Abstract

Traditionally, Huayan 華嚴 (Jp. Kegon; K. Hwaŏm) scholasticism has been characterized by a grandiose metaphysical edifice formulated by some pioneering figures during the Sui 隋 (581–618) and Tang 唐 (618907) periods. Led by this stereotyped depiction, scholars tend to pay a little too much attention to the thought of the so-called “five Huayan patriarchs,” to the point that they fail to notice diverse facets of the tradition. As pointed out by Robert M. Gimello, such an attitude can be labelled as a “drastic over-simplification of the actual complexity of its history.” He thus suggests that we take due notice of “its great diversity” and “innovation and disjuncture.” In this respect, a comparative study of two Huayan thinkers, who were contemporaries but responsible for presenting quite different frameworks for the interpretation of the Dafangguang fo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (hereafter, Flower Garland Sutra), could redress the abovementioned stereotyped understanding of the tradition. In this paper, I will mainly draw on important passages from the works of Fazang 法藏 (643–712) and Li Tongxuan 李通玄 (635–730), thereby hoping to give a nuanced picture of the tradition and counter the one-sided emphasis on the “orthodox” lineage. An exhaustive comparison of the philosophies of the two masters would go beyond the scope of this paper, however. My focus will thus be limited to an analysis of two key concepts, namely the “six marks” (liuxiang 六相) and the “sphere of edification” (shehua fenqi 攝化分齊 or shehua jingjie 攝化境界), which were adopted by the two figures but used in different ways.