A Preliminary Study of Hanshan Deqing’s

Zhaolun Luezhu
Shi Zhirui

2nd year of Master Degree in the Department of Buddhist Studies, Fo Guang University

Abstract

This paper is a preliminary study of Hanshan Deqing’s 憨 山 德 清 (1546-1623)

Zhaolun luezhu 肇 論 略 注 (General Annotation on the Zhaolun). As the first

indigenous commentary on Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy in Chinese Buddhism,

the Zhaolun 肇論 (Treatises of Sengzhao) composed during the first half of the fifth

century has invited many discussions. Before directly probing into the content of the

text and the method how Hanshan Deqing annotated the Zhaolun, we are confronted

with a dispute over the date of birth of its author, Sengzhao 僧肇 (384?-414).

Therefore, this paper will first recap the recent scholarship dealing with Sengzhao's life

in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks) compiled in the Liang,

which is the origin of this issue, and then provide a different depiction from Hanshan's

Zhaolun luezhu as another possible solution to the debate.

Next section returns us to the historical setting of Hanshan’s age when the Zhaolun

luezhu was compiled. Accounting for one of later commentaries on the Zhaolun, the

Zhaolun luezhu mirrors many important characters of Buddhism in the later Ming

dynasty. It was an era marked by political corruption as well as intellectual diversity,

making Hanshan exert himself to reconcile relationship between Buddhism, society and

politics, and to synthesize Chan and doctrine 禪教, xing and xiang 性相, and three

religions 三教 (Buddhism, Daoism and Neo-Confucianism) with his sophisticated

0
philosophy of Mind adopted from Tiantai, Weishi and, in particular, Huayan thoughts.

The evidence for this can be seen in the massive use of concepts adduced from relevant

sutras in most of Hanshan’s works and discourses.

As Huijin 慧浸 (active during 1617) wrote in the epilogue 跋 attached to the

Zhaolun luezhu, Hanshan was deemed as a conveyer of Sengzhao. Besides, Hanshan

could discern Sengzhao’s main purpose of composing these treatises, and thus was able

to dissolve the prejudice and various misunderstandings from historical critics for the

Zhaolun. The second section aims at examining Hanshan's motivation of annotating the

Zhaolun, and tries to present this text within the scope of Hanshan’s biography and

ideological background.

First and foremost, it will be difficult to isolate any influence of Chinese local

culture and other philosophy such as Huayan, Daoism, etc. from the Zhaolun. In fact,

Reality 實相 was interpreted with Chinese mindset, and it had cut across subsequent

generations. Consequently, although the wide array of historical commentaries on the

Zhaolun seemingly come to assume the mantle of Madhyamaka philosophy; rather, they

are more like the embodiment that demonstrate the evolutionary interpretation of

Reality throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism. By the same token, we can also

find through these commentaries including the Zhaolun luezhu, one representative

annotation on the Zhaolun in the Ming, that the concept of Mind had eventually risen to

prominence as the common and ultimate understanding towards Reality in Chinese

Buddhism.

Even though recent researchers have questioned the authorship of some chapters of

the Zhaolun, on which those exegists made no remarks, it is essential to analyze the

structure of the text so as to unveil, clarify some basic problems, and even further

understand the relationship between Hanshan and his annotation. As a result, as the final

section of this preliminary study, I’m going to present some features of the Zhaolun

1
luezhu by comparing with other exegeses chronologically and comparatively in order to

see the characteristic of the Zhaolun luezhu. And find how Hanshan’s personality, ideas,

and life influenced the way of compiling the Zhaolun luezhu.

