A New Exploration of the Dharma Lineage of Fazang (法藏): The Third Patriarch of the Huayan School

Abstract

According to available biography materials, Fazang had six disciples, namely, Hongguan (宏觀), Wenchao (文超), Zhiguang (智光) of Huayansi in the East Capital (東都華嚴寺), Zongyi (宗一) of He’ensi (荷恩寺), Huiyuan (慧苑) of Jingfasi (靜法寺), and Huiying (慧英) of Jingxingsi (經行寺). Most studies on Fazang’s dharma lineage have only focused on Huiyuan because only Huiyuan’s works on Buddhism are still extant. However, Huiyuan has been criticized because “he rebelled against his master’s doctrines, and then was taken placed by Chengguan (澄觀) who was born a hundred years later 弟子慧苑悉叛其說, 滅后百年而得澄觀”. Therefore, research on Huiyuan is not mainstream either. This has led to a lack of studies on the Huayan School during the time between Fazang and Chengguan. In fact, Wenchao, a disciple of Fazang, authored ten volumes of Zifang Yiwangji (自防遺忘集) and one volume of Huayanjing Guanmai Yiji (華嚴經関脈義記) (hereinafter referred to as Guanmai (関脈)), and Guanjian (関鍵: the number of its volumes is unknown, and its text is most likely to be part of Zifang Yiwangji); Fashen (法詵), a disciple of Huiyuan, wrote Huayanjing Shu(華嚴經疏, thirty-one volumes); Kuaiji Shenxiu (會稽神秀), a disciple of Fashen, wrote the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏), thirty volumes) and Miaoli Yuanchengguan (妙理圓成觀, three volumes). However, research on these figures is limited. This paper aims to enrich and supplement the study of the Dharma lineage of Fazang by examining the writings of Wenchao, Fashen, and Kuaiji Shenxiu and the ideas revealed by their manuscripts, which may further contribute to the study of the history of Huayan Buddhism and the history of Buddhist schools.

1. Introduction

Sectarian Buddhism is an important part of the historical development of Buddhism in China and describes a stage of the development of Buddhism under the influence of traditional Chinese culture since its introduction into China from India. For Chinese Buddhism, the origin of Chan Buddhism and the succession of their masters within the school are relatively known thanks to the completion of its sectarian documentation. However, the development of the Huayan School, which is as renowned as the Tiantai School, has remained obscure since the end of the Tang Dynasty. It is only in recent years that scholars such as Liao Zhaoheng (廖肇亨) (Liao 2017), Zhang Aiping (張愛萍) (Zhang 2014, pp. 51–66), and Shi Dingming (釋定明) (Shi 2017, pp. 309–19) introduce some genealogical documents on the internal lineage of the Huayan School during Tang and Song Dynasties; since then, the genealogical status of Huayan masters in the Tang Dynasty and later periods is made clear. However, there is still one issue that deserves our attention in the study of Huayan Buddhism and doctrines at the time of the Tang Dynasty, namely, the specific development of Fazang’s (643–712) dharma lineage. It is well known that Huiyuan (673–743), the foremost disciple of Fazang, did not inherit Fazang’s unique “doctrinal classification”, or panjiao (判教), but established another new one, namely, the doctrines of Mizhenyizhi Jiao (迷真異執教, which refers to the 95 kinds of religions in India and the doctrines of Confucius (孔子), Laozi (老子) and Zhuangzhou (庄周) in China); Zhenyifenban Jiao (真一分半教, which refers to the Hinayana Buddhism, for example, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, and so on); Zhenyifenman Jiao (真一分滿教, which refers to the doctrines of the Vijñānavāda); and Zhenjufenman Jiao (真具分滿教, which refers to the doctrines of the Tathāgatagarbha). This doctrinal classification was criticized by later generations (Zhipan (志磐), p. 293a25-26). Later, Chengguan (738–839) succeeded Fazang’s doctrines and was revered as the Fourth Patriarch of Huayan. However, it should be noted that during the time between Fazang and Chengguan, it was Fazang’s lineage that bore the burden of spreading and promoting Huayan Buddhism.

According to the biography written by Ch’oe Ch’iwǒn (崔致遠) (857–904) (Tang Taech’ŏnbok sa ko saju pŏngyŏng taedŏk Pŏpchang hwasang chŏn (唐大薦福寺故寺主翻經大德法藏和尚傳), the biography of the Bhahanta–translator monk Fazang, the former head of the Dajianfusi in the Tang Dynasty), we can tell that Fazang has six disciples, namely, Hongguan, Wenchao, Zhiguang, Zongyi, Huiyuan, and Huiying (Ch’oe, p. 285a9-12).1 In addition, there were Huiliang (惠諒), Huiyun (惠雲), Xuanguan (玄觀) (maybe an error for Hongguan), and Ruzong (如琮), Sǔngchǒn (勝詮) and Simsang, Qianli (千里), and Facheng (Chen 2007, pp. 85–89). In addition to Huiyuan’s works, Xu Huayanlueshu Kandingji (續華嚴略疏刊定記) and Xinyi Dafangguangfo Huayanjing Yinyi (新譯大方廣佛華嚴經音譯), Wenchao also has writings on Huayan doctrines. Ŭich’ŏn (義天) (1055–1101), in his New General Catalogue of All Religious Collections (Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok (新編諸宗教藏總錄), hereinafter referred to as the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue), states that “ten volumes of Zifang Yiwangji 自防遺忘集, and one volume of Kaimai 開脈 that have been described above are written by Wenchao.” (Ŭich’ŏn Ed, p. 1166c27-28) In addition, Guanfu (觀復) points out that the author of Guanmai (関脈) is unknown, but Guanjian (関鍵) was written by Master Wenchao (Guanfu, p. 66). Based on these records, it is known that Wenchao wrote Zifang Yiwangji (ten volumes), Guanmai (one volume), and Guanjian (number of volumes unknown). Huiyuan also had his own discipleship, and one of his disciples was Fashen, who wrote The Academic Record on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Yiji (華嚴經義記), 12 volumes), The Compilation and Interpretation on the Kandingji (Kandingji Zuanshi (刊定記纂釋), 21 or 13 volumes), The Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Hua-yanjing Shu (華嚴經疏), 31 volumes), The Essential Commentary on the Precepts of the Nuns (Nijie Benshu (尼戒本疏), 2 volumes), The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Weimojing Shu (維摩經疏), 2 volumes), and The Commentary on the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Fanwangjing Shu (梵網經疏), 2 volumes), among others. The disciples of Fashen included Zhengjue (正覺), Taichu (太初), Chengguan (澄觀), and Kuaiji Shenxiu (會稽神秀), among whom Kuaiji Shenxiu wrote The Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏), 30 volumes) and Miaoli Yuanchengguan (妙理圓成觀, 3 volumes). The Buddhist works written by Wenchao, Fashen, and Kuaiji Shenxiu are still preserved in China and Japan today, and these works are precious parts of the history of Huayan; therefore, these masters ought to be venerated as the Five Patriarchs of Huayan.

