The Influence of Wŏnhyo’s Understanding of “Shenjie” 神解 on the Chinese Commentaries on the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna ^†

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the influence of Wŏnhyo’s Kisillon so (Wŏnhyoso) on Chinese commentaries on the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna (AFM), which is regarded as important in East Asian Buddhism. Previous studies focused only on the influence on Fazang’s Qixinlun shu (Fazangshu), but it should be noted that the Wŏnhyoso also had an effect on the understanding of the AFM in China. First, by comparing the usage of “shenjie” in the Fazangshu and in the Wŏnhyoso, one can identify Wŏnhyoso’s unique interpretation. The Wŏnhyoso defines it as “mystical understanding as the nature of One Mind in the aspect of thusness and the nature of the mind of original enlightenment in the aspect of arising and ceasing”, whereas the Fazangshu defines “shenjie” as “an excellent comprehension”. Next, examining the usage of “shenjie” of the Wŏnhyoso in the later commentaries on the AFM after Fazang, such as the Shilun, the Zanxuanshu, the Puguanji, the Zongmishu, the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue, has confirmed the influence of the Wŏnhyoso in Chinese Buddhism. In addition, the relationships between Chinese commentaries on the AFM were also clarified based on the commentaries’ acceptance of “shenjie”.

1. Introduction

The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna 大乘起信論 (Dasheng qixin lun; hereinafter AFM) is regarded as a key text for understanding East Asian Buddhism. Many commentaries on the AFM were published in China, Korea, and Japan. In China, the Dasheng qixinlun shu 大乘起信論疏 of Kyo’u Library 杏雨書屋, the oldest commentary in existence, and the Dasheng qixinlun yishu 大乘起信論義疏 of Tanyan 曇延 (516–588) existed from the late fifth century. However, after Fazang’s 法藏 (643–712) Qixinlun shu 起信論疏 (hereinafter Fazangshu) appeared, it received scholarly attention, and the awareness of the AFM also increased.1 Since many scholars, such as Tankuang 曇曠 (700–788), Zongmi 宗密 (780–841), and Zixuan 子璿 (965–1038), annotated the AFM using the Fazangshu as their primary text, the Fazangshu became central to the study of the AFM.

However, that many sentences in the Fazangshu were referenced from the Silla monk Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617–686) Kisillon so 起信論疏 (the commentary on the AFM, hereinafter Wŏnhyoso), which has already been revealed through previous research. Although these two documents are very similar in many parts, Fazang changed words or described sentences differently from the Wŏnhyoso in parts where he disagreed with Wŏnhyo. The interpretation of “shenjie” 神解 is one of the differences between the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu.

“Shenjie” means spiritual or mystical understanding based on the meanings of “shen” 神, which is defined as supernatural and numinous, and “jie” 解, which refers to awakening or understanding.2 Fazang’s interpretation of “shenjie” is quite distinct from Wŏnhyo’s. For this reason, Fazang used this word with a different meaning than the Wŏnhyoso in his narrative at the beginning of the Fazangshu and replaced the word “shenjie” with another word or did not quote sentences containing it when citing the Wŏnhyoso. However, the usage of “shenjie” in the Fazangshu is also distinguished from the commentaries on the AFM that have been strongly influenced by the Fazangshu such as the Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論 (hereinafter Shilun), T’aehyŏn’s Taesung kisillon naeuiyakt’amgi 大乘起信論內義略探記, Zongmi’s Qixinlun shu 起信論疏 (hereinafter Zongmishu), Zixuan’s Qixinlun shu bixueji 起信論疏筆削記 (hereinafter Bixueji), Deqing’s 德淸 (1546–1623) Dasheng qixinlun shulue 大乘起信論疏略 (hereinafter Shulue), and Xufa’s 續法 (1641–1728) Qixinlun shuji huiyue 起信論疏記會閱 (hereinafter Huiyue). They reflect the sentences and understanding of Wŏnhyo of “shenjie”, although Fazang intentionally excluded them. This tendency verifies the influence of Wŏnhyo on the later Chinese commentators of the AFM. That is the reason this study focuses on “shenjie”.

There are few studies on “shenjie” in spite of its importance. Ko (2008) examined the meaning of “shenjie” in all Wŏnhyo’s writings and deduced that using “shenjie” broadened Wŏnhyo’s definition of One Mind from the eighth consciousness ālaya-vijñāna to the ninth consciousness amala-vijñāna. Kim (2015, 2018) used “shenjie” as a basis for clarifying the relation between Zongmi and Wŏnhyo and the difference between Zongmi and Fazang by comparing the Wŏnhyoso, the Fazangshu, and the Zongmishu. Since this study focuses on Wŏnhyo’s influence on the study of the AFM in China, I examine only the Wŏnhyoso among Wŏnhyo’s writings and expand the research object to the commentaries on the AFM after Zongmi and the Shilun and its commentaries that have never been dealt with before.

