H

Hachiman. (八幡). In Japanese, “God of Eight Banners,” a popular SHINTŌ deity (KAMI), who is also considered a “great BODHISATTVA”; also known as Hachiman jin. Although his origins are unclear, Hachiman can at least be traced back to his role as the tutelary deity of the Usa clan in Kyūshū during the eighth century. Hachiman responded to an oracle in 749, vouchsafing the successful construction of the Great Buddha (DAIBUTSU) image at TŌDAIJI and quickly rose in popularity in both Kyūshū and the Nara capital. In 859, the Buddhist monk Gyōkyō established the Iwashimizu Hachiman Shrine near the capital of Kyōto that was dedicated to the deity. Hachiman’s oracles continued to play decisive roles in Nara politics, leading to a worship cult devoted to him. The Hachiman cult expanded throughout the Heian period (794–1185), and in 809, he was designated a “great bodhisattva” (daibosatsu) by drawing on the concept of HONJI SUIJAKU (buddhas or bodhisattvas appearing in the world as gods). Hachiman also came to be considered a manifestation of the semi-legendary ancient sovereign Ōjin and was likewise seen as guardian of the monarch. From the eleventh century, the Minamoto warrior clan also linked itself with Hachiman. Through this patronage, Hachiman became increasingly associated with warfare. During the Meiji persecution of Buddhism in 1868, which separated the gods from the buddhas and bodhisattvas (SHINBUTSU BUNRI), Hachiman was divorced from his Buddhist identity and recast as a purely Shintō deity. Currently, there are approximately 25,000 Hachiman shrines across Japan.

Haedong kosŭng chŏn. (海東高僧傳). In Korean, “Lives of Eminent Korean Monks,” putatively compiled in 1215 by the monk Kakhun (d.u.), abbot of the monastery of Yŏngt’ongsa, and the only such indigenous biographical collection of its kind (see GAOSENG ZHUAN) extant in Korea. A copy of the Haedong kosŭng chŏn was ostensibly discovered by the monk Hoegwang Sasŏn (1862–1933; also known as Yi Hoegwang) amid a pile of old documents housed at a “certain” monastery in North Kyŏngsang province. A critical edition of this copy was published by Ch’oe Namsŏn (1809–1957) in the magazine Pulgyo (“Buddhism”) in 1927; the original document has never been seen again. The published recension of the Haedong kosŭng chŏn contains only the first two chapters, on yut’ong, or propagators of the religion. The first chapter is largely concerned with the history of the transmission of Buddhism from India to China and Korea. This roll contains the biographies of eight Korean monks and briefly mentions three others. The second roll contains the biographies of ten eminent Silla monks who made pilgrimages to India and China (e.g., WŎN’GWANG and ANHAM) and also mentions the activities of eleven other figures; large portions of this roll are derived from the Chinese hagiographical anthology XU GAOSENG ZHUAN. There is also considerable overlap between the Haedong kosŭng chŏn and Iryŏn’s (1206–1289) supposedly contemporaneous Buddhist history SAMGUK YUSA (“Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms”). These several overlaps in material, as well as issues involving the provenance of the manuscript discovered by Yi Hoegwang, raise concerns about the authenticity of the Haedong kosŭng chŏn that have yet to be resolved.

Haeinsa. (海印寺). In Korean, “Ocean-Seal Monastery,” or “Oceanic-Reflection Monastery”; the twelfth district monastery (PONSA) of the contemporary CHOGYE CHONG of Korean Buddhism, located on Kaya Mountain, in Hapch’ŏn, South Kyŏngsang province. Along with SONGGWANGSA and T’ONGDOSA, Haeinsa is considered to be one of the “three-jewel monasteries” (SAMBO SACH’AL) which represent one of the three jewels of Buddhism (RATNATRAYA); Haeinsa is traditionally designated the “Dharma-Jewel Monastery” (Pŏppo sach’al) because of its pair of scriptural repositories, which house the woodblocks of the second Koryŏ-dynasty carving of the Buddhist canon (KORYŎ TAEJANGGYŎNG; see also DAZANGJING). These paired halls are placed on top of a hill overlooking the main buddha hall in order to accentuate Haeinsa’s role as a surrogate for the DHARMA. Haeinsa was established in 802 to celebrate the successful healing of King Aejang’s (r. 800–808) queen by the two monks Sunŭng (d.u.) and Yijŏng (d.u.). The woodblock canon carved in the first half of the thirteenth century was moved to Haeinsa during the reign of King T’aejo (r. 1392–1398). In 1392, King T’aejo also repaired Haeinsa’s old pagoda, and King Sejo (r. 1455–1468) later repaired the library halls housing the canon (Changgyŏnggak). The monastery went through extensive repairs again for three years from 1488 to 1490, but most of its treasures of old (with the fortunate exception of the woodblocks) were lost in a series of fires that broke out in the compounds between the years 1862 and 1874. Most of the buildings that stand today were rebuilt after those conflagrations.

Haein to. (K) (海印圖). See HWAŎM ILSŬNG PŎPKYE TO.

haibutsu kishaku. (排佛釋). In Japanese, “abolishing Buddhism and destroying [the teachings of] ŚĀKYAMUNI”; a slogan coined to describe the extensive persecution of Buddhism that occurred during the Meiji period (1868–1912). The rise of Western-derived notions of nationalism, kokugaku (national learning), and SHINTŌ as a new national ideology raised serious questions about the role of Buddhism in modern Japan. Buddhism was characterized as a foreign influence and the institution suffered the disestablishment of thousands of temples, the desecration of its ritual objects, and the defrocking of monks and nuns. When an edict was issued separating Shintō from Buddhism in 1868 (see SHINBUTSU BUNRI), Buddhist monasteries and temples where local deities (KAMI) were worshipped as manifestations of a buddha or BODHISATTVA (see HONJI SUIJAKU) sustained the most damage. The forced separation of Shintō and Buddhism eventually led to the harsh criticism of Buddhism as a corrupt and superstitious institution. Buddhists sought to counter the effects of these attacks through a rapid transformation of the SAṂGHA in order to make their religion more relevant to the needs of modern, secular society.

haihui. (J. kaie; K. haehoe 海會). In Chinese, lit. “oceanic congregation,” referring, e.g., to congregations of sages, divinities, bodhisattvas, etc., that are said to be as vast as the ocean. “A congregation that is [as vast as] the ocean” is a common motif in MAHĀYĀNA sutras, whose expositions are typically attended by astronomical numbers of beings. Such “oceanic congregations” also sometimes refer to the extraordinary entourages of celestial buddhas. For example, “the oceanic congregation of SUKHĀVATĪ” (jile haihui) usually involves a religious vision of the buddha AMITĀBHA and the infinite numbers of inhabitants resident in his PURE LAND. Congregations in Chan monasteries (see CONGLIN) are also called a “congregation that is [as vast as the confluence of rivers in] the ocean” to symbolize the coming together of many sincere practitioners.

Haimavata. (P. Hemavataka; T. Gangs ri’i sde; C. Xueshanbu; J. Sessenbu; K. Sŏlsanbu 雪山部). In Sanskrit, “Inhabitants of the Himālayas,” one of the traditional eighteen schools of the mainstream Indian Buddhist tradition, alternatively associated with either the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA, SARVĀSTIVĀDA, or STHAVIRANIKĀYA traditions. The name of the school is generally regarded as deriving from school’s location in the Himalayan region. There are various theories on the origin of this school. The Pāli DĪPAVAṂSA states that the Haimavata arose during the second century after the Buddha’s death, and lists it separately along with the schools of Rājagirīya, Siddhārthika, PŪRVAŚAILA, Aparaśaila (the four of which were collectively designated as the ANDHAKĀ schools by BUDDHAGHOSA in the introduction to his commentary on the KATHĀVATTHU) and Apararājagirika, but without identifying their respective origins. According to northwest Indian tradition, a view represented in the Sarvāstivāda treatise SAMAYABHEDOPARACANACAKRA (C. Yibuzong lun lun) by VASUMITRA (c. first to second centuries, CE), the Haimavata is considered the first independent school to split off from the Sthaviranikāya line. KUIJI’s commentary to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra explains the name pejoratively to refer to the desolation of the freezing breeze coming down from the Himālayas, in contrast to the prosperity that accompanies the Sarvāstivāda teachings. However, given that the Haimavata school does not seem to have been particularly influential (even if had been part of the original Sthaviranikāya line) and that, moreover, all the other Sthavira lineages are posited to derive from the Sarvāstivāda by this tradition, the account of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra is usually dismissed as reflecting Sarvāstivāda polemics more than historical fact. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra also attributes to the Haimavata school MAHĀDEVA’s five propositions about the status of the ARHAT, the propositions that prompted, at the time of the second Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, SECOND), the schism in the SAṂGHA between the STHAVIRA and the nascent Mahāsāṃghika order. These five propositions were: the arhats (1) are still subject to sexual desire (RĀGA); (2) may have a residue of ignorance (ajñāna); (3) retain certain types of doubt (kāṅkṣā); (4) gain knowledge through others’ help; and finally, (5) have spiritual experience accompanied by an exclamation, such as “aho.” It is probably because of this identification with Mahādeva’s propositions that BHĀVAVIVEKA (c. 490–570) classified the Haimavata among the Mahāsāṃghika. Other doctrines that Vasumitra claimed were distinctive to the Haimavata were (1) a BODHISATTVA is an ordinary person (PṚTHAGJANA); (2) a bodhisattva does not experience any desire (KĀMA) when he enters the mother’s womb; (3) non-Buddhists (TĪRTHIKA) cannot develop the five kinds of supernatural powers (ABHIJÑĀ); and (4) the divinities (DEVA) cannot practice a religious life (BRAHMACARYA). Vasumitra asserts that these and other of its views were similar to those of the Sarvāstivāda, thus positing a close connection between the doctrines of the two schools.