There are still some questions about the above figures and their writings that remain to be answered; for example, was Guanmai written by Fazang, Wŏnhyo (元曉), or Wenchao? Were Huayanjing Shu and Miaoli Yuanchengguan written by the Heze Shenxiu (荷澤神秀) (606–706) of the Northern School of Chan or the Kuaiji Shenxiu (會稽神秀) of the Huayan School? This paper analyses the life experiences and writings of the masters mentioned above, as well as their Huayan thoughts, based on an exploration of the extant literature on Huayan in China and Japan. This study would further enrich the study of the Dharma lineage of Fazang and may also contribute to the study of the history of Huayan Buddhism and to the discussion of the paradigm of sectarian studies.

2. Fazang’s Disciple Wenchao and His Writings

There is no biography of Wenchao left at present, but introductions to his writings can be found in the catalogs of Buddhist texts such as the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue and Kegonshū Shōsho narabi Yinmyōroku (華嚴宗章疏並因明錄) recorded by Enchō (圓超) (Enchō, p. 1134b20). In addition, there are other people who mentioned or cited Wenchao’s works in their writings, including the Korean monk Kyunyǒ (均如) (923–973) in his Hwaŏm kyŏng sambo chang Wŏnt’ong gi (華嚴經三寶章圓通記) (Kyunyǒ, pp. 143, 145, 153, 157) and Sŏk Hwaŏm kyobun gi Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴教分記圓通鈔) (Kyunyǒ, pp. 358, 461, 512, 513, 515, 518), the Liao monk Xianyan (鮮演) (1049–1118) in his Huayanjing Tanxuan Jueze (華嚴經談玄抉擇) (Xianyan, p. 21c05), the Southern Song monk Purui (普瑞) in his Huayan Xuantan Huixuanji (華嚴懸談會玄記) (Purui, p. 149c21-22), and many Japanese monks. Moreover, Zongmi (宗密) quotes several passages from Guanjian, and in the text, he clearly suggests that the author is Wenchao (Zongmi, pp. 222b22-23, 224c03-11, 281c06-10). The Biographies of the Masters in Huayan School (Huayanzong Fozuzhuan (華嚴宗佛祖傳)) (Xufa, p. 25)2 and The Patriarchs of the Xianshou School (Xianshou Zongcheng (賢首宗乘)) (Liao 2017, p. 102), based on the information written by Ch’oe Ch’iwǒn, list Wenchao as a collateral secondary descendant of the Third Patriarch (Fazang) in this genealogy. It is clear that Wenchao’s writings have not only been spread in China but also in the neighboring Korean Peninsula and Japan. Unfortunately, such a significant figure has not been recognized in Chinese monastic biographies; thus, this paper focuses on the writings of Wenchao about Huayan studies.3

2.1. One Volume of Guanmai

First, the name of this text is also debatable: in different documents, it has two different versions: “Kaimai 開脈” and “Guanmai 関脈”. Due to the discrepancy, some scholars argue that they are not the same text. However, Choe Yeonshik notes that the two characters “Kai 開” and “Guan 関” are similar in form and can be easily confused; moreover, where it is shown as “Guanmai 関脈” in the extant manuscripts, it is recorded as “Kaimai 開脈” in the catalogs and written scriptures. Therefore, Choe Yeonshik states that it is more likely that “Kaimai 開脈” is the original title of this text (Choe 2013, p. 119). On the contrary, I believe that “Guanmai 関脈” is the original title of this text: the term “Guanmai 関脈” is the abbreviation for the “joints and veins” in traditional Chinese medicine, which means “the key point” (guanjian (関鍵)), whereas it makes no sense for the so-called “Kaimai 開脈”.