本文旨在管窺憨山德清（1546-1623）之《肇論略注》
。作為中國第一部闡發龍

樹中觀思想的本土論著，成文於五世紀前半葉的《肇論》橫亙後世千五百多年間，

已激起中外層出的論述。在逕行探討憨山德清註解《肇論略注》的動機、方式及

行文結構之前，
《肇論》作者的疑跡成為我們首迎且難以迴避的第一個爭論，即《梁

高僧傳》中所引發之僧肇（384?-414）的生卒年問題。因此，本文首將扼要爬梳過

去賢達對於僧肇生平之討論，並試圖藉由憨山德清在《肇論略注》中有關僧肇生

平的敘述，為種種疑點提出另一合理且能與其他文獻相行不悖的解決方式。

第二節將回溯憨山德清注解《肇論》的歷史背景。位列《肇論》之晚期注疏

之一，《肇論略注》反映晚明的佛教特色。當時政事腐敗、科舉僵化；相形之下，

佛教義理思潮卻馳騁於多元開放的風氣中。憨山處在這樣的時勢，充分發揮其融

會貫通的能力。他廣攝天台、唯識、尤其華嚴等諸經論，將各宗派的立場會通於

「一心」理論；立足於佛教的義理，調和其與政治社會的關係，更致力於融合教

界的禪與教、性與相，乃至儒釋道三教。這點特色在憨山德清的許多著書與開示

可資證明，《肇論略注》亦是一例。另據慧浸（活躍於 1617 年）於《肇論略注》

卷尾的〈跋〉寫道，憨山可以說是僧肇的後繼者，蓋因其能洞察僧肇造論之深意，

且能針對各家對《肇論》的辯難進行駁斥與辨析。因此，透由憨山的生平和思想

背景，來探討其注解《肇論》的動機，將是本節重點。

此外，中國本土文化與其他思想對《肇論》的影響不可忽視；換句話說，
《肇

論》所揭示的實相及論述的方式，係中國人不得不以自身文化背景來詮釋、溝通

的成果。以此背景考究歷代《肇論》的注釋書，與其稱似繼承《肇論》所表達的

中觀思想，未若視為中觀思想在中國佛教不斷演變的思想象徵，亦是展現中觀與

華嚴、天台等不同思想競合的文字載體。從時間軸來看，成書於明末的《肇論略

2
注》，著實演譯了佛教的「實相」概念歷經千年之後，「一心」思想如何躋身為中

國佛教所共同認定之實相的究竟內涵。

最後將探討《肇論略注》的架構。儘管現代學者就《肇論》部份篇章之作者

提出質疑，而歷代注釋家並未有所著墨。因此，本文暫且摒除相關篇章作者的爭

議而不論，僅就《肇論》與歷代注釋書的內文架構進行比對，試圖從中開顯乃至

釐清《肇論略注》的特色與版本問題。期此研究能歸結憨山德清與《肇論略注》

之間的關係；若能從中找出憨山德清之生平、思想、個性對《肇論略注》的影響，

誠為值耗棗梨之研究動機了。

Keywords: Hanshan Deqing, Zhaolun, Zhaolun luezhu, Buddhism of the Ming

3
I. Introduction
As the first indigenous commentary on Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy in

Chinese Buddhism, the Zhaolun has invited many discussions on how Reality was

interpreted with Chinese mindset. Besides, the date of birth of its author, Sengzhao, also

become the focus of debates, which are aroused from the earliest version of Senzhao’s

life in the Gaoseng zhuan compiled in the Liang. This paper will first recap the recent

scholarship dealing with Senzhao’s life in the Gaoseng zhuan, and provide a different

depiction from Hanshan Deqing’s Zhaolun luezhu as another possible solution to these

debates. Besides, this paper also aims at examining Hanshan’s motivation of annotating

the Zhaolun, and the structure of the Zhaolun luezhu.

II. Review of the Disputations over the Life of Sengzhao

Before addressing the scholars’ analysis and relevant narrative in the Zhaolun luezhu, I

shall start with the origin of these debates. According to the Gaoseng zhuan, 1

Sengzhao’s life can be summarized into five stages as follows:

Stage 1. Sengzhao’s Life and Study before the Renunciation: He was acquainted

with Laozi and Zhuangzi’s philosophy. When his mind found settled and at ease in the

Vimalakirti Sutra of an old translation, he as a result decided to renounce.2

Stage 2. Sengzhao’s Youth Life and Early Fame: He rose to fame because of his

talent and eloquence “by the time he came of age” (jizai guannian 及在冠年). People,

out of distrust of young Sengzhao’s intelligence, came from Changan 長安 and afar to

argue with Senzhao, and then suffered defeat by his sophisticated rhetoric.3

Stage 3. Sengzhao’s Encountering with Kumārajīva 鳩 摩 羅 什 (344 ～ 413?):

1
See the Biography of Sengzhao in the “Yijie pian” 義解篇 (Chapter of Exegetes) in the Gaoseng
zhuan. (CBETA, T50, no. 2059, pp. 365a9 - 366a29)
2
CBETA, T50, no. 2059, p. 365a9-14.
3
CBETA, T50, no. 2059, p. 365a14-19.

4
Sengzhao went afar to Guzang 姑臧 and started learning under Kumārajīva who

marveled at Sengzhao’s talent. It is worth noting that a Chinese character “hou” 後

(thereafter) was put at the outset of this stage, sparking a controversial issue over the

year of their first meeting.4

Stage 4. Sengzhao’s Life in Changan: This stage elaborates Sengzhao’s main

achievements. Following Kumārajīva’s coming back from Guzang to Changan,

Sengzhao helped his master translate sutras at the Xiaoyao compound (xiaoyao yuan 逍

遙園) under the edicts from Yaoxing 姚興 (366-416), the emperor of the Later Qin

(Houqin 後秦, 384-417). He wrote treatises such as “Bore wuzhi lun” 般若無知論,

“Buzhenkong lun” 不真空論, “Wubuqian lun” 物不遷論, and “Niepan wuming lun”

涅 槃 無 名 論 ; annotated the Vimalakīrti Sutra 維 摩 詰 經 , composed numerous

introductions of sutras or sastra, and built good relationship with the emperor as one of

Kumārajīva’s prominent disciples.5

Stage 5. Sengzhao’s Death at the Age of 31 in Changan: Sengzhao passed away in

the tenth year of the Yixi 義熙 of the Jin 晉, i.e. the 16th year of the Hongshi 弘始

era (414AD) of the Later Qing, the contemporary dynasty in the northern China. 6

According to the narrative in the Gaoseng zhuan, Sengzhao earned a reputation

when he was twenty years old (403AD), from which it’s reasonable to deduce that

Sengzhao must be exactly or older than twenty when “thereafter” coming back Changan

together with Kumārajīva. However, this deduction does not coincide with his own

statement in the treatise of “Niepan wuming lun” that he had followed Kumārajīva

dying in the eleventh year of the Hongshi era (409AD)7 “for more than ten years”.8

4
CBETA, T50, no. 2059, p. 365a19-20
5
CBETA, T50, no. 2059, pp. 365a20 - 366a29.
6
CBETA, T50, no. 2059, p. 366a29.
7
See the Biography of Kumārajīva in the “Yijing pian” 譯經篇 (Chapter of Translators) of the Gaoseng
zhuan: “[Kumārajīva,] on 20th August, eleventh year of Hongshi era of Pseudo-Qin (409AD), died at
Changan. This year [when he passed away] was in the fifth year of Yixi era of Jin dynasty. 《高僧傳．譯
經篇．鳩摩羅什》 ：「以偽秦弘始十一年八月二十日卒于長安，是歲晉義熙五年也。」(CBETA, T50,

