A review on the Shouzhen’s (守真) religion identity of the Eight Patriarch of the Huayan School

Abstract

Shouzhen of Kaibaosi (開寶寺) in Dongjing (東京) (Luoyang (洛陽)), has been recorded in a number of documents. Based on the few surviving documents, some scholar suggests that Shouzhen was the eighth patriarch of the Huayan School, while others suggest that Shouzhen was a monk who practiced Tantric Buddhism at the Song Dynasty. There are still many questions about his sectarian identity. Based on a comparative study of Shouzhen’s historical documents, this paper captures the clues of different sectarian identities found in different materials, adds the research method of socio-religion, and analyses the cultural-religious and social factors behind this issue. To conclude, we might confidently think that at the time of Shouzhen and Zanning (贊寧), Shouzhen’s identity of the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School is still unknown. Until the appearance of Jingyuan (净源) who regards Shouzhen’s doctrines as important and pay attention to Qixinlun (起信論), Shouzhen is brought into the transmission system and endowed with the identity of the Eighth Patriarch. And then this heritage has been handed down to this day, known to the world.

Keywords:

• Shouzhen
• Zanning
• Huayanzong Fozuzhuan
• inheritage

Reviewing Editor:

• Samuel Adu-Gyamfi, History and Political Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology College of Arts and Social Science, Kumasi, Ghana

Subjects:

• Buddhism
• History of Buddhism

Introduction

It is well known that after Zongmi (宗密) (780–841) the Huayan texts are lost and that the Huayan lineage and the spread of Huayan doctrines at that time have remained unknown to the world, especially the development of the Huayan School between Zongmi and Zixuan (子璿) (965–1038), due to the Huichang Calamity (會昌法難) and the wars of the Five Dynasties. According to Songlian’s (1310–1381) Inscription on the Pagoda of the Biefeng Datong, Master Foxin Ciji Miaobian (Foxin Ciji Miaobian Dashi Biefeng Tonggong Taming (佛心慈濟妙辨大師別峰同公塔銘, hereinafter abbreviate to Taming (塔銘)) (Song Lian, p. 609c22-27),¹ the lineage between Zongmi and Zixuan should be ‘Ao 奧, Lang 朗, Xian 現’, where it has always been a mystery as to who ‘Ao’, ‘Lang’ and ‘Xian’ refer to. It is not until the discovery of a text preserved at the Shanghai Library entitled ‘Biographies of the Masters in Huayan School’ (Huayanzong Fozuzhuan 華嚴宗佛祖傳²) written by Xufa (續法) in the Qing Dynasty, that the question of the identity of the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School is resolved. Zhang Aiping (張愛萍) states that it is recorded in the text that the Eighth Generation is Venerable Zhaoxin Xian (昭信現), whose name is Shouzhen, while his courtesy name is Fadeng (法燈) and his common surname (俗名) is Ji (紀). He visits master Lang to study the Qixinlun and is given the name Zhaoxin (昭信). Later master Lang gives him another name Yuanxian (圓現).

Because there is not much material about Shouzhen, nowadays the academic community about this master’s research studied are very few. In addition to the above, that Zhang Aiping in her article points out Shouzhen’s identity of Huayan Eighth Patriarch with small space, there are Liu Changjiu (劉長久), Lv Jianfu (呂建福), Wen Yucheng (溫玉成) and Kōda Yūun (甲田宥吽) who briefly point out that Shouzhen was an active tantric monk in the late Tang Dynasty of Sichuan region, and put forward his tantric lineage in their paper. However, the discourses in these previous studies are all problematic, and the sectarian identity of Shouzhen deserves to be re-analysed in more depth and detail.

In contrast to the simple identification of Shouzhen’s sectarian identity in the previous studies, this paper will focus on the contradictory aspects of Shouzhen’s sectarian identities and the dynamic process of forming these identities. Based on a comparative study of Shouzhen’s historical documents, this paper aims to capture the clues of different sectarian identities found in different materials, especially on Shouzhen’s identity as a Huayan Patriarch and a Tantric preacher in detail in the literature, add the research method of socio-religion, analyze the cultural-religious and social factors behind this issue, and provide the academic community with another new perspective to study Shouzhen.

The Shouzhen described by Zanning

Zanning, writes Song Gaoseng Zhuan by royal decree, among which Shouzhen is placed in the ‘Eighth Chapter of Recitation’ (Zanning, p. 871b17-c26). From this record, it appears that Shouzhen is included in Zanning’s ‘Eighth Chapter of Recitation’ because he has chanted more than seventy times on Qixinlun and Fajieguan (法界觀). But in terms of content, this biography does not actually contain any descriptions or records of Shouzhen’s Huayan buddhist background.