Hakuin Ekaku. (白隱慧鶴) (1685–1768). Japanese ZEN master renowned for revitalizing the RINZAISHŪ. Hakuin was a native of Hara in Shizuoka Prefecture. In 1699, Hakuin was ordained and received the name Ekaku (Wise Crane) from the monk Tanrei Soden (d. 1701) at the nearby temple of Shōinji. Shortly thereafter, Hakuin was sent by Tanrei to the temple of Daishōji in Numazu to serve the abbot Sokudō Fueki (d. 1712). Hakuin is then said to have lost faith in his Buddhist training and devoted much of his time instead to art. In 1704, Hakuin visited the monk Baō Sōchiku (1629–1711) at the temple Zuiunji in Mino province. While studying under Baō, Hakuin is said to have read the CHANGUAN CEJIN by YUNQI ZHUHONG, which inspired him to further meditative training. In 1708, Hakuin is said to have had his first awakening experience upon hearing the ringing of a distant bell. That same year, Hakuin met Dōju Sōkaku (1679–1730), who urged him to visit the Zen master Dōkyō Etan (1642–1721), or Shōju Rōnin, at the hermitage of Shōjuan in Iiyama. During one of his begging rounds, Hakuin is said to have had another important awakening after an old woman struck him with a broom. Shortly after his departure from Shōjuan, Hakuin suffered from an illness, which he cured with the help of a legendary hermit named Hakuyū. Hakuin’s famous story of his encounter with Hakuyū was recounted in his YASENKANNA, Orategama, and Itsumadegusa. In 1716, Hakuin returned to Shōinji and devoted much of his time to restoring the monastery, teaching students, and lecturing. Hakuin delivered famous lectures on such texts as the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA, SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA, VAJRACCHEDIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA, BIYAN LU, BAOJING SANMEI, DAHUI PUJUE CHANSHI SHU, and YUANREN LUN, and the recorded sayings (YULU) of LINJI YIXUAN, WUZU FAYAN, and XUTANG ZHIYU. He also composed a number of important texts during this period, such as the Kanzan shi sendai kimon, Kaian kokugo, and SOKKŌROKU KAIEN FUSETSU. Prior to his death, Hakuin established the monastery of Ryūtakuji in Mishima (present-day Shizuoka prefecture). Hakuin was a strong advocate of “questioning meditation” (J. kanna Zen; C. KANHUA CHAN), which focused on the role of doubt in contemplating the kōan (GONG’AN). Hakuin proposed that the sense of doubt was the catalyst for an initial SATORI (awakening; C. WU), which had then to be enhanced through further kōan study in order to mature the experience. The contemporary Rinzai training system involving systematic study of many different kōans is attributed to Hakuin, as is the famous kōan, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” (see SEKISHU KŌAN). Hakuin was a prolific writer who left many other works as well, including the Dokugo shingyō, Oniazami, Yabukōji, Hebiichigo, Keisō dokuzui, Yaemugura, and Zazen wasan. Hakuin also produced many prominent disciples, including TŌREI ENJI, Suiō Genro (1716–1789), and GASAN JITŌ. The contemporary Japanese Rinzai school of Zen traces its lineage and teachings back to Hakuin and his disciples.

Hamhŏ Tŭkt’ong. (K) (涵得通). See KIHWA.

Hanam Chungwŏn. (漢岩重遠) (1876–1951). First supreme patriarch (CHONGJŎNG) of the Korean Buddhist CHOGYE CHONG (between 1941 and 1945), before the split between the Chogye order and T’AEGO CHONG; he is also known as Pang Hanam, using his secular surname. In 1899, Hanam went to the hermitage Sudoam in Ch’ŏngamsa to study with KYŎNGHŎ SŎNGU, the preeminent SŎN master of his generation. In 1905, after three years of lecturing throughout the country, Hanam became the Sŏn master of Naewŏn Meditation Center at the monastery of T’ONGDOSA. In 1926, he moved to Sangwŏnsa on Odae Mountain, which remained his primary residence for the rest of his life. Hanam’s best-known work is the biography he wrote of his teacher Kyŏnghŏ; some twenty-three correspondences between him and his teacher are also still extant. More recently, in 1995, a collection of Hanam’s own dharma talks was published as the Hanam ilbal nok (“Hanam’s One-Bowl Record”). Hanam’s “five regulations for the SAṂGHA,” which he promulgated when he first arrived at Sangwŏnsa, outlined what he considered to be the main constituents of Korean Buddhist practice: (1) Sŏn meditation, (2) “recollection” of the Buddha’s name (K. yŏmbul; C. NIANFO), (3) doctrinal study, (4) ritual and worship, and (5) maintaining the monastery. Hanam was a strong advocate for the revitalization of “questioning meditation” (K. kanhwa Sŏn; C. KANHUA CHAN) in Korean Buddhism, although he was more flexible than many Korean masters—who typically used ZHAOZHOU CONGSHEN’s “No” (K. mu; C. wu) gong’an (see WU GONG’AN; GOUZI WU FOXING) exclusively—in recommending also a variety of other Chan cases. Hanam also led a move to reconceive “recitation of the Buddha’s name,” a popular practice in contemporary Korean Buddhism, as “recollection of the Buddha’s name,” in order better to bring out the contemplative dimensions of yŏmbul practice and its synergies with gong’an meditation. During the four years he was supreme patriarch of the Chogye order, Hanam was especially adept at avoiding entanglement with the Japanese colonial authorities, refusing, for example, to visit the governor-general in the capital of Seoul but accepting visits from Japanese authorities who came to Sangwŏnsa to “pay respects” to him. Hanam’s emphasis on the monastic context of Sŏn practice was an important influence in post-liberation Korean Buddhism after the end of World War II.

Hannya shingyō hiken. (般若心經秘鍵). In Japanese, “Secret Key to the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀHṚDAYASŪTRA”; attributed to the Japanese SHINGONSHŪ monk KŪKAI. According to its colophon, Kūkai composed the Hannya shingyō hiken upon imperial request during a great epidemic in 818, but an alternative theory rejects the colophon’s claim and dates the text to 834. The Hannya shingyō hiken claims that the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, the famous “Heart Sūtra,” is actually an esoteric scripture (see TANTRA) that explicates the “great mind-MANTRA SAMĀDHI” of the BODHISATTVA Prajñā. The treatise first provides a synopsis of the scripture and an explanation of its title, followed by a detailed interpretation of its teachings, in a total of five sections (each corresponding to a certain part of the scripture). In its first section, entitled “the complete interpenetration between persons and DHARMAs,” the treatise describes the practice of the bodhisattva AVALOKITEŚVARA in terms of five factors (cause, practice, attainment, entrance, and time). The next section, entitled “division of the various vehicles,” divides the different vehicles (YĀNA) of Buddhism into the vehicles of construction, destruction, form, two, and one, and also mentions the vehicles of SAMANTABHADRA (see HUAYAN ZONG), MAÑJUŚRĪ (see SANLUN ZONG), MAITREYA (see YOGĀCĀRA), ŚRĀVAKAs, PRATYEKABUDDHAs, and Avalokiteśvara (see TIANTAI ZONG). In the third section, entitled “benefits attained by the practitioner,” the treatise discusses seven types of practitioners (Huayan, Sanlun, Yogācāra, śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, Tiantai, and Shingon) and four varieties of dharmas (cause, practice, attainment, and entrance). The fourth section, entitled “clarification of the DHĀRAṆĪ,” explains the MANTRA “GATE GATE PĀRAGATE PĀRASAṂGATE BODHI SVĀHĀ” in terms of its name, essence, and function, and also divides it into four types, which are associated with the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, MAHĀYĀNA, and esoteric (himitsu) vehicles. The fifth section, entitled “secret mantra,” further divides the spell into five different types and explains the attainment of BODHI within the various vehicles. Commentaries on this treatise were written by DŌHAN (1178–1252), Saisen (1025–1115), KAKUBAN (1095–1143), Innyū (1435–1519), Donjaku (1674–1742), and others.

Hanshan. (J. Kanzan; K. Hansan 寒山) (d.u.; fl. mid-eighth century). In Chinese, “Cold Mountain”; sobriquet of a legendary Tang dynasty poet and iconoclast of near-mythic status within Chinese Buddhism. The HANSHAN SHI, one of the best-loved collection of poems in the Chinese Buddhist tradition, is attributed to this obscure figure. Hanshan (Cold Mountain) is primarily known as a hermit who dwelled on Mt. Tiantai, in present-day Zhejiang province. References to Hanshan are scattered throughout the discourse records (YULU) of various Chan masters and biographies of eminent monks (GAOSENG ZHUAN). Hanshan also became a favored object in brushstroke art (BOKUSEKI), in which he is often depicted together with SHIDE and FENGGAN. Together, these three iconoclasts are known as the “three recluses of Guoqing [monastery].”

Hanshan Deqing. (J. Kanzan Tokusei; K. Kamsan Tŏkch’ŏng 憨山德清) (1546–1623). In Chinese, “Crazy Mountain, Virtuous Clarity”; Ming-dynasty Chinese CHAN master of the LINJI ZONG; also known as Chengyin. Hanshan was a native of Quanjiao in Jinling (present-day Nanjing in Jiangsu province). He entered the monastery at age eleven and was ordained at the age of eighteen. Hanshan then studied under the monks Yungu Fahui (d.u.) and Fangguang (d.u.) of Mt. Funiu and later retired to WUTAISHAN. In 1581, Hanshan organized an “unrestricted assembly” (WUZHE DAHUI) led by five hundred worthies (DADE) on Mt. Wutai. In 1587, Hanshan received the patronage of the empress dowager, who constructed on his behalf the monastery Haiyinsi in Qingzhou (present-day Shandong province) and granted the monastery a copy of the Buddhist canon. Hanshan, however, lost favor with Emperor Shenzong (r. 1572–1620) and was sent to prison in Leizhou (present-day Guangdong province). In 1597, Hanshan reestablished himself on CAOXISHAN, where he devoted most of his time to restoring the meditation hall, conferring precepts, lecturing on scriptures, and restructuring the monastic regulations. In 1616, he established the Chan monastery of Fayunsi on LUSHAN’s Wuru Peak. In 1622, Hanshan returned to Mt. Caoxi and passed away the next year. Hanshan was particularly famous for his cultivation of Chan questioning meditation (KANHUA CHAN) and recollection of the Buddha’s name (NIANFO). Along with YUNQI ZHUHONG (1535–1615), DAGUAN ZHENKE (a.k.a. Zibo) (1542–1603), and OUYI ZHIXU (1599–1655), Hanshan was known as one of the four great monks of the Ming dynasty. Hanshan was later given the posthumous title Chan master Hongjue (Universal Enlightenment). His teachings are recorded in the Hanshan dashi mengyou quanji.

Hanshan shi. (J. Kanzan shi; K. Hansan si 寒山詩). In Chinese, “Cold Mountain’s Poems,” attributed to the legendary Chinese iconoclast HANSHAN (Cold Mountain); also known as Hanshan shiji. Sometime between 766 and 779, Hanshan is presumed to have retired to Mt. Tiantai (in present-day Zhejiang province), where he composed his famous poetry. The poems of the legendary monks FENGGAN and SHIDE are also included at the end of Hanshan’s poetry collection. During the Song dynasty, the Hanshan shi was also known as the Sanyin ji (“Collection of the Three Recluses”). The Hanshan shi was widely read for its sharp satire of his times and its otherworldliness. The earliest edition was published in 1189 at the monastery of Guoqingsi on Mt. Tiantai.

Hanthawaddi. (Burmese). See PEGU.

Hanyŏng Chŏngho. (漢永鼎鎬) (1870–1948). Korean monk renowned for his efforts to revitalize Buddhist education during the Japanese colonial period. Hanyŏng Chŏngho studied the Confucian classics when young and entered the SAṂGHA at seventeen. He became a disciple of Sŏryu Ch’ŏmyŏng (1858–1903), from whom he received the dharma name Hanyŏng. In 1909, he traveled to Seoul and helped lead the Buddhist revitalization movement, along with fellow Buddhist monks HAN YONGUN and Kŭmp’a Kyŏngho (1868–1915). In 1910, shortly after Japan’s formal annexation of Korea, Hoegwang Sasŏn (1862–1933) and others signed a seven-item treaty with the Japanese SŌTŌSHŪ, which sought to assimilate Korean Buddhism into the Sōtō order. In response to this threat to Korean Buddhist autonomy, Hanyŏng Chŏngho helped Han Yongun and other Korean Buddhist leaders establish the IMJE CHONG order in Korea. In 1913, he published the journal Haedong Pulgyo (“Korean Buddhism”) in order to inform the Buddhist community of the need for revitalization and self-awareness. Beginning with his teaching career at Kodŭng Pulgyo Kangsuk in 1914, he devoted himself to the cause of education and went on to teach at various other Buddhist seminaries (kangwŏn) throughout the country. His many writings include the Sŏngnim sup’il (“Jottings from Stone Forest”), Chŏngsŏn Ch’imunjiphwa (“Selections from Stories of Admonitions”), and Chŏngsŏn Yŏmsong sŏrhwa (“Selections from the YŎMSONG SŎRHWA”), a digest of the most-famous Korean kongan (C. GONG’AN) collection.

