[1] The full title of the work is the Taehwaŏm sujwa wŏnt’ong yangjung taesa Kyunyŏ-jŏn, or “The Life of the All-Wise, Very Great, Hwaŏm Master, the Venerable Abbot Kyunyŏ” (K 1510b).◀◀
[2] For Ch’oe’s connections with Chinese states, see Part 2, n. 152. ◀◀
[3] The work of Kim Tujin (1977a, 1977b, 1983) and Kim Chigyŏn (1977) may be fairly regarded as the first comprehensive works on Kyunyŏ. With the exception of Yang Chaeyŏn (1959), prior treatments of the Kyunyŏ-jŏn are of very uneven quality. Both Yang (pp. 81-2) and Kim Chigyŏn (pp. 23-4) allude to and provide telling examples of a seeming lack of elementary familiarity with the text on the part of early scholars, including such leading figures as Ogura Shimpei (1929) and Yang Chudong (1942). In Kim’s leading example, all early scholars without exception had misread (or non-read?) a fact as basic and as clearly presented as Kyunyŏ’s birth date.◀◀
[4] The Koryŏ-sa (hereafter KS) has only one passing reference to any person called Hyŏk, a military commander called Hyŏk Yon (KS 4.3A.7) and Hyŏngnyŏn Chŏng himself is the sole Hyŏngnyŏn referred to. The phonetic similarity between Hyŏk’s full name and Hyŏngnyŏn’s family name is noticeable, but as it stands it could be taken both ways. Either it supports reading Hyŏngnyŏn’s family name as “Hyŏk”, or else only Hyŏk’s family name had survived by the time the KS was compiled, and “Hyŏk Yŏn” is, in fact, only his family name. The fact that, by origin, the name Hyŏngnyŏn (Chinese Ho-lien) can be traced back at least to Ho-lien Po-po 赫連勃勃 (381-425), the founder of the fifth-century Hsiungnu state of Ta-hsia, further supports the case for “Hyŏngnyŏn” over “Hyŏk”.◀◀
[5] The T'ang Ta-chien-fu-ssu ku-ssu-chu fan-ching ta-te Fa-tsang ho-shang chuan. The organization of the Kyunyŏ-jŏn is very similar to this work, not just in the number of chapters but in the organization of the individual chapters. Hyŏngnyŏn was, of course, very aware of the work of Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn and specifically mentions the latter’s (now lost) Ŭisang-jŏn in his Foreword.◀◀
[6] Lancaster (1979), pp. 477-8.◀◀
[7] The last known reference to hyangga occurs in an inscription dated 1022 (CKC 251.5), where they are referred to as hyangp’ung chega 鄕風制歌. The colophon to the second fascicle of K1507 (1250) states, inter alia, “However, [Kyunyŏ’s] writings were all written down afterwards from the vernacular song-script [used in] the old teachings. Song-script texts have not been handed down and the Great Root of the Seven Knowings has been lost from the texts.” (See Yang, 1959, for text). Here “song-script” is clearly synonymous with hyangch’al.◀◀
[8] Lee (1957-8, pp. 43-4) states that K 1510a “was entered in the catalogue of the Tripitaka perhaps in 1865”, but quotes no sources for this.◀◀
[9] Ogura (1929), p. 4, as quoted by Yang (1959).◀◀
[10] It is also unfortunate that Lee (1957-8), who has made the only translation of the Kyunyŏ-jŏn into a Western language that we are aware of prior to this one, seems to have used the Ariga text and hence promoted its norms. One is obliged to say “seems to” because neither in Lee (1958-9) nor in Lee (1961) does he state which text he used. One can only assume from his use of “Saryŏn Chŏng” and his frequent references to corruptions in the text that he used one of the various reprints of the Ariga text. One might add that in general, Lee’s translation of the text is frequently inaccurate in itself, and that his references are sometimes suspect. In the matter of the translation of Kyunyŏ’s songs, Lee departs so far from the originals that he has fashioned what are tantamount to original poems, on which, see below, Appendix 2. He gives no sign of having consulted the HYS original of the Bhadracarīpraṇidhāna, nor does he even translate Ch’oe Haenggwi’s poems, an indication that he regards them as mere translations, when even a cursory examination would have revealed that they were creative works in their own right.◀◀
The purpose in making these comments is not to gratuitously criticize a pioneering effort, but rather to explain why such little reference has been made to Lee in this work: the scale of error and misapprehension that originally ensued from a failure to consider even the textual traditions of the Kyunyŏ-jŏn is such that it is not possible to debate point by point the differences between Lee’s and this present translation.
