The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism

Horner, Isaline Blew. (1896–1981). British translator of Pāli texts, who published as I. B. Horner. She was born in Walthamstow, England, in 1896 and attended Newnham College at Cambridge in 1914. When she was twelve years of age, her grandmother had introduced her to the pioneering Pāli scholars THOMAS RHYS DAVIDS and CAROLINE RHYS DAVIDS. Thomas Rhys Davids had founded the PĀLI TEXT SOCIETY in 1881; Horner would eventually become its fourth president in 1959. Horner traveled extensively in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), India, and Burma. Over a four-decade-long career, Horner was a prolific editor and translator of Pāli texts. Her most significant contribution to the field of Pāli studies was a six-volume translation of the VINAYAPIṬAKA, which she worked on from 1938–1966. Her most important original piece of scholarship was her book Women under Primitive Buddhism: Laywomen and Almswomen, which was published in 1930. Her account of Buddhist women and their roles in sixth century BCE India was the first of its kind to be published in the West and has served as an important source for the study of gender in Buddhism. Horner also published a study of the arahant/ARHAT in her book The Early Buddhist Theory of Man Perfected (1934).

Hōryūji. (法隆寺). In Japanese, “Dharma Flourishing Monastery.” Hōryūji is considered one of the seven great monasteries in former capital of Nara. The monastery is currently affiliated with the Shōtoku tradition and serves as the headquarters (honzan) of the Hossō school (C. FAXIANG ZONG). According to extant inscriptions, Empress Suiko (r. 592–628) and SHŌTOKU TAISHI (574–622) built Hōryūji in 607 to honor the deathbed wishes of retired Emperor Yōmei (r. 585–587). Prince Shōtoku’s estate in Ikaruga was chosen as the site for the construction project. A famous Shaka (ŚĀKYAMUNI) triad produced perhaps in the early seventh century is installed in its Golden Hall (Kondō). Hōryūji is also famous for its numerous ancient icons and ritual artifacts and also for its five-story pagoda and Golden Hall, which is one of the oldest standing wooden structures in Japan. The monastery is currently divided into eastern and western cloisters.

hotoke. (佛). A vernacular Japanese term for “buddha.” Colloquially, hotoke is also used to refer to a deceased person or the soul of a deceased person.

Hottō Kokushi. (J) (法燈國師). See SHINCHI KAKUSHIN.

Hŏŭng Pou. (應普雨) (1515–1565). Korean SŎN monk of the mid-Chosŏn dynasty, also known as Naam. In 1530, Pou entered the hermitage of Mahayŏnam on KŬMGANGSAN. In 1548, with the help of queen dowager Munjŏng (1501–1565), Pou became the abbot of the monastery of Pongŭnsa and, again with her help, he resuscitated the two traditions of SŎN (Meditation) and KYO (Doctrine) in Korea. In 1551, he was appointed the deputy chief of the Sŏn school (Sŏnjong p’ansa). With the help of some loyal officials, Pou also registered more than three hundred monasteries as officially sanctioned “pure monasteries” (chŏngch’al). Following the guidelines of the clerical certification system (toch’ŏpche), Pou reinstituted the clerical exams (SŬNGKWA) and oversaw the selection of four thousand monks. He was later given the title Sŏn master Todae (Capital’s Greatest). In 1565, after the death of queen dowager Munjŏng, anti-Buddhist memorials to the throne led to Pou losing his clerical certification and he was exiled to, and eventually executed on, Cheju Island. His teachings are recorded in the Hŏŭngdang chip and Naam chapchŏ. He also composed the influential treatises Suwŏltoryang konghwabulsa yŏhwanbinju mongjung mundap (usually abbreviated as Mongjung mundap) and Kwŏnnyŏm yorok.

hrī. (P. hiri; T. ngo tsha shes pa; C. can; J. zan; K. ch’am 慚). In Sanskrit, “decency,” “shame,” or “conscience,” one of the fundamental mental concomitants (CAITTA) presumed to accompany all wholesome actions (KUŚALA) and therefore listed as the fifth of the ten “omnipresent wholesome factors” (kuśala-MAHĀBHŪMIKA) in the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA and the second of eleven wholesome mental concomitants in the hundreddharma list (see BAIFA) of the YOGĀCĀRA school. It is also one of the twenty-five wholesome mental factors in the Pāli abhidhamma. “Decency” is often seen in compound with the term “modesty” or “fear” of wrongdoing (APATRĀPYA), where hrī refers to the pangs of moral conscience that one feels at the prospect of engaging in an immoral act, whereas apatrāpya refers to the fear of being blamed by others for engaging in such acts. This dual sense of “shame and blame” was thought to be foundational to progress in morality (ŚĪLA).

Hsüan-tsang. (C). Outmoded Wade-Giles transcription of the Chinese pilgrim and translator Xuanzang. See XUANZANG.

huafa sijiao. (C) (化法四教). See TIANTAI BAJIAO.

Huahu jing. (C) (化胡經). See LAOZI HUAHU JING.

Huaihai. (C) (懷海). See BAIZHANG HUAIHAI.

Huairang. (C) (懷讓). See NANYUE HUAIRANG.

Huaisu. (J. Kaiso; K. Hoeso 懷素) (634–707). Chinese VINAYA master of the Tang dynasty. Huaisu was ordained at the age of eleven by XUANZANG, under whom he studied various SŪTRAs and ŚĀSTRAs. After receiving his precepts, Huaisu studied the Sifen lü xingshi chao with its author, the renowned vinaya master DAOXUAN. Huaisu also studied Fali’s Sifen lü shu under one of his major disciples. After studying the SIFEN LÜ (“Four-Part Vinaya”) of the DHARMAGUPTAKA school with these teachers, Huaisu decided to rectify what he considered flaws in earlier studies of the vinaya and composed the Sifen lü kaizong ji, in twenty rolls. Huaisu’s text soon came to known as the “new commentary” (xinshu), and he and his followers came to be called the East Pagoda vinaya school (DONGTA LÜ ZONG) in distinction to Daoxuan’s NANSHAN LÜ ZONG (Mt. Nan vinaya school) and Fali’s XIANGBU LÜ ZONG (Xiang Region vinaya school). Huaisu also authored commentaries on the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, the Dharmaguptaka BHIKṢU precepts and their ecclesiastical procedures (karmavācanā), and various other texts.

Huangbo Xiyun. (J. Ōbaku Kiun; K. Hwangbyŏk Hŭiun 黄檗希運) (d. 850). Chinese CHAN master of the Tang dynasty. Huangbo was a native of Min in present-day Fujian province. Little is known of his early life, but he eventually became a monk on Mt. Huangbo in Fuzhou (present-day Fuzhou province). Huangbo later became the disciple of the eminent Chan master BAIZHANG HUAIHAI, a first-generation successor to MAZU DAOYI. After he left Baizhang’s side, Huangbo became the abbot of the monastery of Da’ansi where he trained many students. At the invitation of the powerful minister of state Pei Xiu (787–860), Huangbo left for Zhongling (present-day Jiangxi province) and began to reside on a local mountain that he renamed Mt. Huangbo, whence he acquired his toponym. During this period, Huangbo acquired many more disciples and established himself as a major Chan master. In 842, Huangbo relocated to the monastery of Longxingsi and again to Kaiyuansi in Wanling (present-day Anhui province) in 848. His most famous disciple is LINJI YIXUAN (d. 867) whose lineage became the dominant Chan school in China, the eponymous LINJI ZONG. Huangbo’s teachings focus on the notion of the “one mind” (YIXIN) that vivifies all things, including enlightened buddhas and unenlightened sentient beings. Chan practice therefore involves simply bringing an end to all discriminative thought so that the one mind will be made manifest. Pei Xiu compiled his notes of Huangbo’s lectures, which he titled the CHUANXIN FAYAO. Huangbo received the posthumous title Chan master Duanji (Eradicating Limits).

Huanglong Huinan. (J. Ōryō/Ōryū Enan; K. Hwangnyong Hyenam 龍慧南) (1002–1069). Song-dynasty Chan monk who is regarded as the founder of the HUANGLONG PAI collateral lineage of the LINJI ZONG. He ordained as a monk at the age of eleven, eventually becoming a disciple of Shishuang Chuyuan (986–1039), a sixth-generation successor in the Linji school. He spent much of his life teaching at Mt. Huanglong in Xiushui county of Jiangxi province, whence he acquired his toponym. Huanglong was famous for employing three crucial questions to challenge his students and encourage their cultivation; these are known as “Huanglong’s Three Checkpoints” (Huanglong sanguan): What conditioned your birth (viz., why were you born)? Why are my hands like the Buddha’s? Why are my feet like a donkey’s? His Huanglong lineage lasted for about one hundred fifty years, before being reabsorbed into the rival YANGQI PAI.