5
What’s more, there are plenty of relative literature, including the biography of

Kumārajīva in the Gaoseng zhuan and many introductions of sutras compiled by

Kumārajīva’s disciples,9 indicating that Kumārajīva came back Changan in the third

year of the Hongshi era (401AD), from which Sengzhao’s age shall be estimated to be

exactly or less than eighteen years old when they first met at Guzang instead of “after”

twenty years old. 10

Furthermore, Tsukamoto Zenryu 塚本善隆 (1898-1980) points out that Sengzhao

would be unreasonably too young to be that erudite if he really died at age “31” (stage 5)

in the tenth year of Yixi era. As he estimated, if Sengzhao was eighteenth when arriving

at Changan with Kumārajīva (stage 4), then his age would be reckoned to be

approximately seventeenth at Guzang (stage 3), started learning Buddhism before rising

to fame at around fifteenth (stage 2), and got acquainted with Daoism at around

thirteenth (stage 1). Consequently, as an attempt to solve these controversies triggered

by his age of death, Tsukamoto argues that ten more years should be added to

Sengzhao’s age as “xi” 卌 (forty) rather than “sa” 卅 (thirty) of original version in the

no. 2059, p. 333a3-6)

8
See the “Niepan wuming lun” in Zhaolun: “[I,] Zhao, as a humble person, could leisurely live and study
by virtue of imperial kindness, and had studied under Kumārajīva for more than ten years.” 《肇論．涅槃
無名論》 ： 「肇以人微，猥蒙國恩，得閑居學肆，在什公門下十有餘載。」(CBETA, T45, no. 1858, p.
157a20-21)
9
Many literature provides evidences proving that Kumārajīva arrived at Changan in the third year of
Hongshi era (401AD). See the biography of Kumārajīva in the “Yijing pian” of the Gaoseng zhuan, “Da
zhidu lunxu” 大智度論序 (Introduction to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra) compiled by Sengrui 僧叡
(d.401), “Banzuo wuzhi lun” (On Prajñā Not Cognizant) of the Zhaolun, and “Fanwang gjingxu” 梵網經
序 (Introduction to the Brahmajāla-sūtra) compiled by Sengzhao 僧肇, etc. Here take one as example:
“[Venerable Kumārajīva…] on 20th December in the third year of Hongshi era of Qin, on Xingji of twelve
categories of star-year, came from Guzang to Changan.” 《大智度論序》 ：「[鳩摩羅耆婆法師…]以秦弘
始三年，歲次星紀，十二月二十日，自姑臧至長安。」(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 57a27-28)
10
Many scholars studying Sengzhao’s life raise the same doubts. See Tsukamoto, translated by Qiu
Minjie 邱敏捷, “‘Zhaolun’ zai fojiao shishang de yiyi” 肇論在佛教史上的意義 in Miauxin zazhi 妙心
雜誌 (2004.07, accessed June 2, 2020, http://www.fjdh.cn/wumin/2009/04/23570968466.html). Hong
Xiuping 洪修平, Zhaolun (Gaoxiong: Foguang wenhua 佛光文化, 1996), pp. 12-13. And Tu Yanqiu 涂豔
秋, Sengzhao sixiang yanjiu 僧肇思想研究 (Taipei: Dongchu 東初, 1995), pp. 12-13.

6
Gaoseng zhuan possibly transcribed with a clerical error.11

Adjusting his age to forty seems to provide a possible solution, however, it does

cause more problems as follows. First, there is no evidence showing that the Chinese

abbreviation “卅” is used for “三十” in the original text and elsewhere in the Gaoseng

zhuan.12 Second, there are many monks born talented and became erudite even younger

than Senzhao. 13 The cause of this controversy lies in whether Sengzhao met

Kumārajīva de facto “after” twenty, which obviously contradicts other literature. Rather

than correcting the age to rationalize its order of life, reinterpreting Sengzhao’s life in

the Gaoseng zhuan will be another feasible solution. In terms of that, the Zhaolun

luezhu does provide a different narrative of Sengzhao’s life.

In the Zhaolun Luezhu, Sengzhao decided to renounce 出家 when reading the

Vimalakirti Sutra of an old translation, and then rose to fame as he became a shamen 沙

門 (śramaṇa) at twenty years old,14 which implies that the age when he renounced was

prior to twentieth, and he didn’t receive the bhikṣu precepts until twentieth. Besides,

Sengzhao passed away at age 32 instead of 31 recorded in the Gaoseng zhuan, thus he

was possible to become a shamen within one year after coming back Changan with

Kumārajīva. It is worth noting that the character “hou” 後 (thereafter) is deleted in the

beginning of stage 3, which makes sense that Sengzhao could become a well-known

shamen and engage in a series of exchanges with people after meeting Kumārajīva.

Surprisingly enough, Misi 秘思 (994-1056) in the Zhaolun jijie 肇論集解 also

11
Tsukamoto, translated by Qiu Minjie 邱敏捷, “Zhaolun’ zai fojiao shishang de yiyi”, 2004.07.
12
Tu Yanqiu 涂豔秋, Sengzhao sixiang yanjiu 僧肇思想研究 (Taipei: Dongchu 東初, 1995), p. 13.
13
We can find many highly intelligent young monks in the Gaoseng zhuan. For example, Shi Huiguan
釋慧觀 who “was famed for being erudite at the age of ten” 十歲便以博見馳名 (CBETA, T50, no.
2059, p. 368b8-9); Shi Sengrou 釋僧柔 who “mastered sutras and śāstras, and became renowned when
he was young” 學通經論，聲譽早彰 and “start teaching soon after he was twentieth” 年過弱冠便登講
席 (CBETA, T50, no. 2059, p. 378c4-11).
14
See the Zhaolun luezhu: “When later he read the Vimalakirti sutra of an old translation, he carry it on
top of head with joy and said, “I know where I belong”, therefore he decided to renounce. He became a
monk at twentieth and rose to fame among the capital.” 《肇論略註》卷 1： 「後見舊《維摩經》 ，歡喜
頂受，乃曰：『始知所歸矣』，因此出家。年二十為沙門，名震三輔。」 (CBETA, X54, no. 873, pp.
289-330)