First, I compare the usage of “shenjie” in the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu to clarify the differences in understanding of “shenjie” of Wŏnhyo and Fazang. This includes revealing one of the unique characteristics of the Wŏnhyoso. Next, I categorize two groups of commentaries on the AFM as the Shilun and the Zongmishu and examine how Wŏnhyo’s view of “shenjie” had influence on the commentaries on the AFM written after Fazang. Accordingly, the usage of “shenjie” elucidates the flow of thought from the Wŏnhyoso to the Shilun and the commentaries on the Shilun, the Zongmishu, the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue. As a result, this study shows the genealogy of the commentaries on the AFM from the Tang to the Qing dynasties by defining their relations and will expand the area of research on the AFM.

2. The Different Usage of “Shenjie” between Wŏnhyo and Fazang

2.1. Fazang’s View of “Shenjie”

Fazang follows the Wŏnhyoso in many parts but presents his own alternative interpretation when his opinion differs from Wŏnhyo, e.g., when he analyzed the concept of manas, shenjie, and so on. The different views on “shenjie” between Wŏnhyo and Fazang not only show the descriptive characteristics of the Wŏnhyoso, but also become the key to understanding the relations with the later commentaries on the AFM.

The Fazangshu used the word “shenjie” only once: “Two eminent treatise masters were contemporaries, one is Jiexian 戒賢 (Śīlabhadra), and the other is Zhiguang 智光 (Jñānaprabha). Their excellent comprehension transcended ordinary persons”.3 “Shenjie” describes the outstanding ability of Jiexian and Zhiguang. This usage of “shenjie” in the Fazangshu is the same as in the type of biographies, such as the Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks) and the Haedong kosŭngjŏn 海東高僧傳 (Lives of Eminent Korean Monks), but is different from the Wŏnhyoso. So, how does Wŏnhyo interpret “shenjie”?

2.2. The Meaning of “Shenjie” in the Wŏnhyoso

The word “shenjie” is used six times in the Wŏnhyoso: ① T44.207a1 (once), ② T44.216c27 (once), ③ T44.208b18 (once), ④ T44.211b13 (once), ⑤ T44.208c9-10 (twice).

First, the Wŏnhyoso ① is the explanation of the AFM’s sentence, “The revelation of correct meaning is that there are two aspects relying on One Mind 一心 (yixin). What are the two? One is the aspect of mind of the thusness, and the other is the aspect of mind of arising and ceasing”,4 by using the question-and-answer format to explain the relationship between One Mind and two aspects, which are the thusness 眞如 (zhenru) and arising and ceasing 生滅 (shengmie).

Wŏnhyoso ①

Two aspects, [the mind in its aspect of “thusness” and “arising and ceasing”], are like this, how do they become One Mind? It is named “one” because the nature of all the defiled and pure dharmas is not two and there are no differences between the two aspects of true and false. [Then,] it is named “mind” since a place without discrimination between two is the true aspect of the middle way of all dharma and is not the same as space, and its nature understands mystically by itself.5

Wŏnhyo divides One Mind into “one” and “mind”. The former means the nature of Dharma, and the latter expresses that nature understands mystically by itself. The phrase “nature understands mystically by itself” 性自神解 (xingzishenjie) has been circulated in East Asian Buddhism since Wŏnhyo first used it (Kim 2018, p. 50). It could be found more than 49 times in the Zongjing lu 宗鏡錄 (Record of the Axiom Mirror), the Goryeoguk bojo seonsa susim gyeol 高麗國普照禪師修心訣 (Secrets on Cultivating the Mind), etc.6 From this, one aspect of the influence of the Wŏnhyoso throughout East Asian Buddhism is identifiable.

Second, Wŏnhyo defines “shenjie” as “awareness” 智 (zhi) when he accounts for the AFM’s statement, “Only the ignorance 癡 (chi) ceases, so the aspect of the mind also vanishes, but the awareness of mind 心智 (xinzhi) [of the original enlightenment] does not disappear”.7

Wŏnhyoso ②

In the sentence, “The awareness of the mind [of the original enlightenment] does not disappear,” “the awareness of the mind” indicates the nature of mystical understanding. It is the same as the above “The nature of awareness does not destroy,” so it reveals the meaning that the unique characteristic 自相 (zixiang) does not become extinct.8

This description concerns the aspect of the defiled dharmas 染法相 (ranfaxiang) in the AFM. Wŏnhyo matches the AFM’s sentence, “The awareness of the mind [of the original enlightenment] does not disappear,” with another of AFM’s sentences: “The nature of awareness is not destroyed”. In this way, Wŏnhyo perceives “shenjie” as the awareness of the mind of original enlightenment. Therefore, “shenjie” is another expression of “awareness”.

Wŏnhyo also clarifies that the unique characteristic does not become extinct with the AFM’s sentence, “The nature of awareness is not destroyed” (Wŏnhyoso ④). According to the Wŏnhyoso ⑤, the unique characteristic 自相 is the expression of the Rulengqie jing 入楞伽經 (Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra) and is identical to “the unique true characteristic” 自眞相 (zizhenxiang) of the Lengqie abatuoluo baojing 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經. The unique true characteristic is applied to both states of “neither arising nor ceasing” and “arising and ceasing”. The awareness of the intrinsically enlightened mind of the Wŏnhyoso ② corresponds to the unique true characteristic of the “arising and ceasing” state.