In detail, Shouzhen is a native of Yongxing (永興) Wannian (萬年) (Wannian County (萬年縣), Hunan Province (湖南省)), commonly known by the surname Ji (紀), who moves to Sichuan (四川) with his family when he is a child, and meets the vinaya master Xiujin at the Shengshousi (聖壽寺) in Sichuan after reaching adulthood, and is so impressed by this master’s manners that Shouzhen decides to serve him, and becomes a monk at the Shengshousi in Chengdu (initially known as Longyuansi). He then visits Venerable Conglang 從朗 to study Qixinlun, follows Venerable Xingguang 性光 to study Fajieguan, and then worships Tantric Acharya Yanmi 演秘 to study Tantric teachings of Vajra Yoga school. It seems that he has been able to learn from all the teachers and to attain the best of all the teachings. During the next forty years, Shouzhen has chanted more than seventy times on Qixinlun and Fajieguan, performs abhisheka ceremony (灌頂道場) five times, holds Shuilu Rites (水陸道場) twenty times, and often performs the teachings of Wenshu Wuji (文殊五髻教法) on Wugengtian (五更天) of the day, and practices the teachings of Amitayus Buddha (無量壽教法) by chanting the name of Amitabha to aspire to rebirth in Western Pure Land on Ergengtian (二更天) of the day. From all accounts, it is clear that Shouzhen is a monk with very ‘mixed’ religion knowledge, who has studied the works bearing the hallmarks of Huayan, such as Qixinlun and Fajieguan, and practices Tantric way as well as Western Pure Land beliefs of Amitabha. It is difficult to see clearly his sectarian background barely form Zanning’s record.

Yan Yaozhong (嚴耀中) has pointed out that from the Song Dynasty onwards, Tantrism and Pure Land Buddhism has become the school which should be affiliated with other schools. There are many monks who practices both the schools at that time. A typical example of this is Liu Benzun in Sichuan, who is revered as the fifth generation of the Tantric master, aspires to ‘vow to meet with all sentient beings in three meetings with Maitreya’. Another example is Shouzhen recorded in Song Gaoseng Zhuan, in which we can see that Shouzhen of Kaibaosi in Luoyang is a multifaceted Buddhist scholar (Yan, 1999 pp.122–123). It is likely that Shouzhen is a monk who studies both Tantra and Pure Land at that same time, but it is not known whether he also studies Huayan meanwhile.

The question is that if Shouzhen is indeed a disciple of the Huayan school, whether his Pure Land beliefs are in contradiction with the consistent ‘Zhenxin (真心)’ doctrines of the Huayan School. Huayan school believes that all sentient beings are originally endowed with the wisdom of Buddha and can become Buddha if they claim their own nature. There is no dharma apart from Buddha, and no difference between sentient beings and Buddha. Huayan Buddhist, who emphasizes that all beings are originally Buddha, are concerned with people’s own state of enlightenment, and that once people are enlightened, they will be free from worries and rebirth. Huayan Buddhist under this theory would inevitably focus more on people’s own practice, relying on the enlightenment of the state of mind to attain Buddhahood, and to a certain extent it can be said that Huayan Buddhism attaches more importance to ‘self-power’. In contrast, Amitabha Pure Land faith, in which devotees chant Amitabha to obtain the power of Amitabha and gain access to Pure Land in the West, refers in part to people relying on Amitabha’s ‘other power’ to attain Buddhahood. There is a clear contradiction between the two in terms of ‘self-power’ and ‘other power’. If Shouzhen really recognizes himself as a Huayan practitioner, he would first have to answer this question himself before he could resolve the question of his personal beliefs in both Huayan and Pure Land.

In fact, in terms of their survival era, Zanning (919–999) and Shouzhen (894–971) are very close in date, and may even be considered contemporaries, so Zanning’s account on Shouzhen is more credible than the records in Huayanzong Fozuzhuan written by Xufa of the Qing dynasty. In short, from Zanning’s description, it is indeed difficult to determine the sectarian affiliation of Shouzhen himself, for the Shouzhen described by Zanning is more of a ‘miscellaneous scholar’ and ‘miscellaneous practitioner’ than a Huayan believer.