7
pointed out that Sengzhao met Kumārajīva when he was nineteen.15 Furthermore, this

different version of Sengzhao’s life was not first used by Hanshan; it could be seen in

the Longxing biannian tonglun 隆興編年通論 compiled by Zuxiu 祖琇 (d. 1164) of

the South Song Dynasty 16 and Fozu lidai tongzai 佛 祖歷 代通 載 compiled by

Nianchang 念常 (1282-1341) of the Yuan Dynasty. 17

II. Hanshan Deqing’s Life and Motivation of Annotating the Zhaolun

Born on 5 November 1546, Hanshan embodied all features of Buddhism that could be

seen in the Late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) in his prolific life. It was an era marked by

political corruption, but also intellectual diversity18, making Hanshan exert himself to

reconcile relationship between Buddhism, society and politics, and to synthesize Chan

and doctrine 禪教, xing and xiang 性相, and three religions 三教 (Buddhism, Daoism

and Neo-Confucianism) with his sophisticated philosophy of Mind adopted from the

Tiantai, Weishi and, in particular, Huayan thoughts.19 Hsu Sung-peng 徐頌鵬 (1938-)

writes in the A Buddhist Leader in Ming China:

He (Hanshan) states in many places that the philosophy of Mind is best

summarized in the following eight Chinese words: san-chieh wei-hsin,
wan-fa wei-shih, which means that the three realms of desire, form, and
formless are mere Mind, and that the ten thousand dharmas are mere ideation
or consciousness. … In essence it expresses the ideas embodied in the
Hua-yen, T’ien-t’ai, and Wei-shih philosophies. On the other hand, it affirms
the Hua-yen teaching of Ocean-symbol samādhi and the T’ien-t’ai doctrine
of three thousand worlds in a moment of consciousness. …On the other hand,

15
See Ito Takatoshi 伊藤隆壽, translated by Lin Mingyu 林鳴宇, Zhaolun jijie ling mochao 肇論集解
令模鈔 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji 上海古籍, 2008), p. 290.
16
CBETA, X75, no. 1512, p. 125b8-16.
17
CBETA, T49, no. 2036, pp. 529c25 - 530a6.
18
Wang Honglei 王紅蕾, Hanshan deqing yu wanming shilin 憨山德清與晚明士林 (Beijing: Zhong
guo shehui kexue chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社, 2010.3), pp.11-12.
19
Hsu Sung-peng 徐頌鵬, A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The life and Thought of Han-Shan
Te-ching (New York: Penn State University Press, 1970), pp. ix-x, 106-110.

8
 the statement adopts the Wei-shih idea that the ten thousand dharmas are
merely projections of the Mind through the transformation of the eight
consciousness. 20

Indeed, Hanshan always turned to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra when confronted with those

major events in his life, and quiet often preached the Lotus-sūtra, Awakening of

Mahāyāna Faith, sutras of Yogacāra, Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, Śūraṃgama-sūtra and Sutra

of Perfect Enlightenment as topics of those dharma talks, or adduced them in his

productive commentaries, letters, fayu 法 語 (records of teachings), etc. 21 His

proficient ability of employing the idea of “Mind only” to integrate different doctrines is

pervasive in his thought, including the way he annotated the Zhaolun, exhibiting the

Mind-only interpretation of Madhyamaka philosophy. It is not only Hanshan, but also

many Chan monks in the Ming Buddhism truly surprise us with their countless

commentaries on manifold sutras.22

Recorded in Hanshan’s autobiography, he once encountered an important

awakening experience during one winter retreat at age 29, as he proofread the Zhaolun

zhongwu jijie 肇論中吳集解 (also abbreviated as Zhaolun jijie) being written down by

Jingyuan 淨源 (1011-1088) according to the discourse of Misi.23 The author of the

“Hanshan dashi zhuan” 憨山大師傳 (Biography of Master Hanshan) attached to the

Hanshan laoren mengyou ji skillfully combines this experience with one childhood

experience at age seven, implying that his awakening to the motif stated in the treatise

20
Hsu Sung-peng 徐頌鵬, A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The life and Thought of Han-Shan
Te-ching (New York: Penn State University Press, 1970), pp. 108-109.
21
It’s obvious to detect Hanshan’s great admiration for the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and Venerable Master
Chengguan 澄觀(738-839), the forth patriarch of Huayan school. See narratives of his autobiography at
the age of 19, 32, 33, 36, 68 ,etc. recorded in the “Hanshan laoren zixu nianpu” 憨山老人自序年譜 (the
Old Man Hanshan's Annalistic Autobiography) in Hanshan laoren mengyou ji 憨山老人夢遊集
(Collection of Old Man Hanshan's Dream Travels). (CBETA, X73, no. 1456, pp. 832a23-b19, 836a24-b7,
836b8-c7, 837b3-c1, 844a5-12)
22
Shi Shengyan 釋聖嚴, Mingmo fojiao yanjiu 明末佛教研究 (Taipei: Fagu wenhua 法鼓文化, 2000),
pp. 45-47.
23
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 834c9-22.