Comparing the Wŏnhyoso ① and ②, Wŏnhyo expresses “shenjie” differently according to the aspect of thusness and the aspect of arising and ceasing. In the Wŏnhyoso ①, “nature” is the subject, and “shenjie” is an adverb and a verb meaning “understands mystically” because “shenjie” is represented in the mind of neither arising nor ceasing. In contrast, in the Wŏnhyoso ②, “shenjie” is an adjective and a noun meaning “mystical understanding” that modifies “nature” because “shenjie” is explained in the mind of arising and ceasing. In the Wŏnhyoso, “shenjie” is the awareness of One Mind and the nature of the mind of the original enlightenment that is not destroyed in the state of “neither arising nor ceasing” nor in the state of “arising and ceasing”.

2.3. Fazang’s Perspective on Wŏnhyo’s Understanding of “Shenjie”

Fazang disagrees with Wŏnhyo’s view of “shenjie” as the unchanging nature of One Mind because he intentionally excluded the word “shenjie” or the sentence including “shenjie”. This could be confirmed by comparing the Fazangshu section corresponding to the Wŏnhyoso ③~⑤ below.

The Wŏnhyoso ③ accounts for the harmony between “neither arising nor ceasing” 不生不滅 (bushengbumie) and “arising and ceasing” 生滅. Wŏnhyo matches seawater 水 (shui) and movement 動 (dong) to “neither arising nor ceasing” and “arising and ceasing” by using the metaphor of waves in the latter part of the AFM. Then, he analyzes that the movement of seawater caused by the wind is the mark of the wind 風相 (fengxiang), and the moisture of the seawater that does not change even if the water moves is the mark of the water 水相 (shuixiang). In this context, Wŏnhyo connects the moisture to “shenjie” and shows the nature of “neither arising nor ceasing” in the arising and ceasing aspect.

The Wŏnhyoso ④ considers that the nature of awareness is equivalent to the nature of “shenjie” and compares the nature of awareness to the nature of the moisture of water. The metaphor of the waves in this part is exactly what was said in the Wŏnhyoso ③: “This is the same as the below sentence,” and both similarly apply the moisture to “shenjie” [awareness].

Fazang consults the sentences of the Wŏnhyoso almost as it is in many parts but changes only “shenjie” to “zhen” 眞 (③) and “zhaocha” 照察 (④), as shown in

Table 1. Fazang’s change to “shenjie”.

	Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu
③	如下文言。如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相。動之濕是水相。水擧體動。故水不離風相。無動非濕。故動不離水相。心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動。故心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非神解。故生滅不離心相。 (T44, 208b13-18)	故下云。如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相。動之濕是水相。以水擧體動故。水不離於風相。無動而非濕。故動不離於水相。心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動故。心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非眞故。生滅不離於心相。 (T44, 254c13-19)
	This is the same as the below sentence “As if the waves of a sea are moved by the wind, the mark of water and the mark of wind do not separate from each other” in the text below. In this sentence, the movement of seawater is the mark of the wind, and the moisture of the movement is the mark of seawater. The seawater does not lose the mark of the wind because all the seawater moves, and the moving wave does not separate from the mark of the seawater because there is no non-moisture in movement. The mind is like this; the mind does not lose the mark of arising and ceasing because the whole mind that does not arise and cease moves, and the mark of arising and ceasing does not separate from the mark of mind since there is no non-mystical understanding 非神解 [un-real 非眞] in the mark of arising and ceasing.
④	合中言無明滅者。本無明滅。是合風滅也。相續即滅者。業識等滅。合動相滅也。智性不壞者。隨染本覺神解之性名爲智性。是合濕性不壞也。 (T44, 211b10-13)	無明滅者。是根本無明滅。合風滅也。相續滅者。業識等滅。合動相滅。智性不壞者。隨染本覺照察之性。是合濕性不壞。(T44, 260b24-26)
	In application 合, “if the nescience 無明 (wuming) ceases” means the original nescience vanishes. It applies to the application of the phrase, “The wind stops”. “The continuity ceases immediately” means that the karmic consciousness, etc., is ceasing. It applies to the phrase, “The nature of movement stops”. “The nature of awareness is not destroyed” is the application of “The nature of moisture does not disappear”, and the nature of awareness is the nature of mystical understanding 神解 [clear observation 照察 (zhaocha)].

. A similar tendency is shown in

Table 2. Fazang’s exclusion of “shenjie”.

	Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu
⑤	如是轉識藏識眞相若異者。藏識非因若不異者。轉識滅藏識亦應滅。而自眞相實不滅。是故非自眞相識滅。但業相滅。今此論主正釋彼文。故言非一非異。 此中業識者。因無明力不覺心動。故名業識。又依動心轉成能見。故名轉識。此二皆在梨耶識位。如十卷經言。如來藏卽阿梨耶識。共七識生。名轉滅相。故知轉相在梨耶識。自眞相者。十卷經云中眞名自相。本覺之心。不藉妄緣。性自神解名自眞相。是約不一義門說也。又隨無明風作生滅時。神解之性與本不異。故亦得名爲自眞相。是依不異義門說也。於中委悉。如別記說也。	如是轉識藏識眞相若異者。藏識非因。若不異者。轉識滅。藏識亦應滅。而自眞相實不滅。是故非自眞相識滅。但業相滅。解云。此中眞相是如來藏轉識是七識。藏識是梨耶。今此論主總括彼楞伽經上下文意作此安立。故云非一異也。
	第三立名。名爲阿梨耶識者。9 (T44. 208b29-c13)	第三立名。名爲阿梨耶識。……。 (T44. 255b23-c1)

.