Huanglong pai. (J. Ōryōha/Ōryūha; K. Hwangnyong p’a 龍派). In Chinese, “Huanglong school”; collateral lineage of the CHAN school’s LINJI ZONG, one of the five houses and seven schools (WU JIA QI ZONG) of the Chan during the Northern Song dynasty (960–1126). The school’s name comes from the toponym of its founder, HUANGLONG HUINAN (1002–1069), who taught at Mt. Huanglong in present-day Jiangxi province; Huinan was a disciple of Shishuang Chuyuan (986–1039), himself a sixth-generation successor in the Linji school. The Huanglong school was especially known for “lettered Chan” (WENZI CHAN), a style of Chan that valorized belle lettres, and especially poetry, in Chan practice. Many of the most influential monks in the Huanglong school exemplified a period when Chan entered the mainstream of Chinese intellectual life: their practice of Chan was framed and conceptualized in terms that drew from their wide learning and profound erudition, tendencies that helped make Chan writings particularly appealing to wider Chinese literati culture. JUEFAN HUIHONG (1071–1128), for example, decried the bibliophobic tendencies in Chan that were epitomized in the aphorism that Chan “does not establish words and letters” (BULI WENZI) and advocated that Chan insights were in fact made manifest in both Buddhist sūtras and the uniquely Chan genres of discourse records (YULU), lineage histories (see CHUANDENG LU), and public-case anthologies (GONG’AN). Huanglong and YUNMEN ZONG masters made important contributions to the development of the Song Chan literary styles of songgu ([attaching] verses to ancient [cases]) and niangu (raising [and analyzing] ancient [cases]). Because of their pronounced literary tendencies, many Huanglong monks became close associates of such Song literati-officials as Su Shi (1036–1101), Huang Tingjian (1045–1105), and ZHANG SHANGYING (1043–1122). After the founder’s death, discord appeared within the Huanglong lineage: the second-generation master Baofeng Kewen (1025–1102) and his disciple Juefan Huihong criticized the practices of another second-generation master Donglin Changzong (1025–1091) and his disciples as clinging to silence and simply waiting for enlightenment; this view may have influenced the subsequent criticism of the CAODONG ZONG by DAHUI ZONGGAO (1089–1163), who trained for a time with the Huanglong master Zhantang Wenjun (1061–1115). The Huanglong pai was the first school of Chan to be introduced to Japan: by MYŌAN EISAI (1141–1215), who studied with the eighth-generation Huanglong teacher Xu’an Huaichang (d.u.). The Huanglong pai did not survive as a separate lineage in either country long after the twelfth century, as its rival YANGQI PAI came to prominence; it was eventually reabsorbed into the Yangqi lineage.

huatou. (J. watō; K. hwadu 話頭). In Chinese, “topic of inquiry”; in some contexts, “critical phrase” or “keyword.” The Song-dynasty CHAN master DAHUI ZONGGAO, in the LINJI ZONG, popularized a meditative technique in which he urged his students (many of whom were educated literati) to use a Chan case (GONG’AN) as a “topic of meditative inquiry” (huatou) rather than interpret it from purely intellectual or literary perspectives. Perhaps the most famous and most widely used huatou is the topic “no” (WU) attributed to the Chan master ZHAOZHOU CONGSHEN: A monk asked Zhaozhou, “Does a dog have buddha-nature (FOXING), or not?,” to which Zhaozhou replied “WU” (“no”; lit. “it does not have it”; see GOUZI WU FOXING; WU GONG’AN). Because of the widespread popularity of this particular one-word topic in China, Korea, and Japan, this huatou is often interpreted as a “critical phrase’” or “keyword,” in which the word “wu” is presumed to be the principal topic and thus the “keyword,” or “critical phrase,” of the longer gong’an exchange. Because Zhaozhou’s answer in this exchange goes against the grain of East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism—which presumes that all sentient beings, including dogs, are inherently enlightened—the huatou helps to foster questioning, or technically “doubt” (YIQING), the focus of a new type of Chan meditation called KANHUA CHAN, “the Chan of investigating the huatou.” Huatou (which literally means “head of speech,” and thus “topic”) might best be taken metaphorically as the “apex of speech,” or the “point at which (or beyond which) speech exhausts itself.” Speech is of course initiated by thought, so “speech” in this context refers to all the discriminative tendencies of the mind, viz., conceptualization. By leading to the very limits of speech—or more accurately thought—the huatou acts as a purification device that frees the mind of its conceptualizing tendencies, leaving it clear, attentive, and calm. Even though the huatou is typically a word or phrase taken from the teachings of previous Chan masters, it is a word that is claimed to bring an end to conceptualization, leaving the mind receptive to the influence of the unconditioned. As Dahui notes, huatou produces a “cleansing knowledge and vision” (see JÑĀNADARŚANA) that “removes the defects of conceptual understanding so that one may find the road leading to liberation.” Huatou is thus sometimes interpreted in Chinese Buddhism as a type of meditative “homeopathy,” in which one uses a small dosage of the poison of concepts to cure the disease of conceptualization. Dahui’s use of the huatou technique was first taught in Korea by POJO CHINUL, where it is known by its Korean pronunciation as hwadu, and popularized by Chinul’s successor, CHIN’GAK HYESIM. Investigation of the hwadu remains the most widespread type of meditation taught and practiced in Korean Buddhism. In Japanese Zen, the use of the watō became widespread within the RINZAISHŪ, due in large part to the efforts of HAKUIN EKAKU and his disciples.

Huayan bu. (J. Kegonbu; K. Hwaŏm pu 華嚴部). In Chinese, the “Huayan Division,” one of the four major divisions into which the MAHĀYĀNA section of the Chinese Buddhist canon (see DAZANGJING) is divided. This division contains primarily the different Chinese translations of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA and its independent chapters. According to the scriptural catalogue (JINGLU) KAIYUAN SHIJIAO LU, this division comprises twenty-six texts (in 187 rolls) that were catalogued along with the different recensions of the Avataṃsakasūtra.

Huayan dashu. (C) (華嚴大疏). In Chinese, “Great Commentary to the Huayan [Jing].” See HUAYAN JING SHU.

Huayan fajie guanmen. (J. Kegon hokkai kanmon; K. Hwaŏm pŏpkye kwanmun 華嚴法界觀門). In Chinese, “Gate to the Discernments of the DHARMADHĀTU in the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” a seminal text of the HUAYAN ZONG, attributed to DUSHUN, the putative first patriarch of the school. The Fajie guanmen no longer exists as an independent text but is extant only in citations found in other works, such as FAZANG’s Fa putixin zhang (“Treatise on Generating the Thought of Enlightenment”), the commentaries of CHENGGUAN and ZONGMI, and YONGMING YANSHOU’s ZONGJING LU. The Fajie guanmen largely consists of three “discernments” (guan), of true emptiness, the mutual nonobstruction between principle and phenomena, and total pervasion and accommodation. The text outlines some of the fundamental principles that will govern future doctrinal development within the Huayan school, including the causal relationship that pertains between principle (LI) and phenomena (SHI). The text is characterized by its validation of the reality of the phenomenal world, which is commonly considered to be one of the fundamental characteristics of indigenous Chinese Buddhism.

Huayan jing. (C) (華嚴經). See AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA.

Huayan jing ganying zhuan. (J. Kegongyō kannōden; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng kamŭng chŏn 華嚴經感應傳). In Chinese, “Record of Miraculous Responses to the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” originally compiled by Huiying (a disciple of the HUAYANpatriarch FAZANG) and redacted by Hu Youzhen during the Tang dynasty (618–907). The “Record of Miraculous Responses” is a collection of miracle tales reportedly recounted by devotees of the Avataṃsakasūtra. Meant as a compilation of testimonial accounts of the magical efficacy of reciting, circulating, and revering the Avataṃsakasūtra, this work was the forerunner of analogous works created in subsequent dynasties in honor of the same scripture.

Huayan jing helun. (J. Kegongyō gōron; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng hap non 華嚴經合論). In Chinese, “A Comprehensive Exposition of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” a commentary written by LI TONGXUAN in the Tang dynasty (618–907), a reclusive lay Huayan adept and contemporary of the HUAYAN patriarch FAZANG. The commentary is also known as the “Commentary to the New [Translation] of the Avataṃsakasūtra” (Xin Huayan jing lun), because it comments on ŚIKṢĀNANDA’s “new” eighty-roll translation of the Avataṃsakasūtra, rather than Buddhabhadra’s “old” sixty-roll rendering, which had been the focus of all earlier Huayan commentarial writing. Li Tongxuan’s “Exposition of the Avataṃsakasūtra” contained ideas that were quite distinct from standard Huayan interpretations, such as the emphasis on the centrality of the preliminary soteriological stage of the “ten faiths” (shixin), rather than the “ten abodes” (shizhu) that had been stressed in previous Huayan accounts. Li’s work subsequently played a key role in the revitalization of the Chinese Huayan exegetical tradition, especially in the thought of the Huayan patriarch CHENGGUAN. Li’s worked dropped out of circulation soon after its composition, but after centuries in obscurity, the exposition was rediscovered by Chinese CHAN adepts during the Song dynasty, such as DAHUI ZONGGAO, and by Korean SŎN adepts during the Koryŏ dynasty for the provocative parallels they perceived between Li Tongxuan’s treatment of Huayan soteriology and the Chan approach of sudden awakening (DUNWU). The Korean Sŏn exegete POJO CHINUL (1158–1210) was so inspired by the text that he wrote a three-roll abridgment of it entitled “Excerpts from the Exposition of the Avataṃsakasūtra” (Hwaŏm non chŏryo), which he used to demonstrate the parallels between the Huayan soteriological schema and his preferred meditative approach of “sudden awakening followed by gradual cultivation” (K. tono chŏmsu; C. TUNWU JIANXIU). In Japan, Li Tongxuan’s advocacy of meditating on the light emanating from the Buddha’s body was also a major influence on MYŌE KŌBEN.

Huayan jingnei zhangmendeng za kongmu zhang. (C) (華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章). See KONGMU ZHANG.

Huayan jing shu. (J. Kegongyōsho; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng so 華嚴經疏). In Chinese, “Commentary to the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA”; the sixty-roll work of the HUAYAN patriarch CHENGGUAN, who is widely considered the principal force behind the revitalization of the Huayan exegetical tradition. Praised within the tradition as one of the two greatest commentaries on the Avataṃsakasūtra, along with FAZANG’s HUAYAN TANXUAN JI, this work epitomizes Chengguan’s attempt to salvage what he perceived to be the orthodox teachings of the patriarch FAZANG, whose intellectual legacy was presumed to have been misunderstood and misrepresented by some of his direct disciples. A comparable text aimed at resuscitating Huayan orthodoxy was Chengguan’s Huayan xuantan. Huayan jing shu is also sometimes used as an alternate title for Fazang’s Huayan tanxuan ji.

Huayan jing souxuan ji. (J. Kegongyō sōgenki; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng suhyŏn ki 華嚴經搜玄). In Chinese, “Notes on Fathoming the Profundities of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” a ten-roll exegesis of the Avataṃsakasūtra, written by the HUAYAN patriarch ZHIYAN. Using the Huayan school’s idiosyncratic “Ten Profound Categories [of Dependent Origination]” (see SHI XUANMEN) to explain the intent of the sūtra, this work became the blueprint that FAZANG would later follow in writing his influential HUAYAN JING TANXUAN JI.