The Shouzhen in the Tantric lineage

Although Zanning does not specify Shouzhen’s sectarian affiliation in his biography, this biography has mostly been presented by modern scholars as an example to support the situation of Tantric Buddhism in Chengdu in the early Five Dynasties and Song Dynasty, and Shouzhen has been discussed as a Tantric monk. Liu Changjiu has pointed out that there are some monks propagate Tantra Buddhism in Chengdu, such as Weishang 惟尚 and Nanyin 南印 in the Middle Tang Dynasty, Liu Benzun and Acharya Yanmi in the late Tang and Five Dynasties, and Shouzhen in the early Five Dynasties and Song dynasties. In which Shouzhen has studied Tantra Buddhism for a short time at Chengdu’s Shengshousi, while mainly propagating the teachings in Kaifeng (開封), Henan (河南) Province (Liu, 1998 p. 123).

Shouzhen, who ‘later worships Tantric Acharya Yanmi to study Tantric teachings of the Vajra Yoga school, and often performs the doctrines of Wenshu Wuji on Wugengtian of the day’, is often cited by scholars as a Tantric figure to discuss the development of Tantricism in Chengdu of the early Song dynasty, and there are three broad statements about his lineage in Tantricism, as follows.

Firstly, Lv Jianfu points out that Shouzhen may have inherited from Huiguo’s (惠果) disciple, Jiannan Weishang (劍南惟上). Weishang receives Garbhadhātu and Vajradhātu from Huiguo (752–850), it is clear that Weishang lives in the Middle Tang Dynasty, receiving the two great teachings of Vajra and Garbha from Huiguo, and then goes on to preach at Chengdu. According to Lv Jianfu, it is clear that the lineage of Weishang later disseminates the dharma in Sichuan’s Chengdu…According to historical records from Anyue (安岳) and Dazu (大足) Grottoes in Sichuan and the local choroghrphies, there are Tantric monks active in Chengdu and the western Sichuan during and around the Dazhong period (大中年間) of Tang Emperor Xuanzong (玄宗) (847–860), among them the famous one is Liu Benzun… In the Song dynasty, Zhao Zhifeng who receives doctrines from Liu Benzun claims that he inherits from Vajrabodhi (金剛智) and Amoghavajra (不空). All of this can indicate that Liu Benzun’s doctrines come from the Tantric Vajra Buddhism. Moreover, his time is not far from that of Weishang, so it is only possible that Liu Benzun inherits Weishang’s doctrines. Besides, according to Song Gaoseng Zhuan, it is known that Shouzhen worships Tantric Acharya Yanmi to study the Tantric doctrines of Vajra Yoga school at Shengshousi in Chengdu around the year of 918. Obviously, the doctrines of this Acharya Yanmi are still Vajrayana Tantra, and probably passed down from Weishang (Lv,1995 p. 318).

From the above, Lv Jianfu believes that Shouzhen should have inherited tantric teachings from Weishang. However, there is no record of the life of Shouzhen’s teacher, Acharya Yanmi, and it can only be assumed that he is a monk who preaches Vajrayoga Tantra in Chengdu during the late Tang and Five Dynasties, but it is not known whether he inherits the tantric lineage of Weishang. It is also unclear as to the relationship between the tantric monks who preaches in Chengdu during that period, such as Weishang, Acharya Yanmi, Shouzhen and Liu Benzun.

Secondly, Wen Yucheng points out that Shouzhen inherits doctrines from Daoxian (道賢) (?-936). Wen Yucheng has pointed out that there is a lineage which is Daoxian (道賢) – Yanmi (演秘) (Sichuan) – Shouzhen (守真) – Yuanyu (緣迂) in the light of above record (Wen,2007 p. 116). However, there is no reliable evidence supporting the line of succession here, and it is likely that Wen Yucheng reaches this conclusion relying only on the phrase that nowadays those who preaches Yoga Tantra in Xi’an and Luoyang are all Daoxian’s Dharma descendants, which needs to be proven in more detail.