[11] For a full listing and analysis of the contexts of sa’noe in the SGYS see Hwang (1978).◀◀
[12] Inscriptions yield a total of ten dates between 915 and 925, seven with Liang reign-years (CKC 184.14, written in 953; CKC 97.2, 925; CKC 162.11, 944; CKC 199.5, 965; CKC 165.14, 945; CKC 209.14, 974; CKC 225.11, 977) and only one with a T’ang reign-year (CKC 191.11, 958). The remaining two are Later T’ang reign-years which began to be used, initially with some measure of interchangeability with Liang, in 924. The Samguk yusa also uses Liang reign-years for the three dates it refers to within this period. One must at the same time acknowledge that for one of these, the year 915, Iryŏn comments “Older books call it T’ien-yu 12, but now it is written Chen-ming 1” (SGYS 144.3), a comment that seems to reflect a degree of equivocation. It all depends on what constitute “older books”, for the inscriptions use Liang reign-years until the late 10th century and there is no evidence for the practice between that time and Hyŏngnyŏn’s time. It could well be that the term “older books” is strictly relative and refers to the calendrical practices around Hyŏngnyŏn’s time, or approximately 150 years earlier than Iryŏn’s time.◀◀
[13] See Rhi (1978-9) for a description of the Supplement.◀◀
[14] On the process of Sung-Koryŏ rapprochement, see Rogers (1958), especially pp. 194-6.◀◀
[15] Ibid., p. 197.◀◀
[16] Ibid., p. 197, Rhi (1978-9), p. 8.◀◀
[17] See Kim Chigyŏn (1977), p. 21. Kim quotes the following passage written by Ŭich’ŏn about a number of monks, including Kyunyŏ, who were excluded from the Supplement:
“(Their) erroneous books and words are imperfect, the meaning of their writings cannot be elucidated, they have deserted the way of their patriarch, deluded their followers, and there can be no worse things than these.”◀◀
[18] The wider context in which the rise of Kyunyŏ took place was the concerted drive by Kwangjong to consolidate royal power. As the first such consolidator in the Koryŏ dynasty, Kwangjong has attracted considerable attention from Korean historians, but a relating of their debates and conclusions is largely beyond the scope of this work. The conventional view is that Kwangjong’s reign (949-975) may be divided into three periods, those of laying foundations for the process of consolidation (949- 956), implementing key reform measures (956-959), and purging the powerful landed families whose prerogatives he was curtailing (959-975). Kyunyŏ essentially benefited from the second phase, in which the Hwaŏm school with its traditionally close royal associations was patronized at the expense of the Sŏn school, whose connections were more with the landed families. For further details, the reader is referred to the works of Kim Tujin, especially (1983).◀◀
[19] The terms Northern Peak (Pugak) and Southern Peak (Namak) occur sporadically on contemporary Korean inscriptions but it is not possible to define them as Korean Buddhist schools either on the basis of these references, or on the basis of the reference to the dispute between them mentioned by Hyŏngnyŏn. In Chinese Buddhism the two terms referred to the Northern and Southern schools of the Ch’an (Korean Sŏn) school and certainly wherever either term appears in a clear context on Korean inscriptions (e.g. CKC 158.11, dated 943 and CKC 197.7-8, dated 965), there is a clear Sŏn context. This argues for regarding the two Korean schools as Sŏn schools and in turn suggests that Chinese Ch’an school divisions were characteristic of Koryŏ Buddhism at this time. If this is so, then the essential role of Kyunyŏ was that of a syncretizer of Sŏn from the standpoint of the Hwaŏm school. Confusing the issue, however, is the description of the monks whose teachings were referred to by Kyunyŏ’s contemporaries as Northern Peak and Southern Peak as “Hwaŏm leaders” (KYJ 3A.4). Perhaps this is a formal description of their school affiliation, within which they deviated in accordance with the original tenets of the “gradualist” Ch’an Northern School and the “suddenist” Southern School (Chan, 1963, pp. 425-30).