Huayan jing suishu yanyi chao. (J. Kegongyō zuisho engishō; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng suso yŏnŭi ch’o 華嚴經随疏演義鈔). In Chinese, “Autocommentary to the Exegesis of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” a ninety-roll autocommentary by the Huayan patriarch CHENGGUAN to his own sixty-roll exegesis of the Avataṃsakasūtra, the HUAYAN JING SHU; this massive work provides the most exhaustive presentation of Chengguan’s thought in his oeuvre. In the autocommentary, Chengguan provides a general overview of the history and thought of the HUAYAN tradition, along with a painstaking line-by-line commentary to the text of the Avataṃsakasūtra. Chengguan explains the rise of the Huayan teachings and offers a classification of teachings (see JIAOXIANG PANSHI). These sections are followed by an explanation of such seminal Huayan doctrines as the dependent origination of the DHARMADHĀTU (FAJIE YUANQI). Chengguan also outlines the different capacities of sentient beings and provides a summary of the teachings of the different exegetical traditions in China. A comparative study of the various Chinese translations of the Avataṃsakasūtra follows, culminating in an analysis of the title of the sūtra. The autocommentary then follows with a detailed treatment of specific passages in the sūtra. Chengguan’s attempt to define clearly the boundaries between the different traditions of Buddhism, as well as his emphasis on a distinctively Huayan style of meditation, are noteworthy aspects of his commentary.

Huayan jing tanxuan ji. (J. Kegongyō tangenki; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng t’amhyŏn ki 華嚴經探玄). In Chinese, “Notes Plumbing the Profundities of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” FAZANG’s twenty-roll commentary to BUDDHABHADRA’s sixty-roll translation of the Huayan jing and one of the key texts that shaped the mature teachings of the HUAYAN ZONG. Fazang’s commentary was especially beholden to ZHIYAN’s HUAYAN JING SOUXUAN JI, which uses the idiosyncratic “Ten Profound Categories [of Dependent Origination]” (see SHI XUANMEN) of the Huayan school to explain the meanings of the sūtra. Fazang’s work was praised within the Huayan tradition as one of the two greatest commentaries to the Avataṃsakasūtra, along with CHENGGUAN’s HUAYAN JING SHU and its accompanying autocommentary HUAYAN JING SUISHU YANYI CHAO.

Huayan jing zhigui. (J. Kegongyō shiki; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng chigwi 華嚴經旨歸). In Chinese, “A Guide to the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” one of FAZANG’s several commentaries to the Avataṃsakasūtra; its format is unique in that it explains ten aspects of the sūtra, each argued with ten theses or examples. The symbolic ten sections and one hundred theses/examples (ten sections times ten theses/examples) that make up the commentary are consistent with the HUAYAN school’s fascination with those two numbers, which were taken to represent notions such as “consummate interfusion” (YUANRONG) and “unimpeded interpenetration between all phenomena” (see SHISHI WU’AI FAJIE).

Huayan jing zhuan[ji]. (J. Kegongyō den[ki]; K. Hwaŏm kyŏng chŏn[’gi] 華嚴經傳[]). In Chinese, “Notes on the Transmission of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” composed by the HUAYAN patriarch FAZANG; Fazang did not finish the text before he passed away, so his disciples Huiyuan and Huiying completed it posthumously. The work offers a treatment of the pre-eighth century history of the Avataṃsakasūtra in Chinese Buddhism, including discussions of the translators and translations of the sūtra, its circulation and instances of its recitation and explanation, commentaries, and other related texts relevant to the study of the scripture.

Huayan Qingliang shu. (C) (華嚴清涼疏). In Chinese, “Qingliang’s [viz., Chengguan] Commentary to the Huayan [Jing]. See HUAYAN JING SHU.

Huayan sansheng. (J. Kegon no sanshō; K. Hwaŏm samsŏng 華嚴三聖). In Chinese, “the Three Sages of HUAYAN,” refer to the three primary deities of the lotus-womb world (lianhuazang shijie; cf. TAIZŌKAI), the universe as described in the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA, which contains infinitely layered cosmoses and interpenetrating realms. (1) VAIROCANA Buddha is considered to be the dharma body (DHARMAKĀYA) itself, who pervades the entire universe and from whom all other buddhas arose; he symbolizes the utmost fruition of bodhisattva practice. (2) SAMANTABHADRA, an advanced BODHISATTVA depicted as standing to Vairocana’s right, symbolizes the profound aspiration and all-embracing practices undertaken by the bodhisattvas. (3) MAÑJUŚRĪ, another advanced bodhisattva depicted as standing to Vairocana’s left, symbolizes the wisdom gleaned through mastering the bodhisattva path. The primary virtues represented by these two bodhisattvas are said to culminate in the perfection of the cosmic Vairocana. In the Huayan tradition, in particular, various other attributes and symbolisms are also attributed to the three deities.

Huayanshe. (J. Kegonsha; K. Hwaŏmsa 華嚴社). In Chinese, the “Huayan Society,” founded by Nanchao of Hengzhou Longxing monastery in 822; it held regular congregations for the communal chanting of, and public lecturing on, the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA. The famous poet BO JUYI (722–847) was a member of this prominent organization when it was at the height of its influence.

Huayan shiyi. (J. Kegon no jūi; K. Hwaŏm sibi 華嚴十異). In Chinese, “Ten Distinctions of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” ten reasons why HUAYAN exegetes consider the Avataṃsakasūtra to be superior to all other scriptures and thus the supreme teaching of the Buddha. (1) The “time of its exposition” was unique (shiyi): the sūtra was supposedly the first scripture preached after the Buddha’s enlightenment and thus offers the most unadulterated enunciation of his experience. (2) The “location of its exposition” was unique (chuyi): it is said that the BODHI TREE under which the sūtra was preached was the center of the “oceans of world systems of the lotus womb world” (S. padmagarbhalokadhātu; C. lianhuazang shijie; cf. TAIZŌKAI). (3) The “preacher” was unique (zhuyi): The sūtra was supposedly preached by VAIROCANA Buddha, as opposed to other “emanation buddhas.” (4) The “audience” was unique (zhongyi): only advanced BODHISATTVAs—along with divinities and demigods who were in actuality emanations of the Buddha—were present for its preaching; thus, there was no division between MAHĀYĀNA and HĪNAYĀNA. (5) The “basis” of the sūtra was unique (suoyiyi): its teaching was based on the one vehicle (EKAYĀNA), not the other provisional vehicles created later within the tradition. (6) The “exposition” of the sūtra was unique (shuoyi): the Avataṃsakasūtra preached in this world system is consistent with the sūtra as preached in all other world systems; this is unlike other sūtras, which were provisional adaptations to the particular needs of this world system only. (7) The “status” of the vehicles in the sūtra were unique (weiyi): no provisional categorization of the three vehicles of Buddhism (TRIYĀNA) was made in this sūtra. This is because, according to the sūtra’s fundamental theme of “unimpeded interpenetration,” any one vehicle subsumes all other vehicles and teachings. (8) Its “practice” was unique (xingyi): the stages (BHŪMI) of the BODHISATTVA path are simultaneously perfected in this sūtra’s teachings, as opposed to having to be gradually perfected step-by-step. (9) The enumeration of “dharma gates,” or list of dharmas, was unique (famenyi): whereas other sūtras systematize doctrinal formulas using different numerical schemes (e.g., FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, eightfold path, etc.), this sūtra exclusively employs in all its lists the number “ten”—a mystical number that symbolizes the sūtra’s infinite scope and depth. (10) Its “instantiation” was unique (shiyi): even the most mundane phenomena described in the Avataṃsakasūtra (such as trees, water, mountains, etc.) are expressions of the deepest truth; this is unlike other sūtras that resort primarily to abstract, philosophical concepts like “emptiness” (ŚŪNYATĀ) or “suchness” (TATHATĀ) in order to express their profoundest truths.

Huayan shiyi. (J. Kegon no jūgi; K. Hwaŏm sibŭi 華嚴十義). In Chinese, “Ten Meanings [propounded by] the Huayan [School].” A central thesis of HUAYAN philosophy is the “unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena” (shishi wu’ai; see SHISHI WU’AI FAJIE). In order to provide some sense of what this “unimpeded interpenetration” entails, Huayan exegetes employed ten examples to explain how each constituent of a pair of concepts mutually validates and subsumes the other constituent: (1) the “teaching” and the “meaning” it designates (jiaoyi); (2) “phenomena” and their underlying “principle” (lishi); (3) “understanding” and its “implementation” (jiexing); (4) “causes” and their “results” (yinguo); (5) the “expounders” of the dharma and the “dharma” they expound (renfa); (6) the “distinction” and “unity” between distinct things (fenqi jingwei); (7) the “teacher,” his “disciple,” the “dharma” that is imparted from the former to the latter, and the “wisdom” that the disciple receives from that dharma (shidi fazhi); (8) the “dominant” and the “subordinate,” the “primary” and the “secondary,” and relations that pertain between things (zhuban yizheng); (9) the enlightened sages who “respond” to the spiritual maturity of their audiences and the audiences whose spiritual maturity “solicited” the appearance of the enlightened sages in the world (suishenggen yushixian); and (10) the spiritual “obstacles” and their corresponding “antidotes,” the “essence” of phenomena and their “functions” or “efficacy” (nishun tiyong zizai). Each constituent of the above ten dichotomies derives its contextualized meaning and provisional existence from its opposite, thereby illustrating the Huayan teaching of the interconnectedness and mutual interpenetration between all things.