9
of “Wubuqian lun” of the Zhaolun not only solved his doubt about the meaning of the

text itself, but also about the Truth of birth and death.24

Many years later, Hanshan annotated the Zhaolun during one summer retreat at

Jinzhuping 金竹坪 in 1616 at age 71.25 In the beginning of the Zhaolun luezhu, while

explaining Sengzhao’s motivation for compiling the Zhaolun, Hanshan affirmed the

doctrinal contribution of Zhaolun and highly praised Sengzhao’s view of the Reality:

公為什門高弟，從譯場翻譯諸經，久參什師，深達實相。比因佛法西來
甚少，大義未暢，時人多尚老莊虗無之談，而沙門釋子亦相尚之，…。
公愍大道未明，故造此四論以破邪執，斯立言之本意也。論者，謂假立
賓主，徵析論量，以顯正理，摧破邪執、人法雙影，故曰《肇論》。26
He (Sengzhao) was an excellent disciple of Kumārajīva, and translated many
sutras in the translation center. Having been learned under Kumārajīva so
long that he penetrated deeply into Reality. The great doctrine failed to be
revealed because the Dharma coming from the west was not sufficient. So
most people of his age tended to explain [the Reality] with nihilism, which
Buddhist monks also agreed with this understanding. … He lamented over
the great path being overshadowed, so he composed the four treatises for
dispelling mistaken views. This was his motivation for proposing his
perspectives. The meaning of “lun” is to conventionally establish an occasion
where author and interlocutor engage in discussion, to test, analyze,
comment and judge in order to disclose the truth, and refute the false
attachment to the concept of both self and phenomena. As a result the title
Zhaolun was given.

This citation points out that the motivation of Sengzhao to compile the treatises is to

“refute the mistaken attachment” 摧破邪執 of six houses and seven schools 六家七宗.

Hanshan not only stood along with Sengzhao’s view, but also considered Sengzhao a

learned disciple of Kumārajīva, who was able to revolutionize the traditional view of

Reality that had been distorted by Daoism at his age.

24
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 831a19-b4, 834a20-c22, 852c9-20.
25
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 844c3-4.
26
CBETA, X54, no. 873, p. 330b7-15.

10
 Apart from one public discourse upon the Zhaolun when he was 76 years old,27

Hanshan also quoted Zhaolun a lot in the discourses to Zhou Ziyin 周子寅 (d. u.), the

Guan laozhuang yingxiang lun 觀 老 莊 影 響 論 , and letters to Zhencheng 鎮 澄

(1547-1617),28 which also shows his deep understanding of the Zhaolun.

As Huijin 慧浸 (active during 1617) wrote in the epilogue 跋29 attached to the

Zhaolun luezhu, Hanshan was deemed as a conveyer of Sengzhao. Besides, Hanshan

could discern Sengzhao’s main purpose of composing these treatises, and thus was able

to dissolve the prejudice and various misunderstandings from historical critics for the

Zhaolun.

III. Structure and Style of the Zhaolun luezhu

If we read the biography of Sengzhao in the Gaoseng zhuan compiled in the Liang, four

treatises had not yet been collected as one book titled Zhaolun, and the “Zongbenyi” 宗

本義 was totally not mentioned.30 The circulating Zhaolun starts with an introduction

(hereafter abbreviated as the “Zhaolun xu” 肇論序) written by Huida 慧達, a monk of

the Temple Xiaozhaoti 小招提 in the Chen 陳 dynasty. 31 This version is said to be

the earliest one consisting of the chapter of “Zongbenyi” as well as other four

treatises.32

The author of the introduction, Huida 慧達, is purported to compile the Zhaolun

shu 肇論疏, which is ascribed to another Huida “惠達” of the Jin dynasty collected in

27
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 845c8-9.
28
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 540a17-b17, p. 541b2-15, pp. 548c18 - 549b16, and pp. 766c8 - 767b5.
29
CBETA, X54, no. 873, p. 368c3-13.
30
Many scholars have discussed the authorship of the chapter of “Zongbenyi” a lot. More information
see Qiu Minjie, Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan (Taipei: Zhi 致出版, 2020.04), pp.30-37, and Hong
Xiuping Zhaolun (Gaoxiong: Foguang wenhua, 1996), pp. 13-14.
31
Yuankang 元康 (627-649) of the Tang 唐 annotated the author of Zhaolun xu, Huida 慧達, as
follows: “Venerable Huida is a man of Chen, monk of the Temple Xiaozhaoti.” 慧達法師是陳時人，小
招提寺僧也。(CBETA, T45, no. 1859, p. 161c16-19). While Jingyuan 淨源 (1011-1088) of the Song 宋
claimed that “(Huida) is the teacher of the Liang emperor Wu.” (慧達)為梁武帝門師. (See in Ito
Takatoshi, translated by Lin Mingyu , Zhaolun jijie ling mochao, Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008, p. 6)
32
Qiu Minjie, Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan (Taipei: Zhi, 2020.04), pp.21-23.

11
the Xu canon 續藏.33 However, attested by the Gaoseng zhuan, Huida 慧達 of the Jin

is impossible to be the compiler of the Zhaolun shu,34 and Huida 慧達 of the Chen

who wrote the Zhaolun xu could not be the compiler of the Zhaolun shu either.35

Consequently, in this paper I would provisionally designate Huida 惠達 of the Jin as

the author of the Zhaolun shu.