In the Wŏnhyoso ⑤, “neither identical” and “nor different” are expressed as “not one” 不一 (buyi) and “not different” 不異 (buyi), and they explain the nature of the mind of the original enlightenment with the two aspects of “shenjie”. The first is the state in which “arising and ceasing” does not occur. “Shenjie” describes the nature of the mind of the original enlightenment of “neither arising nor ceasing,” which is different from “arising and ceasing”. In this part, the sentence “the nature understands mysteriously by itself” 性自神解 is the same as the Wŏnhyoso ① that analyzes One Mind. The second is the state in which “arising and ceasing” is caused by nescience 無明. “Shenjie” represents the original nature of the mind of the original enlightenment that does not change in the arising and ceasing aspect 生滅相. It is compared to moisture, an aspect of water that is not destroyed even when the seawater moves, as in the Wŏnhyoso ③.

Like in Table 2, Fazang follows the interpretation of the Wŏnhyoso ⑤ but excludes the part that includes the word “shenjie”. In addition, Fazang does not mention “the unique true characteristic,” which is another expression of the mystical nature of the mind of the original enlightenment. Fazang did not use the word “shenjie” intentionally based on Fazangshu’s inclination to change “shenjie” to another word or to omit the part of the explanation about “shenjie”.

The different views on “shenjie” between Wŏnhyo and Fazang not only proclaim the character of the Wŏnhyoso, but also are key to understanding the relationship with the later commentaries on the AFM.

3. The Usage of “Shenjie” in the Commentaries after Fazang

Since Fazang, it is not an exaggeration to say that several commentaries on the AFM understood their main text through the Fazangshu, so the Fazangshu significantly influenced the AFM study. There could have been an indirect effect through Wŏnhyo’s interpretation quoted in the Fazangshu as the Fazangshu became popular. However, there is a direct effect of the Wŏnhyoso because the word “shenjie,” which Fazang intentionally excluded, is found in the Shilun, the Zongmishu, the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue.

Among them, the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue were strongly influenced by the Zongmishu, which refers to the Fazangshu as central and references the Wŏnhyoso directly. Therefore, in this chapter, the effect of the Wŏnhyoso on the commentaries on the AFM after Fazang is examined in detail by classifying it into two groups: the Shilun and the Zongmishu.10

3.1. Distinction between Consciousness and Mark

The Shilun is one of the commentaries on the AFM.11 The reason why we should pay attention to the Shilun is that this treatise had an effect on the Buddhist study of the day by forming an academic trend, as several commentaries on the Shilun were made in China and Japan throughout the ages.

The Shilun used the “shenjie” only twice in the part that explains the five kinds of consciousness 五意 (wuyi) of the AFM as below.

Shilun

All defiled dharma has two meanings respectively. What are the two meanings? The first meaning is mystical understanding, and the second is dark and dull. In terms of the continuous arising from the original enlightenment, it sets up the meaning of mystical understanding. Then, in terms of the continuous arising from nescience, it sets up the meaning of dark and dull. Based on the first aspect, the name “consciousness” is given. Based on the second aspect, the name “mark” is given. You should know the truth about the difference between the two aspects as above. How do they have distinctive characteristics? Consciousness conforms to the original enlightenment because it means “understanding” and “enlightenment”. On the other hand, the mark follows the nescience since it signifies “to betray the original enlightenment”.12

The Shilun suggests two significations of the defiled dharmas, mystical understanding and dull, and distinguishes consciousness from the mark based on their meaning. The word “shenjie” is used two times as an expression to suggest that the original enlightenment is the essence of the defiled dharmas, which was created by the movement of the original enlightenment following the nescience.

However, the parts of the AFM that the Wŏnhyoso and the Shilun use “shenjie” to explain are different, and the Shilun does not use the Wŏnhyoso’s expressions, such as “the nature understands mystically by itself” 性自神解 or “the nature of mystical understanding” 神解之性 (shenjiezhixing). Moreover, the Shilun comes up with a new interpretation, which the Wŏnhyoso does not mention, that “shenjie” of the original enlightenment 本覺 (benjue) is contrasted with the imbecility of the nescience, and each corresponds to consciousness 識 (shi) and mark 相, respectively. However, it is possible to infer that the Shilun is affected by the Wŏnhyoso because the usage of “shenjie” in the Shilun shows that the essence 體 (ti) of defiled dharmas 染法 is the original enlightenment 本覺.

The influence of the Wŏnhyoso reflected in the Shilun continues in several commentaries on the Shilun such as Shi moheyan lun zanxuanshu 釋摩訶衍論贊玄疏 (hereinafter Zanxuanshu) and Shi moheyan lun ji 釋摩訶衍論記 (hereinafter Puguanji). First, the Zanxuanshu was written by Fawu 法悟 in the Liao Dynasty and is composed of two parts; one is a summary part that divides the Shilun’s content into ten, and another is a detailed exposition part that interprets each of the Shilun’s sentences. The word “shenjie” is found four times in the Zanxuanshu; one is used in the former and three times are in the latter.13 Among the four cases, the fourth could be found in the quotation below.