Thirdly, the Japanese scholar Kōda Yūun (甲田宥吽) argues that Shouzhen should have been transmitted from Vajrabodhi. He points out that a Japanese monk named Chōnen (奝然) (938–1016) from Tōdaiji (東大寺), who arrives at China in the third year of Yongguan (永觀) (983) of the Song Dynasty, once meets a Tantric monk called Chongzhi (崇智) at Luoyang, whose lineage is detailed recorded in Gōhō’s (杲寶) Zamitsu Kenbunshū (雜密見聞集). From Gōhō’s account, we can know that as for his doctrines, Chongzhi only studies Vajradhātu, and does not learn the Garbhadhātu; as for his lineage, Vajrabodhi imparts the Tantra Buddhism doctrines to Amoghavajra, Amoghavajra imparts to Zhihuilun (智慧輪), Zhihuilun imparts to Acharya Jingbao (徑寶) of Tianshousi (天壽寺), then Jingbao imparts to master Yanmi, Yanmi imparts to Acharya Fajieguan (法界觀), later Fajieguan imparts to Chongzhi (崇智) 问受法事, 答云崇智只习金刚藏教灌顶, 胎藏界未受。○又问血脉, 答云金刚智三藏授不空, 不空授智慧轮三藏, 后当今天寿寺径宝阇梨授演秘大师, 演秘大师授法界观阿阇梨, 法界观授崇智。云云今夜阇梨修施饿鬼法, 头五悔及真言音韵, 如日本东寺所传此甚敏也’ (Gōhō, p. 521). Kōda thus suggests that the dharma lineage of Chongzhi should be Vajrabodhi, Amoghavajra, Zhihuilun, Jingbao, Yanmi, Fajieguan, Chongzhi. He also argues that this ‘Fajieguan’ written here is not a real name, but refers to Shouzhen, who preaches Fajieguan dozens of times.

However, Kōda Yūun’s argument is not so convincing either, as the lineage itself is problematic, firstly from the point of view of the time period it is unlikely that Zhihuilun receives doctrines directly from Amoghavajra (705–774), cause Zhihuilun is said to have practices the Daman Naluofa (大曼拏羅法) and becomes an acharya during the Dazhong period (大中年間) of the Tang Dynasty, i.e. 847–860. And it is uncertain whether Jingbao receives doctrines directly from Zhihuilun. Secondly, the term ‘Acharya Yanmi’ here does not necessarily refer to Shouzhen’s teacher, Yanmi. Finally, there is a question of whether ‘Acharya Fajieguan’ refers to Shouzhen. It is true that Shouzhen does pay a lot of attention on Fajieguan, cause he composes a four volumes commentary on Fajieguan (Fajiechao (法界鈔)), and more than seventy times in his life to recite Fajieguan. But any records of Shouzhen’s association with the title of ‘Acharya Fajieguan’ cannot be found. And Zanning, who is contemporary with Shouzhen, does not mention any information about Shouzhen’s this title. Additionally, Zanning points out that Shouzhen has more than twenty successors, one of whom is Yuanyu (緣遇) (Zanning, p. 871b29-871c15). As to whether Chongzhi is one of these twenty people, it is not known.

In summary, the only thing can be confirmed about Shouzhen’s tantric lineage is that Acharya Yanmi imparts Vajra Yoga Tantra Buddhism to Shouzhen, then Shouzhen imparts to Yuanyu. But there is doubt as to whether Shouzhen imparts Tantra Buddhism at Chengdu, because although Shouzhen meets with the viyana master Xiujin at Shengshousi in Chengdu and becomes a monk, it is not certain where he subsequently studies under Conglang, Xingguang and Acharya Yanmi, and his main place of activity must have been Kaibaosi at Kaifeng, Luoyang.

However, it is undeniable that there are many modern scholars who regard Shouzhen as a Tantric monk based on Shouzhen’s biography in Song Gaoseng Zhuan, and that the identity of the Tantric monk Shouzhen is much better known to the world than his obscure identity of ‘Huayan disciple’.

The Shouzhen in the Huayan lineage

It is not until the Qing dynasty that there are records of Shouzhen as a master of the Huayan school, for example, in Xufa’s Huayanzong Fozuzhuan, it is suggested that Shouzhen is the Eight Patriarch of Huayan (Xufa, p. 26), and in Rulaixiang (如來香), it is clearly stated that Shouzhen is a master of the Huayan school (Shiyi Zhi Fu (時宜之父) Ed, pp.348b07-349a02).

In fact, before determining Shouzhen’s identity as the Eighth Patriarch, it is necessary to review the detailed descriptions of the Eighth Patriarch in the various transmission systems within Huayan. The following eight materials can be referred to in relation to the Huayan lineage:

• ① Taming written by Song Lian(1310–1381)in the Ming Dynasty (Song Lian, pp. 609c20-611a26).