According to Choe Yeonshik’s research (Choe 2013, pp. 119–20), Guanmai has been preserved in its entirety, and its two copies—the Dunhuang version (T45, pp. 656a14–659b06)4 and the Gyōnen version (T45, pp. 659b09–663a01)—have been spread at all times; in recent years, the Tan’e version stored in the collection of the Kanazawa Bunko has been identified (Okamoto 2011, pp. 16–28). The Dunhuang version is a commentary on the 60-volume version of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, while the Gyōnen version and Tan’e version are commentaries on the 80-volume version of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Although there are some differences between the three versions, the content is generally consistent. The biggest controversy about this work should be its authorship. The Dunhuang version does not contain a preface by the author, but the Tan’e version is inscribed with the words “A volume of Huayan Guanmai Yiji (with preface) written by Śramaṇa Fazang 華嚴經関脈義記一卷（並序）沙門法藏撰”. From the end of this text, we can see that Tan’e (1271−1346) proofread his handwritten version in the second year of the Wen-bao era (1318) with consultation to an ancient version (Okamoto 2011, p. 26), and this “ancient version” is probably the Gyōnen version. However, there is no preface containing the author’s information in the Gyōnen version of the Taishō Buddhist Canonical Works, which is probably missing, because Gyōnen (1240–1321) explicitly notes in his Catalogue of the Sutra Discourses of the Huayan School (Kegonshū Kyōronshōsho Mokuroku 華嚴宗經論章疏目錄) that Fazang wrote a volume of Guanmai (Gyōnen, p. 219). It is, therefore, certain that the two Japanese versions record and discuss Guanmai while taking it as a work of Fazang. In addition, according to Li Huiying’s argument, Enchō, Ei-chō (永超), Gyōnen, Matsubara Shojo (松原恭讓), Ishida Mosaku (石田茂作), and the Kanazawa Bunko’s (金澤文庫) Catalogue all record Fazang as the author (Li 1991, p. 612). In summary, it could be assumed that the author of Guanmai circulated within the Japanese system is Fazang.

Unlike the Japanese system, the author of Guanmai is recorded in the Han system as Wenchao or Wŏnhyo. The first person to identify the Korean monk Wŏnhyo as the author of Guanmai is Chengguan, who states in his Xinyi Huayanjing Qichujiuhui Songshizhang (新譯華嚴經七處九會頌釋章) that “On the basis of Huayan Guanmai Yi written by the Korean master Wŏnhyo 案新羅元曉法師華嚴関脈義云” (Chengguan, p. 712c13-14). However, Ŭich’ŏn and Purui (普瑞) believed that the author of Guanmai should be Wenchao. The Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue says that “The Kaimai5 in one volume was written by Wenchao 開脈一卷，文超述” (Ŭich’ŏn Ed, p. 1166c28). Purui also states that “The author of Guanmai is yet unknown, but it is written by master Wenchao according to Zuanxuan 関脈者未詳，准纂玄云文超法師作也” (Purui, p. 149c21-22). However, the preface of the Dunhuang version in the Taishō Buddhist Canonical Works has already given us a hint, saying, “since Qi 起has listened and studied for several years and got interested in it, and have seen and heard a little from the masters, I have recorded all the doctrines and named it as Guanmai Yiji 但起聽習數年彌增愛樂，依傍師訓有少見聞故，私記為篇名為関脈義記也” (T45, p. 656a22-24). The character “Qi 起” in this sentence is actually a miswriting of the character “Chao 超”.6 In addition, by analyzing the content of this text, Ōtake Susumu (大竹晋) clearly suggests that this text is not the work of Fazang but the work of Fazang’s disciple Wenchao, and he believes that it should be one of Wenchao’s early works (Ōtake 2007, pp. 461–69). Based on the analysis above, the “master’s words” mentioned in the preface most likely refer to the doctrines of Fazang, and Guanmai should have been written by Wenchao after hearing his teacher Fazang’s dharma doctrines on Huayan.

2.2. Guanjian (関鍵), Number of Volumes Unknown

As mentioned above, Guanfu suggests that Guanjian (関鍵) was written by Master Wenchao. However, Choe Yeonshik points out that the content of Guanjian quoted by Zongmi is consistent with the content of a particular part in The Collected Writings of the Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Yichao (華嚴經義鈔)). The content of the text quoted by Zongmi here is similar to that of the Eighth Part, “Clarification of the Difference between the Closeness of Dependent-arising and Nature-origination 八明緣性二門親疎有異門” in the book of Huayanjing Yichao. Some parts of Huayanjing Yichao at the Kanazawa Library are missing, and thus, we are unable to completely understand the specific content of the Eighth Part. However, the title of the Eighth Part as well as the key words in Zongmi’s statement—“the part which clarifies the differences between the closeness of Dependent-arising and Nature-origination part 明緣性二門親疎有異門” and “Guanjian differentiates Dependent-arising and Nature-origination based on the closeness of them 関鍵中約親疏”—offer some clues that Guanjian is part of the ten volumes of Yiwangji (遺忘集) (Choe 2013, pp. 125–26).

In recent years, a new fragment (Okamoto 2020, pp. 192–97) published by the Kanazawa Bunkō reveals the missing part of the tenth chapter of Huayanjing Yichao, which contains the first half of the Eighth Part. There is no corresponding content between Zongmi’s citation and this new text of the Kanazawa Library; therefore, Choe Yeonshik’s suggestion that Guanjian is part of Huayanjing Yichao seems to be unsupported. Nevertheless, the new publication by the Kanazawa Library is only the first half of the Eighth Part, and the content of this part is almost entirely a paraphrase of others’ thoughts (有說), which does not deal with any aspect of Wenchao’s personal ideas. Additionally, the exact content of Wenchao’s explanation in the latter half of the Eighth Part is currently unknown. Therefore, given the absence of other solid evidence, Choe Yeonshik’s suggestion that Guanjian is most likely part of Huayanjing Yichao is still very justifiable.