Before Hanshan, there are more than twenty commentaries or annotations on the

Zhaolun.36 This section is going to present some features of Hanshan’s Zhaolun luezhu

by comparing with other exegeses chronologically in order to see the characteristic of

Hanshan’s Zhaolun luezhu in the Ming. The chosen exegeses are the Zhaolun shu

compiled by Huida 惠達 from the Jin, another Zhaolun shu 肇論疏 by Yuankang 元

康 (traveled around the capital during 627-649) from the Tang 唐, Zhaolun jijie by

Jingyuan from the Song, Zhu zhaolun shu 注肇論疏 by Zunshi 遵式 (1042-1103)37

from the Song, and Zhaolun xinshu 肇論新疏 by Wencai 文才 (1241-1302) from the

33
Tu Yanqiu, Sengzhao sixiang yanjiu (Taipei: Dongchu, 1995), pp. 16-17.
34
Qiu Minjie examines in the “xingfu pian” 興福篇 (Chapter of Benefactors) of the Gaoseng zhuan
compiled in the Liang, and finds that Huida 慧達 of the Jin was alive prior to Sengzhao. Qiu also points
out that Huida 慧達 of Chen is actually the author of Zhaolun shu, but Huida 慧達 here is not the same
person as Huida 慧達 who wrote the Zhaolun xu. (Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan, pp.21-23) As
the argument goes, there are many obvious differences between the Zhaolun shu and the Zhaolun xu.
However, Qiu’s discovery could only prove that Huida 慧達 of the Jin shouldn’t replace Huida 惠達 of
the Jing as the author of the Zhaolun shu, it cannot provide any further hint that Huida 慧達 of the Chen
is actually the author of the Zhaolun shu.
35
With preliminary comparing effort, there are at least three points can verify that the author of the
Zhaolun shu ascribed to Huida 惠達 is different from that of Zhaolun shu compiled by Huida 慧達: first
is the way they addressed Kumārajīva, which are “shishi” 什師 and “tongshou” 童壽 separately;
secondly, they named the chapter attached to the chapter of “Bore wuzhi lun” as “Yinshi liuyimin shuwen
wuzhi lun” 隱士劉遺民書問無知論 and “Zhaofashi da liuyinshi shu” 肇法師答劉隱士書 respectively;
thirdly, the order of four treatises in the Zhaolun shu is not identical to the idea of classification unfolded
in the Zhaolun xu, which also includes the chapter of “Zongbenyi”. (CBETA, T45, no. 1858, p.
150b22-26)
36
Ito Takatoshi, translated by Lin Mingyu, Zhaolun jijie ling mochao (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008),
pp. 1-3. And Qiu Minjie Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan (Taipei: Zhi, 2020.04), p. 74.
37
As investigated by Ito Takatoshi, the author of Zhu zhaolun shu is not Ciyun Zunshi 慈雲遵式
(964-1032), a Tiantai master of Shanjiag faction 山家派; instead, it should be Yuanyi Zunshi 圓義遵式
who was a Chan master. See Ito Takatoshi, translated by Lin Mingyu, Zhaolun jijie ling mochao
(Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008), pp. 8-10. However, Qiu Minjie in the Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu
kaizhan points out that she had read the Zhaolun jijie ling mochao, in her book she still misunderstood
Zunshi as Ciyun Zunshi, and neglected the strong Huayan thought widespread in the Zhu zhaolun shu.
See her book pp. 87-92.

12
Yuan 元.

Among these works, the Yuankang’s, Jingyuan’s and Hanshan’s commentaries

remain the Zhaolun xu in the first fascicle, whereas Zunshi’s and Wencai’s

commentaries merely mention that Huida 慧達 was the compiler of the introduction. It

seems that the Zhaolun to which Huida’s introduction is attached should be the version

adopted by all these exegists except for Huida 惠達. 38 To our bewilderment, one

sentence “有既不有，則無無也” is absent in the Zhaolun of Taisho and Wan Xu canons,

but can be seen in the Jiaxing 嘉興 and Jingshan 徑山 canons. However, in the Wan

Xu canon, it is annotated by Yuankang, Zunshi and Wencai, but absent in the Hanshan’s

commentary.

The Zhaolun originally has only one fascicle, Huida’s and Jingyuan’s commentaries

have two, Yuankang’s and Wencai’s commentaries have three, and Zunshi’s and

Hanshan’s commentaries are extended to six fascicles. Besides, Hanshan’s commentary

is ended with an “ba” 跋 (epilogue) written by Huijin, a disciple of his dharma brother

(fazhi 法姪).

Thereupon look into the title of each chapter and their appendixes. Except for the

chapter of “Zongbenyi” that Huida’s commentary does not incorporate, all of them have

the same title for “Zongbenyi” and for the other four treatises. However, these

annotators employed sundry titles for the “zouzhang” 奏章 (memorial) dedicated to the

emperor Yaoxing, and for the letter of Liu Yimin 劉遺民 (352-410). (See Table 1)

38
CBETA, X54, no. 872, p. 326c22-23 and CBETA, X54, no. 870, p. 140b9.

13
 Table 1.
Titles The memorial dedicated to
The letter from Liu Yimin and Sengzhao’s reply
Commentaries the emperor Yaoxing
Zhaolun 表上秦主姚興 劉遺民書問附 答劉遺民書

Huida’s 表上秦主姚興 隱士劉遺民書問無知論 肇法師答劉隱士書

Yuankang’s 涅槃無名論并表上秦主姚興 隱士劉遺民書問 答劉隱士書

Jingyuan’s 涅槃無名論第四並奏秦王表 劉君致書覈問 論主復書釋答

Zunshi’s 上涅槃論表 劉公致問 法師釋答

Wencai’s 秦王首唱論主發揮 劉公致問 論主書答

Hanshan’s 奏秦王表 劉遺民書問附 答劉遺民書

From the table above, we can find that Hanshan employed “Zou qinwang biao” 奏秦王

表39 like Jingyuan, though, he held true to the circulating Zhaolun as regards the title of

the letter of Liu Yimin. Besides, the way they addressed Sengzhao, Kumārajīva and