Zanxuanshu

If the three main causes and indirect causes of defilement and purity are connected to the three subtle consciousnesses, the original enlightenment is the cause of proximity and the nescience is the condition of remoteness. Therefore, the result of the mystical understanding which is similar to the enlightenment occurs. [If the three main causes and indirect causes of defilement and purity are] related to the three subtle marks, the nescience is the cause of proximity and the original enlightenment is the condition of remoteness. Thus, the dharma of darkness which is similar to the nescience arises.14

The Zanxuanshu is an explanation of the sentence of the Shilun “以何(至)由疎爲緣故”.15 Fawu, the author of the Zanxuanshu adds his own description of the cause 因 (yin) of proximity and the condition 緣 (yuan) of remoteness by specifying the condition that distinguishes consciousness 識 and mark 相. However, the basic concept of the Zanxuanshu reflects the Shilun’s view that “shenjie” is connected to the original enlightenment and corresponds to consciousness.

Second, the Puguanji was written by Puguan’s 普觀 in the Southern Song Dynasty. The word “shenjie” is used five times, four of which accounts for the ālaya-vijñāna 阿梨耶識 (aliyeshi) of the AFM’s sentence “the arising and ceasing mind means there is the arising and ceasing mind because [the mind] relies on the tathāgata-garbha 如來藏 (rulaizang). “‘Neither arising nor ceasing’ 不生不滅 combines with the ‘arising and ceasing’ 生滅, so [both are] neither identical nor different. That is called ‘ālaya-vijñāna’”.16

Puguanji

The fifth is [the ālaya-vijñāna] of the mark of karma and the activity consciousness. The mark is dark and dull, and consciousness is the mystical understanding... The sixth is [the ālaya-vijñāna] of the mark of the subjective perceiver and the forthcoming consciousness... The visibility 有見 (youjian) is named consciousness because it relates the mystical understanding. The invisibility 無見 (wujian) is named mark since it relates the dark and dull. The seventh is [the ālaya-vijñāna] of the mark of the objective world and the manifesting consciousness... In addition, it is named consciousness that they are different respectively because it relates the mystical understanding. Then, it is named mark that they vary from each other since it relates the dark and dull... The tenth is [the ālaya-vijñāna] of the initial enlightenment of defilement and purity... Question: Two original enlightenment, two initial enlightenment, and nature as thusness 性真如 (xingzhenru) are called consciousness, but why is not it the same as the space as unconditioned 虛空無爲 (xukongwuwei)? Answer: Consciousness means mystical understanding is lucidity, [but] space is dark and dull and the function of the nescience is obvious. Therefore, it does not call [consciousness].17

The Puguanji accounts for the ten kinds of ālaya-vijñāna of the Shilun. Among them, the above paragraph is an interpretation of the fifth ālaya-vijñāna of the mark of karma and the activity consciousness 業相業識阿梨耶識 (yexiangyeshialiyeshi), the sixth ālaya-vijñāna of the mark of the subjective perceiver and the forthcoming consciousness 轉相轉識阿梨耶識 (zhuanxiangzhuanshialiyeshi), the seventh ālaya-vijñāna of the mark of the objective world and the manifesting consciousness 現相現識阿梨耶識 (xianxiangxianshialiyeshi), and the tenth ālaya-vijñāna of the initial enlightenment of defilement and purity 染淨始覺阿梨耶識 (ranjingshijuealiyeshi).

In the fifth ālaya-vijñāna, the Puguan discriminates between consciousness and the mark following the Shilun’s definition. In the sixth and the seventh, consciousness and the mark are distinguished by using terms such as visibility 有見, nihilism 無見, distinction 別異 (bieyi), and characteristics differ 相異 (xiangyi), which are mentioned in the sutras quoted in the Shilun. In the tenth, he explains the reason why only the space as unconditioned 虛空無爲 and does not say “consciousness” among the four unconditioned factors 四無爲 (siwuwei), which reflects the unique interpretation of the Shilun through a question-and-answer format.

The Puguanji embraces the point of view in these four parts that the Shilun is to match “shenjie” to consciousness. However, although the Shilun refers to “shenjie” with the original enlightenment and consciousness, the Puguanji mentions only “shenjie” and consciousness. From this, it could be inferred that the Puguanji is more concerned with the relationship between “shenjie” and consciousness than “shenjie” and the original enlightenment.

In summary, the understanding of the Wŏnhyoso that “shenjie” is the nature of the original enlightenment has a prominent part in the Shilun. In addition, consciousness is added to the relationship between “shenjie” and original enlightenment by the Shilun, and this connection is reflected in the Zanxuanshu and the Puguanji. In other words, Wŏnhyo’s interpretation of “shenjie” was handed down to the exegetist of the Shilun.