2.3. Zifang Yiwangji, Ten Volumes

The tenth volume of Huayanjing Yichao is included in the second volume of Kanazawa Bunko Shiryō Zenshō (金澤文庫資料全書) (Kanagawa Kenlitsu Kanazawa Bunko 2018) and was transcribed by Takamine Ryōshū (高峯了州) (Takamine 1936, pp. 60–77). This volume was originally entitled Suiwen Yaoke Zifang Yiwangji (隨聞要科自防遺忘集) and has the following postscript: “Master Wenchao has acquired dharmas from the venerable Fazang face to face, and recorded all the master’s teachings into ten volumes for fear of forgetting them. This ten-volume manuscript is recorded in the twenty-second chapter of Wŏnjong munnyu. This Yiwangji as Huayan Zifang Yiwangji and some passages of it are also citated. This Yiwangji is written by the monk Wenchao, who lived at the Zhixiangsi in the Zhongnan Mountain in Tang Dynasty 夫遺忘集者，文超法師面受吾高祖大師，恐自遺忘故隨聞科錄卷成十軸, 即圓宗文類第廿二云花嚴自防遺忘集十卷。唐終南山至相寺沙門釋文超（賢首門人）述” (Takamine 1936, p. 77). According to this information, we know that this text is a portion of the ten volumes of Huayan Zifang Yiwangji, written by Wenchao to record the doctrines of his teacher, Fazang. The tenth volume of Huayanjing Yichao, now preserved in the Kanazawa Bunko, was originally handwritten by the Japanese monk Tan’e (湛睿) on the third year of Zheng-he (正和三年) (1314). At the time of its discovery, it was placed in the sutra collection in the southeastern courtyard of Tōdaiji (東大寺), and the contents after the twenty-sixth chapter could not be seen in their entirety due to severe damage.

From the statement written by Tan’e (湛睿) that “Zifang Yiwangji has not spread in Japan, but it is quoted by Wŏnjong munnyu several times, and through these quotations, we just started to understand the main idea of this text 但以和國未流傳，纔見此圓宗文類中數處引用之，始知釋義之要妙” (Takamine 1936, p. 77), we can tell that Zifang Yiwangji also survived in Japan in the form of being quoted by Wŏnjong munnyu. However, the text is not included in any of the four extant volumes of Wŏnjong munnyu (viz, the first, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-second volumes). Fortunately, there are many references to Wŏnjong munnyu by Huayan monks from the Nara period (奈良時代) in Japan, from which a number of fragments of Zifang Yifangji can be collected since they all quote Wenchao’s Zifang Yiwangji. This kind of works include ShinJō’s (審乘) Kegon Gokyōshō Mondōshō (華嚴五教章問答抄) (ShinJō, p. 710a22-25), Shōsen’s (聖詮) Kegon Gokyōshō shin’isho (華嚴五教章深意鈔) (Shōsen, pp. 21a20–21b01), Tan’e’s (湛睿) Gokyōshō Sanshaku (五教章纂釋) (Tan’e, p. 145), Shōken’s (聖憲) Gokyōshō Chōshō (五教章聽抄) (Shōken, p. 130), Seiyo’s (盛譽) Kegon Shokyō (華嚴手鏡) (Seiyo, pp. 457, 460), Hōtan’s (鳳潭) Kegon Gokyōshō Kōshinsho (華嚴五教章匡真鈔) (Hōtan, p. 535c01-05), and Gyōnen’s (凝然) Gokyōshō Tsūlōki (五教章通路記) (Gyōnen, pp. 525c18-24, 527b17-22). Choe Yeonshik mentions that, according to the quotations from the works of Shōsen and ShinJō, the contents of Yiwangji quoted from Wŏnjong munnyu in Volume 20 are about the Third Part, which is Xingxiaoguo Sansheng Jiujing (性小果三生究竟門) and the Fourth Part, which is Chuxin Xingyuan Chengzhengjue (初心行圓成正覺門). By comparison, these two quotations vary from the contents of Huayanjing Yichao preserved in the Kanazawa Bunko. However, both ask and answer questions in the form of Part (Men, 門), which, to some extent, supports the claim that HuayanJing Yichao is a part of Zifang Yiwangji (Choe 2013, pp. 123–24).

Besides the texts kept in Japan, fragments of Yiwangji are also preserved in China and Korea. There are two references to Yiwangji in Chengguan’s Dafang Guangfo Huayanjing Suishu Yanyichao (大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔) (Chengguan, pp. 155c09, 271a20-b02). Additionally, Kyunyǒ’s (均如) Hwaŏm kyŏng sambo chang Wŏnt’ong gi (華嚴經三寶章圓通記) (Kyunyǒ, pp. 143a05-07, 145a02-07, 153a16–153a02, 157a09-11) and Sŏk Hwaŏm kyobun gi Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴教分記圓通鈔) (Kyunyǒ, pp. 358a05-10, 461a08-13, 512a08-13, 513a04-06, 515a10-13, 518a09–519a01) contain the words “Wenchao states in his chapter 文超章云”. Although Kyunyǒ does not specify which Wenchao’s works he refers to, it is confirmed through comparison that “Wenchao’s chapter” also takes the form of “Part, Men 門”; thus, “Wenchao’s chapter” mentioned by Kyunyǒ may also refer to Yiwangji.

Lastly, although the outer title of Huayanjing Yichao in the Kanazawa Bunko Collection is marked “The Tenth”, there are repeated occurrences of the phrase “There is a different part as the following chapters state 更有異門如下章說” in the text and at the end of the text. Based on this phrase and the content of Huayanjing Yichao, it can be assumed that the tenth part of Huayanjing Yichao is not the tenth volume (the final volume) of Yiwangji but should be one of the volumes of the latter (but not the final volume). However, it is not known how many volumes there are in Huayanjing Yichao and their relationship with the volumes of Yiwangji.

