Lecture 10: Zong Mi

Zongmi (780-841)

Born into a gentry family in Sichuan, Zongmi received a classical education in his youth. He became interested in Chan during his twenties, and before long decided to enter the monastic order. Zongmi became a student of Chengguan in 812 after his move to Chang’an.

Zongmi’s writings do not focus directly on the Huayan jing, and because he was also recognized as a member of the Chan lineage.

He also introduced changes in his doctrinal taxonomy by including the teachings of Confucianism and Daoism.

Zongmi’s contribution to Chinese BuddhismFirst, Zongmi was deeply interested in both the practical and doctrinal aspects of Buddhism, and especially advocated the harmonization between Chan practice (characterized as a “mind-to-mind transmission” of enlightenment) and Huayan.

Since the time of Northern and Southern dynasties, within Buddhism there was the conflict between the meditation Chan masters and the exegetic teachers of Buddhist doctrine. And this problem became serious in Sui so Tiantai teachers emphasized both. But it was not until Zongmi the whole Buddhist teaching changed fundamentally.

Second, Zongmi expanded this idea to the harmonization of the three religions of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism. Therefore he advocated the equality of all three religious founders in his Yuanren lun (《原人論 》 Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity, Translated by Peter Gregory).

From the Confucian side, Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 (773-819) also emphasized to reconcile and unite the Confucian and Buddhist doctrines into a pervasive and inclusive understanding. “統合儒釋，宣滌疑滯”(《柳宗元集》卷七《送文暢上人登五台遂遊河朔序》)

Among Zongmi’s many works are the Chanyuan zhuquan jixu (《禪源諸詮集序》Origins of the Various Chan Teachings). Other important works include his Yuanjue jing da shou (《圓覺經大疏》Great Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment). During the process of finishing this work, Zongmi wrote a series of abridgments, expansions on it.

One of Zongmi’s contributions to the Huayan school is his doctrinal classification. Zongmi’s formulation was essentially soteriological in intent: it mapped out stages of understanding on the path to Buddhahood. While earlier Huayan thinkers, in contrast, were either preoccupied with the hermeneutical problem of how to reconcile the apparent contradictions between different sutras that were all presumed to be the word of the Buddha, or intent on proving, for sectarian purposes, the superiority of the Huayan Sutra. Zongmi's concern with soteriology reflected the influence of Chan on Chinese Buddhism in the eighth and early ninth centuries, and that it represented a radical shift in Huayan hermeneutics.

Zongmi devised his five-stage “cosmogonic map” in order to provide an ontological ground for Buddhist practice. This is a very complicated aspect of Zongmi’s teaching.

Chengguan and Zongmi are understood to have further developed and transformed the Huayan teachings.

After the time of Zongmi and Li Tongxuan the Chinese Huayan School generally stagnated in terms of new development, and then eventually began to decline. The school, which had been dependent upon the support it received from the government, suffered severely during the persecution of 841-5, never to recover its former strength.

Huayan school ended up having profound impact on the philosophical attitudes of all of East Asian Buddhism. The most important philosophical contributions of the Huayan school were in the area of its metaphysics, as it taught the doctrine of the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena (shishiwuai 事事無礙) that one thing contains all things in existence, and that all things contain one.

Further spread and influence With Zongmi, the patriarchal tradition came to an end. Yet, that was not the end of Huayan history in China. Huayan continued to be studied as a major system of Buddhist philosophy.

Huayan concepts and teachings, such as nature origination, were also absorbed into the Tiantai School. The increasing scope of Huayan influences became a point of contention during the Tiantai debates of the Northern Song period (960–1126), as proponents of the Shanwai (Off Mountain) faction of Tiantai were criticized by ZHILI (960–1028) and his Shanjia (Home Mountain) faction for their unwarranted adoption of Huayan metaphysics, mainly derived from the writings of Chengguan and Zongmi.

For a detailed study of Zongmi and his thought, please read Gregory, Peter. Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University of Press, 1991.

KoreaNote: Composed from Mario Poceski's article. (POCESKI, MARIO. "Huayan School." Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Ed. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 341-347. 2 vols. )

Beyond China, Huayan entered Korea (where it is known as Hwaom) at an early stage of the tradition’s history. The first transmitter and leading Hwaom figure during the Silla period (668–935) was UISANG (625–702). Uisang traveled to China and be came a student of Zhiyan at Mount Zhongnan. He was a senior colleague of Fazang and the two formed a lasting friendship. After returning to his native land in 671, Uisang was successful in establishing Hwaom as a major Buddhist tradition on the Korean peninsula. He built a number of monasteries and secured the official patronage of the royal court, which bestowed on him the title of national teacher. Uisang’s major work, the brief Hwaom ilsung popkye to (Chart of the Huayan One-Vehicle Realm of Reality), was presented to Zhiyan during his stay in China and it remains a classic exposition of Huayan thought.