Han Yongun. (韓龍雲) (1879–1944). Korean monk, poet, and writer, also known by his sobriquet Manhae or his ordination name Pongwan. In 1896, when Han was sixteen, both his parents and his brother were executed by the state for their connections to the Tonghak (“Eastern Learning”) Rebellion. He subsequently joined the remaining forces of the Tonghak Rebellion and fought against the Chosŏn-dynasty government but was forced to flee to Oseam hermitage on Mt. Sŏrak. He was ordained at the monastery of Paektamsa in 1905. Three years later, as one of the fifty-two monastic representatives, he participated in the establishment of the Wŏn chong (Consummate Order) and the foundation of its headquarters at Wŏnhŭngsa. After returning from a sojourn in Japan, where he witnessed Japanese Buddhism’s attempts to modernize in the face of the Meiji-era persecutions, Han Yongun wrote an influential tract in 1909 calling for radical changes in the Korean Buddhist tradition; this tract, entitled CHOSŎN PULGYO YUSIN NON (“Treatise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism”), set much of the agenda for Korean Buddhist modernization into the contemporary period. After Korea was formally annexed by Japan in 1910, Han devoted the rest of his life to the fight for independence. In opposition to the Korean monk Hoegwang Sasŏn’s (1862–1933) attempt to merge the Korean Wŏn chong with the Japanese SŌTŌSHŪ, Han Yongun helped to establish the IMJE CHONG (Linji order) with its headquarters at PŎMŎSA in Pusan. In 1919, he actively participated in the March First independence movement and signed the Korean Declaration of Independence as a representative of the Buddhist community. As a consequence, he was sentenced to three years in prison by Japanese colonial authorities. In prison, he composed the Chosŏn Tongnip ŭi sŏ (“Declaration of Korea’s Independence”). In 1925, three years after he was released from prison, he published a book of poetry entitled Nim ŭi ch’immuk (“Silence of the Beloved”), a veiled call for the freedom of Korea (the “beloved” of the poem) and became a leader in resistance literature; this poem is widely regarded as a classic of Korean vernacular writing. In 1930, Han became publisher of the monthly journal Pulgyo (“Buddhism”), through which he attempted to popularize Buddhism and to raise the issue of Korean political sovereignty. Han Yongun continued to lobby for independence until his death in 1944 at the age of sixty-six, unable to witness the long-awaited independence of Korea that occurred a year later on August 15th, 1945, with Japan’s surrender in World War II.

Haribhadra. (T. Seng ge bzang po) (c. 800). Indian Buddhist exegete during the Pāla dynasty, whom later Tibetan doxographers associate with the YOGĀCĀRA-*SVĀTANTRIKA syncretistic strand of Indian philosophy. He may have been a student of ŚĀNTARAKṢITA and was a contemporary of KAMALAŚĪLA; he himself lists Vairocanabhadra as his teacher. Haribhadra is known for his two commentaries on the AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA (“PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ in Eight Thousand Lines”): the longer ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRĀLOKĀ-Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā, and its summary, the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRAVIVṚTI. He is also known for his recasting of the twenty-five-thousand-line version of the prajñāpāramitā (PAÑCAVIṂŚATISĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA) in a work entitled the Le’u brgyad ma in Tibetan. Each of these works is based on the interpretative scheme set forth in the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA (“Ornament for Clear Realizations”), a guide to the Pañcaviṃśati that Haribhadra explicitly attributes to MAITREYA. His Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā builds upon PRAMĀṆA, MADHYAMAKA, and ABHIDHARMA literature and was extremely influential in Tibet; its summary (known as “’grel pa don gsal” in Tibetan) is the root text (rtsa ba) for commentaries in the GSANG PHU NE’U THOG monastery tradition originating with RNGOG BLO LDAN SHES RAB. It is the most widely studied prajñāpāramitā commentary in Tibetan Buddhism to the present day. Haribhadra is known for his explanation of a JÑĀNADHARMAKĀYA (knowledge truth-body) in addition to a SVĀBHĀVAKĀYA, viz., the eternally pure DHARMADHĀTU that is free from duality. He is characterized as an alīkākāravādin (“false-aspectarian”) to differentiate him from Kamalaśīla, a satyākāravādin (“true-aspectarian”) who holds that the objects appearing in the diverse forms of knowledge in a buddha’s all-knowing mind are truly what they seem to be. He cites DHARMAKĪRTI frequently but appears to accept that scripture (ĀGAMA) is also a valid authority (PRAMĀṆA). There are two principal commentaries on his work, by Dharmamitra and Dharmakīrtiśrī. Buddhaśrījñāna (or simply Buddhajñāna) was his disciple. The Subodhinī, a commentary on the RATNAGUṆASAṂCAYAGĀTHĀ, is also attributed to him.

Hārītī. (T. ’Phrog ma; C. Guizimushen; J. Kishimojin; K. Kwijamosin 鬼子母神). In Sanskrit, Hārītī, “the mother of demons,” is a ravenous demoness (alternatively called either a yakṣiṇī or a rākṣasī), who is said to eat children. At the pleading of her victims’ distraught mothers, ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha kidnapped one of Hārītī’s own five hundred children and hid the child in his begging bowl (PĀTRA) so she would experience the same kind of suffering she had caused other parents; realizing the pain she had brought others prompted her to convert to Buddhism. Subsequently, Hārītī came to be recognized specifically as a protector of both pregnant women and children, and laywomen made pilgrimages to sites associated with her and her manifestations. More generally, Hārītī is also thought to protect the SAṂGHA and, indeed, all sentient beings (SATTVA), from depredations by evil spirits. Monasteries may have a small shrine to Hārītī near the entrance gate or kitchen, where monks and nuns will leave a small offering of food to her before meals. She is often paired with her consort Pāñcika (KUBERA), one of the twenty-eight YAKṢA generals in VAIŚRAVAṆA’s army, who fathered her five hundred children; indeed, all demons (yakṣa) are said to be the “sons of Hārītī” (Hārītīputra). The couple is commonly depicted surrounded by young children, offering the laity a positive portrayal of marital fidelity and reproductive fecundity, which contrasts with the world-renouncing stereotypes of Buddhism.

Harivarman. (T. Seng ge go cha; C. Helibamo; J. Karibatsuma; K. Haribalma 訶梨跋摩). Indian Buddhist exegete who probably lived between the third and fourth centuries CE (c. 250–350 CE). Harivarman was a disciple of Kumāralabdha and is the author of the CHENGSHI LUN (*Tattvasiddhi; “Treatise on Establishing Reality”), a summary of the lost ABHIDHARMA of the BAHUŚRUTĪYA school, a branch of the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA school of the mainstream Buddhist tradition. The *Tattvasiddhi, extant only in Chinese translation as the Chengshi lun, is especially valuable for its detailed refutations of the positions held by other early ŚRĀVAKAYĀNA schools; the introduction, e.g., surveys ten different bases of controversy that separate the different early schools. The treatise is structured in the form of an exposition of the traditional theory of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, but does not include the listings for different factors (DHARMA) that typify many works in the abhidharma genre. The positions that Harivarman advocates are closest to those of the STHAVIRANIKĀYA and SAUTRĀNTIKA schools, although, unlike the Pāli texts, he accepts the reality of “unmanifest materiality” (AVIJÑAPTIRŪPA) and, unlike Sautrāntika, rejects the notion of an “intermediate state” (ANTARĀBHAVA) between existences. Harivarman opposes the SARVĀSTIVĀDA position that dharmas exist in both past and future, the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA view that thought is inherently pure, and the VĀTSĪPUTRĪYA premise that the “person” (PUDGALA) exists in reality. Harivarman seems to hone to a middle way between the extremes of “everything exists” and “everything does not exist,” both of which he views as expediencies that do not represent ultimate reality. Harivarman advocates, instead, the “emptiness of everything” (sarva-ŚŪNYATĀ) and is therefore sometimes viewed within the East Asian traditions as representing a transitional stage between the mainstream Buddhist schools and MAHĀYĀNA philosophical doctrine.

Hasshū kōyō. (八宗綱要). In Japanese, “Essentials of the Eight Traditions”; an influential history of Buddhism in Japan composed by the Japanese KEGONSHŪ (C. HUAYAN ZONG) monk GYŌNEN (1240–1321). Gyōnen first divides the teachings of the Buddha into the two vehicles of MAHĀYĀNA and HĪNAYĀNA, the two paths of the ŚRĀVAKA and BODHISATTVA, and the three baskets (PIṬAKA) of SŪTRA, VINAYA, and ABHIDHARMA. He then proceeds to provide a brief history of the transmission of Buddhism from India to Japan. Gyōnen subsequently details the division of the Buddha’s teachings into the eight different traditions that dominated Japanese Buddhism during the Nara (710–794) and Heian (794–1185) periods. This outline provides a valuable summary of the teachings of each tradition, each of their histories, and the development of their distinctive doctrines in India, China, and Japan. The first roll describes the Kusha (see ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA), Jōjitsu (*Tattvasiddhi; see CHENGSHI LUN), and RITSU (see VINAYA) traditions. The second roll describes the Hossō (see FAXIANG ZONG; YOGĀCĀRA), Sanron (see SAN LUN), TENDAI (see TIANTAI), Kegon (see HUAYAN), and SHINGON traditions. Brief introductions to the ZENSHŪ and JŌDOSHŪ, which were more recent additions to Japanese Buddhism, appear at the end of the text. The Hasshū kōyō has been widely used in Japan since the thirteenth century as a textbook of Buddhist history and thought. Indeed, Gyōnen’s portrayal of Japanese Buddhism as a collection of independent schools identified by discrete doctrines and independent lineages of transmission had a profound impact on Japanese Buddhist studies into the modern period.

hastināga. (P. hatthināga; C. longxiang; J. ryūzō; K. yongsang 龍象). In Sanskrit, “elephant,” often referring to an especially magnificent or noble elephant, but sometimes parsed, especially in translation, as the dual compound “elephants and NĀGAs”; a metaphor for a highly advanced Buddhist practitioner. (The Chinese characters translate the compound as “dragons and elephants.”) Hastināgas were said to be synonymous with religious virtuosi or worthies (DADE), because dragons and elephants were respectively the most powerful animals in water (and in the water vapor of clouds) and on land. In the East Asia CHAN (J. Zen; K. Sŏn) tradition, “dragons and elephants” as advanced adepts are contrasted with YUNSHUI (J. unsui; K. unsu), lit. “clouds and water,” referring to itinerant practitioners and especially novice monks, who were expected to travel to various monasteries to learn from different teachers as part of their training. In Korean monasteries, the “dragons and elephants” (yongsang; C. longxiang) roster is a list of monastic duties, along with the assigned incumbents of the offices, that is posted during the retreat periods (K. kyŏlche; C. JIEZHI) of winter and summer.