• ② Zhejiang Tianzhushan Guanding Boting Dashi Tazhiming (浙江天竺山灌頂伯亭大師塔誌銘) written by Xu Zizhu (徐自洙) in the Qing Dynasty (hereinafter abbreviate to Tazhiming (塔誌銘)) (Xu, pp. 396a18-398b19).

• ③ Xianshou Jiaoguan Yizong included in the Baizhang Qinggui Zhengyiji (百丈清規證義記) checked by Yirun (儀潤) in the Qing Dynasty (Yirun check, p. 498b08-c11).

• ④ Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu collected by Xingzong Zuwang (興宗祖旺) and Jinglin Xinlu (景林心露) in the Qing Dynasty (Liao Ed 2017, pp. 297–574).

• ⑤ Shoshi Shūmyakuki: Kegonshū (諸嗣宗脈紀—華嚴宗) written by Hōtan (鳳潭) (1657–1738) in Japan.³

• ⑥ Kegon Ketsumyaku (華嚴血脈)(author unknown)saved in Japan (Shibasaki,1993 pp. 59–61).

• ⑦ Huayanzong Fozuzhuan written by Xufa in the Qing Dynasty.

• ⑧ Xianshou Zongcheng written by Liaode (了惪) at Yongdingsi (永定寺) in Suzhou in the Qing Dynasty (Liao Ed 2017, pp. 89–296).

①Taming’s lineage is Chengguan (澄觀), Zongmi (宗密), Ao (奧), Lang (朗), Xian (現), Xuan (璿), Yuan (源). After Sixth Patriarch is ‘Lang Xian Fuzi (朗現父子)’, this ‘Fuzi (父子)’ should mean master and disciple, so the Eighth Patriarch should be ‘Xian’.

②Tazhiming’s lineage is Zongmi, Chewei (徹微), Haiyin (海印), Fadeng (法燈), Changshui (長水), Bochang (伯長) (Xu, p. 396b15-16). It is thus clear that the Eight Patriarch is ‘Fadeng’. However, it is not clear what the relationship is between ‘Fadeng’ here and ‘Xian’ in ①Ta-ming.

In the ③Xianshou Jiaoguan Yizong, we can know that the lineage is Chengguan, Zongmi, Xuangui Zhenao Chewei (玄珪真奧徹微), Haiyin Yuelang Bingran (海印月朗炳然), Shoudeng Dexian (守燈德現), Changshui Zixuan (長水子璿), Jingyuan Jihai Qiansou (淨源寂海潛叟) (Yirun check, p. 498b09-b19). The lineage in this record differs slightly from other records in that, unlike the first two texts, which establish Dushun as the first ancestor, the Xianshou Jiaoguan Yizong, which establishes Longshu (龍樹, Nāgārjuna) as the first ancestor of Huayan Buddhism, making Zongmi as the sixth ancestor and ‘Shoudeng Dexian’ as the ninth ancestor.

In ④Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu’s lineage, Xianshou Fazang (賢首法藏) is the first ancestor, and Zongmi is the third one, so ‘Yuanxian Xian (圓顯現)’ is the sixth patriarch, and there are not any biographies exist about the three masters who follows Zongmi. The information about their names on all three is taken from Song Lian’s Taming (Liao Ed 2017, p. 316–330). It is also noted immediately below that at the same time of Lang, there is another master, Zhaoxin Fadeng (昭信法燈), who is transmitting the doctrines of Huayan at that time, which is clear and credible (Liao Ed 2017, p. 326). According to this we can know, the Eighth Ancestor ‘Yuanxian Xian’ in Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu is not the master Zhaoxin Fadeng, since besides master Lang, master Zhaoxin Fadeng, who is his contemporary, also spreads Huayan doctrines at that time. Besides, there is another master named Lingguang Hongmin (靈光洪敏) between Yuanxian Xian and Changshui Zixuan (長水子璿), which is very different from other materials.

In his ⑤Shoshi Shūmyakuki: Kegonshū, Japanese monk Hōtan records the lineage of the Huayan School as Zongmi, Shibi Chuanao (石壁傳奧), Lang (朗), Xian (現) (Hōtan, p. 2). This lineage is very clear, and the Eighth Ancestor is ‘Xian’, which should refer to the same person as the ‘Xian現’ in ①Ta-ming, but as I mentioned in the other manuscript, this text by Hōtan is very subjective and a not trustworthy material.