Huayan wujiao. (J. Kegon no gokyō; K. Hwaŏm ogyo 華嚴五教). In Chinese, “Huayan’s five classifications of the teachings.” The HUAYAN ZONG recognizes two different versions of this doctrinal-classification schema, which ranks different strands of Buddhist teachings. The best-known version was outlined by DUSHUN and FAZANG: (1) The HĪNAYĀNA teachings (xiaojiao; cf. XIAOSHENG JIAO), also known as the śrāvakayāna teaching (shengwenjiao), was pejoratively referred to as “teachings befitting the [spiritually] obtuse” (yufa). The ĀGAMAs and the ABHIDHARMAs were relegated to this class, which supposedly dealt primarily with theories of elements (DHĀTU) and more basic concepts such as dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA). (2) The “elementary teaching [of Mahāyāna]” ([Dasheng] SHIJIAO). Within this category, two additional subgroups were differentiated. The first was the “initial teaching pertaining to emptiness” (kong shijiao), which encompassed the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ literature and exegetical traditions such as MADHYAMAKA. This class of teachings was characterized by an emphasis (or, in Huayan’s polemical assessment, an overemphasis) on the doctrine of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). The second subgroup, the “initial teaching pertaining to phenomena” (xiang shijiao), broaches the dynamic and phenomenal aspects of reality and did not confine itself to the theme of emptiness. YOGĀCĀRA and its traditional affiliate sūtras and commentaries were classified under this subgroup. Together, these two subgroups were deemed the provisional teachings (quanjiao) within the MAHĀYĀNA tradition. (3) The “advanced [Mahāyāna] teachings” ([Dasheng] ZHONGJIAO) focused on the way true suchness (ZHENRU; S. TATHATĀ) was innately immaculate but could be activated in response to myriad conditions. The DASHENG QIXIN LUN (“Awakening of Faith”), ŚRĪMĀLĀDEVĪSIṂHANĀDASŪTRA, and LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA are examples of texts belonging to this doctrinal category. The treatment in these texts of the one mind (YIXIN) and TATHĀGATAGARBHA thought was considered a more definitive rendition of the MAHĀYĀNA teachings than were the elementary teachings (shijiao). (4) The “sudden teachings” (DUNJIAO), which includes texts like the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA, was ranked as a unique category of subitist teachings befitting people of keen spiritual faculties (TĪKṢṆENDRIYA), and therefore bypasses traditional, systematic approaches to enlightenment. The CHAN ZONG’s touted soteriological methods involving sudden enlightenment (DUNWU) and its rejection of reliance on written texts led some Huayan teachers to relegate that school to this advanced, but still inferior, category of the teachings. Chan was thus superseded by, (5) the “perfect teachings” or “consummate teachings” (YUANJIAO). This supposedly most comprehensive and definitive strand of Buddhist teaching was reserved for the Huayan school and especially its definitive scripture, the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA. ¶ The second version of five classifications was made by GUIFENG ZONGMI (780–841) in his YUANREN LUN: (1) The “teachings pertaining to the human and heavenly realms” (RENTIAN JIAO) encompassed “mundane” (LAUKIKA) practices, such as the observation of the five precepts (PAÑCAŚĪLA) and the ten wholesome ways of action (KUŚALA-KARMAPATHA); this classification was named because of its believed efficacy to lead practitioners to higher realms of rebirth. (2) The “HĪNAYĀNA teachings” (XIAOSHENG JIAO), which were similar to the previous “xiaojiao.” (3) The “dharma-characteristics teachings of MAHĀYĀNA” (Dasheng faxiang jiao), which was analogous to the aforementioned “elementary teaching pertaining to phenomena” (xiang shijiao) in the preceding classification scheme. (4) The “characteristics-negating teachings of MAHĀYĀNA” (Dasheng poxiang jiao) was analogous to the preceding “elementary teaching pertaining to emptiness.” (5) The “nature-revealing teaching of the one vehicle” (yisheng xiangxing jiao) was equivalent to the last three categories Fazang’s system combined together. See also HUAYAN WUJIAO ZHANG.

Huayan wujiao zhang. (J. Kegon gokyōshō; K. Hwaŏm ogyo chang 華嚴五教章). In Chinese, “Essay on the Five [Categories of] Teachings According to Huayan” is one of the foundational treatises on the HUAYAN ZONG; composed by DUSHUN. The essay offers a systematic analysis and classification of all major Buddhist teachings according to their thematic differences, which were discussed in reference to such basic Huayan tenets as the ten profound meanings (see HUAYAN SHIYI) and the six aspects of phenomena (LIUXIANG). Dushun’s influential work is the foundation of the Huayan doctrinal taxonomy, which divided the Buddhist scriptures into five levels based on the profundity of their respective teachings: HĪNAYĀNA (viz., the ĀGAMAs), elementary MAHĀYĀNA (viz., YOGĀCĀRA and MADHYAMAKA), advanced Mahāyāna (SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA), sudden teachings (typically CHAN), and perfect teachings (AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA). See also HUAYAN WUJIAO.

Huayan youyi. (J. Kegon yūi; K. Hwaŏm yuŭi 華嚴遊意). In Chinese, “An Excursion through the Meaning of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA,” a brief one-roll commentary on the Avataṃsakasūtra, composed by JIZANG, between 597 and 599; it is reported to be a record of his oral lectures on the scripture delivered in Yangzhou. The work contains a rare SAN LUN ZONG perspective on the Avataṃsakasūtra, before the HUAYAN ZONG’s own influential commentaries came to monopolize the interpretation of the scripture. This work is of particular interest because it also critiqued contemporaneous exegetical traditions in both north and south China.

Huayan zhao. (J. Kegon wa asa; K. Hwaŏm cho 華嚴朝). In Chinese, “the morning [when] the Huayan [Jing was preached]”; the first half of a popular expression describing the two major stages in the teaching career of the Buddha. According to Chinese Huayan legend, immediately following his enlightenment, the Buddha initially preached the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA, or Huayan jing. “Morning” in this expression thus refers to the early stage of the Buddha’s preaching career, which was likened to the sun rising at dawn. This statement is typically followed by NIEPAN XI, “dusk [when] the MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆASŪTRA [was preached],” since, according to the same legend, the Buddha preached that scripture just before he passed away (PARINIRVĀṆA)—a time that was likened to the sun setting at dusk.

Huayan zong. (J. Kegonshū; K. Hwaŏm chong 華嚴宗). In Chinese, “Flower Garland School,” an important exegetical tradition in East Asian Buddhism. Huayan takes its name from the Chinese translation of the title of its central scripture, the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA (or perhaps BUDDHĀVATAṂSAKASŪTRA). The Huayan tradition is also sometimes referred to the Xianshou zong, after the sobriquet, Xianshou, of one of its greatest exegetes, FAZANG. A lineage of patriarchs, largely consisting of the tradition’s great scholiasts, was retrospectively created by later followers. The putative first patriarch of the Huayan school is DUSHUN, who is followed by ZHIYAN, Fazang, CHENGGUAN, and GUIFENG ZONGMI. The work of these exegetes exerted much influence in Korea largely through the writings of ŬISANG (whose exegetical tradition is sometimes known as the Pusŏk chong) and WŎNHYO. Hwaŏm teachings remained the foundation of Korean doctrinal exegesis from the Silla period onward, and continued to be influential in the synthesis that POJO CHINUL in the Koryŏ dynasty created between SŎN (CHAN) and KYO (the teachings, viz., Hwaŏm). The Korean monk SIMSANG (J. Shinjō; d. 742), a disciple of Fazang, who transmitted the Huayan teachings to Japan in 740 at the instigation of RYŌBEN (689–773), was instrumental in establishing the Kegon school in Japan. Subsequently, such teachers as MYŌE KŌBEN (1173–1232) and GYŌNEN (1240–1321) continued Kegon exegesis into the Kamakura period. In China, other exegetical traditions such as the DI LUN ZONG, which focused on only one part of the Avataṃsakasūtra, were eventually absorbed into the Huayan tradition. The Huayan tradition was severely weakened in China after the depredations of the HUICHANG FANAN, and because of shifting interests within Chinese Buddhism away from sūtra exegesis and toward Chan meditative practice and literature, and invoking the name of the buddha AMITĀBHA (see NIANFO). ¶ The Huayan school’s worldview is derived from the central tenets of the imported Indian Buddhist tradition, but reworked in a distinctively East Asian fashion. Huayan is a systematization of the teachings of the Avataṃsakasūtra, which offered a vision of an infinite number of interconnected world systems, interfused in an all-encompassing realm of reality (DHARMADHĀTU). This profound interdependent and ecological vision of the universe led Huayan exegetes to engage in a creative reconsideration of the central Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), which in their interpretation meant that all phenomena in the universe are mutually creating, and in turn are being mutually created by, all other phenomena. Precisely because in the traditional Buddhist view any individual phenomenon was devoid of a perduring self-nature of its own (ANĀTMAN), existence in the Huayan interpretation therefore meant to be in a constant state of multivalent interaction with all other things in the universe. The boundless interconnectedness that pertains between all things was termed “dependent origination of the dharmadhātu” (FAJIE YUANQI). Huayan also carefully examines the causal relationships between individual phenomena or events (SHI) and the fundamental principle or patterns (LI) that govern reality. These various relationships are systematized in Chengguan’s teaching of the four realms of reality (dharmadhātu): the realm of principle (LI FAJIE), the realm of individual phenomena (SHI FAJIE), the realm of the unimpeded interpenetration between principle and phenomena (LISHI WU’AI FAJIE), and the realm of the unimpeded interpenetration between phenomenon and phenomena (SHISHI WU’AI FAJIE). Even after Huayan’s decline as an independent school, it continued to exert profound influence on both traditional East Asian philosophy and modern social movements, including engaged Buddhism and Buddhist environmentalism.

huayi sijiao. (C) (化儀四教). See TIANTAI BAJIAO.

huazhu. (J. keshu; K. hwaju 化主). In Chinese, lit. “chief of propagation,” originally referring to the Buddha himself, but later in East Asia a term for a “fund-raiser” at a Buddhist monastery. The fund-raiser was the equivalent of a director of development in a modern nonprofit organization, who would journey outside the monastery walls to cultivate potential new donors and maintain relations with current donors. The huazhu would also secure letters to the donors from the relevant authorities such as the abbot and convey the needs and wishes of the monastery to the donors. He also was in charge of inventorying the gifts that donors offered, arranging their transport back to the monastery, and paying taxes on items received, where warranted.