Hatthaka Āḷavaka. An eminent lay disciple of the Buddha, declared by him to be foremost among laymen who attract followers by means of the four means of conversion (S. SAṂGRAHAVASTU). According to the Pāli account, he was the son of the king of Āḷavī, and received his name Hatthaka (which in Pāli means “handed over” as a child), because he had once been given to the Buddha by an ogre (S. YAKṢA), who, in turn, handed him back to the king. The ogre, the yakkha Āḷavaka, was going to eat the boy but was converted by the Buddha and persuaded to release him, instead. When he grew up, Hatthaka heard the Buddha preach and became a nonreturner (S. ANĀGĀMIN). A gifted preacher, Hatthaka had a following of five hundred disciples who always accompanied him. The suttapiṭaka records several conversations he had with the Buddha. On one occasion, after the Buddha asked him how he was able to gather such a large following around him, Hatthaka responded that it was through four means of conversion: giving gifts, kind words, kind deeds, and equality in treatment. It was for this capacity that Hatthaka won eminence. The Buddha declared him to be endowed with eight qualities: faith, virtue, conscientiousness, shame, the ability to listen, generosity, wisdom, and modesty. When he died, Hatthaka was reborn as a divinity in avihā heaven in the subtle materiality realm (RŪPALOKA), where he was destined to attain final nibbāna (S. NIRVĀṆA). Once, he visited the Buddha from his celestial world but collapsed in his presence, unable to support his subtle material body on earth; the Buddha instructed him to create a gross material body, by means of which he was then able to stand. He told the Buddha that he had three regrets upon his death: that he had not seen the Buddha enough, that he had not heard the DHARMA enough, and that he had not served the SAṂGHA enough. Together with the householder CITTA (Cittagahapati), Hatthaka Āḷavaka is upheld as an ideal layman, who is worthy of emulation.

Hayagrīva. (T. Rta mgrin; C. Matou Guanyin; J. Batō Kannon; K. Madu Kwanŭm 馬頭觀音). In Sanskrit, “Horse-Necked One”; an early Buddhist deity who developed from a YAKṢA attendant of AVALOKITEŚVARA into a tantric wrathful deity important in the second diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet. The name “Hayagrīva” belonged to two different Vedic deities, one an enemy of VIṢṆU, another a horse-headed avatāra, or manifestation, of that deity. Eventually the two merged, whence he was absorbed into the Buddhist pantheon. In early Buddhist art, Hayagrīva frequently appears as a smallish yakṣa figure attending Avalokiteśvara, Khasarpaṇa, AMOGHAPĀŚA, and TĀRĀ; by the mid-seventh century, however, Hayagrīva had merged with Avalokiteśvara to become a wrathful form of that bodhisattva. He appears in this new form, Hayagrīva–Avalokiteśvara, in the Avalokiteśvara sections of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha (where his DHĀRAṆĪs are said to be effective in destroying mundane obstacles) and later Chinese translations of the Amoghapāśahṛdaya, as well as in the MAHĀVAIROCANASŪTRA. While he does appear with a horse’s head in Japan (where he is considered a protective deity of horses), Hayagrīva is customarily shown with a horse head emerging from his flaming hair. In the tantric pantheon, Hayagrīva initially occupied outer rings of the MAṆḌALA, but eventually came to be considered a YI DAM in his own right, a transformation that would grant him the status of a fully enlightened being. In Mongolia he is worshipped as the god of horses. In Tibet he is primarily worshipped as a LOKOTTARA (supramundane) DHARMAPĀLA (dharma protector).

Heart Sūtra. See PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀHṚDAYASŪTRA.

heaven. See DEVA; SVARGA.

Helin Xuansu. (J. Kakurin Genso; K. Hangnim Hyŏnso 鶴林玄素) (668–752). Chinese CHAN master in the NIUTOU ZONG, also known as Daoqing or Masu (from his secular surname Ma). Helin was ordained at the monastery of Changshousi in present-day Jiangsu province, but later in his life moved to Youqisi, where he became a disciple of the fifth-generation Niutou successor Zhiwei (646–722). At another monk’s request, Helin moved once again to the monastery of Helinsi on Mt. Huanghe in Yunzhou prefecture, whence he acquired his toponym. He died without any symptoms of illness in 752 at the age of eighty-four. He was subsequently given the posthumous title Chan master Dalü (Great Discipline). He claims among his disciples Jingshan Daoqin (714–792) and FAHAI, whom the Dunhuang edition of the LIUZU TAN JING (“Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch”) states is the compiler of the text.

hells. See NĀRAKA (hell denizens).

Hemis Monastery. A monastery located about twenty-five miles (forty km.) southeast of Leh, the capital of Ladakh. Hemis Monastery is sited just south of the Indus River, within present-day Hemis National Park. The largest monastery in the kingdom of Ladakh, Hemis Monastery was founded in the mid-seventeenth century by Stag tsang ras pa (Taktsang Repa), who was supported by King Seng ge rnam rgyal (Senge Namgyal, 1570–1642), one of the most important kings in the history of Ladakhi Buddhism. Hemis is central to the ’BRUG PA BKA’ BRGYUD community in the region, and the two-day ’CHAM (sacred dance) festival that is held each summer in honor of PADMASAMBHAVA is widely known throughout the area.

hengchao. (J. ōchō; K. hoengch’o 橫超). In Chinese, “the expeditious (lit. horizontal) deliverance/escape.” In the PURE LAND traditions, it is said that deliverance through the aid of “other power” (TARIKI)—i.e., by relying on the vows and saving grace of the buddha AMITĀBHA—is a faster and easier approach to enlightenment than is that found in traditional Buddhist soteriological systems. Since the mainstream conception of transcendence from the round of rebirth (SAṂSĀRA) involves a tortuous (lit. vertical) ascent (SHUCHAO) through successive levels of ever-deeper meditative absorptions (DHYĀNA) and ever-more-daunting spiritual fruitions (PHALA), pure land followers argue that their method “cuts horizontally across the three realms of existence” (hengchao sanjie) and bypasses the difficult sequential stages of mainstream approaches. The pure land “shortcut” is conceptualized as a “horizontal” approach partly because, by traveling “westward” instead of “upward”—i.e., being reborn into the western pure land (see SUKHĀVATĪ)—one is more easily liberated from the round of rebirth.

Heruka. (T. Khrag ’thung; C. Xilujia; J. Kiruoka; K. Hŭiroga 嚕迦). Sanskrit proper name of a spirit that perhaps originally was associated with cremation grounds (ŚMAŚĀNA) and was a form of Śiva (Maheśvara). The name appears commonly in tantric Buddhism as a generic name for a buddha appearing in a wrathful (KRODHA) aspect, especially in the form of CAKRASAṂVARA, and either with or without a consort. The name is translated into Chinese and Tibetan as “blood drinker,” an interpretation not reflected in the Sanskrit. Heruka also appears in the HEVAJRATANTRA as the name of a deity who is essentially the same as Hevajra. See also CAKRASAṂVARATANTRA.

heshang. (J. oshō; K. hwasang 和尚). In Chinese, “monk,” one of the most common Chinese designations for a senior Buddhist monk. The term is actually an early Chinese transcription of the Khotanese translation of the Sanskrit UPĀDHYĀYA, meaning “preceptor.” The transcription heshang originally was used in Chinese to refer specifically to the upādhyāya, the monk who administered the precepts at the ordination of either a novice (ŚRĀMAṆERA) or fully ordained monk (BHIKṢU), but over time the term entered the vernacular Chinese lexicon to refer more generically to any senior monk. The term heshang has several variant readings in Japanese, depending on the sectarian affiliation: it is read OSHŌ in the JŌDO and ZEN schools; WAJŌ in the Hossō (C. FAXIANG ZONG), SHINGON, and RITSU schools; and kashō in the TENDAI school.

hetu. (T. rgyu; C. yin; J. in; K. in 因). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “cause.” In one of the first accounts of the Buddha’s teachings, he was said to have “set forth the causes of things that have causes and also set forth their cessation.” The process of causality is provisionally divided between hetu and PRATYAYA, “causes and conditions”: hetu designates the main or primary cause of production, which operates in conjunction with pratyaya, the concomitant conditions or secondary, supporting causes; these two together produce a specific “fruition” or result (PHALA): thus, the fruition of a tree is the result of a primary cause (hetu), its seed; supported by such subsidiary conditions as soil, sunlight, and water; and only when all the relevant causes and conditions in their totality are functioning cooperatively will the prospective fruition or effect occur. ¶ The JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, the central text of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, designates six specific types of hetu: (1) the “cause as a reason for being” (KĀRAṆAHETU), the efficient cause or generic cause, referring to causation in its broadest possible sense, in which every conditioned dharma serves as the generic, indirect cause for the creation of all things except itself; (2) the coexistent cause (SAHABHŪHETU), where dharmas simultaneously condition one another, as with a material element (MAHĀBHŪTA) and its derivatives, or a dharma and its four conditioned characteristics (SAṂSKṚTALAKṢAṆA); (3) associative cause (SAṂPRAYUKTAHETU), wherein mental events cannot exist in isolation but instead mutually condition one another; (4) homogenous cause (SABHĀGAHETU), wherein cause is always antecedent to its incumbent effect, ensuring that apple seeds always produce apples, wholesome causes lead to wholesome effects, etc.; (5) all-pervasive, or universally active, cause (SARVATRAGAHETU), wherein afflictions (KLEŚA) produce not only identical types of subsequent afflictions but also serve as the root cause of all other afflictions, obstructing a person’s capacity to intuit empirical reality; (6) retributive cause (VIPĀKAHETU), i.e., the unwholesome dharmas and wholesome dharmas associated with the contaminants (ĀSRAVA) that produce subsequent “retribution,” viz., pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral effects, or ultimately rebirth. ¶ In Indian Buddhist logic, the hetu also refers to the second step, or “reason,” in a syllogism (SĀDHANA): e.g., “The mountain is on fire,/because there is smoke,/like a stove (and unlike a lake)”; see also LIṄGA.