The lineage of ⑥Kegon Ketsumyaku is Zongmi, master Ao (奧師), master Lang (朗師), master Xian (現師), master Xuan (璿師) (Shibasaki,1993 p. 61). Apart from the name ‘Xian’, Kegon Ketsumyaku does not provide any information beyond this, but as far as this name is concerned, the ‘master Xian’ in Kegon Ketsumyaku must be the same person as the ‘Xian’ in ①Taming and ④Baotong Xianshu Chuandenglu.

The original source for the sixth, seventh and eighth lineages of masters Ao, Lang and Xian, respectively, as contained in ⑧Xianshou Zongcheng (賢首宗乘), is from Taming. At the same time, in line with Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu, it is also recorded that at the time of master Lang, there is another master, Zhaoxin Fadeng, who is transmitting doctrines of the Xianshou School, which is clear and credible (Liao Ed 2017, p. 159). In addition to the recommend of the Eighth Patriarch, Xian, there is also a separate introduction for master Zhaoxin Shouzhen (Liao Ed 2017, p.103). In this way, it seems that the ‘Xian’ in Xianshou Zongcheng is not the Zhaoxin Shouzhen either.

The question of the identity of the Eighth Ancestor of Huayan School is resolved in ⑦Huayanzong Fozuzhuan written by Xufa, according to which the Eighth Ancestor’s name is Shouzhen (守真), while his courtesy name is Fadeng (法燈) with the pseudonym Zhaoxin (昭信). Later his teacher master Lang gives his another name as Yuanxian (圓現). Also regarding these name and alias, Yang Weizhong (楊維中) states that the ‘Shoudeng (守燈)’ listed in Volume 7 of Baizhang Qinggui Zhengyiji is supposed to be a contraction of Shouzhen (the dharma name) and Fadeng (the courtesy name). It is recorded in Song Gaoseng Zhuan that Shouzhen is given the name Zhaoxin by the imperial court, and it is the traditional practice of Buddhist historical texts after the Song Dynasty to refer a monk as the contraction of dharma name and courtesy name (Yang,2014 p. 94). It is clear from this that, the ‘Xian’ in ①Taming, the ‘Fadeng’ in ②Tazhiming, the ‘Shoudeng Dexian’ in ③Xianshou Jiaoguan Yizong, the ‘Yuanxian Xian’ in ④Baotong Xianshu Chuandenglu, the ‘Xian’ in ⑤Shoshi Shūmyakuki, the ‘Xian’ in ⑥Kegon Ketsumyaku, the ‘Zhaoxin Xian’ in ⑦Huayanzong Fozuzhuan, and the ‘Xian’in ⑧Xianshou Zongcheng are all the same person, namely, Shouzhen of the Kaibaosi in Luoyang recorded in Song Gaoseng Zhuan.

However, it is not known why Xianshou Zongcheng and Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu have a separate recommend for Zhaoxin Shouzhen (or Zhaoxin Fadeng) in addition to the Master Xian, but it is probably because the authors of these two texts do not know that the Master Xian and Shouzhen are the same person, but this is a further indication of the pitfalls within the framework of present-day sectarian Buddhist interpretations, and we must be very careful to deal with these internal sectarian materials.

Some discussions on the identity of Shouzhen

At this point, although we have affirmed Shouzhen’s identity of the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School, there are still some doubts about his sectarian identity in comprehensive analysis of all the materials. For example, why does Zanning, a contemporary person of Shouzhen, not explicitly identify him as a master of the Huayan School or the Eighth Patriarch of Huayan in his Song Gaoseng zhuan? Why do the authors of Xianshou Zongcheng and Baotong Xianshou Chuandenglu not know that the master Xian and Zhaoxin Shouzhen (or Zhaoxin Fadeng) are not the same person and set up two separate recommends? These questions, among others, suggest to us that the establishment of Shouzhen’s sectarian identity is in fact complex and needs to be reconsidered from several perspectives, namely, based on Shouzhen’s own positioning of himself (Self-identification), the positioning of his contemporaries (Identification with others), and the positioning of his descendants with different sectarian identities (collective identity). It is precisely this type of research that must be carried out on the basis of the theoretical foundations of sectarian identity.