Huệ Trung. [alt. Tuệ Trung] (慧忠[上士]) (1230–1291). Vietnamese Buddhist teacher, more popularly known as Huệ Trung Thượng (the Eminent Huệ Trung); he was also one of the major literary figures of medieval Vietnam. His personal name was Trần Tung. He belonged to the Trần royal clan and was the older brother of Queen Nguyên Thánh Thiên Cảm, the mother of Trần Nhân Tông (1258–1308). He himself was Lord Hưng Ninh, a general in the two battles against the Mongols in 1285 and 1288. Huệ Trung was a lay disciple of Tiêu Diêu, a THIỀN (C. CHAN) master of the Yên Tử lineage. Although he never took ordination as a monk, he was a well-respected Chan master. Many Buddhists of his time were inspired by his unconventional behavior and approach to Chan philosophy and practice. He instructed Trần Nhân Tông on Chan Buddhism when the latter was crown prince. Huệ Trung’s extant writings are collected in the Huệ Trung Thượng Sι̃ Ngữ Lục (“Recorded Sayings of the Eminent Huệ Trung”).

hugui. (J. koki; K. hogwe 胡跪). In Chinese, “genuflect in foreign fashion,” a half-kneeling posture of respect, with one knee touching the ground, the opposite calf and knee raised off the ground, and the palms clasped in front of one’s chest in AÑJALI. The posture is characteristic of figures bearing gifts or making entreaties, as in the opening lines of Chinese translations of Indian scriptures, where the interlocutors are often said to “genuflect in foreign fashion” before asking a question of the Buddha.

huguo Fojiao. (J. gokoku Bukkyō; K. hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎). In Chinese, “state-protection Buddhism,” referring to the sociopolitical role Buddhism played in East Asia to protect the state against war, insurrection, and natural disasters. The doctrinal justification for such a protective role for Buddhism derives from the “Guanshiyin pusa pumen pin” (“Chapter on the Unlimited Gate of the BODHISATTVA AVALOKITEŚVARA”) and the “Tuoluoni pin” (DHĀRAṆĪ chapter) of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”), the “Huguo pin” (“Chapter on Protecting the State”) of the RENWANG JING (“Scripture for Humane Kings”), and the “Zhenglun pin” (“Chapter on Right View”) of the SUVARṆAPRABHĀSOTTAMASŪTRA (“Golden Light Sūtra”). For example, the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra states that a ruler who accepts that sūtra and has faith in the dharma will be protected by the four heavenly kings (CĀTURMAHĀRĀJAKĀYIKA); but if he neglects the dharma, the divinities will abandon his state and calamity will result. The “Huguo pin” of the Renwang jing notes that “when the state is thrown into chaos, facing all sorts of disasters and being destroyed by invading enemies,” kings should set up in a grand hall one hundred buddha and bodhisattva images and one hundred seats, and then invite one hundred eminent monks to come there and teach the Renwang jing. This ritual, called the “Renwang Assembly of One-Hundred Seats” (C. Renwang baigaozuo hui; J. Ninnō hyakukōzae; K. Inwang paekkojwa hoe) would ward off any calamity facing the state and was held in China, Japan, and Korea from the late sixth century onward. In Japan, these three scriptures were used to justify the role Buddhism could play in protecting the state; and the Japanese reformist NICHIREN (1222–1282) cites the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra in his attempts to demonstrate that the calamities then facing Japan were a result of the divinities abandoning the state because of the government’s neglect of the true teachings of Buddhism. The notion of state protection also figured in the introduction of ZEN to Japan. In 1198, the TENDAI and ZEN monk MYŌAN EISAI (1141–1215) wrote his KŌZEN GOKOKURON (“Treatise on the Promulgation of Zen as a Defense of the State”), which explained why the new teachings of Zen would both protect the state and allow the “perfect teachings” (see JIAOXIANG PANSHI) of Tendai to flourish. ¶ “State-protection Buddhism” has also been posited as one of the defining characteristics of Korean Buddhism. There are typically four types of evidence presented in support of this view. (1) Such rituals as the Inwang paekkojwa hoe (Renwang jing recitation) were held at court at least ten times during the Silla dynasty and increased dramatically to as many as one hundred twenty times during the succeeding Koryǒ dynasty. (2) Monasteries and STŪPAs were constructed for their apotropaic value in warding off calamity. During the Silla dynasty, e.g., HWANGNYONGSA and its nine-story pagoda, as well as Sach’ŏnwangsa (Four Heavenly Kings Monastery), were constructed for the protection of the royal family and the state during the peninsular unification wars. During the succeeding Koryŏ dynasty, the KORYŎ TAEJANGGYŎNG (Korean Buddhism canon) was carved (twice) in the hopes that state support for this massive project would prompt the various buddhas and divinities (DEVA) to ward off foreign invaders and bring peace to the kingdom. (3) Eminent monks served as political advisors to the king and the government. For example, Kwangjong (r. 949–975), the fourth monarch of the Koryǒ dynasty, established the positions of wangsa (royal preceptor) and kuksa (state preceptor, C. GUOSHI), and these offices continued into the early Chosŏn dynasty. (4) Monks were sometimes at the vanguard in repelling foreign invaders, such as the Hangmagun (Defeating Māra Troops) in twelfth-century Koryŏ, who fought against the Jurchen, and the Chosŏn monks CH’ŎNGHŎ HYUJŎNG (1520–1604) and SAMYŎNG YUJŎNG (1544–1610), who raised monks’ militias to fight against the Japanese during the Hideyoshi invasions of the late sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, revisionist historians argued that the notion of “state-protection Buddhism” in Korea may reflect as much the political situation of the modern and contemporary periods as any historical reality, and may derive from the concept of “chingo kokka” (protecting the state) advocated by Japanese apologists during the Buddhist persecution of the Meiji period (1868–1912).

Huichang fanan. (J. Kaishō no hōnan; K. Hoech’ang pŏmnan 會昌法難). In Chinese, “Huichang persecution of the dharma”; one of the worst persecutions in the history of Chinese Buddhism, which took place during the Huichang reign era (843–844) of the Tang-dynasty emperor Wuzong (r. 840–846). Factional disputes at court, growing economic strains, and opposition from Confucian officials and Daoist priests seem to have helped precipitate the Huichang persecution. The illicit buying and selling of ordination certificates (CIBU TONG) in order to avoid taxation may also have been a contributing factor in the restrictions the government imposed on Buddhism. Emperor Wuzong conducted a census of the monastic community and the number of temples in order to begin systematically to attack the Buddhist institution and to reassess the size of the population that was exempt from taxation and corvée labor. Over 260,000 monks and nuns were defrocked and returned to lay life, ostensibly for practicing alchemy or violating the precepts; this move, however, also returned them to the tax roles. Subsequently, the state placed heavy restrictions on the numbers of ordinands and their age (no one under the age of forty was allowed to ordain). Hundreds of monasteries were destroyed and much of the wealth confiscated from those temples that escaped destruction. Thousands of Buddhist images were melted down to be made into coinage. As with most persecutions, the effects were most deeply felt in the capital and major cities, effects that weakened considerably the farther away one moved from centralized power. Buddhist schools that were based on the capital, such as the HUAYAN ZONG and the Northern school (BEI ZONG) of the CHAN ZONG, were dealt such a severe blow that they were never able to fully recover. By contrast, schools located in isolated mountain sites in the countryside, such as other strands of the Chan school (e.g., HONGZHOU ZONG), were able to survive the persecution and subsequently flourish. Although the Huichang persecution indelibly scarred the Chinese Buddhist community, Buddhism continued to flourish, and even prosper, after the death of Wuzong. See also FANAN.

Huiguang. (C) (慧光). See DI LUN ZONG.

huiguang fanzhao. (J. ekō henjō; K. hoegwang panjo 迴/回光返照). In Chinese, “follow back the light and trace back the radiance,” the quality of introspection that is operative during all types of meditation, according to some strands of the CHAN ZONG. See FANZHAO.

Huiguo. (J. Keika; K. Hyegwa 惠果) (746–805). Tang-dynasty Chinese monk, reputed seventh patriarch of esoteric Buddhism (J. MIKKYŌ), and a master especially of the KONGŌKAI and TAIZŌKAI transmissions. Huiguo was a native of Shaanxi province. He became a monk at an early age and went to the monastery of Qinglongsi in the Chinese capital of Chang’an, where he became a student of the master (ĀCĀRYA) AMOGHAVAJRA’s disciple Tanchen (d.u.). In 765, Huiguo received the full monastic precepts, after which he is said to have received the teachings on the VAJRAŚEKHARASŪTRA from Amoghavajra himself. Two years later, Huiguo is also said to have received instructions on the taizōkai and the SUSIDDHIKARASŪTRA from the obscure Korean monk Hyŏnch’o (d.u.), a purported disciple of ācārya ŚUBHAKARASIṂHA. In 789, Huiguo won the support of Emperor Dezong (r. 779–805) by successfully praying for rain. Huiguo’s renown was such that he received disciples from Korea, Japan, and even Java. In 805, Huiguo purportedly gave instructions on the kongōkai and taizōkai to the eminent Japanese pilgrim KŪKAI during the three months prior to the master’s death, and eventually performed the consecration ritual (ABHIṢEKA) for his student. Kūkai thus claimed that Huiguo was the Chinese progenitor of the Japanese SHINGONSHŪ. That same year, Huiguo passed away at his residence in the Eastern Pagoda cloister at Qinglongsi.

Huihai. (C) (慧海). See DAZHU HUIHAI.

Huihong. (C) (慧洪). See JUEFAN HUIHONG.

Huiji. (C) (慧寂). See YANGSHAN HUIJI.

Huikai. (C) (慧開). See WUMEN HUIKAI.