On the other hand, the other commentaries on the Shilun, the Shi Moheyan lun shu 釋摩訶衍論疏 of Famin 法敏, and the Shi Moheyan lun ji 釋摩訶衍論記 of Shengfa 聖法, do not deal with “shenjie”, and the Shi moheyan lun tongxuanchao 釋摩訶衍論通玄鈔 of Zhifu 志福 used only the word “shen” 神 instead of the word “shenjie” when he distinguished consciousness and the mark. From this, it could be seen that Shengfa and Zhifu did not accept “shenjie” even though it needs further research whether they were influenced by Fazang or not. Therefore, it could be confirmed that the influence of the Wŏnhyoso is continued through the Shilun to the Zanxuanshu and the Puguanji since the use of “shenjie” is determined according to the opinion of commentators of the Shilun.

3.2. The Transmission of the Wŏnhyo’s Understanding of “Shenjie” through the Zongmishu

Among the commentaries on the AFM written after Fazang in China, the word “shenjie” appears for the first time in the Zongmishu, which commented on the Fazangshu as the main text by Zongmi. The word “shenjie” is used twice in the Zongmishu, and the sentences containing “shenjie” are quoted from the Wŏnhyoso as

Table 3. Use of “shenjie” in the Zongmishu18.

	Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu	Zongmishu
①	謂染淨諸法其性無二 真妄二門不得有異 故名為一。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虛空 性自神解 故名為心。(T44, 206c28-207a1)	然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二。 難以名目 故曰一心有二門等也。 (T44, 251c)	然此二門舉體通融際限不分體相莫二。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虛空 性自神解 故云一心。(L141, 94b)
③	心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動。故心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非神解。故生滅不離心相。 (T44, 208b16-18)	心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動故。心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非眞故。生滅不離於心相。 (T44, 254c17-19)	心亦如是。不生滅心舉體動故。心不離生滅之相生滅之相莫非神解。故生滅不離於心相。 (L141, 98a10-11)

(Kim 2015, p. 52). These are Zongmi’s restoration of the word “shenjie” of the Wŏnhyoso that Fazang excluded intentionally.

Although Chengguan 澄觀 mentions the word “shenjie” in the Dafangguang fo huanyan jing suishu yanyi chao 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 (Subcommentary and Explanation of the Meaning of the Huanyan jing) before Zongmi, Chengguan cited a different sentence of the Wŏnhyoso, including “shenjie” from the Zongmishu.19 Therefore, it could be confirmed again that Zongmi directly referred to the Wŏnhyoso.

The reason why the Zongmishu is important in the study of “shenjie” in the commentaries on the AFM is that the Zongmishu shows the direct influence of the Wŏnhyoso. Moreover, beginning with the Zongmishu, Wŏnhyo’s understanding of “shenjie” is inherited as commentaries on the AMF such as the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue written after Zongmi.

First, in Zixuan’s Bixueji, the word “shenjie” is used three times. Zixuan wrote down only the first few letters of the passage instead of quoting Zonggmishu’s sentence as it is and then described his interpretation of it. The Bixueji① below is the explanation of the Zongmishu’s sentence cited not from the Fazangshu, but the Wŏnhyoso ①, “[a place without discrimination between two] is not the same as space, and its nature understands mystically by itself” 不同虛空 性自神解 (butongxukong xingzishenjie).

Bixueji ①

Below “not the same” 不同 (butong) is about understanding the mind by grasping the mystical illumination, that is the essence of the space 虛空 has no two borders 邊 (bian) and is not the distinctive deluded mark. Although there was only darkness and no mystical illumination before, now true nature is omnipotent and numinous penetration, so it is enlightened and is not dark. Therefore, it is said “butong”... It is called “one” because the essence and the attributes are not two, and it is said “mind” since it is the true aspect of the middle way 中實 (zhongshi) and the mystical understanding.20

Even though the Bixueji ① did not mention the full sentence of the Wŏnhyoso and just represented it as the word “butong”, it is assumed that the Zixuan agrees with the Wŏnhyo’s view of “shenjie” based on describing the relationship between “shenjie” and One Mind in the Bixueji ①. If not, “shenjie” would have been deleted or replaced with another word since the Bixueji added or took away some sentences from the Dashengqixinlunsui shuji 大乘起信論隨疏 of Chuan’ao 傳奧 (d.u.), which is the commentary on the Zongmishu. On the contrary to this, there is no word “shenjie” in some commentaries on the Bixueji published in the Ming 明 Dynasty, such as the Qixinlun zuanzhu 起信論纂註 of Zhenjie 真界 and the Qixinlun jieyao 起信論捷要 of Zhengyuan 正遠, so it shows that both disagree with Wŏnhyo’s perspective on it.

Furthermore, through the Bixueji ② and the Bixueji ③, it is able to confirm the fact that the Bixueji inherits the point of view on “shenjie” from Wŏnhyo.