hetupratyaya. (P. hetupaccaya; T. rgyu rkyen; C. yin yuan; J. innen; K. in yŏn 因). In Sanskrit, “causes and conditions,” or “causality”; one of the cardinal teachings of Buddhism, which applies to all aspects of the physical, emotional, and spiritual realms. In the Buddhist account of this causal process, HETU designates the main or primary cause of production and PRATYAYA are the subsidiary factors that contribute to the production of an effect, or “fruit” (PHALA), from that cause. In the production of a sprout from a seed, e.g., the seed would be the cause (hetu), such factors as light and moisture would be conditions (pratyaya), and the sprout itself would be the result or “fruit” (phala). Given the centrality of the doctrine of causality of Buddhist thought, detailed lists and descriptions of causes and conditions appear in all strata of Buddhist literature (see separate entries on HETU and PRATYAYA). ¶ The VIJÑĀNAKĀYA, the fifth book of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school of ABHIDHARMA, lists hetupratyaya, the “condition qua cause” or “causal condition,” as the first in a list of four specific types of pratyaya. In this type, a condition serves as the direct cause of an effect; thus, a seed would be the hetupratyaya of a sprout. In the Sarvāstivāda list of the six types of causes (hetu), all except the “efficient cause” or “generic cause” (KĀRAṆAHETU) are subsumed under the hetupratyaya. ¶ The PAṬṬHĀNA, the seventh book of the PĀLI ABHIDHAMMA, also recognizes hetupaccaya, or “root condition,” as the first in a list of twenty-four conditions. The “root condition” is described as the condition upon which all mental states depend, just as a tree depends on its root. These root conditions are greed (LOBHA), hatred (P. dosa, S. DVEṢA), and delusion (MOHA) in the case of unwholesome (AKUŚALA) mental states, or greedlessness (alobha), hatelessness (adosa), and nondelusion (amoha) in the case of wholesome (KUŚALA) mental states. Without the presence of these roots, the respective mental states cannot exist.

hetuvidyā. (T. gtan tshigs kyi rig pa; C. yinming; J. inmyō; K. inmyŏng 因明). In Sanskrit, the “science of reasoning,” hence “logic and dialectics”; in Indian Buddhism, the term refers generally to a scholarly tradition that begins with DIGNĀGA and DHARMAKĪRTI, a tradition known for an epistemological theory based on two means of knowledge (PRAMĀṆA)—direct perception (PRATYAKṢA) and inference (ANUMĀNA)—and rejecting ĀGAMA, i.e., the authority of the scriptures, specifically the Vedas. Much of hetuvidyā focuses on the correct form of the syllogism (PRAYOGA) that underpins correct inference.

Hevajra. (T. Kye rdo rje; C. Jingangwang; J. Kongōō; K. Kŭmgangwang 金剛王). An important Indian tantric deity in the ANUTTARAYOGA class of tantras, who is the central figure in the HEVAJRATANTRA MAṆḌALA. The cult of Hevajra developed in India at least by the eighth century, the date generally given for that TANTRA. A number of Indian images from the eleventh century have been identified as HERUKA Hevajra, although the identification is uncertain. The tantric deity Hevajra is most commonly depicted as dark blue in color and naked. One of his most common forms is the Kapāladhārin (“Skull Bearing”) Hevajra, with four legs, eight faces with three eyes each, and sixteen hands, each of which holds a skull cup. Each face has three bloodshot eyes, four fangs, and a protruding tongue. The skulls in his right hands hold various animals and the skulls in his left hand hold various deities. He is often depicted in sexual union with his consort is Nairātmyā (“Selflessness”), who holds a curved knife and skull cup, the couple surrounded by a retinue of eight yoginīs. There are eight famous forms of Hevajra: four called the body (KĀYA), speech (vāc), mind (CITTA), and heart (hṛdaya) Hevajras, as described in the Hevajratantra (the Kapāladhārin Hevajra corresponds to the heart Hevajra); and the body, speech, mind, and heart Hevajras, as described in the Saṃpuṭatantra. His name literally means “Hey, Vajra.”

Hevajratantra/Hevajraḍākinījālasaṃvaratantra. (T. Kye rdo rje’i rgyud; C. Dabei kongzhi jingang dajiao wang yigui jing; J. Daihi kūchi kongō daikyōō gikikyō; K. Taebi kongji kŭmgang taegyo wang ŭigwe kyŏng 大悲空智金剛大教王儀軌經). An important Indian Buddhist TANTRA, classified as an ANUTTARAYOGATANTRA, and within that group, a YOGINĪTANTRA and a mother tantra (MĀTṚTANTRA). Likely composed in the eighth century, the work consists of seven hundred fifty stanzas written in a mixture of Sanskrit and APABHRAṂŚA; it is traditionally said to be a summary of a larger work in five hundred thousand stanzas, now lost. The tantra is presumed to derive from the SIDDHA movement of north India, and the central deity, HEVAJRA, is depicted as a naked siddha. Like most tantras, the text is particularly concerned with ritual, especially those that result in the attainment of worldly (LAUKIKA) powers. It famously recommends the use of “intentional language” or “coded language” (SANDHYĀBHĀṢĀ) for tantric practitioners. The widespread ANUTTARAYOGA system of the channels (NĀḌĪ), winds (PRĀṆA), and drops (BINDU), and the various levels of bliss achieved through the practice of sexual yoga is particularly associated with the Hevajratantra. It sets forth the so-called four joys, the greatest of which is the “innate” or “natural” (SAHAJA) joy. A Chinese translation of the Hevajratantra was made in 1055 by Dharmapāla, but neither the text nor its central deity gained particular popularity in East Asian Buddhism. The text was much more important in Tibet. The tantra was rendered into Tibetan by the Sa skya translator ’BROG MI SHĀKYA YE SHES in the early eleventh century and popularized by MAR PA, whose Indian master NĀROPA wrote a well-known commentary to the text. The scriptures associated with the Hevajratantra were the basis for the Indian adept VIRŪPA’s LAM ’BRAS (“path and result”) systematization of tantric doctrine. This practice is central in the SA SKYA tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The Saṃpuṭatantra is regarded as an explanatory tantra of the Hevajra. There are a number of important commentaries to this tantra written in the Indian tradition and dozens composed in Tibet.

Heze Shenhui. (J. Kataku Jinne; K. Hat’aek Sinhoe 荷澤神會) (684–758). Chinese CHAN master and reputed main disciple of the sixth patriarch HUINENG; his collateral branch of Huineng’s lineage is sometimes referred to as the Heze school. Shenhui was a native of Xiangyang in present-day Hubei province. He became a monk under the master Haoyuan (d.u.) of the monastery of Kuochangsi in his hometown of Xiangyang. In 704, Shenhui received the full monastic precepts in Chang’an, and extant sources provide differing stories of Shenhui’s whereabouts thereafter. He is said to have become a student of SHENXIU and later visited MT. CAOXI where he studied under Huineng until the master’s death in 713. After several years of traveling, Shenhui settled down in 720 at the monastery of Longxingsi in Nanyang (present-day Henan province). In 732, during an “unrestricted assembly” (WUZHE DAHUI) held at the monastery Dayunsi in Huatai, Shenhui engaged a monk by the name of Chongyuan (d.u.) and publicly criticized the so-called Bei zong (Northern school) of Shenxiu’s disciples PUJI and XIANGMO ZANG as being a mere collateral branch of BODHIDHARMA’s lineage that upheld a gradualist soteriological teaching. Shenhui also argued that his teacher Huineng had received the orthodox transmission of Bodhidharma’s lineage and his “sudden teaching” (DUNJIAO). In 745, Shenhui is said to have moved to the monastery of Hezesi in Luoyang, whence he acquired his toponym. He was cast out of Luoyang by a powerful Northern school follower in 753. Obeying an imperial edict, Shenhui relocated to the monastery of Kaiyuansi in Jingzhou (present-day Hubei province) and assisted the government financially by performing mass ordinations after the economic havoc wrought by the An Lushan rebellion in 755. He was later given the posthumous title Great Master Zhenzong (Authentic Tradition). Shenhui also plays a minor, yet important, role in the LIUZU TAN JING (“Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch”). A treatise entitled the XIANZONGJI, preserved as part of the JINGDE CHUANDENG LU, is attributed to Shenhui. Several other treatises attributed to Shenhui were also discovered at DUNHUANG. Shenhui’s approach to Chan practice was extremely influential in GUIFENG ZONGMI’s attempts to reconcile different strands of Chan, and even doctrine, later in the Tang dynasty; through Zongmi, Shenhui’s teachings also became a critical component of the Korean Sŏn master POJO CHINUL’s accounts of Chan soteriology and meditation.

hibutsu. (秘仏). In Japanese, “secret buddha.” A hibutsu refers to a Buddhist icon in a Japanese monastery that is more or less kept out of public view. In some cases, the hibutsu icon is periodically brought out for public showing, but even then only once in perhaps several decades. The Amida (see AMITĀBHA) triad purportedly housed at the monastery of ZENKŌJI is one famous example of a hibutsu.

Hieizan. (比叡山). In Japanese “Mt. Hiei,” a sacred mountain best known as the headquarters of the TENDAISHŪ (see TIANTAI ZONG). Mt. Hiei is located northeast of Kyōto on the border of present-day Kyōto and Shiga prefectures, and rises to 2,600 feet (848 meters). In 785, SAICHŌ, founder of the Tendai school, left Nara for Hieizan after receiving ordination. Dissatisfied with the Nara Buddhist schools, he resided in a hut on the mountain and gradually attracted a small group of followers. In 788, Saichō built the hall Ichijō shikan’in (later renamed Konpon chūdō), which became incorporated into the larger monastery of ENRYAKUJI, headquarters for the Tendai school. As Tendai Buddhism rose to dominance in medieval Japan, Hieizan became extremely influential not only in religious matters, but also in politics, the economy, and military affairs. In addition to Enryakuji and numerous other Tendai monasteries, the mountain also housed three aristocratic temples (monzeki), which further extended its ties to the court in Kyōto. Hieizan’s power was not maintained without its share of violence. Conflict erupted in the late tenth century with the nearby Tendai temple Onjōji, when succession over the position of head priest at Enryakuji broke down in armed disputes between ENNIN and ENCHIN and their respective followers and warrior monks (SŌHEI). In order to wrest control of Hieizan’s military and economic strength, Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582) led an attack on the mountain in 1571, burning many of its monasteries to the ground. The mountain’s influence was further supplanted during the Tokugawa period when Tenkai (1536?–1643), a Tendai priest and advisor to Shōgun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616), presided over the construction of Kan’eiji in 1625, which the Shogunate ranked above Hieizan. Hieizan also served as home to many KAMI, notably Ōbie and Kobie (Great and Small Hie), who developed close ties with Tendai monasteries as early as the Heian period (794–1185) through a process known as SHINBUTSU SHŪGŌ (“unity of spirits and buddhas”). SHUGENDŌ practices eventually took root on Hieizan as well. The practice of “circumambulating the mountain” (KAIHŌGYŌ), which reputedly dates back to the ninth century, consists of ascetics running a course around the mountain for as many as one thousand days.

