thiền uyển tập anh is not a faithful record of Lý-era Buddhist life, but a work composed following the model of Chinese transmission-of-the-lamp records. According to him, the 14th-century compiler rearranged Vietnam's Buddhist past into lineages with patriarchs and disciples, similar to the Chinese transmission records. This does not mean the three Zen lines did not exist, but that the image of three pure and continuous lines may be a product of editing.
This argument matters because it opens another way of reading: Vietnamese Buddhism in the Lý and Trần eras may have been more diverse than the purely Zen image the book constructs. There may have been many practices, many traditions, and many influences coexisting, and grouping them into three Zen lines is a later perspective. This is the result of scholarly research, not yet fully agreed upon by all researchers, but it reopens the question of how to read Buddhist historical sources.
How are these three lines related to the Trúc Lâm Zen school?
In the common presentation, the Trúc Lâm Zen school founded by King Trần Nhân Tông in the late 13th century is seen as the unification of the Zen lines present in Đại Việt at that time. Trương Thu Thanh (Thích Nữ Linh Thủy), in an article published in The Journal of International Buddhist Studies College in 2024, analyzes Trần Nhân Tông's viewpoint when founding Trúc Lâm and argues that it was a synthesis of existing Zen lines into one Vietnamese Zen school. The author is inside the tradition, so the article should be read alongside critical research. If read along the lines of Cuong Tu Nguyen (1997), Trúc Lâm's gathering of the lines could also be seen as another rearrangement of the past, this time according to the needs of an independent dynasty.
What should be kept in mind when reading about these three lines today?
Gợi ý của Nhật Nguyệt: when reading about the three Zen lines of the Lý era, one should distinguish three layers of information. The first layer is what old books say, for example the Thiền uyển tập anh records the names of masters and lineages. The second layer is what modern research concludes, for example Cuong Tu Nguyen's argument (1997) that the book was composed following the transmission-of-the-lamp model. The third layer is what tradition in temples recounts, often richer in detail than the two layers above but not always verifiable by sources. Keeping the three layers separate helps avoid mistaking a traditional story for a confirmed historical event.
Another point is place names. Phan Văn Hùm places Kiến Sơ Temple in Phú Thọ province, but place names in old books may not match current boundaries; when researching, compare other sources and note the time frame when citing.