Bixueji ②

The part below “the mind also” is the third which is the application of the dharma. The mystical understanding is the psychomancy of penetrating discernment and the lack of darkness of the original enlightenment. The rest of the sentence could be understood.21

Bixueji ③

There are many ways to arrive at the true way of nirvana, the key point is śamatha 止 and vipaśyanā 觀 (guan). The śamatha is the first aspect to defeat defilements, and the vipaśyanā is the right way to break off delusion. The śamatha cultivates a good foundation of the mind and consciousness, and the vipaśyanā illuminates the marvelous skill of mystical understanding.22

The Bixueji ② corresponds to the Zongmishu [=the Wŏnhyoso ②] and explains “shenjie” as “the psychomancy of penetrating discernment and the lack of darkness of the original enlightenment”. The Bixueji ③ accounts for Śamatha and Vipaśyanā Meditation of the AFM by quoting Zhiyi’s 智顗 Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao 修習止觀坐禪法要 (Brief Clarification of the Essentials of Śamatha and Vipaśyanā Meditation for Beginners to Open their Blind Eyes). The Bixueji ② and the Bixueji ③ are Zixuan’s own definition, which is in neither the Zongmishu nor the Wŏnhyoso. From this, it could be verified that the Wŏnhyo’s interpretation of “shenjie” developed further as it passed from the Zongmishu to the Bixueji.

Second is the Shulue, and the author Deqing states that he has edited the Fazangshu and made it briefly.23 However, the word “shenjie”, which is not used by Fazang, is found twice in the Shulue.

As seen in

Table 4. Use of “shenjie” in the Shulue 1.

Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu	Zongmishu	Shulue
謂染淨諸法其性無二 真妄二門不得有異 故名為一。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虛空 性自神解。故名為心。 (T44, 206c-207a)	然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二 難以名目 故曰一心有二門等也。 (T44, 251c)	然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虛空 性自神解 故云一心。 (L141, 94b)	然此二門 舉體通融 體相莫二。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虛空 性自神解 故云一心。 (X45, 448a)

and

Table 5. Use of “shenjie” in the Shulue 2.

Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu	Zongmishu	Shulue
如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相。動之濕是水相。水擧體動。故水不離風相。無動非濕。故動不離水相。 心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動。故心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非神解。故生滅不離心相。 (T44, 208b13-19)	如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相。動之濕是水相。以水擧體動。故水不離於風相。無動而非濕。故動不離於水相。 心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動。故心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非眞。故生滅不離於心相。 (T44, 254c13-19)	下文云 如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相。動之濕是水相。以水舉體動故。水不離於風相。無動而非濕。故動不離於水相。 心亦如是。不生滅心舉體動。故心不離生滅之相。生滅之相莫非神解。故生滅不離於心相。 如是不離 名為和合。(L141, 98a8-11)	下文云 如大海水因風波動。水相風相不相捨離。 謂真心舉體成。 生滅之相。生滅之相莫非神解。不離真心 如是不離 名為和合。(X45, 450c5-7)

, the Shulue’s phrases “故一心云 (guyixinyun)” (Table 4), “下文云 (xiawenyun)” (Table 5), and “如是不離 名爲和合 (rushibuli mingweihehe)” (Table 5) are the same as the Zongmishu but are not mentioned in the Wŏnhyoso and the Fazangshu. Based on this fact, “shenjie” in the Shulue also comes from the Zongmishu, which accepted Wŏnhyo’s idea.

There are two possibilities. One is that the Shulue summarizes the Fazangshu by referring to the Zongmishu (Kim 2015, p. 47). Another is that Deqing’s Shulue abridges the Zongmishu, which has been mistakenly known as the Fazangshu (Kim 2021, p. 22). During the Ming Dynasty, the era of Deqing, the same cases are discovered in some texts such as Zhenjian’s 真鑑 Lengyan jing zhengmaishu xuanshi 楞嚴經正脉疏懸示 (Commentary on the Śūraṃgama-sūtra) and Zhengmi’s 正謐 Shi buermen zhiyao chao xiangjie 十不二門指要鈔詳解 (Explanation of Ten Aspects to Nonduality in the Tiantai School).24 In either case, it demonstrates that the Shulue was influenced by the Zongmishu, and Zongmi’s understanding of “shenjie” of the Wŏnhyoso continues until the Shulue.

Third, Xufaʼs Huiyue is the compilation of the Fazangshu and the Bixueji, and they are abbreviated as “Shu” and “Ji”. In the Huiyue, the word “shenjie” is used five times. Among them, three times are in the “Ji” part, which is the same as the Bixueji exactly (

Table 6. Use of “shenjie” in the “Ji” part of the Huiyue.

	Bixueji	Huiyue
①	故祖師云。空寂體上自有本智。能知知之一字。眾妙之門。大抵意云。於一切染淨融通法中。有真實之體。了然鑒覺。目之為心。斯則體相不二故。云一中實。神解故云心。(T44. 330a27-b2)	故祖師云。空寂體上。自有本智能知。知之一字。眾妙之門。大抵意云。於一切染淨融通法中。有真實之體。了然鑒覺。目之為心。斯則體相不二。故云一中實神解。故云心。(X45, 593b5-8)
②	“心亦”下三法合。神解者。本覺不昧。鑒照靈通也。(T44. 337b9-10)	心亦下。三。法合。神解者。謂本覺不昧。鑒照靈通也。(X45, 604c24-605a1)
③	故彼云。涅槃真法入乃多塗。論其急要不過止觀。止乃伏結之初門。觀乃斷惑之正要。止乃養心識之善資。觀則照神解之妙術等。若人成就定慧二法。斯乃自利利人。法無不備也。今之學流焉可偏習。 (T44, 406a12-17)	故彼文云。涅槃真法。入乃多途。論其急要。不過止觀。止乃伏結之初門。觀乃斷惑之正要。止乃養心識之善資。觀則照神解之妙術等。若人成就定慧二法。斯乃自利利人。法無不備也。今之學流。焉可偏習。(X45, 725b16-20)

), and the last are found twice in the “Shu” part, which corresponds not to the usage of the Fazangshu, but the Wŏnhyoso (

Table 7. Use of “shenjie” in the “shu” part of the Huiyue.