Higashi Honganjiha. (東本願寺派). In Japanese, “Eastern Honganji sect,” the second largest of the two major subsects of JŌDO SHINSHŪ; also known as the ŌTANIHA. See HONGANJI; ŌTANIHA.

hihan Bukkyō. (C. pipan Fojiao; K. pip’an Pulgyo 批判佛教). In Japanese, “critical Buddhism.” A contemporary intellectual controversy fostered largely by the Japanese Buddhist scholars and SŌTŌSHŪ ZEN priests Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō and their followers. In a series of provocative essays and books, Hakamaya and Matsumoto have argued for a more engaged form of Buddhist scholarship that sought a critical pursuit of truth at the expense of the more traditional, accommodative approaches to Buddhist thought and history. “Critical” here refers to the critical analysis of Buddhist doctrines using modern historiographical and philological methodologies in order to ascertain the authentic teachings of Buddhism. “Critical” can also connote an authentic Buddhist perspective, which should be critical of intellectual misconstructions and/or societal faults. Critical Buddhists polemically dismiss many of the foundational doctrines long associated with East Asian Buddhism, and especially Japanese Zen, as corruptions of what they presume to have been the pristine, “original” teachings of the Buddha. In their interpretation, true Buddhist teachings derive from a critical perspective on the nature of reality, based on the doctrines of “dependent origination” (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA) and “nonself” (ANĀTMAN); for this reason, the style of critical philosophical analysis used in the MADHYAMAKA school represents an authentic approach to Buddhism. By contrast, more accommodative strands of Buddhism that are derived from such teachings as the “embryo of buddhahood” (TATHĀGATAGARBHA), buddha-nature (FOXING), and original enlightenment (HONGAKU) were considered heretical, because they represented the corruption of the pristine Buddhist message by Brahmanical notions of a perduring self (ĀTMAN). The Mahāyāna notion of the nonduality between such dichotomies as SAṂSĀRA and NIRVĀṆA, the Critical Buddhists also claim, fostered a tendency toward antinomianism or moral ambiguity that had corrupted such Buddhist schools as CHAN or Zen and encouraged those schools to accept social inequities and class-based persecution (as in Sōtō Zen’s acquiescence to the persecution of Japanese “untouchables,” or burakumin). Opponents of “Critical Buddhism” suggest that efforts to locate what is “original” in the teachings of Buddhism are inevitably doomed to failure and ignore the many local forms Buddhism has taken throughout its long history; the “Critical Buddhism” movement is therefore sometimes viewed as social criticism rather than academic scholarship.

hijiri. (聖). In Japanese, “holy man” or “saint.” The term hijiri is polysemous and may refer generally to an eminent monk or more specifically to those monks who have acquired great merit through rigorous cultivation. A hijiri may also refer to an ascetic monk who rejects monastic life in favor of a more reclusive, independent lifestyle and practice. Historically, the term hijiri was also often used to refer to itinerant preachers, who converted the masses by means of healing, divination, and thaumaturgy, as well as by building basic infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, and irrigation systems. The holy men of KŌYASAN, the Kōya hijiri, and the saints of the JISHŪ tradition, the Yugyō hijiri, are best known in Japan. See also ĀRYA.

Himālaya. (S). One of the twenty-four sacred sites associated with the CAKRASAṂVARATANTRA. See PĪṬHA.

Himavanta. In Pāli, “The Snowy Region,” one of nine adjacent lands (paccantadesa) converted to Buddhism by missionaries dispatched in the third century BCE by the elder MOGGALIPUTTATISSA at the end of the third Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, THIRD). Himavanta is identified with the Himalaya mountain range and is also known as Himavā or Himācala. This land was converted by the elder Majjhima, who preached the DHAMMACAKKAPPAVATTANASUTTA during his mission there. The third Buddhist council (SAṂGĪTI; see COUNCIL, THIRD), which was held in Pāṭaliputta (S. PĀṬALIPUTRA) during the reign of King Asoka (S.AŚOKA), and the nine Buddhist missions it fostered, are known only in STHAVIRANIKĀYA sources and are first recorded in Pāli in the fifth-century DĪPAVAṂSA. Himavanta was renowned as a refuge for ascetics and hermits and as an abode of solitary buddhas (P. paccekabuddha; S. PRATYEKABUDDHA).

Himitsu mandara jūjūshinron. (秘密曼荼羅十住心論). In Japanese, “Ten Abiding States of Mind According to the Sacred MAṆḌALA”; a treatise composed by the Japanese SHINGONSHŪmonk KŪKAI; often referred to more briefly as the Jūjūshinron. In 830, Kūkai submitted this treatise in reply to Emperor Junna’s (r. 823–833) request to each Buddhist tradition in Japan to provide an explanation of its teachings. In his treatise, Kūkai systematically classified the various Buddhist teachings (see JIAOXIANG PANSHI) and placed them onto a spiritual map consisting of the ten stages of the mind (jūjūshin). The first and lowest stage of the mind (“the deluded, ram-like mind”) is that of ignorant beings who, like animals, are driven by their uncontrolled desires for food and sex. The beings of the second stage (“the ignorant, childlike, but tempered mind”) display ethical behavior consistent with the teachings of Confucius and the lay precepts of Buddhism. The third stage of mind (“the infantlike, fearless mind”) is the state in which one worships the various gods and seeks rebirth in the various heavens, as would be the case in the non-Buddhist traditions of India and in Daoism. The fourth stage (“recognizing only SKANDHAs and no-self”) corresponds to the ŚRĀVAKAYĀNA and the fifth stage (“mind free of karmic seeds”) to that of the PRATYEKABUDDHAYĀNA. The sixth stage (“the mind of MAHĀYĀNA, which is concerned with others”) corresponds to the YOGĀCĀRA teachings, the seventh (“mind awakened to its unborn nature”) to MADHYAMAKA, the eighth (“mind of one path devoid of construction”) to TIANTAI (J. TENDAI), and the ninth (“mind completely devoid of self-nature”) to HUAYAN (J. Kegon). Kūkai placed his own tradition of Shingon at the last and highest stage of mind (“the esoteric and adorned mind”). Kūkai also likened each stage of mind to a palace and contended that these outer palaces surround an inner palace ruled by the buddha MAHĀVAIROCANA. To abide in the inner palace one must be initiated into the teachings of Shingon by receiving consecration (ABHIṢEKA). Kūkai thus provided a Buddhist (or Shingon) alternative to ideal rulership. To demonstrate his schema of the mind, Kūkai frequently cites numerous scriptures and commentaries, which made his treatise extremely prolix; Kūkai later provided an abbreviated version of his argument, without the numerous supporting references, in his HIZŌ HŌYAKU.

hīnayāna. (T. theg pa dman pa; C. xiaosheng; J. shōjō; K. sosŭng 小乘). In Sanskrit, “lesser vehicle,” a pejorative term coined by the MAHĀYĀNA (“Great Vehicle”) tradition of Buddhism to refer to the (in their minds’ discredited) doctrines and practices of its rival ŚRĀVAKAYĀNA schools of the mainstream Buddhist tradition. Hīna has the negative connotations of “lesser,” “defective,” and “vile,” and thus the term hīnayāna is inevitably deprecatory. It should be understood that the term hīnayāna is never used self-referentially by the śrāvakayāna schools of mainstream Buddhism and thus should never be taken as synonymous with the THERAVĀDA school of contemporary Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian Buddhism. Hīnayāna does, however, have a number of usages in Buddhist literature. (1) Hīnayāna is used by proponents of the Mahāyāna to refer specifically to those who do not accept the Mahāyāna sūtras as being the authentic word of the Buddha (BUDDHAVACANA). (2) Hīnayāna is used in Mahāyāna literature to refer collectively to the paths of the ŚRĀVAKAs and the PRATYEKABUDDHAs (see also ER SHENG), i.e., those who, out of a desire to attain enlightenment for themselves alone, lack sufficient compassion to undertake the BODHISATTVA path leading ultimately to buddhahood. (3) Hīnayāna has been used both by traditional Buddhist exegetes and by modern scholars of Buddhism to refer to the non-Mahāyāna schools of Indian Buddhism, traditionally numbered as eighteen, which themselves each set forth the three paths of the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva. See MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS.

hindrance. See ĀVARAṆA; NĪVARAṆA.

Hiuen Tsiang. (C). Obsolete transcription of the Chinese pilgrim and translator Xuanzang. See XUANZANG.

Hizō hōyaku. (秘藏寶鑰). In Japanese, “Jeweled Key to the Secret Treasury,” a text composed by the Japanese SHINGONSHŪ monk KŪKAI. The Hizō hōyaku is a summary (one-fifth the length) of Kūkai’s dense magnum opus HIMITSU MANDARA JŪJŪSHINRON. The title refers metaphorically to the “jeweled key” of the special teachings that will unlock the “secret treasury” that is the buddha-nature (C. FOXING) of all sentient beings. In contrast to the Himitsu mandara jūjūshinron, the Hizō hōyaku provides far fewer supporting references and introduces a fictional debate between a Confucian official and a Buddhist priest and a set of questions and answers from the Sŏk Mahayŏn non.

Hmannan Mahayazawin-daw-gyi. In Burmese, “The Great Glass Palace Chronicle”; the best-known Burmese YAZAWIN, or royal chronicle, of the Konbaung dynasty (1752–1885). It was written by a committee of scholars headed by the royal minister and former saṅgharājā, Mahadhamma thin gyan, at Amarapura in 1831. It copies verbatim U Kala’s MAHAYAZAWIN GYI, making occasional alterations to the narrative and adding criticisms and learned observations. An interesting feature of this text is its criticism of the legend of SHIN UPAGOT (UPAGUPTA), a key element in the story of King Asoka (S. AŚOKA) found in the Mahayazawin gyi, as being inauthentic, because it is not attested in Pāli sources. The portion of the Hmannan Mahayazawin-daw-gyi that relates the ancient history of Burma from the founding of Tagaung to the fall of PAGAN to Chinese forces in 1284 CE has been translated by Pe Maung Tin and Gordon Luce as The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma.

Hodgson, Brian Houghton. (1801–1894). An early British scholar of Sanskrit Buddhism. He was born in Derbyshire. At age fifteen, he gained admission to Haileybury, the college that had been established by the East India Company in 1806 to train its future employees. He excelled at Bengali, Persian, Hindi, political economy, and classics. Following the standard curriculum of the company, after two years at Haileybury, he went to the College of Fort William in Calcutta to continue his studies. Once in India, he immediately began to suffer liver problems and was eventually assigned to Kathmandu as Assistant Resident and later Resident to the Court of Nepal. He began his studies of Buddhism at this time (Buddhism, although long dead in India, still flourished in the Newar community of the Kathmandu Valley). Working with the assistance of the distinguished Newar scholar Amṛtānanda, Hodgson published a number of essays on Buddhism in leading journals of the day. However, he is largely remembered for his collection and distribution of Sanskrit manuscripts. In 1824, he began accumulating Buddhist works in Sanskrit (and Tibetan) and dispatching them around the world, beginning with the gift of sixty-six manuscripts to the library of the College of Fort William in 1827 and continuing until 1845: ninety-four to the Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, seventy-nine to the Royal Asiatic Society, thirty-six to the India Office Library, seven to the Bodleian, eighty-eight to the Société Asiatique, and later fifty-nine more to Paris. A total of 423 works were provided. The manuscripts sent to Paris drew the immediate attention of EUGÈNE BURNOUF, who used them as the basis for his monumental 1844 Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien. Hodgson’s contributions to the study of Buddhism occurred in the early decades of his career; he later turned his attention to Himalayan natural history and linguistics, where he made important contributions as well.