First, Shouzhen’s own positioning of himself is actually very crucial. According to Sinp’yŏn chejong kyojang ch’ongnok (新編諸宗教藏總錄) recorded by Uicheon (義天) (hereinafter referred to as Uicheon Catalogue), Shouzhen is known to have written four volumes of Fajiechao (法界鈔), one volume of Fajiechao Ke (法界鈔科), one volume of Ru Fajiepin Liwen (入法界品禮文), and two volumes of Fanwangjing Zhishi (梵網經直釋), one volume of Fanwangjing Zhishi Ke (梵網經直釋科) (Uicheon record, Uicheon Catalogue, p. 1166b18-1173b06). Unfortunately, none of these works are extant nowadays. The four volumes of Fajiechao are noticed by the author of Fajieguan Zhuxiuji (法界觀助修記), which states that in that time there are four masters who write comments on Fajieguan, namely, master Xishu Zhouren (西蜀周仁), master Kaibao Shouzhen (開寶守真), master Xishui Conglang (淅水從朗), and master Jingde Youpeng (景德有朋); and the author uses the writings of these four masters as a basis for revising and compiling his own Fajieguan Zhuxiuji (Uicheon Ed, Wŏnjong munnyu (圓宗文類), p. 562a17-b05). It can be assumed that the author of this text values the chapters written by these four masters, and it also reflects the influence of Shouzhen’s four volumes of Fajiechao at that time. This is also evident from the fact that he attaches great importance to Qixinlun and Fajieguan, judging from the fact that he lectures on these two Buddhist scriptures more than seventy times during his lifetime. However, although Shouzhen himself has placed a great deal of emphasis on Qixinlun and Fajieguan, it is not clear whether he recognizes his status as a Huayan Buddhist.

Secondly, based on Shouzhen’s biography, the writer, who is his contemporaries, Zanning, do not consider Shouzhen to be a master of the Huayan School, and let alone mention his status as the Eighth Patriarch. In Zanning’s description, Shouzhen is clearly a ‘miscellaneous scholar’ and ‘miscellaneous practitioner’. From the description, he seems more like a Tantric monk or a Pure Land practitioner, but it is certain that the Shouzhen described by Zanning is definitely not the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School, or in other words, at Zanning’s time, Shouzhen has not yet become the Eighth Patriarch.

The remaining question is who gives Shouzhen his sectarian identity as the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School, and this must be discussed in conjunction with the last point, namely, the position he was given by later generations, or the position given by the collective. In fact, in the records of the above-mentioned, there is a master and apprentice relationship between the Seventh Patriarch Conglang and the Eighth Patriarch Shouzhen, but there is no such master and apprentice relationship between the Seventh Patriarch and the Sixth Patriarch Miaoyuan Ao, who is a disciple of the Fifth Patriarch, Zongmi, and since the relationship between these masters is not clear, what are the criteria for the sectarian identity of the Seventh Patriarch and the Eighth Patriarch? This is a question worth considering. I believe that the identity of Shouzhen’s Eighth Patriarch should have been conferred by a descendant, and that this person is none other than Jinshui Jingyuan (晉水淨源) (1011–1088). Based on Wei Daoru’s (魏道儒) statement, it can be seen that Jingyuan himself proposes the lineage of Huayan from his emphasis on Qixinlun (Wei,1998 p. 224), so Shouzhen, who has preached Qixinlun more than seventy times in his life and has written many works on Huayan doctrines, is exactly the person Jingyuan needed. This is also the reason why the Seventh Patriarch is Conglang who specializes on Qixinlun, not Xingguang who teaches Shouzhen Fajieguan, even though Shouzhen learns Huayan doctrines from these two masters.

Moreover, we can see from other examples that Jingyuan himself actually has attached great importance to Shouzhen and his doctrines. On the basis of the annotations written by Qingyuan Zhi-guan (清源止觀), Zhaoxin Fadeng (昭信法燈), Siqu Zhaoyu (四衢昭昱), and Wutai Chengqian (五台承遷) on Jingshizi Zhang (金師子章), Jingyuan re-accomplishes his own text, Jingshizi Zhang Yunjian Leijie (金師子章雲間類解) (Jingyuan, p. 663a08-26). Secondly, he points out in Huayan Huanyuanguan Shuchao Bujie (華嚴還源觀疏鈔補解) that there are two volumes of Wangjinhuanyuan Shu (妄盡還源疏) and the one volume of Wangjinhuanyuan Ke (妄盡還源科) written by Master Fadeng, and the doctrines interpreted in them is perfect and correct; however the style of writing is not graceful; so he re-composes his Shuchao Bujie (疏鈔補解) on the basis of above two texts (Uicheon Ed, Wŏnjong munnyu, p. 562a04-16). It can be seen that Jingyuan praises highly of shouzhen’s Huayan Wangjinhuanyuan Shu (華嚴妄盡還源疏) and Huayan Wangjinhuanyuan Ke (華嚴妄盡還源科), saying that the doctrines interpreted in them is perfect and correct but the style of writing is not graceful (雖盡乎善而未盡乎美), meaning that Shouzhen’s works are close to perfection in terms of literary meaning and doctrine but not beautiful writing enough. So, he re-composes his Huayan Huanyuanguan Shuchao Bujie on the basis of these two texts. As can be seen from the above, Shouzhen writes Jinshizi Zhang Jie (金師子章解) and Huayan Huanyuanguan Shu (華嚴還源觀疏), which have not only been handed down to the world, but are also valued by Jingyuan and are adapted, abridged by him to become his own works. It can be assumed that he gives Shouzhen the sectarian identity of the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School, like the same way that he gives the identity of the Ninth Patriarch of the Huayan School to his teacher Zixuan (965–1038),⁴ cause Jinyuan values Shouzhen’s works and his scholarly doctrines, and admires that Shouzhen gives more than seventy lectures on Qixinlun and Fajieguan during his lifetime. This speculation, though bold, is no less likely.