Yaoxing were diverse as well. (See Table 2)

Table 2.
Commentaries / Addressing Sengzhao Kumārajīva Yaoxing
Zhaolun xu 肇 童壽桑門 ＊

Huida’s 肇師 什師 秦王

Yuankang’s 肇法師 什法師 秦王

Jingyuan’s 肇公 什公 秦主

Zunshi’s 肇師 什師、羅什 秦王

Wencai’s 肇公 什公 秦王

Hanshan’s 肇公 什師 秦主

39
Yuecang zhijin 閱藏知津 compiled by Zhixu also followed naming it as “Zou qinwang biao”.
(CBETA, J32, no. B271, p. 155b1-8)

14
According to the table, Hanshan addressed Sengzhao as “Zhaogong” 肇 公 like

Jingyuan and Wencai, adopted “shishi” 什師 like Huida, and used “qinzhu” 秦主 to

call the emperor. As these tables are manifested, there is no single previous commentary

that had notable influence on the Hanshan’s commentary pertaining to these titles,

despite the fact that Hanshan once read the Jingyuan’s commentary while he was young.

In terms of the annotating style, all the commentaries give a brief prologue in the

beginning of each chapter so that readers can easily grasp the main idea of that chapter.

Besides, they annotated the text by starting a new line, after one sentence, even after one

single word of the Zhaolun. Here take one paragraph from the chapter of “Buzhenkong

lun” annotated by Hanshan as example:

夫以物物於物，則所物而可物；以物物非物，故雖物而非物。是以物不
即名而就實，名不即物而履真。
If one calls “thing” what is a thing then what is called “thing” is (something)
fit to be called “thing”; if one calls “thing” what is not a thing then though
called “thing” it is still not a thing. Therefore, a thing called up by a name
may not appear (as what it is expected to appear); a name calling up a thing
may not lead to the real (thing). 40

The following picture is the original format of the text presented in the Wan Xu canon

萬續藏41:

40
CBETA, T45, no. 1858, p. 152a24-26. Translation adopts Waiter Liebenthal, Chao Lun, (Hong Kong
University Press, 1968), p.57.
41
Wan Xu canon 卍續藏, vol. 96 (Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐出版公司, 1983), p. 593.

15
From the screen shot of the text, Hanshan’s annotating style can be summarized in three

points: first, annotating the text “sentence for sentence” and even “word for word”;

secondly, annotating particular word or sentence with interspersing brief explanation,

that is, “jiazhu” 夾注 (interlinear notes); thirdly, starting a different paragraph to

elaborate on the text.

Concerning the order of the four treatises, Huida’s commentary is different from the

others. 42 The order of other commentaries following the circulating Zhaolun is

sequenced as follows: “Zongbenyi”, “Wubuqian lun”, “Buzhenkong lun”, “Bore wuzhi

lun”, and finally “Niepan wu ming lun.” This order is arranged not according to the

compiling date nor the biography of Sengzhao. Instead, their arrangement is, as Huida

慧達 claimed in the Zhaolun xu, based on the doctrinal relationship between these four

treatises.43

Finally, I examine their ways of dividing the chapter of “Zongbenyi” into four parts

based on their understanding of the four treatises. (Table 3)

42
Tu Yanqiu (Sengzhao sixiang yanjiu, p. 13) and Qiu Minjie (Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan, pp.
22-25) didn’t check the order recorded in the Huida’s commentary of Xu cannon, which should be
readjusted as “Niepan wu ming lun, Bore wuzhi lun, Wubuqian lun and Buzhenkong lun”. See CBETA,
X54, no. 866, p. 58, c5-6, p. 72b9-11.
43
CBETA, T45, no. 1858, p. 150b22-c2.

16
 Table 3.
Division in the Zongben 宗本 Niepan
Buzhenkong
Annotation of of the four Wubuqian lun Bore wuzhi lun
lun wuming lun
the Zongbenyi treatises
Huida No the chapter of “Zongbenyi”
From “言不有不
“本無、實相、 From “ 漚 和 般
無者…” to “但
Yuankang44 Undefined. 法性、性空、緣 若 …” to “ 好
心有大小為差
會，一義耳.” 思，歷然可解.”
耳.” From “泥 洹 盡
Jingyuan45 From “本無、實 From “聖人之心
From “言不有不無者，…” to “是謂 諦 者 ， …” to
相、…” to “實相 為 住 無 所 住
雖觀有，而無所取相；然則法相為
Zunshi46 自無，非推之使 矣。…” to “好 “生死永滅，故
無相之相.”
無，故名本無.” 思，歷然可解.”
謂盡耳，無復別
From “一切諸法
Wencai47 From “言不有不
“本無、實相、 緣會而生 ， …” From “ 漚 和 般 有一盡處耳.”
無者…” to “但
法性、性空、緣 to “實相自無， 若 …” to “ 好
心有大小為差
Hanshan48 會，一義耳.” 非推之使無，故 思，歷然可解.”
耳.”
名本無.”

This table tells us that all the annotators have the same division to the chapter of

“Niepan wu ming lun”. Yuankang, Wencai and Hanshan shared the similar ideas about

these five treatises, whereas Jingyuan and Zunshi inclined towards another way.