The above is an introduction to the literary aspects of Wenchao’s Guanmai (one volume), Guanjian (unknown number of volumes), and Zifang Yiwangji (ten volumes). Wenchao’s writings were also quoted by subsequent scholars of Huayan in China, Korea, and Japan. However, the importance of the succession and reception of these doctrines, as well as the significance of Wenchao as a lineage of Fazang’s doctrines, has not been paid enough attention to, which he deserves as one of the greatest achievers of early Chinese Huayan.

3. Huiyuan’s Disciple Fashen (法詵) (or Named Faxian (法銑)) and His Writings

Fazang died in the first year of the Xiantian era (先天元年) (712), more than twenty years before the birth of Chengguan (738), and the history of Huayan Buddhism officially entered the era of Huiyuan (慧苑) (673–743) and Fashen (法詵) (718–778). First, it could be doubted whether Fashen (or Faxian) is a disciple of Huiyuan. According to the record in The Biographies of the Monks in Song Dynasty (Song Gaoseng Zhuan (宋高僧傳)), Fashen learned the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經), the Bodhisattva Precepts (菩薩戒), and the Awakening Faith of Mahayana (Dacheng Qixinlun (大乘起信論)) from “En-zhen” (恩貞) (Zanning, p. 736a25–26). However, it is yet uncertain who this “En-zhen” is. The question that arises is that if Huiyuan is the same person as “En-zhen”, why did Zanning (贊甯) not call him by his name? Moreover, Zanning wrote The Biography of Huiyuan—Who Lives at the Foshoujisi in Luojing during Tang Dynasty (Tang Luojing Foshoujsi Huiyuan Zhuan (唐洛京佛授記寺慧苑傳)), in which he is unsparing in his praise of Huiyuan and describes Huiyuan as a person who has perfectly inherited his teacher’s doctrine 然稟從賢首之門，不負庭訓之美也 (Zanning, p. 739a19-20). But if they are not the same person, then who is “En-zhen”? Chen Jinhua (陳金華) has also discussed this issue, where he states that Zanning’s biography of Fashen is based on the letters epitaph written by Jiaoran; the epitaph identifies the Fourth Patriarch as Sizhen (思貞), who was from Fashen’s native place; thus, all of these texts confirm what Zanning tells us—Fashen received the Avataṃsaka teachings from a monk sharing his native place, although he was named Sizhen, rather than Enzhen (恩貞); Jiaoran’s epitaph makes no mention of Chengguan’s discipleship under Fashen, which is affirmed by Zanning in his biographies for both Fashen and Chengguan; Zanning also informs us that it was at Tianzhusi (in Hangzhou) that Chengguan started to study with Fashen. Another tradition, however, believes that Chengguan studied with a monk called Da Shen in the Eastern Capital, Luoyang, and Shen and Fashen are two different monks (Chen 2007, pp. 86–88).

Chen believes that Zanning had mistakenly recorded Sizhen, Fashen’s teacher, as En-zhen and that Sizhen, Fashen, and Da Shen are not the same person but three different individuals. Indeed, it is difficult to confirm the relationship between Huiyuan and Fashen only from Zanning’s records, but the Japanese monk Gyōnen (1240–1321) clearly suggests that Fashen is a disciple of Huiyuan. In his Kegon Hōkai Gikyō (華嚴法界義鏡), Gyōnen states: “The fourth patriarch Chengguan at Qingliang Mountain... studied Huayan with the Master Fashen at Luoyang. Fashen is a disciple of the Master Huiyuan第四清涼山澄觀法師, ……乃依東都法詵大師，習學華嚴，詵是慧苑大師門人” (Gyōnen, p. 303). In addition, he also notes in Kōmokushō Hogoki (孔目章發悟記) that “Fazang has a disciple named Huiyuan living at the Jingfasi. Huiyuan has a disciple named Faxian living at the Tianzhusi. At present Chengguan learns dharmas from Faxian 賢首上足有靜法寺惠苑，苑之弟子有天竺寺法銑，今澄觀師承於法銑” (Gyōnen, p. 215). However, it is worth noting that although Gyōnen mentions the person who is the disciple of Huiyuan and the teacher of Chengguan in the two quotations above, he uses the name Fashen (法詵) of Luoyang in one place, and Faxian (法銑) of Tianzhusi in the other. In addition, Gyōnen also refers to a person as “Faquan (法詮)” and “Faquan (法銓)” in Bonmōkai Hōnsho Nishushō (梵網戒本疏日珠鈔). Similarities can be found between Fashen’s Commentary of the Bodhisattva Precepts in the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Fanwangjing Pusajie Shu (梵網經菩薩戒疏)), Faquan’s (法銓) “three kinds of general condition三種通緣” (Gyōnen, p. 66a15-17), and Faquan’s (法詮) “seven conditions 七縁” (Gyōnen, p. 65c22-23). Therefore, all of these names—Fashen (法詵), Faxian (法銑), Faquan (法詮) and Faquan (法銓)—in Gyōnen’s writings refer to the same person, that is, Fashen (法詵) of Tianzhusi, who is recorded in Song Gaoseng Zhuan (宋高僧傳) as the disciple of Huiyuan and the teacher of Chengguan.