	Wŏnhyoso	Fazangshu	Zonghmishu	Huiyue
①	謂染淨諸法其性無二 真妄二門不得有異 故名為一。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虗空 性自神解 故云一心。 (T44,206c28-207a1)	然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二。 難以名目 故曰一心有二門等也。 (T44, 251c)	然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虗空 性自神解 故云一心。 (L141, 94b)	【疏】 然此二門 舉體通融 際限不分 體相莫二。 此無二處 諸法中實 不同虗空 性自神解 故云一心。 (X45, 592a21-22)
③	心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動故。心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非神解故。生滅不離心相。如是不相離。故名與和合。 (T44, 208b16-19)	心亦如是。不生滅心擧體動故。心不離生滅相。生滅之相莫非眞故。生滅不離於心相。如是不離 名為和合。 (T44, 254c17-20)	心亦如是。不生滅心舉體動故。心不離生滅之相。生滅之相莫非神解故。生滅不離於心相。如是不離 名為和合。 (L141, 98a10-11)	心亦如是。不生滅心舉體動故。心不離於生滅之相。生滅之相莫非神解故。生滅不離於心相。如是不離。名為和合。 (X45, 604c13-15)

).

Like the Shulue, it is assumed that the Huiyue referred to the Zongmishu, which is considered the Fazangshu. The ground is that the sentences with the phrase “Fazang says”, which Xufa cited in his other writings such as the Guanzizai pusa ruyilun tuoluoni jing lueshu 觀自在菩薩如意心陀羅尼經略疏 (Abbreviated Commentary on the Dhāraṇī Spell of the Wish-Fulfilling Essence of the Bodhisattva of Spontaneous Contemplation) and the Ba daren jue jing shu 八大人覺經疏 (Commentary on the Sutra on the Eight Kinds of Attentiveness of Great Persons), are also the sentences of the Zongmishu (Kim 2021, p. 81). It infers another possibility that “shenjie” of the Zongmishu, which is inherited from the Wŏnhyoso, was considered as Fazangshu’s idea as well because people mistook the Zongmishu for the Fazangshu.

4. Conclusions

This study aims to reveal the influence of the Wŏnhyoso on Chinese commentaries on the AFM. To summarize, two points must be considered.

The first point concerns the distinctive interpretation of “shenjie” of Wŏnhyo from Fazang about the AFM. Wŏnhyo comprehends “shenjie” as the nature of One Mind in the aspect of thusness and the nature of the mind of original enlightenment in the aspect of arising and ceasing. On the other hand, Fazang uses “shenjie” to refer to a person of high intelligence. In addition, after thoroughly reviewing the part where Wŏnhyo interprets the AFM with “shenjie”, Fazang changes “shenjie” to another word, such as “real,” or replaces Wŏnhyo’s sentences with his statement without “shenjie”.

The second is how the understanding of “shenjie” of the Wŏnhyoso was accepted in the commentaries on the AFM after Fazang. The Shilun, like the Wŏnhyoso, explains “shenjie” as the nature of original enlightenment that exists in the defiled dharma. Furthermore, the Shilun relates “shenjie” to consciousness and contrasts between “shenjie” and nescience according to his own interpretation. Then, the commentaries on the Shilun, the Zanxuanshu, and the Puguanji follow the understanding of the Wŏnhyoso. However, the Zanxuanshu adds the condition for consciousness that is the distance between the cause and the condition. Moreover, the Puguanji mentions only the connection between “shenjie” and consciousness without the relation to original enlightenment. The Zongmishu interprets the Fazangshu while quoting Wŏnhyoso’s mention of “shenjie” excluded by Fazang. The Bixueji interprets Zongmishu’s sentence and adds the expression modifying “shenjie”, psychomancy of penetrating discernment, and the relationship between “shenjie” and Vipaśyanā. Examining the usage of “shenjie” in the Shulue and the Huiyue suggests that both may refer to the Zongmishu, which has been mistakenly understood as the Fazangshu by scholars in the Ming dynasty.

In conclusion, this study reveals that “shenjie” is one of the keywords showing the differentiation between Wŏnhyo’s and Fazang’s perspectives. Examining the usage of “shenjie” clarifies the direct (the Shilun and the Zongmishu) and indirect (the Zanxuanshu, the Puguanji, the Bixueji, the Shulue, and the Huiyue) effects of the Wŏnhyoso on later commentaries on the AFM. In addition, reviewing the commentaries on the AFM shows that the meaning of “shenjie” has expanded over time from the Tang to the Qing dynasties and elucidates the relationship between the commentaries, as shown in Figure 1.