The co-equal status of the Sŏn and Kyo (or Doctrine) schools (Hwaŏm being pre-eminent in the latter) at this time is reflected in the examination system for the Buddhist clergy instituted by King Kwangjong perhaps some time not long after 958, and alluded to by Hyŏngnyŏn (KYJ 3B.7-10). The two schools had separate examinations and separate hierarchies.◀◀
[20] This very fact has the effect of concentrating the period of Kyunyŏ’s most noteworthy activities into a short period between about 957 and 963, when, incidentally, he seems to have written almost all his commentaries (Kim Tujin, 1983, p. 17). Since this was also the period when Kwangjong’s reform campaign was at its height, a connection between the two seems fairly probable. The fact that Hyŏngnyŏn has so little to say about Kyunyŏ’s later years, and the fact that Kyunyŏ did have trouble with Kwangjong over the Chŏngsu allegations also confirm that during the last ten years of his life, he did not have much to do with affairs of state.◀◀
[21] See above, n. 17.◀◀
[22] See, for example, Lancaster (1979), p. xvi.◀◀
[23] Kim Tujin (1983), p. 11, cites a number of examples of Kwangjong’s patronage of the Sŏn school.◀◀
[24] The “100,000 ślokas of the Gaṇḍavyūha" here refers to the entire Hua Yen Sūtra (hereafter HYS). A śloka is a Sanskrit verse of 32 syllables, and is also used as a module to measure the length of works in prose, or in mixed verse and prose.
“Gaṇḍavyūha” is a term of uncertain meaning, possibly indicating a series of displays or manifestations: see Gómez (1967), pp. lxi-lxvi. As a title, it may refer to the entire HYS (which is also known as the Avataṁsaka Sūtra), as in the present case, or to the lengthy last chapter of the work only, which is still extant in Sanskrit as an independent text under the title Gaṇḍavyūha Sūtra (see Liu, 1979, pp. 34-6).
According to Hua Yen tradition, the HYS was taught by the Buddha in the second week of his Enlightenment and recorded by the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. It was then laid aside until Nāgārjuna (2nd century A.D.) visited the palace of the nāgas (dragon- or serpent-deities) and brought back a version in 100,000 ślokas which was to form the basis of the Hua Yen school of Chinese Buddhism. The extant Chinese versions of the Sūtra are actually 36,000-40,000 ślokas in length. The transcription 巘拏㗮賀 for “Gaṇḍavyūha” contrasts with the more usual Chinese transcription 健拏驃賀 as recorded, for example, by Fa Tsang in his commentary on the HYS, the Investigation of Profundities 探玄記, T 1773.121A.10. In fact, there is a note inserted into the text after the character 㗮, which reads 名庚切, thus advising that the character in question is to be pronounced by combining the initial //mi̭-// (from 名, GSR mi̭ăng) with the final //-ăng// (from 庚 GSR kăng), giving a composite //mi̭ăng//. Apart from establishing this “spelling” as indigenous, the note is another indication that the Kyunyŏ-jŏn was composed with a non-Korean readership in mind (see Introduction above), since Koreans themselves would hardly require such a note to remind them of what was a common Silla/Koryŏ transcription practice. On this practice of coining composite characters, see Sasse (1980).◀◀
[25] The Notes in square brackets in this translation are interpolations in the original document.◀◀
[26] The First Patriarch of the Hwaŏm, or Korean Hua Yen school, Ŭisang (625-702) was also a leading figure in Chinese Hua Yen circles during his twenty-year period of residence in China. He studied under the Second (Chinese) Patriarch, Chih Yen 智儼 (602-668) and was a friend and colleague of his fellow-disciple, the Third (Chinese) Patriarch Fa Tsang 法藏 (643-712). The way in which Ŭisang’s name is written here (義湘) differs slightly from the more usual form (義湘) employed, for example, in the SGYS. For a discussion of his teachings, see Chang Wŏn’gyu (1974), pp. 16-31, and Odin (1982), pp. 189-213.◀◀
[27] In Chinese writings, the fu-sang is in the first place a mythical tree, located in the east where the sun rises. As such it is mentioned in the Ch’u tz’u and the Huai-nan Tzu, among other works. Later, it came to be used for an actual tree, namely, the red hibiscus. And finally, it became the name of a country where many fu-sang trees were said to grow, situated somewhere to the east of China, later commonly identified with Japan.