Moreover, the relationship between Fazang, Huiyuan, and Fashen was confirmed by Ŭich’ŏn long before Gyōnen. He points out that “A few sentences of the expounding are cited in Xinji Wenlei written by Master Da Shen (大詵). However, Master Shen’s book which is the interpretation of Kandingji was not popular because it inherited Huiyuan’s thoughts. Additionally, Fashen has another work named Fashen Shishu, which contains more than 30 volumes. When Fashen explained the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, he also stated with citing □ (there is a character missing here). I have read Fazang’s books, so I know that Master Shen’s thoughts are different from Fazang’s. Although Shen’s commentary established the □ (there is a character missing here, but it is highly expected that the missing character should be “五 five”) jiao, it also involved the heretical thoughts 所須大詵法師文字《新集文類》中，略引其說。然詵師記文解釋刊定記，承習苑公故不盛行。外有《法詵師書》三十餘卷，解釋大經文類中，亦引□云。親見賢首，故知與詵公有別，其疏雖立□教，亦涉異端” (Huang Chunyan Punctuation Collate 2007, pp. 44–45). From this section, it is clear that Ŭich’ŏn possessed the two manuscripts of Xinji Wenlei (新集文類) and Fashen Shishu (法詵師書). Fashen’s Xinji Wenlei should refer to Kandingji Zuanshi (刊定記纂釋) recorded in the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue, which is an interpretation of Fazang’s Kandingji (刊定記) and the main idea is inherited from Huiyuan. As there are more than thirty volumes of Fashen Shishu (法詵師書), which is an interpretation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, should be thirty-one volumes of The Commentary of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏)) in the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue. Ŭich’ŏn indicates that Fashen and Master Da Shen are the same person. Fashen acquired the thoughts from Huiyuan, and the ideas in his Fashen Shishu are very different from Fazang’s and “also involved the heretical thoughts 亦攝異端”. The word “also” implies that in Ŭich’ŏn’s opinion, besides the doctrines of Fashen, there must be another person whose doctrines “also” involve heresy, and it is clear that this other person is the teacher of Fashen, Huiyuan. From this record, it can be assumed that Fashen was greatly influenced by his teacher Huiyuan, and it is also possible to confirm the relationship between Huiyuan and Fashen. This record noted by Ŭich’ŏn is probably the earliest information about Fashen, and perhaps the information obtained by Gyōnen might have also come from Ŭich’ŏn (but we have lost more information on this point). In addition, Imre Hamar clearly claims that Fashen(法詵) is one of Chengguan’s teachers; Dashen of the Eastern Capital and Fashen of Tianzhusi are the same person; Gyōnen regards Fashen as a disciple of Huiyuan, who is the heir to Fazang’s teachings; it is interesting to note that Chengguan often refers to the Huayan masters Dushun, Zhiyan, Fazang, and Huiyuan in his works, but never mentions Fashen; and this might suggests that Fashen is not so influential in the Huayan lineage (Hamar 2002, pp. 33–37).

The above argument is very different from Chen’s, but it is also very difficult for the author to refute Chen’s argument. However, if Chen’s argument is correct, the confusion regarding these individuals seems to have arisen at an early time since it apparently already exists in the writing of Ŭich’ŏn. In addition, based on the analysis of the ideas of Fazang, Huiyuan, and Fa-shen, there is a very close connection between the three (forthcoming). It is also stated by Sakamoto Yukio (坂本幸男) that “Even if Di’enzhen is not the same person as Huiyuan, it is still possible to presume from his writings that Fashen is the disciple of Huiyuan” (Sakamoto 1956, p. 52). In addition, Eichō states that “The Commentary of Brahmajāla Sūtra, in one volume, is written by Faxian. I personally edited it into four volumes. I think Fashen, a master of the Huayan School, is the disciple of Huiyuan (梵網經)同経疏一巻, 法銑師, 私, 今開為四巻。私, 銑恵苑門人，花厳宗” (Eichō collate, p. 58). It seems that Eichō also acknowledges Fashen as a Huayan master. In dealing with the genealogy of the Huayan School, Hōtan (鳳潭) (1654–1738) clarifies the lineage of the masters as “Di’enzhen, Fashen (a disciple of Huiyuan) of Tianzhusi in Qiantang Area, Qingliang Chengguan” (Hōtan, pp. 2–3).7 He did not adopt the five-patriarch genealogy of Huayan that had passed down since the Song Dynasty but formally attributed Chengguan as a disciple of Fashen based on Zanning’s records.

According to Sakamoto Yukio’s records and summaries, the following works were written by Fashen (or Faxian) (Sakamoto 1956, pp. 54–55):

(1)

Song Gaoseng Zhuan (宋高僧傳): The Academic Record on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Yiji (華嚴經義記)), twelve volumes, written by Fashen (法詵).

(2)

Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue (義天錄): The Compilation and Interpretation on the Kandingji (Kandingji Zuanshi (刊定記纂釋)), twenty-one (or thirteen) volumes, written by Fashen (法詵), revised by Zhengjue (正覺); The Commentary of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏)), thirty-one volumes, written by Faxian (法銑).

(3)

Narachō Genzai Yisaikyō Mokuroku (奈良朝現在一切經疏目錄): The Sparse Commentary on the Precepts of the Nuns (Nijie Benshu (尼戒本疏)), written by Faxian (法銑), two volumes, in the sixth year of the Shengbao era (勝寶六年) (754).

(4)

Kegonshū Shōsho narabi Yinmyōroku (華嚴宗章疏並因明錄): The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Weimojing Shu (維摩經疏)), six volumes, written by Faxian (法銑).

(5)

Tōiki Dentō Mokuroku (東域傳燈目錄): The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Weimojing Shu (維摩經疏)), two volumes, written by Faxian (法銑); The Commentary on the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Fanwangjing Shu (梵網經疏), two volumes, written by Faxian (法銑).

(6)

Kegonshū Kyōronshōsho Mokuroku 華嚴宗經論章疏目錄: The Commentary on the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Fanwangjing Shu 梵網經疏), 2 volumes, written by Faxian 法銑.