Huike. (J. Eka; K. Hyega 慧可) (c. 487–593). “Wise Prospect”; putative second patriarch of the CHAN ZONG. Huike (a.k.a. Sengke) was a native of Hulao (alt. Wulao) near Luoyang in present-day Henan province. When he was young, Huike is said to have mastered the Confucian classics and Daoist scriptures in addition to the Buddhist SŪTRAs. He was later ordained by a certain Baojing (d.u.) on Mt. Xiang near Longmen, and received the full monastic precepts at Yongmusi. In 520, he is said to have made his famous visit to the monastery of SHAOLINSI on SONGSHAN, where he became the disciple of the Indian monk and founder of Chan, BODHIDHARMA. According to legend, Huike is said to have convinced the Indian master to accept him as a disciple by cutting off his left arm as a sign of his sincerity. (His biography in the GAOSENG ZHUAN tells us instead that he lost his arm to robbers.) Once Bodhidharma finally relented, Huike asked him to pacify his mind. Bodhidharma told him in response to bring him his mind, but Huike replied that he has searched everywhere for his mind but has not been able to find it anywhere. “Well, then,” said Bodhidharma, in a widely quoted response, “I’ve pacified it for you.” This brief encounter prompted Huike’s awakening experience. Later, Huike taught at the capital Ye (present-day Henan province), where he is said to have amassed a large following. In 550, Huike ostensibly transmitted Bodhidharma’s DHARMA to the obscure monk SENGCAN (the putative third patriarch of Chan) and later went into hiding during Emperor Wu’s (r. 560–578) persecution of Buddhism (574–578).

Huinan. (C) (慧南). See HUANGLONG HUINAN.

Huineng. (J. Enō; K. Hyenŭng 慧能) (638–713). Chinese Chan master and reputed sixth patriarch (LIUZU) of the CHAN ZONG. While little is known of the historical figure, the legendary Huineng of the LIUZU TAN JING (“Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch”) is an ubiquitous figure in Chan literature. According to his hagiography, Huineng was born in Xinzhou (present-day Guangdong province). As a youth, he cared for his poor mother by gathering and selling firewood. One day at the market he heard someone reciting the famous VAJRACCHEDIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA (“Diamond Sūtra”) and immediately decided to enter the monastery. Huineng subsequently visited HONGREN, the fifth Chan patriarch, on East Mountain in Qizhou (present-day Hubei province). After spending eight years in the threshing room, the illiterate Huineng heard a monk reciting a verse that had just been posted on a wall of the monastery, a verse written secretly by Hongren’s senior disciple, SHENXIU: “The body is the BODHI TREE, / The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand. / Be always diligent in polishing it, / Do not let any dust alight.” Immediately recognizing that the writer’s understanding was deficient, Huineng in response composed a verse reply, which he asked a colleague to write down for him: “BODHI fundamentally has no tree, / The bright mirror also has no stand. / Fundamentally there is not a single thing, / Where could any dust alight?” After reading the verse the next day, Hongren secretly called Huineng to his room in the middle of the night and recited a line from the “Diamond Sūtra,” which prompted in Huineng a great awakening. Hongren then secretly transmitted the robe and bowl of Chan’s founder and first patriarch, BODHIDHARMA, to Huineng, making him the sixth (and ultimately last) patriarch of the Chan school; but he ordered his successor to go into hiding, lest he be harmed by followers of Shenxiu. Huineng then fled south. In 677, he received the full monastic precepts from the dharma master Yinzong (d.u.) at the monastery of Faxingsi in Nanhai (present-day Guangdong province). The next year, Huineng relocated to the monastery of Baolinsi on CAOXISHAN, the mountain that remains forever associated with him, where he attracted many students and followers. In 815, Emperor Xianzong (r. 805–820) bestowed upon him the posthumous title Chan master Dajian (Great Speculum). The monks QINGYUAN XINGSI, NANYUE HUAIRANG, HEZE SHENHUI, and YONGJIA XUANJUE are said to have been Huineng’s preeminent disciples. Huineng is claimed to have been the founder of the so-called “Southern school” (NAN ZONG) of Chan, and to have instructed his students in the “sudden teachings” (DUNJIAO), the explication of which prompted much of the Chan school’s subsequent soteriological developments and intrasectarian polemics. Although we have little historical evidence about either Huineng the person or his immediate disciples, all the various strands of the mature Chan tradition retrospectively trace their pedigrees back to him, making the legend of the sixth patriarch one of the most influential in the development of the Chan school.

Huiri. (C) (慧日). See CIMIN HUIRI.

Huisi. (C) (慧思). See NANYUE HUISI.

Huiyuan. (C) (惠/慧遠). See JINGYING HUIYUAN or LUSHAN HUIYUAN.

Huizhong. (C) (慧忠). See NANYANG HUIZHONG.

hūṃkāramudrā. (T. hūm mdzad kyi phyag rgya). In Sanskrit, “the gesture of the syllable hūṃ”; this MUDRĀ is formed by crossing the left wrist in front of the right wrist at the level of the heart. This gesture is commonly found in depictions of semiwrathful tantric deities such as SAṂVARA, HERUKA, GUHYASAMĀJA, and KĀLACAKRA as well as VAJRADHARA. In many instances, the right hand holds a VAJRA, symbolizing method (UPĀYA), and the left a bell, symbolizing wisdom (PRAJÑĀ).

Humphreys, Christmas. (1901–1983). Early British popularizer of Buddhism and founder of the Buddhist Society, the oldest lay Buddhist organization in Europe. Born in London in 1901, Humphreys was the son of Sir Travers Humphreys (1867–1956), a barrister perhaps best known as the junior counsel in the prosecution of the Irish writer Oscar Wilde (1854–1900). Following in his father’s footsteps, Humphreys studied law at Cambridge University and eventually became a senior prosecutor at the Old Bailey, London, the central criminal court, and later a circuit judge; he was also involved in the Tokyo war crimes trials as a prosecutor, a post he accepted so he could also further in Japan his studies of Buddhism. (Humphreys’s later attempts to inject some Buddhist compassion into his courtroom led to him being called the “gentle judge,” who gained a reputation for being lenient with felons. After handing down a six-month suspended sentence to an eighteen-year-old who had raped two women at knifepoint, the public outcry that ensued eventually led to his resignation from the bench in 1976.) Humphreys was interested in Buddhism from his youth and declared himself a Buddhist at age seventeen. In 1924, at the age of twenty-three, he founded the Buddhist Society, London, and served as its president until his death; he was also the first publisher of its journal, The Middle Way. Humphreys strongly advocated a nonsectarian approach to Buddhism, which embraced the individual schools of Buddhism as specific manifestations of the religion’s central tenets. His interest in an overarching vision of the whole of the Buddhist tradition led him in 1945 to publish his famous Twelve Principles of Buddhism, which has been translated into fourteen languages. These principles focus on the need to recognize the conditioned nature of reality, the truth of impermanence and suffering, and the path that Buddhism provides to save oneself through “the intuition of the individual.” A close associate of DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI and a contemporary of EDWARD CONZE, Humphreys himself wrote over thirty semischolarly and popular books and tracts on Buddhism, including Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide, published in 1951.

hundred dharmas. See BAIFA.

hundred-syllable mantra. See VAJRASATTVA.

Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa. See MI LA’I MGUR ’BUM.

Hŭngch’ŏnsa. (興天寺). In Korean, “Flourishing Heaven Monastery”; the head monastery of the school of Doctrine (KYO) during the Chosŏn dynasty, located in Sŏngbuk-ku in the capital of Seoul. When Queen Sindŏk (d. 1395) died, King Taejo (r. 1392–1398) ordered in 1396 that this monastery be constructed to the east of the queen’s royal tomb. At the king’s command, a Sarigak (a three-story reliquary pavilion) and a Sarit’ap (a reliquary STŪPA) were erected at the north side of the monastery. Ceremonies to guide the spirit of the deceased queen, including the Uranbun ritual (see ULLAMBANA), were held during the seventh and eighth months. In 1408, Hŭngch’ŏnsa was officially affiliated with the Hwaŏm school (C. HUAYAN ZONG), but was designated a generic Kyo monastery in 1424, when the seven schools of Chosŏn-dynasty Buddhism were amalgamated into the two schools of Kyo (Doctrine) and SŎN (Meditation). The Buddhist canon (taejanggyŏng; C. DAZANGJING; see KORYŎ TAEJANGGYŎNG) was enshrined at the monastery in the ninth month of 1440. The monastery burned to the ground in 1510, and its large bronze monastery bell was moved to Tŏksu Palace. At King Sŏnjo’s (r. 1567–1608) command, the monastery was reconstructed in 1569 at the old location of the Hamch’wi kiosk. The monastery’s name was changed to Sinhŭngsa in 1794, but then changed back to Hŭngch’ŏnsa in 1865. The monastery is known for its Kŭngnak pojŏn (SUKHĀVATĪ Hall) and MYŎNGBU CHŎN (Hall of Judgment), both of which are Seoul municipal cultural properties.

Hŭngdŏksa. (興德寺). In Korean, “Flourishing Virtue Monastery”; the head monastery of the school of SŎN (Meditation) during the Chosŏn dynasty, located in Sŏdaemun-ku in the capital of Seoul. The monastery was constructed in 1401 at the command of the abdicated first king of Chosŏn, Taejo (r. 1392–1398), to the east of the king’s old residence; it was intended to serve as a source of blessings for his kingdom, his ancestors, his people, and his royal lineage. This monastery became the chief head monastery (tohoeso) in 1424, when the seven schools of Chosŏn-dynasty Buddhism were amalgamated into the two schools of KYO (doctrine) and SŎN (meditation). To the sides of the main shrine hall were two halls, one for Sŏn meditation, the other for doctrinal lectures. The monastery was destroyed during the reign of King Yŏnsan (r. 1494–1506) and never reconstructed.

hungry ghost. See PRETA.

hutuktu. (T. ho thug thu). The Mongolian translation of “noble” (ĀRYA), used in Mongolia as a title for high lamas, especially incarnate lamas (SPRUL SKU).