Hokke gisho. (法華義疏). In Japanese, “Commentary on the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA,” attributed to the Japanese prince SHŌTOKU TAISHI (574–622). Along with his commentaries on the ŚRĪMĀLĀDEVĪSIṂHANĀDASŪTRA and VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA, the Hokke gisho is known as one of the “three SŪTRA commentaries” (sangyō gisho) of Shōtoku Taishi. According to Shōtoku Taishi’s biography, the Hokke gisho was composed in 615, but the exact dates of its compilation remain uncertain. The Hokke gisho relies on the Chinese monk Fayun’s (467–529) earlier commentary, the Fahua yiji, to KUMĀRAJĪVA’s Chinese translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Because of its attribution to Shōtoku Taishi, the Hokke gisho is considered an important source for studying the thought of this legendary figure in the evolution of Japanese Buddhism, but the extent of its influence on the early Japanese tradition remains a matter of debate.

Hōkōji. (J) (法興寺). See ASUKADERA.

Hōkyōki. (寶慶). In Japanese, “Record from the Baoqing era,” a treatise attributed to Japanese SŌTŌSHŪ ZEN master DŌGEN KIGEN. The Hōkyōki was discovered after Dōgen’s death by his disciple Koun Ejō (1198–1280) and a preface was prepared in 1750. The Hōkyōki is purportedly a record of Dōgen’s tutelage under the Chinese CAODONG ZONG master TIANTONG RUJING during his sojourn in China during the Baoqing reign era (1225–1227) of the Southern Song dynasty. The Hōkyōki records specific instructions attributed to Rujing, including such topics as the “sloughing off body and mind” (J. SHINJIN DATSURAKU), seated meditation (J. zazen; C. ZUOCHAN), and his doctrinal teachings.

homa. (T. sbyin sreg; C. humo; J. goma; K. homa 護摩). In Sanskrit, “burnt offering,” an esoteric Buddhist ritual in which various offerings are consigned to flames. In the older Brahmanical traditions of the Indian subcontinent, burnt offerings were made through the medium of the deity AGNI (the god of fire) to the Vedic gods, in exchange for the boon of cattle and other forms of wealth. These rituals were systematized first in the Brāhmaṇas, and subsequently in the Āraṇyaka literature, where the exoteric homa rituals were questioned and reconceptualized as inner worship. Buddhist TANTRA includes both an outer offering of grain and other materials into a fire, and an inner offering into the fire of transcendental wisdom. In the latter, the inner offering is done by visualizing a skull cup (KAPĀLA) atop a triangular fire in a hearth made of three skulls. Impure objects are visualized as melting into a bliss-producing nectar (AMṚTA) that is then offered to one’s GURU and to oneself visualized as the meditation deity. In Tibetan Buddhism, a homa ritual is often performed at the end of a meditation retreat as a means of purification.

Honchō kōsōden. (本朝高僧伝). In Japanese, “Biographies of Eminent Clerics of Japan”; a late Japanese biographic collection, written by the RINZAISHŪ ZEN monk Mangen Shiban (1626–1710) in 1702, in a total of seventy-five rolls. The Honchō kōsōden includes the biographies of 1,662 Japanese priests affiliated with a variety of Buddhist sects (except, prominently, the JŌDO SHINSHŪ and NICHIRENSHŪ) from the sixth century onward. Unlike Shiban’s 1678 ENPŌ DENTŌROKU, which contains over one thousand biographies of only Zen clerics and lay practitioners, the Honchō kōsōden also discusses clerics from other schools of Japanese Buddhism. The biographies are divided into ten general categories: founders, exegetes, meditators, thaumaturges, VINAYA specialists, propagators, ascetics, pilgrims, scriptural reciters, and others. As the most comprehensive and voluminous Japanese collection of biographies of eminent clerics, the text is an indispensable work for research into the lineage histories of many of the most important schools of Japanese Buddhism. In 1867, the SHINGONSHŪ monk Hosokawa Dōkai (1816–1876) compiled a supplement to this collection, titled the Zoku Nippon kōsōden (“Supplement to the Eminent Clerics of Japan”), which including biographies of over two hundred clerics of the premodern period, in a total of eleven rolls.

Hōnen. (法然) (1133–1212). Japanese monk regarded as the founder of the JŌDOSHŪ, or PURE LAND school. Hōnen was a native of Mimasaka province. After his father’s violent death, Hōnen was entrusted to his uncle, a monk at the nearby monastery of Bodaiji. Hōnen later headed for HIEIZAN in 1147 to received ordination. He began his studies under the TENDAISHŪ (C. TIANTAI ZONG) monks Genkō (d.u.) and Kōen (d. 1169), but the corruption he perceived within the Tendai community at ENRYAKUJI led Hōnen to seek teachings elsewhere. In 1150, he visited the master Eikū (d. 1179), a disciple of the monk RYŌNIN, in Kurodani on Mt. Hiei, where he remained for the next twenty years. Under Eikū’s guidance, Hōnen studied GENSHIN’s influential treatise, the ŌJŌ YŌSHŪ and became a specialist in the practice of nenbutsu (“recollecting the Buddha’s name”; see C. NIANFO). Hōnen is also said to have devoted himself exclusively to the practice of invoking the name of the buddha AMITĀBHA (a type of nenbutsu) after perusing the Chinese monk SHANDAO’s influential commentary on the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING, the Guan Wuliangshou jing shu. In 1175, Hōnen left Mt. Hiei and established himself in the district of Higashiyama Yoshimizu in the capital Kyōto. His fame grew after his participation in the Ōhara discussion of 1186, which explored how pure land beliefs and practices could help overcome human suffering. Hōnen soon attracted many followers, including such prominent figures as the regent Kujō Kanezane (1149–1207). In 1198, Hōnen compiled his influential treatise, SENCHAKUSHŪ. Due perhaps to his growing influence and his purported rejection of the Tendai teachings of original enlightenment (HONGAKU), the monks of Enryakuji began attacking Hōnen, banning his practice of nenbutsu in 1204. The monks of the Nara monastery of KŌFUKUJI also petitioned the retired emperor Gotoba (r. 1183–1198) to ban the practice in 1205. A scandal involving two of Hōnen’s disciples led to his exile to Shikoku in 1207 and the execution of four of his disciples. He was later pardoned and returned to Kyōto in 1211. Due to illness, he died the next year in what is now known as the Seishidō in the monastery of Chion’in. Hōnen preached that, in the current degeneration age of the dharma (J. mappō; C. MOFA), the exclusive practice of nenbutsu was the only way through which salvation could be achieved. Due in part to Hōnen’s advocacy, nenbutsu eventually became one of the predominant practices of Japanese Buddhism. Hōnen’s preeminent disciple was SHINRAN (1173–1262), who further radicalized pure land practice by insisting that salvation was only possible through the grace of Amitābha, rather than through continuous nenbutsu practice.

hongaku. (本覺). In Japanese, “original enlightenment.” The notion that enlightenment was a quality inherent in the minds of all sentient beings (SATTVA) initially developed in East Asia largely due to the influence of such presumptive APOCRYPHA as the DASHENG QIXIN LUN. The Dasheng qixin lun posited a distinction between the potentiality to become a buddha that was inherent in the minds of every sentient being, as expressed by the term “original enlightenment” (C. BENJUE; pronounced hongaku in Japanese); and the soteriological process through which that potential for enlightenment had to be put into practice, which it called “actualized enlightenment” (C. SHIJUE; J. shikaku). This distinction is akin to the notion that a person may in reality be enlightened (original enlightenment), but still needs to learn through a course of religious training how to act on that enlightenment (actualized enlightenment). This scheme was further developed in numerous treatises and commentaries written by Chinese exegetes in the DI LUN ZONG, HUAYAN ZONG, and TIANTAI ZONG. ¶ In medieval Japan, this imported soteriological interpretation of “original enlightenment” was reinterpreted into an ontological affirmation of things just as they are. Enlightenment was thence viewed not as a soteriological experience, but instead as something made manifest in the lived reality of everyday life. Hongaku thought also had wider cultural influences, and was used, for example, to justify conceptually incipient doctrines of the identity between the buddhas and bodhisattvas of Buddhism and the indigenous deities (KAMI) of Japan (see HONJI SUIGAKU; SHINBUTSU SHŪGŌ). Distinctively Japanese treatments of original enlightenment thought begin in the mid-eleventh century, especially through oral transmissions (kuden) within the medieval TENDAISHŪ tradition. These interpretations were subsequently written down on short slips of paper (KIRIGAMI) that were gradually assembled into more extensive treatments. These interpretations ultimately came to be attributed by tradition to the great Tendai masters of old, such as SAICHŌ (767–822), but connections to these earlier teachers are dubious at best and the exact dates and attributions of these materials are unclear. During the late Heian and Kamakura periods, hongaku thought bifurcated into two major lineages, the Eshin and Danna (both of which subsequently divided into numerous subbranches). This bifurcation was largely a split between followers of the two major disciples of the Tendai monk RYŌGEN: GENSHIN (942–1017) of Eshin’in in YOKAWA (the famous author of the ŌJŌ YŌSHŪ); and Kakuun (953–1007) of Danna’in in the Eastern pagoda complex at ENRYAKUJI on HIEIZAN. The Tendai tradition claims that these two strands of interpretation derive from Saichō, who learned these different approaches while studying Tiantai thought in China under Daosui (J. Dōsui/Dōzui; d.u.) and Xingman (J. Gyōman; d.u.), and subsequently transmitted them to his successors in Japan; the distinctions between these two positions are, however, far from certain. Other indigenous Japanese schools of Buddhism that developed later during the Kamakura period, such as the JŌDOSHŪ and JŌDO SHINSHŪ, seem to have harbored more of a critical attitude toward the notion of original enlightenment. One of the common charges leveled against hongaku thought was that it fostered a radical antinomianism, which denied the need for either religious practice or ethical restraint. In the contemporary period, the notion of original enlightenment has been strongly criticized by advocates of “Critical Buddhism” (HIHAN BUKKYŌ) as an infiltration into Buddhism of Brahmanical notions of a perduring self (ĀTMAN); in addition, by valorizing the reality of the mundane world just as it is, hongaku thought was said to be an exploitative doctrine that had been used in Japan to justify societal inequality and political despotism. For broader East Asian perspectives on “original enlightenment,” see BENJUE.

Honganji. (本願寺). In Japanese, “Original Vow Monastery.” Honganji is the headquarters (honzan) of the JŌDO SHINSHŪ sect in Japan; it is located in the Shimogyō district of Kyōto. In 1277, Kakushinni (1224–1283), the daughter of the Japanese PURE LAND monk SHINRAN, designated her father’s grave in the Ōtani district near Kyōto to be the primary memorial site for his worship. The site was later transformed into a temple, where an image of the buddha AMITĀBHA was installed. After a long period of factional disputes, the various groups of Shinran’s followers were reunited by the eighth head priest of Honganji, RENNYO. In 1465, warrior monks from HIEIZAN razed Honganji and turned the site into one of their own branch temples (matsuji). In 1478, having gained enough support to counter any threat from Mt. Hiei, Rennyo moved Honganji to the Yamashina area of Kyōto. The move was completed in 1483 with the completion of the Amida hall. Under Rennyo’s leadership, Honganji became the central monastery of the Jōdo Shinshū tradition. Rennyo built a broad network of temples that was consolidated under the sole administration of Honganji. After a brief move to Ōsaka, Honganji was relocated to its current site in Kyōto on the order of Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598). A split occurred between two factions shortly thereafter, and ever since the early seventeenth century the Nishi (West) and Higashi (East) Honganji complexes have served as the religious centers of these two major branches of Jōdo Shinshū, the NISHI HONGANJIHA and the HIGASHI HONGANJIHA (also known as the ŌTANIHA).