(7)

Butensho Mokuroku (佛典疏目錄): The Academic Record on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan Yiji (華嚴義記)), thirty-one volumes, written by Faxian (法銑) in the Tang Dynasty; The Commentary on the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Fanwangjing Shu (梵網經疏)), written by Faxian (法銑) of Tianzhusi.

Of the above works, only the first volume of Fanwangjing Shu (梵網經疏) is included in the Manji Buddhist Canonical Works (卍新纂續藏經), and part of the thirty-one volumes of Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏) mentioned in the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue is quoted in Kishinron Honsho Chōshūki (起信論本疏聽集記), written by Jūn-kō (順高) in Japan. The text of Huayanjing Shu has not been preserved in its entirety, only surviving in the form of being included in Wŏnjong munnyu (forthcoming).

4. Fashen’s Disciple Kuaiji Shenxiu (會稽神秀) and His Writings

According to the biography of Fashen in Song Gaoseng Zhuan, Fashen’s disciples are Taichu (太初), Xunyang Zhengjue (潯陽正覺), Kuaiji Shenxiu (會稽神秀), and Chengguan (澄觀) (Zanning, p. 736b09-12). Chengguan is best known as the Fourth Patriarch of the Huayan School. The name Taichu can be found only in this biography, and there is too little useful information about him. According to the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue, Kandingji Zuanshi was written by Fashen and revised by Zhengjue, who is Xunyang Zhengjue. Xunyang (潯陽) is the name of a place, i.e., the City of Jiujiang (九江市) in Jiangxi Province (江西省) in modern time. Unfortunately, apart from listing him in the Catalogue of Xunyang area, there is no other information about him provided in Song Gaoseng Zhuan.

The last disciple of Fashen was Kuaiji Shenxiu, bearing the same name as Shenxiu (638–713) of the Northern School of Chan. Similar to Xunyang Zhengjue, there is no other useful information in Song Gaoseng Zhuan, except for the information of his location, “Kuaiji”. When the Korean monk Ŭich’ŏn preached to his followers, he mentioned that “In his Huayanshu, the venerable Shenxiu of Jiaxiangsi quotes from Xuanfusong and states... 故會稽嘉祥寺神秀法師《花嚴疏》中引《漩澓頌》云 ……” (Huang Chunyan Punctuation Collate 2007, p. 64). From this, it is clear that “Shenxiu of Jiaxiangsi in the Kuaiji area” wrote Huayanshu. Kuaiji refers to the regions south of the Yangtze River, Jiangnan (江南), in modern times. Based on the geographical information, it would be more convincing that Shenxiu from Jiangnan studied with Fashen, who lived at the Tianzhusi in Hangzhou (杭州). According to Jiutangshu (舊唐書), from the West-Jin Dynasty to the end of the Southern Dynasties, only modern Shaoxing (紹興) and Ningbo (寧波) were under the jurisdiction of Kuaiji. Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty (隋文帝) conquered Chen (589), abolished the County of Kuaiji, and established Wuzhou (吳州). Later, Emperor Yang of the Sui Dynasty renamed Wuzhou as Yuezhou (越州) (605) and then changed it back to Kuaiji County (607). It was changed again to Yuezhou in the fourth year of Wude (武德) in the Tang Dynasty (621) and then changed to Kuaiji County in the first year of Tianbao (天寶) in the Tang Dynasty (742). During the reign of Emperor Su of the Tang Dynasty (唐肅宗) (758), it was reestablished as Yuezhou in the first year of Ganyuan (幹元). Since then, the county of Kuaiji no longer existed as an administrative unit, and the term Kuaiji has been used only as an alias for Yuezhou and Shaoxing. (Liu, pp. 1589–90).

As for the Jiaxiangsi (嘉祥寺), it is located at the foot of Qinwang Mountain (秦望山) in the south of Shaoxing City and was established in the first year of Ningkang (甯康) (373) and the third year of Taiyuan (太元) (378) in the East-Jin Dynasty. Zhu Daoyi (竺道一), Huijiao (慧皎), and Jizang (吉藏) were recorded as having lived there in history. Later, it became known as one of the ancestral courts of the Three-Treatise School.8

Thus, it seems that Master Shenxiu lived in Jiaxiangsi in Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, before the Huichang Calamity (845). To conclude, Kuaiji Shenxiu, who was also a disciple of Fashen, was Chengguan’s (738–839) contemporary, living approximately in the eighth and ninth centuries (but it is not known whether Shenxiu and Chengguan studied with Fashen at the same time).