Huyền Quang. (玄光) (1254–1334). Third patriarch of the TRÚC LÂM school of the Vietnamese THIỀN (C. Chan) tradition; his personal name was Lý Đạo Tái and he was a native of Giang Hạ (present-day Hà Bắc province). After passing the civil-service examination and serving as a scholar-official, he left home to become a monk in 1305, when he was already fifty-one years old. He first studied under Chan master Bão Phác of Lễ Vĩnh monastery and then became a follower of Trần Nhân Tông and, after the latter’s death, of Pháp Loa, who was thirty years his junior. After a short stint as abbot of Vân Yên monastery on Mount Yên Tử, he moved to Côn Sơn monastery. Huyền Quang was already seventy-seven years old when he succeeded Pháp Loa as the third patriarch of the Trúc Lâm school in 1331 but seems never to have had the ambition to lead the Buddhist order. He died at Côn Sơn in 1334. Huyền Quang was a talented poet, who left behind more than twenty poems, most of which deal with the beauty of the natural world.

Huyin Daoji. (J. Koin Dōsai; K. Hoŭn Toje 湖隱道濟) (1150–1209). Chinese monk and thaumaturge who is associated with the YANGQI PAI of the LINJI ZONG of CHAN school; he is most commonly known in Chinese as JIGONG (Sire Ji) and sometimes as Jidian (Crazy Ji). A popular subject in vernacular Chinese fiction and plays, it has become difficult to separate the historical Jigong from the legend. Jigong is said to have been a native of Linhai in present-day Zhejiang province. He later visited the Chan master Xiatang Huiyuan (1103–1176), received the full monastic precepts at his monastery of Lingyinsi (present-day Jiangsu province), and became his disciple. After he left Xiatang’s side, Jigong is said to have led the life of an itinerant holy man. During this period, Jigong’s antinomian behavior, most notably his drinking and meat eating, along with his accomplishments as a trickster and wonderworker, became the subject of popular folklore. His unconventional behavior seems to have led to his ostracism from the SAṂGHA. Jigong later moved to the monastery of Jingcisi, where he died in 1209. His teachings are recorded in the Jidian chanshi yulu (first printed in 1569).

hwajaeng. (C. hezheng; J. wajō 和諍). In Korean, lit. “resolving disputes,” “reconciling doctrinal controversies”; a hermeneutical technique associated with the Silla scholiast WŎNHYO (617–686), which seeks to demonstrate that various Buddhist doctrines, despite their apparent differences and inconsistencies, can be integrated into a single coherent whole. This “ecumenical” approach is pervasive throughout Wŏnhyo’s works, though its basic principle is explained chiefly in his Simmun hwajaeng non (“Ten Approaches to the Reconciliation of Doctrinal Controversy”; only fragments are extant), TAESŬNG KISILLON SO (“Commentary to the ‘Awakening of Faith according to the Mahāyāna’”), and KŬMGANG SAMMAEGYŎNG NON (“Exposition of the *VAJRASAMĀDHISŪTRA”). Wŏnhyo was versed in the full range of Buddhist philosophical doctrines then accessible to him in Korea, including MADHYAMAKA, YOGĀCĀRA, HWAŎM, and TATHĀGATAGARBHA thought, and hwajaeng was his attempt to demonstrate how all of these various teachings of the Buddha were part of a coherent heuristic plan within the religion. All the Buddha’s teachings were in fact representations of the one mind (K. ilsim; C. YIXIN); whatever doctrinal differences seem to exist between them result merely from the limitations inherent in conventional language to express the truth, not from substantive differences in the teachings themselves. One of the means through which Wŏnhyo seeks to demonstrate the truth of hwajaeng is to deploy the dichotomy of “analysis and synthesis” (kaehap)—lit. to “open up” all the various teachings for analysis and to “fold them together” into an overarching synthesis. This process of exegesis was then applied to the hermeneutical schema of “doctrines and essential” (chongyo)—i.e., the various doctrines of Buddhism and their essential truth. Buddhism’s essential truth (yo) is “opened up” (kae) for analysis into all its various doctrines, and those doctrines (chong) are then returned to the one mind when they are “folded together” (hap) into a synthesis. Many of Wŏnhyo’s scriptural commentaries use this hermeneutical technique in their exegeses, especially his seventeen exegetical commentaries (five of which are extant) that are titled chongyo, e.g., his Yŏlban kyŏng chongyo (“Doctrines and Essentials of the MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆASŪTRA”). As one specific example, Wŏnhyo’s analysis of the DASHENG QIXIN LUN (“Awakening of Faith according to the Mahāyāna”) attempts to demonstrate how the emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) doctrine of the Madhyamaka—which Wŏnhyo characterizes as apophasis or lit. “destruction” (K. p’a, C. po)—may been reconciled with the representation-only (VIJÑAPTIMĀTRATĀ) teachings of the Yogācāra—which he characterizes as a kataphasis, or lit. “establishment” (K. ip, C. li)—by reducing them both to the single principle of the “one mind.” The Koryŏ monk ŬICH’ŎN (1055–1101) first posited that the notion of hwajaeng was emblematic of Wŏnhyo’s philosophical approach and petitioned his brother, King Sukchong (r. 1095–1105), to grant Wŏnhyo the posthumous title of Hwajaeng KUKSA (the state preceptor Resolving Controversy) in 1101. Since that time, Wŏnhyo has been viewed as the embodiment of hwajaeng thought in Korea and hwajaeng has often been portrayed as characteristic of a distinctively Korean approach to Buddhist thought.

Hwangnyongsa. (皇/龍寺). In Korean, “royal,” or “Yellow Dragon Monastery” (“royal” and “yellow” are homophonous in Korean); an important Korean monastery located in the Silla-dynasty capital of Kyŏngju. The monastery was constructed between 553 and 569, during the reign of the Silla king Chinhŭng (r. 540–576) and was especially renowned for its sixteen-foot high image of ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha (completed in 574) and its massive, nine-story pagoda (STŪPA), which was built in 645 during the reign of Queen Sŏndŏk (r. 632–647). In the winter of 1238, during the succeeding Koryŏ dynasty (918–1392), the entire monastery, including the buddha image and the pagoda, was totally destroyed by invading Mongol troops, and only the foundation stones currently remain. The site of the monastery was excavated by the Kyŏngju National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage between 1976 and 1983. Royal Dragon monastery flourished due to the support of the Silla royal family, which sought to use Buddhism as an unifying political ideology; The stories told concerning the foundation of the monastery, the image, and the pagoda all reflect this fact. The construction of the monastery is thus often cited as an example of “state-protection Buddhism” hoguk Pulgyo; C. HUGUO FOJIAO) in Korea. According to the SAMGUK YUSA (“Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms”), in the second month of 553, King Chinhŭng was building a new palace to the south of his Dragon Palace and east of Wŏlsŏng palace, when a yellow dragon (hwangnyong) appeared at the site. Yellow dragons were popular autochthonous deities in Silla; hence, given the auspicious nature of this apparition, the king changed plans and instead built a Buddhist monastery on the site, which is called both Yellow Dragon and Royal Dragon monastery in the literature. When the Silla monk CHAJANG (d.u.; fl. c. 590–658) was training at WUTAISHAN in China, an emanation of the bodhisattva MAÑJUŚRĪ told him that Hwangnyongsa was constructed on the site of the dispensation of the previous buddha KĀŚYAPA. Not long after the monastery’s completion, a ship with 57,000 pounds of iron and 30,000 ounces of gold aboard appeared at Sap’o Harbor in Hagok County (currently Kokp’o near Ulsan, on the southeast coast of the peninsula). The ship also carried an inscription, which said that the Indian king AŚOKA, having tried and failed three times to forge a Śākyamuni triad from these metals, had finally decided to load the materials aboard ship, along with models of the images, and send them off in search of a land with the requisite metallurgical skill to craft such a statue. King Chinŭng ordered his metallurgists to forge this sixteen-foot statue of the Buddha, and they succeeded on the first attempt in the third month of 574. Chajang also was told by MAÑJUSRĪ that the queen belonged to the Indian KṢATRIYA caste. He was later told by a divine being that if a nine-story pagoda were constructed within the precincts of Royal Dragon monastery, the kingdoms bordering Silla would surrender and submit to Silla hegemony. Hearing Chajang’s prediction, in 645, the queen built the pagoda, which was 224 feet tall and made entirely of wood. Chajang placed within its columns some of the relics (ŚARĪRA) of the Buddha that he had received at Wutaishan. (Another portion was enshrined at T’ONGDOSA, where they remain still today.) It was said that the nine stories of the pagoda symbolized the nine kingdoms and tribal leagues surrounding Silla. During the time when Hwangnyongsa was constructed, the unification wars between the three Korean kingdoms of Silla, Koguryŏ, and Paekche were raging. The Silla monarchs at this time tried to justify their royal authority by relying on Buddhism, particularly by comparing the Silla rulers to the imported Buddhist notion of the ideal Buddhist ruler, or CAKRAVARTIN (wheel-turning emperor) and by positing that the royal family was genealogically related to the kṣatriya clan of the Buddha. These associations are also obvious in the personal names of Silla kings, queens, and other royal family members. For example, the names of the King Chinhŭng’s two princes were Tongnyun (Copper Wheel) and Kŭmnyun (Gold Wheel), both specific types of cakravartins; additionally, King Chinp’yŏng’s personal name was Paekchŏng and his queen’s was Maya, the Sino-Korean translation and transcription, respectively, of the names of Śākyamuni Buddha’s father and mother, ŚUDDHODANA and MĀYĀ. The foundation of Hwangnyongsa was intimately associated with these attempts by the royal family to employ Buddhism as a tool for justifying and reinforcing its authority. The monastery sponsored the Inwang Paekkojwa hoe (Humane Kings Assembly of One-Hundred Seats), a state-protection (hoguk) rite based on the RENWANGJING (“Scripture for Humane Kings”), in the hopes that the power of the buddhadharma would protect and promote the royal family and the kingdom. According to both the Samguk yusa and the Samguk Sagi (“Historical Records of the Three Kingdoms”), such a ceremony was held at Hwangnyongsa in 613 and 636, before the unification of the three kingdoms, as well as several times subsequently. Monks who resided at Hwangnyongsa also played important roles in Silla politics and religion. WŎN’GWANG (532–630), who composed the five codes of conduct for the “flower boys” (hwarang), an elite group of male aristocratic youths, may have written there a letter to ask Emperor Yangdi (r. 604–618) of the Sui dynasty to attack Koguryŏ on Silla’s behalf. Another resident, Chajang, encouraged the royal family to adopt Chinese official attire and the Chinese chronological era at the Silla court and was appointed kukt’ong (state superintendent), to supervise the entire Silla Buddhist ecclesia. Several other Hwangnyongsa monks, including Hyehun (fl. c. 640), Kangmyŏng (fl. 655), and Hunp’il (fl. 879), were appointed to kukt’ong and other important Silla ecclesiastical positions. Finally, several important Silla scholar-monks resided at Hwangnyongsa, including WŎNHYO (617–686), who delivered his first public teaching of the KŬMGANG SAMMAEGYŎNG NON (“Exposition of the Vajrasamādhisūtra”) at the monastery.