In extant Koryŏ writings, the term carries either the general meaning of “east” as a direction, or else indicates the lands to the east of China and thus, implicitly, the Korean peninsula. Examples of this usage include SGYS 143.3, CKC 192.4 (written in 956), CKC 208.1 (974), CKC 213.13 (974) and CKC 228.1 (977).◀◀
[28] I.e. the Kyunyŏ dynasty (918-1388).◀◀
[29] A pre-eminent Silla scholar and literatus with close Hwaŏm affiliations, Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn (859-?) went to China at the age of twelve, passed the T’ang civil service examination and served the T’ang court before returning to Silla at the age of twenty-eight. The rank icholch'an (GSR i-tiät-ts’ân) is otherwise unknown, and while this recalls the Silla rank ich'an (GSR i-ts’ân), the second-highest of the seventeen Silla official ranks, it is doubtful that Ch’oe possessed such an exalted status. It is thus more likely that it is cognate with ilkilch’an 一吉餐 (GSR iet-kiet-ts’ân), the seventh-highest. Ch’oe had neither a lengthy nor very successful official career in Silla, and is known to have held the rank of ach’an (GSR a-ts’ân), the sixth-highest rank, shortly before his retirement from official life. See Kim T’aejin (1976), p. 5.
The clan seat Ch’ŏngha is also otherwise unknown. Ch’oe’s biography in the SGSG records his place of origin as Sayang-bu near the Silla capital, and also states that records of his family lineage were subsequently lost. No other reference can be found for his Life of Ŭisang, which must also be presumed lost.◀◀
[30] Literally, “the one vehicle”, i.e. the Supreme Vehicle by means of which one may arrive at Buddhahood. The term is applied by the T’ien T’ai (Ch’ŏnt’ae) and Hua Yen schools to their own teachings, which are held to either transcend (as “the Unique Vehicle”) or include (as “the Unifying Vehicle”) the other forms of Buddhism. The term occurs in the Lotus Sūtra, where it is illustrated by the famous parable of the Burning House and the Oxcarts, and in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, as well as throughout Hua Yen literature.◀◀
[31] Otherwise unknown.◀◀
[32] According to the Liao calendar. The Hsien-yung reign-period lasted from early 1065 till the end of 1074. The “first month of the summer of the tenth year of Hsien-yung” thus falls in early 1074, the first month of summer being the fourth month of the year, according to traditional Chinese reckoning.◀◀
[33] Otherwise unknown.◀◀
[34] Unidentified.◀◀
[35] Chinese chin-shih, meaning “presented (to the emperor) scholar”, the highest degree under the T’ang examination system. The text here reads 前進士, which suggests “former chinsa” but since in the ordinary course of things one cannot cease to have attained an academic status, the 前 must mean something like “(who is) now”, or “(at) present”.◀◀
[36] In the HYS and in the Hua Yen school generally, the number ten symbolizes perfection or infinity. See Prince (1983-4), pp. 142-3 and n.32.◀◀
[37] Lit. “the spiritual efficacy of his descent (into the womb) and birth”, implying that Kyunyŏ was a bodhisattva who took birth at this time and place in response to the needs of the Korean people and Korean Buddhism. See chapters 4 and 10 below.◀◀
[38] T’ang calendar. See Introduction for the significance of Hyŏngnyŏn’s use of T’ang reign-years for this period.◀◀
[39] In Hwanghae Province.◀◀
[40] Yi Chun entered the civil service in 1058 (KS 8.5B.6) and was appointed Omissioner on the Left in 1075 (KS 9.14B.3), at which time he would have left Hwangju and returned to the capital. The term “Omissioner” was coined by Arthur Waley to describe the function of Chancery officials responsible for correcting errors and omissions in official documents and, more generally, suggesting ways in which government policies could be improved. See Waley (1951), pp. 41-2.