Honggi. (K) (洪基). See UDAM HONGGI.

Hongming ji. (J. Gumyōshū; K. Hongmyŏng chip 弘明集). In Chinese, “Collection on the Propagation and Clarification [of Buddhism],” compiled by the monk SENGYOU (445–518) of the Liang dynasty sometime between 515 and 518. The Hongming ji is a fourteen-roll collection of Buddhist apologetics, prepared in response to growing criticisms of the religion by rival Confucians and Daoists, and to interference in Buddhism’s religious affairs by the government. Against these challenges, the Hongming ji attempted to defend the authenticity of the translated scriptures of Buddhism and its seminal doctrines. In its explanation and defense of such concepts as buddha or KARMAN, the Hongming ji drew not just on Buddhist sources, but also on the common terminology of its opponents. For this reason, the Hongming ji serves as an important source for studying the interactions between the different Chinese religious traditions and the process through which Buddhism was appropriated in early China. Sengyou’s Hongming ji was expanded to thirty rolls by DAOXUAN in his Guang hongming ji.

Hongren. (J. Kōnin/Gunin; K. Hongin 弘忍) (601–674). Chinese Chan master and the reputed fifth patriarch of the Chan zong. Hongren was a native of Huangmei in Qizhou (present-day Hubei province). Little is known of his early life, but he eventually became the disciple of the fourth patriarch DAOXIN. After Daoxin’s death in 651, Hongren succeeded his teacher and moved to Mt. Fengmao (also known as Dongshan or East Mountain), the east peak of Mt. Shuangfeng (Twin Peaks) in Huangmei. Hongren’s teachings thus came to be known as the “East Mountain teachings” (DONGSHAN FAMEN), although that term is later applied also to the lineage and teachings of both Daoxin and Hongren. After his move to Mt. Fengmao, disciples began to flock to study under Hongren. Although Hongren’s biography in the CHUAN FABAO JI certainly exaggerates when it says that eight to nine out of every ten Buddhist practitioners in China studied under him, there is no question that the number of students of the East Mountain teachings grew significantly over two generations. The twenty-five named disciples of Hongren include such prominent figures as SHENXIU, Zhishen (609–702), Lao’an (d. 708), Faru (638–689), Xuanze (d.u.), and HUINENG, the man who would eventually be recognized by the mature Chan tradition as the sixth, and last, patriarch. The legendary account of Hongren’s mind-to-mind transmission (YIXIN CHUANXIN) of the DHARMA to Huineng can be found in the LIUZU TAN JING. Later, Emperor Daizong (r. 762–779) bestowed upon Hongren the title Chan master Daman (Great Abundance). The influential treatise XIUXIN YAO LUN (“Treatise on the Essentials of Cultivating the Mind”) is attributed to Hongren; it stresses the importance of “guarding the mind” (SHOUXIN). In that text, the relationship between the pure mind and the afflictions (KLEŚA) is likened to that between the sun and the clouds: the pure mind is obscured by afflictions just as the sun is covered by layers of clouds; but if one can guard the mind so that it is kept free from false thoughts and delusions, the sun of NIRVĀṆA will then appear. The text suggests two specific meditation techniques for realizing this goal: one is continuously to visualize the original, pure mind (viz., the sun) so that it shines without obscuration; the other is to concentrate on one’s own deluded thoughts (the clouds) until they disappear. These two techniques purport to “guard the mind” so that delusion can never recur.

Hongzan fahua zhuan. (C) (弘贊法華傳). See FAHUA ZHUAN.

Hongzhi Zhengjue. (J. Wanshi Shōgaku; K. Koengji Chŏnggak 宏智正覺) (1091–1157). Chinese CHAN master in the CAODONG ZONG. Hongzhi was a native of Xizhou in present-day Shanxi province, and later came to be known as the “Old Buddha of Xizhou.” At age ten, he entered the monastery of Jingmingsi under the monk Benzong (d.u.) and four years later received the full monastic precepts from Zhiqiong (d.u.) at Ciyunsi. Hongzhi then set out to visit various teachers throughout the country and first studied under the Chan master Kumu Facheng (1071–1128). Hongzhi eventually became a student of the Chan master Danxia Zichun (1064–1117) and inherited his Caodong lineage. In 1124, Hongzhi became the abbot of Puzhaosi in Sizhou (present-day Anhui province). After holding posts at various other monasteries, Hongzhi was finally invited to Mt. Tiantong (in present-day Zhejiang province) in 1129 and spent the next three decades restoring his monastery at that mountain site. The great SAṂGHA hall (SENGTANG) that he constructed there is said to have housed more than twelve hundred monks. Hongzhi is thus often referred to as the reviver of Mt. Tiantong. Hongzhi is best known within the Chan tradition for teaching a style of meditation he called “silent-illumination chan” (MOZHAO CHAN). Hongzhi also maintained a lengthy and close relationship with his friend and rival, the eminent LINJI ZONG master DAHUI ZONGGAO, who was a virulent critic of mozhao Chan. Hongzhi composed the MOZHAO MING and his teachings can be found in the Hongzhi Jue chanshi yuyao, Hongzhi Jue chanshi yulu, and Hongzhi guanglu. Hongzhi’s famous verse commentaries on a hundred “old cases” (see GONG’AN) can be found in the CONGRONG LU. Emperor Gaozong subsequently bestowed upon him the title Chan master Hongzhi (Expansive Wisdom).

Hongzhou zong. (J. Kōshūshū; K. Hongju chong 洪州宗). The Hongzhou school of Chinese CHAN derives its name from the Hongzhou region in Jiangxi province, where the Chan master MAZU DAOYI developed his unique style of Chan pedagogy. The name was first used by the Chan historian GUIFENG ZONGMI to refer primarily to those who traced their lineage back to Mazu and his immediate disciples. According to traditional accounts of their teachings, Chan masters in the Hongzhou line regarded all activities of everyday life as the very functioning of the buddha-nature (FOXING) itself. Since everything in the conditioned realm, therefore, was presumed to be a manifestation of the buddha-nature, Hongzhou adepts were said to claim that all actions, whether right or wrong, good or evil, and so forth, were equally the functioning of the enlightened mind. Zongmi criticized this view as promoting a dangerous antinomianism in Chan, which fostered unrestrained conduct (see WU’AI XING). Normative portrayals in Chan literature of iconoclastic masters striking their students, shouting, and pinching their students’ noses derive from stereotypes fostered within the Hongzhou school. Largely through the efforts of Mazu’s prominent disciples BAIZHANG HUAIHAI and NANQUAN PUYUAN, the Hongzhou line came to be the dominant Chan lineage in medieval China and eventually evolved into the GUIYANG ZONG and LINJI ZONG of the mature Chan tradition. The Hongzhou lineage was also extremely influential in Silla and Koryŏ-period Korea as well, where eight of the nine sites associated with the Korean Nine Mountains Sŏn school (KUSAN SŎNMUN) were founded during the ninth century by teachers who studied in China with Hongzhou masters.

honji suijaku. (本地垂迹). In Japanese, “manifestation from the original state”; an indigenous Japanese explanation of the way in which the imported religion of Buddhism interacted with local religious cults. In this interpretation, an originally Indian buddha, BODHISATTVA, or divinity (the “original ground,” or “state”; J. honji) could manifest or incarnate in the form of a local Japanese deity (KAMI) or its icon, which was then designated the “trace it dropped” (J. suijaku). The notion of honji suijaku was derived from the earlier Buddhist doctrine of multiple buddha bodies (BUDDHAKĀYA), especially the so-called transformation body (NIRMĀṆAKĀYA). The honji suijaku doctrine thus facilitated the systematic incorporation of local deities within Buddhism, speeding the localization of Buddhism within the religious culture of Japan. A movement forcefully to separate from Buddhism the local deities, now known collectively as SHINTŌ, occurred during the Meiji period (see HAIBUTSU KISHAKU). See also SHINBUTSU SHŪGŌ.

honmon. (C. benmen; K. ponmun 本門). In Japanese, lit. “fundamental teaching” or “origin teaching”; the essential core of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”), which is detailed in the latter fourteen of the scripture’s twenty-four chapters; in distinction to the SHAKUMON (lit. “trace teaching”), the provisional first half of the sūtra. The term is especially important in both the TIANTAI (J. TENDAI) and NICHIREN-oriented schools of East Asian Buddhism. The honmon is regarded as the teaching preached by the true Buddha, who attained buddhahood an infinite number of KALPAs ago. Traditionally, the sixteenth chapter of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, “The Longevity of the TATHĀGATA,” is believed to constitute the central chapter of the honmon. In this chapter, the Buddha reveals his true identity: he became enlightened in the remote past, yet he appears to have a limited lifespan and to pass into NIRVĀṆA in order to inspire sentient beings’ spiritual practice, since if they were to know about the Buddha’s eternal presence, they might not exert themselves. Honmon is also called the “effect” or “fruition” section of the scripture, since it preaches the omnipresence of the Buddha, which is a consequence of the long process of training that he undertook in the course of achieving enlightenment. The Tiantai master TIANTAI ZHIYI (538–597) first applied the two terms honmon and shakumon to distinguish these two parts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra; he compared the two teachings to the moon in the sky and its reflection on the surface of a pond, respectively. Zhiyi considered the honmon to be different from the shakumon and other scriptural teachings in that it alone revealed the fundamental enlightenment of the Buddha in the distant past. He thus argued that, even though the honmon and shakumon are inconceivably one, the timeless principle of enlightenment itself is revealed in the honmon and all other teachings are merely the “traces” of this principle. The Japanese Tendai tradition offered a slightly different understanding of honmon: despite the fact that ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha attained buddhahood numerous eons ago, his manifestation in this world served as a metaphor for the enlightenment inherent in all living things. Tendai thus understood honmon to mean “original enlightenment” (HONGAKU; see also C. BENJUE) and the dynamic phase of suchness (TATHATĀ) that accorded with phenomenal conditions, while “shakumon” was the “acquired enlightenment” (see C. SHIJUE) and the immutable phase of suchness as the unchanging truth. Most crucially, the Tendai tradition emphasized the superiority of honmon over shakumon. The two terms are also important in the various Nichiren-related schools of Japanese Buddhism. NICHIREN (1222–1282) maintained that myōhōrengekyō, the Japanese title (DAIMOKU) of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, was in fact the true honmon of the sutra.

honmon no daimoku. (本門の題目). In Japanese, lit. “DAIMOKU of the essential teaching”; term used specifically in the NICHIREN and associated schools of Japanese Buddhism to refer to the essential teaching epitomized in the title of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”). The title of the sūtra is presumed to summarize the gist of the entire scripture and it is recited in its Japanese pronunciation (see NAM MYŌHŌRENGEKYŌ) as a principal religious practice of the Nichiren and SŌKA GAKKAI schools. Recitation of the title of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra was advocated as one of the “three great esoteric laws” (SANDAIHIHŌ) by the Japanese reformer NICHIREN (1222–1282) and was said to exemplify mastery of wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) in the three trainings (TRIŚIKṢĀ).