One of the most crucial questions surrounding this Shenxiu is the authorship of the two texts recorded in the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue, namely, The Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayanjing Shu (華嚴經疏), thirty volumes) and Miao-li Yuan-cheng-guan (妙理圓成觀, three volumes). The issue is whether the author was the Shenxiu, who was the disciple of Fashen, or the Shenxiu, who was the founder of the Northern School of Chan. The monk Shenxiu of Yuquansi (玉泉寺) is well known throughout the world as the representative of the Northern School of Chan; his contest with Huineng (惠能) (638–713) of the Southern School of Chan and his two famous verses are much discussed. With the discovery of the Dunhuang documents, Shenxiu’s “Wufangbian 五方便”, together with Dacheng Wusheng Fangbianmen (大乘無生方便門) (which is said to be written by him), has become better known. In Kuno Hōryū’s (久野芳隆) “Hokushūzen: tonkōpon Hakken niyorite meyiryō to nareru Shinshu no Shisō 北宗禅——敦煌本発見によりて明瞭となれる神秀の思想” (Kuno 1940, p. 172), Yanagida Seizan’s (柳田聖山) “Hokushūzen no Shisō 北宗禅の思想” (Yanagida 1974, p. 91) and “Origin and Development of the Patriarchal Zen 祖師禅の源と流” (Yanagida 1962, p. 86), and Yoshizu Yoshihide’s (吉津宜英) “Shinshu no Kegon Kyōsho nitsuyite 神秀の華厳経疏について” (Yoshizu 1982, pp. 204–9), the Shenxiu of the Northern School of Chan is accredited with the authorship of Huayanjing Shu (three volumes) and Miaoli Yuanchengguan (three volumes) based on the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue. However, some scholars believe that Kuaiji Shenxiu of the Huayan School is the author of the two texts mentioned above: for example, Takamine Ryōshu suggests that Kuaiji Shenxiu is the author of Huayanjing Shu (Takamine 1963, p. 273), while Sakamoto Yukio confirms that the three volumes of Huayanjing Shu and the three volumes of Miaoli Yuanchengguan listed in the Ŭich’ŏn Catalogue are the works of Kuaiji Shenxiu (Sakamoto 1956, p. 56). Bernard Faure clearly claims that there was another Shenxiu who was eclipsed by the fame of the Shenxiu as the leader of the Northern School of Chan; his name appears in the biography of Faxian and on the rolls of the Kuaijisi, but Song Gaoseng Zhuan provides no more information about him; he was a contemporary of the Fourth Huayan Patriarch Chengguan (Faure 1997, pp. 45–46). However, the pedagogical ideas in Huayanjing Shu and Miaoli Yuanchengguan imply that these two texts are “monographs on Huayan” rather than “works of the Northern-Chan School containing abundant Huayan thoughts”, and that they demand professionalism on the part of the author’s Huayan philosophy.9

No copy of either Huayanjing Shu or Miaoli Yuanchengguan survives intact. There is a sectional quotation at the end of the third volume of Jūnkō’s (順高) Kishinron Honsho Chōshūki (起信論本疏聽集記) (Jūnkō, pp. 168–70). This quotation is not directly from Huayanjing Shu but is reproduced from Volume 4 of Ŭich’ŏn’s Wŏnjong munnyu, and there is no other quotation in either China or Japan. As for the text of Miaoli Yuanchengguan, as listed by Kim Jigyeon (金知見), there are quotations of it in Tiyuan’s (體元) Baihua Daochang Fayuanwen Luejie (百花道場發願文略解), Yanshou’s (延壽) Zongjinglu (宗鏡錄), Kyunyǒ’s (均如) Sŏk Hwaŏm jigwi chang Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴旨歸章圓通鈔), Sŏk Hwaŏm kyobun gi Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴教分記圓通鈔), Hwaŏm kyŏng sambo chang Wŏnt’ong gi (華嚴經三寶章圓通記), and Sipgu chang Wŏnt’ong gi (十句章圓通記) (Kim, pp. 1–40). In addition, the quotations in Fajie Tuji Congsuilu (法界圖記叢隨錄) (Anonymous, p. 726b11-22) are the same as those in Sŏk Hwaŏm kyobun gi Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴教分記圓通鈔). It should be noted, however, that some of these quotations only mention Shenxiu by name, and it is difficult to ascertain whether they are from Miaoli Yuanchengguan or from Huayanjing Shu; such cases include Kyunyǒ’s (均如) Sŏk Hwaŏm jigwi chang Wŏnt’ong ch’o (釋華嚴旨歸章圓通鈔) (Kyunyǒ, p. 274a06-09) and Sipgu chang Wŏnt’ong gi (十句章圓通記) (Kyunyǒ, p. 432a10-11).

5. Conclusions

Huiyuan was “criticized for being the opposite of the victors” in the evaluation system after the Song Dynasty, and his status changed from an important disciple of Fazang to a “heretic”; also, his disciples “disappeared in the history and became dispensable”. Nevertheless, in the time between Fazang and Chengguan, it was Fazang’s lineage that really played a role in propagating the thoughts and doctrines of Huayan. The significance of the Dharma lineage of Fazang can be seen through the study of their literature, and the importance of Wenchao, Fashen, and Kuaiji Shenxiu in the history of Huayan is worthy of our attention.

As one of Fazang’s disciples, Wenchao authored Zifang Yiwangji (ten volumes), Guanmai (one volume), and Guanjian (the number of volumes is unknown). According to the available information, the two works, Zifang Yiwangji and Guanmai, are Buddhist texts written by Wenchao to record the teachings of his teacher, Fazang. Wenchao’s texts were quoted by the Tang monks Chengguan and Zongmi, the Japanese monks ShinJō and Shōsen, and the Korean monk Ŭich’ŏn. As a disciple of Fazang and the great master of Huayan, Wenchao was influential in China, Japan, and the Korean Peninsula at that time.

As a disciple of Huiyuan and a teacher of Chengguan, Fashen wrote Kandingji Zuanshi, Fanwangjing Shu, and Huayanjing Shu, among other works. His texts were also valued by the Korean monk Ŭich’ŏn and the Japanese monk Jūnkō, and they are conserved in the Dunhuang Documents.

The disciple of Fashen, Kuaiji Shenxiu, also had a good command of Huayan Buddhist knowledge and composed two works, Huayanjing Shu and Miaoli Yuanchengguan. However, since his name is the same as the Shenxiu of the Northern School of Chan, his reputation is overshadowed by the latter, and this leads to a lack of proper acknowledgment of him among current academics. In fact, Huayanjing Shu and Miaoli Yuanchengguan, both of which are “monographs on Huayan” rather than the “works of the Northern-Chan School containing abundant Huayan thoughts”, must be the works of Kuaiji Shenxiu.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, these outstanding masters of Huayan have been submerged in history; these masters, as well as their achievements, should be presented to peer scholars. As for their doctrine aspects, specialized articles will be published by the author in the future.