Given the characteristic short-term nature of magisterial appointments in Korea, it seems likely that the restoration work was ordered and carried out not very long before his departure, and thus at about the same time that Hyŏngnyŏn received his commission to write Kyunyŏ’s biography.◀◀
[41] Not to be confused with the Kyŏngch’ŏn Monastery in Kaep’ung County near the capital. Yang (1959, p. 87) reports that a Kyŏngch’ŏn relay station, located in Hwangju magistracy, is referred to in the Sejong sillok chiriji (15th century). This appears to be the entire extent to which one can trace Kyunyŏ’s place of origin.◀◀
[42] 圓滿偈. The 圓滿 here presumably stands for 圓滿修多羅, another name for the HYS.◀◀
[43] Located just north of the capital, in present-day Yŏngbuk Township (HS, Vol. 17, p. 86).◀◀
[44] Otherwise unknown.◀◀
[45] Ŭisun is otherwise unknown, although the references to him in the Kyunyŏ-jŏn seem to suggest that he was an eminent figure. Yŏngt’ong Monastery was located near the capital, on O’gwan-san, in Imgang Prefecture. It was also known as Mahagap Monastery (KS 56.7B.3), lit. “the monastery on Maha Peak”, in accordance with a general practice, observable in contemporary inscriptions, of referring to a monastery not by its name but by its location (see CKC 126.4, and CKC 180.1 for references to Haein Monastery as Kayagap Monastery). That Mahagap and Yŏngt’ong Monasteries were one and the same is established by a KS reference to a Maha Peak being in the vicinity of Yŏngt’ong Monastery (KS 121.13A.9), and by the colophon to K 1510, where Kyunyŏ’s title in the year 960 is referred to as “the śramaṇa Kyunyŏ of Mahagap Monastery, O’gwan-san”.◀◀
[46] This is presumably an allusion to the “Inscription for Dhuta Monastery” by Wang Chien-ch’i (d.505/6) in the Wen-hsüan:
“The secluded valley is impartial, echoing with every arrival; the great bell is empty and receptive, responding to all who come.” (Wen-hsüan, Vol. 4, fascicle 59, 2B.3-4)◀◀
[47] A common metaphor. See Pao P’u Tzu, (Inner Chapters), 20/1B. 13-2A. 1: “Those who like that sort of thing all flock to join their schools, like rising smoke or gathering mist.”◀◀
[48] The Lotus Sŭtra, Sanskrit title Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sŭtra, is important in the Hua Yen tradition for its parable of the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle (See n. 7 above), which is discussed at length by Fa Tsang in his Treatise on the Five Teachings (T 1866.477Aff.). The reference to eight fascicles here suggests that the monk read from the Kumārajīva translation (K 116), which exists in both seven-and eight-fascicle versions.◀◀
[49] 菩提留支, more usually written 菩提流支. Bodhiruci (?-527) was a native of north India. After his arrival in Loyang in 508, he translated many important works into Chinese, including the Diamond Sŭtra, the Laṅhkāvatāra Sūtra, and the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra. Himself a Yogācārin, he came to be an important figure in the Hua Yen lineage through his joint translation with Ratnamati of Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Sūtra of the Ten Stages, for the school founded on this text, the Ti Lun school, was one of the precursors of the Hua Yen school. (The Sūtra of the Ten Stages forms a chapter of the HYS and still exists in Sanskrit as an independent work, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra.)