Hwansŏng Chian. (喚醒志安) (1664–1729). Korean monk from the mid-Chosŏn dynasty. Hwansŏng Chian was a disciple of Wŏltam Sŏlche (1632–1704) and of Moun Chinŏn (1622–1703), at the time was the most respected Hwaŏm (HUAYAN) scholar in the kingdom. At Chinŏn’s request, Hwansŏng Chian began to lecture on the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA in Chinŏn’s place. Chinŏn eventually entrusted his disciples to Chian, and Chian thus acquired a name for himself as a Hwaŏm master. In 1725, he held a grand Hwaŏm lecture and attracted more than fourteen hundred listeners. Given the suspicion Buddhist activities engendered during this time of the religion’s persecution, the government was deeply concerned about the potentially seditious impact of his lectures and consequently had him arrested and imprisoned. Chian was released after it was eventually revealed that he was falsely accused. Subsequently, a high Confucian official from Chŏlla province petitioned for his arrest, and he was sent into exile on Cheju island, where he died seven days later on July 7, 1729. His writings include the Sŏnmun ojong kangyo and the Hwansŏng chip.

Hwaŏm ilsŭng pŏpkye to. (C. Huayan yisheng fajie tu; J. Kegon ichijō hokkaizu 華嚴一乘法界圖). In Korean, “Diagram of the DHARMADHĀTU according to the One Vehicle of Hwaŏm (C. HUAYAN),” composed by ŬISANG in 670 and presented to his Chinese teacher, ZHIYAN. Ŭisang first provides a wavelike diagram of the dharmadhātu (also sometimes referred to as the Haein to, or “Oceanic-Reflection Diagram”), which contains a verse in two hundred and ten Chinese characters summarizing the gist of the Huayan school’s interpretation of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA. The diagram and its subsumed verse are then followed by Ŭisang’s own (auto)commentary, itself divided into two major sections: the fundamental purport of the diagram and the detailed interpretation of the verse. In the diagram itself, the path meanders along a single line in order to show that all phenomena are interconnected through the single principle of the dharma nature. The diagram begins and ends at the same place in the center of the maze, to suggest that the inception of practice in the generation of the thought of enlightenment (BODHICITTOTPĀDA) and its consummation through enlightenment are identical. The diagram is broadly divided into four equal sections to demonstrate that the dharma nature is perfected through the four means of conversion (SAṂGRAHAVASTU: viz., giving, kind words, helpfulness, and cooperation). The single path that meanders through the diagram includes fifty-four curves to indicate the teachers that the pilgrim SUDHANA in the GAṆḌAVYŪHA section of the Avataṃsakasūtra consulted in the course of his training—and thus by extension the stages of the BODHISATTVA path. The “Hwaŏm ilsŭng pŏpkye to” served as the foundation of Hwaŏm thought in Korea. There is some controversy over whether the verse itself may have in fact been composed by Zhiyan, with Ŭisang’s contribution being to create the diagram for the verse and write the commentary, but there is not currently a scholarly consensus concerning this issue.

Hwaŏmsa. (華嚴寺). In Korean, “Flower Garland Monastery”; the nineteenth of the major district monasteries (PONSA) in the contemporary CHOGYE order and the largest monastery on the Buddhist sacred mountain of CHIRISAN. According to the Hwaŏmsa monastery history, the monastery was founded in 544 by the obscure monk Yŏn’gi (d.u.), an Indian monk who is claimed to have been the first figure to spread the teaching of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA in Korea. (Five works related to the Avataṃsakasūtra and the DASHENG QIXIN LUN are attributed to Yŏn’gi in Buddhist catalogues, but none are extant.) In 645, during the Silla dynasty, the VINAYA master CHAJANG constructed at the monastery a three-story stone STŪPA with four lions at the base, in which to preserve the relics (ŚARĪRA) of the Buddha. The eminent scholiast WŎNHYO (617–686) is said to have taught at the monastery the “flower boys” (hwarang) group of Silla elite young men. In 677, the important vaunt courier in the Korean Hwaŏm school, ŬISANG (625–702), constructed a main shrine hall, the Changyukchŏn, where a gold buddha image six-chang (sixty feet) high was installed, and had inscribed the eighty-roll recension of the Avataṃsakasūtra on the four stone walls of the hall; since his time, the monastery was known as one of the centers of the Hwaŏm school (HUAYAN ZONG) in Korea. In 1462, during the Chosŏn dynasty, Hwaŏmsa was raised to the status of a main monastery in the Sŏn school (CHAN ZONG) of Buddhism. The monastery burned down during the Japanese Hideyoshi invasion of (1592–1598) and was rebuilt several times afterward. In 1702, the Sŏn monk Kyeba (d.u.) built a new main shrine hall, Kakhwangjŏn, to replace the ruined Changyukchŏn, and the monastery was elevated to a main monastery of both the Sŏn and Kyo (Doctrine) schools. The monastery is the nineteenth of the major parish monasteries (PONSA) in the contemporary CHOGYE order.

Hyech’o. (C. Huichao 慧[惠]超) (d.u.; c. 704–780). Korean monk from the Silla kingdom, best known as the writer of the WANG O CH’ŎNCH’UKKUK CHŎN, translated into English as Memoir of the Pilgrimage to the Five Regions of India. After ordaining in Korea, Hyech’o left for China sometime around 721 and spent perhaps three years on the mainland before departing via the southern sea route for India (the Ch’ŏnch’ukkuk of his travel diary) in 724. After landing on the eastern coast of the subcontinent, Hyech’o subsequently spent about three years on pilgrimage to many of the Buddhist sacred sites, including BODHGAYĀ, KUŚINAGARĪ, and SĀRNĀTH, and visits to some of the major cities in north central India. He then traveled in both southern and western India before making his way toward the Northwest, whence he journeyed on into Kashmir, GANDHĀRA, and Central Asia. Making his way overland across the Central Asian SILK ROADs, Hyech’o arrived back in Chinese territory in December of 727. For the rest of his life, Hyech’o remained in China, collaborating with AMOGHAVAJRA (705–774) and perhaps VAJRABODHI (671–741) in translating esoteric Buddhist scriptures into Chinese (see VAJRAYĀNA, TANTRA, and MIKKYŌ). Hyech’o is mentioned prominently in Amoghavajra’s will as one of his six greatest living disciples. In May 780, Hyech’o left the Chinese capital of Chang’an for the Buddhist pilgrimage site of WUTAISHAN, where he seems to have spent the last months or years of his life.

Hyegŭn. (K) (慧勤). See NAONG HYEGŬN.

Hyemyŏng chŏn. (K) (惠明殿). See WANGNYUNSA.

Hyesim. (K) (慧諶). See CHIN’GAK HYESIM.

Hyeso. (K) (慧昭). See CHIN’GAM HYESO.

Hyeyŏng. (惠永) (1228–1294). Korean monk of the Koryŏ dynasty. In 1238, Hyeyŏng was ordained by Ch’ungyŏn (d.u.) at the monastery of Nambaegwŏlsa. Hyeyŏng passed the Sŏn (CHAN) examinations held at WANGNYUNSA in 1244 and was subsequently given a position at Hŭngdŏksa. In 1259, he was given the title Samjung taesa, and four years later, he was elevated to the status of head seat (sujwa). In 1267, Hyeyŏng moved to the temple Songnisa. Hyeyŏng’s reputation grew, and he was eventually elevated to the highest status of SAṂGHA overseer (sŭngt’ong) in 1269. He also resided at such monasteries as PULGUKSA, T’ONGDOSA, and Chunghŭngsa. In 1290, he led a mission of one hundred monks who specialized in copying Buddhist scriptures to Yuan China and delivered a lecture in the capital. He also copied the Buddhist canon in gold. In 1292, he was given the title Poja Kukchon (National Worthy whose Compassion is Universal) and was also given the title of saṃgha overseer of the five teachings (Ogyodo Sŭngtong). He resided at the monastery of Tonghwasa and remained there until his death in 1294. Hyeyŏng composed a treatise entitled the Paegŭihae.

Hyŏnjŏng non. (顯正論). In Korean, “Treatise on the Exposition of Orthodoxy,” composed by the Chosŏn-dynasty monk KIHWA (1376–1433). In this one-roll treatise, composed probably sometime after 1398, Kihwa attempted to counter the anti-Buddhist polemic of Confucian scholars of his time (e.g., Buddhism as a foreign religion that is financially corrupt, socially parasitic, and philosophically nihilistic) by clarifying the truths of Buddhism. First, Kihwa explains that the nature of the mind is inherently pure and free from discrimination and thus implicitly transcending all religious differences. Kihwa then demonstrates that, despite their differences, Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism each exhibits in its own way the practice of “humaneness,” or “altruism,” toward others, which ensures that all beings have shared responsibility for each others’ quality of life. In the course of his examination, Kihwa clarifies the various attitudes of Buddhists and Confucians toward religious teachings, societal obligations, harming life, drinking liquor, wealth accumulation, and so forth. Kihwa also defends the Buddhist practice of cremation and the notion of KARMAN. Kihwa ultimately contends that a harmonious relation between Confucian and Buddhist teachings is required to regulate the family and govern the state.

Hyujŏng. (K) (休静). See CH’ŎNGHŎ HYUJŎNG.