Conclusion

In contrast to the simple identification of Shouzhen’s sectarian identity in the previous studies, this paper, based on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of all materials related to Shouzhen, meticulously analyses the dynamic process of the formation of his sectarian identity and the rationale of his thought, and provides the academic community with another new perspective to study Shouzhen. That is to say, when an individual is placed in a group, there is a process of engagement with the other, a sense of otherness emerges, and a monk’s sectarian identity is not simply the result of his own recognition, but is a product of his association with the other and the collective.

Shouzhen’s own sectarian identity is difficult for us to reveal in the absence of relevant material to authenticate it. However, Zanning, a contemporary of Shouzhen, does not mention his identity as the Eighth Patriarch or a master of the Huayan School, because Shouzhen in Zanning’s description is totally a ‘miscellaneous scholar’ and ‘miscellaneous practitioner’, and it is also unknown whether he himself acknowledges his identity as a Huayan monk. It was in establishing the so-called orthodoxy of the Huayan School that he finally came to be identified as the school’s patriarch. It can be assumed that it is from the importance he attached to Qixinlun that Jingyuan proposes to rank the dharma lineage of the Huayan School. He values Shouzhen’s lifelong lectures on Qixinlun more than seventy times and recognizes Shouzhen’s Buddhist treatises related to Fajieguan, Jinshizi Zhang, and Wangjinhuanyuan Guan, eventually gives him the sectarian identity of the Eighth Patriarch of the Huayan School.

Disclosure statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This research is funded by the ‘Jiangsu Funding Program for Excellent Postdoctoral Talent’ and the ‘Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities’ (2023300304). It is a stage achievement of the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation ‘A Survey and Study of Rare Chinese Buddhist Literature preserved at Shōmyōji in Japan日本稱名寺所藏稀見漢籍佛教文獻的調查與研究’ (2023M731618) and the Youth Project of Jiangsu Provincial Social Science Foundation in 2023 ‘A Study on the generating transformation of Buddhism in China and the Cultural Exchange between China and Japan佛教中國化與中日文化交流研究’ (23ZXC001).

Notes on contributors

Yanhong Ping

Yanhong Ping, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University. Areas of Specialization: East Asian Bibliography, mainly focusing on Tang and Song Buddhism, Huayan studies, literature studies, and history of ideas. In the past ten years, my research has been focused on the cross-study of Huayan philosophy and literature, and my long-standing interest lies in the collection and collation of Buddhist literature preserved in Japan, and I have accumulated a lot of relevant academic achievements, and published several articles in Chinese, Japanese, and English. This article is part of my doctoral thesis and one of the results of my research into the genealogy of the Dharma lineage of the Chinese Huayan School.

Notes

1 Time of completion for many primary sources are not available, so this article does not include time information when dealing with primary sources.

2 Xufa’s (續法) Biographies of the Masters in Huayan School (Huayanzong Fozuzhuan (華嚴宗佛祖傳)) is a block-printed copy made in the Qing Dynasty, in six volumes (卷) (fourteen Ce (冊)), preserved at the Shanghai Library at present.

3 Hōtan’s (鳳潭) Shoshi Shūmyakuki: Kegonshū (諸嗣宗脈紀—華嚴宗) is a handwritten copy, preserved at the Library of the Ryukoku University at present.

4 The point that Jingyuan gives the identity of the Ninth Patriarch of Huayan School to his teacher Zixuan can be seen in Yoshida Takeshi (吉田剛), 2001, p. 19.