IV. Conclusion.
This paper is dedicated to exploring Hanshan’s Zhaolun luezhu with preliminary study

of his life and the way he annotated the Zhaolun. In the Zhaolun luezhu, Hanshan first

addressed the biography of Sengzhao. Unlike historical exegeses, his narrative of

Sengzhao’s life does not merely copy what’s written in the Gaoseng zhuan; rather, some

44
CBETA, T45, no. 1859, p. 165a13 - 166c6.
45
Ito Takatosh, translated by Lin Mingyu, Zhaolun jijie ling mochao (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008),
pp. 37-55.
46
CBETA, X54, no. 870, p. 142c24 - 148a11.
47
CBETA, T45, no. 1860, p. 201c2 - 203b14.
48
CBETA, X54, no. 873, p. 330c7 - 332a20.

17
revisions were made according to the later versions, which provides another feasible

interpretation of Sengzhao’s life that can be sanctioned by other literature regarding the

chronology. However, Hanshan himself did not explain the motivation of adopting later

version of Sengzhao’s life and combining it with Gaoseng zhuan, despite the fact that in

the autobiography he mentioned the Zhaolun jijie, which had pointed out that Sengzhao

met Kumārajīva at the age 19. In general, we can detect Hanshan’s personality here:

rigorous to consider the detail, and simultaneously not to stick to any early versions.

The Zhaolun he annotated was the one containing the Zhaolun xu, which can be

proved by comparing the texts. His personality is visible when we analyze the structure

of the Zhaolun luezhu. The titles of some chapters, and the way he addressed Sengzhao,

Kumārajīva and Yaoxing are different from other annotators, despite in the

autobiography he claimed that he once read the Jingyuan’s commentary at age 29. As

the last person annotating the Zhaolun, he did not express his appraisal of any historical

exegeses and whether he agreed with them or not.

Besides, the age Hanshan started to annotate the Zhaolun invites my attention as

well. Feeling confused about the meaning of the “Wubuqian lun” in the childhood and

encountering one awakening experience at age 29, he did not compose the Zhaolun

luezhu until the age 71. It’s difficult to find whether he had further understanding of the

Zhaolun during theses 42 years, and the date of Zhou Ziyin 周子寅 (d. u.) who

received Hanshan’s discourses about the treatises of “Wubuqian lun” and “Buzhenkong

lun”49 is so far unknown.

What is certain is that in the meantime he had read, transcribed, and commented on

many Mahayana sutras and works of Huayan patriarchs. Even though in the Zhaolun

luezhu the number he cited those sutras and words of patriarchs is far less than other

annotators, but those citations from the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and Awakening of Mahāyāna

49
CBETA, X73, no. 1456, p. 540a17-b17, 541b2-15.

18
Faith, etc. seem to explain the reason that he put so much emphasis on the “one Mind”

as the essence of all dharmas. Most of these exegeses of the Zhaolun adopted the

thought of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and major Huayan patriarchs as well, but their diverse

way of dividing the chapter of “Zongbenyi” raises my question that the definition of

“one Mind” might bear different connotation, which arouses my curiosity to probe into

the evolution of the interpretation of Reality throughout the thousand-year Chinese

history as well as Hanshan’s integrating depiction in the Ming dynasty.

19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources
Chao Lun. Waiter Liebenthal trans. Hong Kong University Press, 1968.
Fozu lidai tongzai 佛祖歷代通載. T49, no. 2036.
Gaoseng zhuan (梁)高僧傳. T50, no. 2059.
Hanshan laoren mengyou ji 憨山老人夢遊集. X73, no. 1456.
Longxing biannian tonglun 隆興編年通論. X75, no. 1512.
Mohe bore boluomi jing shilun 摩訶般若波羅蜜經釋論. T25, no. 1509.
Yuecang zhijin 閱藏知津. J32, no. B271.
Zhaolun 肇論. T45, no. 1858.
Zhaolun shu 肇論疏. T45, no. 1859.
Zhaolun xinshu 肇論新疏. T45, no. 1860.
Zhaolun shu 肇論疏. X54, no. 866.
Zhaolun luezhu 肇論略注. X54, no. 873.
Zhu zhaolun shu 注肇論疏. X54, no. 870.
Zhaolun xinshu youren 肇論新疏游刃. X54, no. 872.
Zhaolun jijie ling mochao 肇論集解令模鈔. Ito Takatoshi 伊藤隆壽校訂, Lin Mingyu
林鳴宇 trans. Shanghai: Shanghai guji 上海古籍, 2008.

II. Secondary Sources

Hsu Sung-peng 徐頌鵬. 1970. A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The life and Thought
of Han-Shan Te-ching. New York: Penn State University Press.
Hong Xiuping 洪修平. 1996. Zhaolun 肇論. Gaoxiong: Foguang wenhua 佛光文化.
Qiu Minjie 邱敏捷. 2020. Zhaolun yanjiu de yanjin yu kaizhan 肇論研究的衍進與開
展. Taipei: Zhi 致出版.
Shi Shengyan 釋聖嚴. 2000. Mingmo fojiao yanjiu 明末佛教研究. Taipei: Fagu
wenhua 法鼓文化.
Tsukamoto Zenryu 塚本善隆, Qiu Minjie 邱敏捷 trans. 2004. “Zhaolun zai fojiao
shishang de yiyi” 肇論在佛教史上的意義. Miauxin zazhi 妙心雜誌
(accessed June 2, 2020,
http://www.fjdh.cn/wumin/2009/04/23570968466.html).
Tu Yanqiu 涂豔秋. 1995. Sengzhao sixiang yanjiu 僧肇思想研究. Taipei: Dongchu
東初.
Wang Honglei 王紅蕾. 2010. Hanshan deqing yu wanming shilin 憨山德清與晚明士
林. Beijing: Zhong guo shehui kexue 中國社會科學.

20