There is also another Bodhiruci (572?-727), usually written 菩提流志, who arrived in China from southern India in 683 and collaborated with Śikṣānanda on the translation of the 80-fascicle HYS. Here either Bodhiruci might be meant; the “spelling” (i.e. the characters used) would seem to favour the first, but the more direct connection with the HYS suggests the latter.◀◀
[50] Meghaśrī is the monk who is Sudhana’s first human guru (after the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī) in his quest for Enlightenment as related in the GVS.◀◀
[51] 知識, equivalent to 善知識 the Chinese translation of kalyāṇamitra, a “good friend”, or spiritual guide. Avalokiteśvara is associated with the Lotus Sūtra and with the Pure Land school, as well as with many texts such as the ones mentioned in n. 30. Samantabhadra personifies the aspirations and practices of the bodhisattva, and as such features prominently throughout the HYS.◀◀
[52] Unidentified. See n. 11.◀◀
[53] The abbreviated title for four texts of a tantric nature (Taishō Nos 1057, 1058, 1060, and 1064) concerned with the cult of the Thousand-Armed Avalokiteśvara (Sahasrabhujāryāvalokiteśvara).◀◀
[54] Unidentified. The Six Stages are presumably the Six Stations, six sections into which the Forty-two Stations of the Bodhisattva Path are divided by commentators on the 60HYS. The six are: Ten Types of Faith, Ten Abidings, Ten Transferrals (of Merit), Ten Stages, Perfect Enlightenment and Sublime Enlightenment (or Buddhahood). The 80HYS is supposed to have Fifty-two Stations, divided into seven sections, with the Ten Practices being added as the third section.◀◀
[55] Unidentified. The title is reminiscent of Chih Yen’s Fifty Important Questions and Answers Concerning Hua Yen (T 1869). See n. 71 below.◀◀
[56] See Introduction, n. 19.◀◀
[57] Founded in 802, Haein Monastery possessed strong Hwaŏm affiliations, beginning with its name, which literally means “Ocean Seal” (Sāgaramudrā in Sanskrit). The idea behind this term is that the ocean (here symbolizing the mind), when completely calm, becomes a mirror reflecting all the phenomena of the universe. The word “seal”, then, refers to the “impression” of these images on the ocean. The “Ocean Seal Samādhi” and the “Hua Yen Samādhi, indicating the enlightened mind’s innate awareness and functional qualities respectively, are frequently mentioned in Hua Yen literature.
Haein Monastery is cited in the SGYS as one of the Ten Cardinal Hwaŏm Monasteries designated by Ŭisang (SGYS 353.4), though this designation might have been made by his Dharma lineage, since the monastery was not founded until one hundred years after his death (HS Vol. 7, p. 23). It was also Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s place of residence after his retreat from public life. This passage of the Kyunyŏ-jŏn confirms that Haein Monastery was a main seat of Buddhist learning in the mid-l0th century, with its disputes capable of becoming characteristic of contemporary Hwaŏm Buddhism as a whole.◀◀
[58] The state referred to here as Paekche is more usually called Later Paekche to distinguish it from the original kingdom of Paekche (ca. 4th century to 663), in whose former territory Kyŏn Hwŏn (dates unknown) established himself, proclaiming his kingdom in 892 and basing his legitimacy on a claim of succession to the former kingdom. He and Wang Kŏn (877-943), the founder of the Koryŏ dynasty, contended with each other for military control of the region south of the Sŏbaek Range, most strenuously between 927 and 935, after which Wang emerged as the decisive victor (SGSG, Chapter 50).
Since Haein Monastery was situated in the general area of these military operations and since the SGSG’s account gives the general impression that the rivalry was not an especially ferocious one, it does not seem unusual to find the monastery receiving patronage from both sides. Indeed, one could argue that this evidence in the Kyunyŏ-jŏn of co-existence, albeit hostile, at Haein Monastery is itself evidence of a lack of ferocity in the struggle between Wang and Kyŏn Hwŏn. For general accounts of this rivalry see Hurst (1981) and Gardiner (1987).
The two Hwaŏm leaders referred to—Kwanhye and Hŭirang—are almost completely unknown. On the former, see Kim Tujin (1977a), p. 110-11. King Taejo was, of course, Wang Kŏn.◀◀
[59] Skt. dharmarasa(āhāra). The term occurs in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and elsewhere, and is commonly used to indicate the essence of the Dharma, or its distinctive quality. The Dharma is supposed to have a single flavour (ekarasa), which is that of Deliverance (vimukti), and is traditionally compared to the uniformly salty taste of the ocean (see the Pali Udana, PTS edition, p. 56). “The sour and the salty” is a phrase often used in Chinese to indicate different types of flavour.◀◀
[60] Lit. “in order to block the numerous byways and point out (the way of) returning to the single rut.”◀◀
[61] Otherwise unknown.◀◀
[62] In the absence of a context, or any further information about the contents of the discourses, many of these titles are difficult to interpret. Translations given in such cases are only tentative.◀◀
[63] The “Three Teachings” are presumably Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, as in Kūkai’s The Purport of the Three Teachings (Sangō Shiki), though the term could also indicate some