Because of the great influence of Uisang and his disciples, Hwaom became the primary theoretical system of Korean Buddhism and served as the foundation for the subsequent

2

doctrinal evolution of the native tradition, even after Chan (or Son in Korean) became established as the predominant Buddhist school. Another major figure during the Silla period was Uisang’s friend WONHYO (617–686), arguably the foremost scholar in the history of Korean Buddhism. Although not for mally affiliated with the Hwaom tradition, Wonhyo was deeply influenced by Hwaom ideas and teachings, which shaped his creation of an integrated system of Buddhist philosophy that attempted to harmonize the differences of the various schools. Some of Wonhyo’s writings were transmitted to China and his commentary on the Awakening of Faith exerted considerable in fluence on Fazang’s thought. Hwaom continued to be a major tradition of Korean Buddhism into the early part of the Koryo dynasty (918–1392). Its predominant position was sup planted by the resurgent Son school, but Korean thinkers were able to create an integrated Buddhist tradition that incorporated teachings and practices from both of these schools. Major contributions in that direction were made by CHINUL (1158–1210), the most prominent monk of the period, who created a successful synthesis that incorporated both Hwaom scholasticism and Son meditation practice. Chinul was also fond of Li Tongxuan’s commentary on the Huayan jing, which became an important text in Korean Buddhism thanks to his advocacy. Chinul’s vision of an integrated and ecumenical Buddhist church be came normative within Korea and, notwithstanding its past and present detractors, remains a principal model for a distinctive native tradition, in which Hwaom thought plays a more central role than it does in any other contemporary Buddhist tradition.

JapanHuayan also entered Japan (where it is known as Kegon) at an early date. In 740 the Korean monk Simsang (or Shinjo in Japanese, d. 742), a disciple of Fazang, was invited by Emperor Shomu (r. 724–749) to lecture on the Huayan jing at Konshoji (later renamed Todaiji) in Nara, the Japanese capital. The invitation was extended at the urging of Roben (689–773), a descendant of Korean immigrants and a specialist in the doctrine of the Hosso school (Chinese, FAXIANG SCHOOL). As a leading Buddhist figure with good political connections, Roben was instrumental in the establishment of Kegon as one of the eight schools of NARA BUDDHISM, which functioned as traditions of Buddhist learning rather than as independent sects.

Roben was also involved in the construction of the great Buddha at Todaiji, and subsequently he became the monastery’s chief priest. The great Buddha, repre senting Vairocana as the principal Buddha of the Huayan universe, was consecrated in 752 under the auspices of Emperor Shomu. Todaiji emerged as a focal institution for Kegon studies (and the study of other scholastic traditions) and a prominent center of Buddhist culture. Despite its turbulent history, including its destruction in 1180, the rebuilt monastery and its great Buddha statue remain potent symbols of Kegon’s prominent place in Japanese Buddhism.

While interest in the study of the Nara schools declined during the Heian period (794–1185), there were prominent scholar-monks during the following Kamakura era (1185–1333) who continued the tradition of Kegon learning. Well-known examples include Myoe KOBEN (1173–1232) and GYONEN (1240–1321).

Known as a restorer of the Kegon tradition, Myoe was also well versed in the teachings of esoteric Buddhism and Chan, and he was known for his strict observance of the precepts. His supporters included a number of prominent aristocrats, and he was successful in turning Kozanji, a monastery located in the vicinity of Ky oto, into a center of Kegon studies. Gyonen,

3

a Kegon monk of extensive learning, was known for his exper tise in the vinaya. He moved to Todaiji in 1277 and af terwards he lectured on the Huayan jing. He also presented lectures on Fazang’s Wujiao zhang at the imperial court, which later awarded him the title of national teacher. Although Gyonen is chiefly associated with the Kegon school, he was well versed in the teachings of other schools of Buddhism, as can be seen from one of his principal works, Hasshu koyo (Outline of the Eight Schools), which is still read as a popular summary of the history and doctrines of the major schools of Japanese Buddhism.

Beyond the narrowly defined Kegon tradition, evidence of Huayan influences can be found in the writings of other major figures in the history of Japanese Buddhism. One such example is KUKAI (774–835), the founder of SHINGON BUDDHISM, who drew on Huayan doctrine in his systematization of esoteric Buddhism, and who ranked Huayan just below Shingon in his tenfold taxonomy of the Buddhist teachings. Another example is SAICHO (767–822), the founder of Tendai, who studied Huayan texts during his formative years and whose writings reflect the influence of Huayan ideas.

Huayan in the West

Taigen Dan Leighton, “Huayan Buddhism and the Phenomenal Universe of the Flower Ornament Sutra,” the fall 2006 "Buddhadharma" magazine. http://www.mtsource.org/articles/Huayan_phenomenal.htm

Apart from its power to inform and illuminate meditation practice, Huayan philosophy is highly relevant to Buddhism's potential contribution to environmental and ecological thinking. The dynamics of the mutual relationship of universal and particular in Huayan has already been influential in the modern deep ecology movement in its clear expression of the interrelationship of the total global environment to the well-being of particular ecological niches.

The implications of this interconnectedness and the importance of the bodhisattva's responsibility in Huayan is also a great encouragement and resource for modern Engaged Buddhism and Buddhist societal ethics. This can be seen, for example, through the main Avatamsaka bodhisattva Samantabhadra, who engages in specific projects for worldly benefit through his dedicated practice of Vow as applied to benefiting all beings and all the societal systems of the world.

Huayan models of the interconnectedness of totality also have implications for modern science. Especially in cutting-edge realms of physics such as string theory, Huayan visions may provide inspirations for clarifying the dynamic interactions of various dimensions of reality.

Given how much Huayan Buddhism has to offer contemporary practitioners seeking to deepen their experience and understanding, even in realms outside of practice, it is fortunate that more material about this ancient teaching is becoming available. We can perhaps look forward to a renaissance of this profound teaching of interconnectedness in response to the pressing needs of our day.

4