Huiyuan

Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Jizang, three Buddhist masters in the Sui dynasty, studied and made their own interpretations of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. This article compares their works to evaluate the relationship between their interpretations of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa and the developments in Buddhist schools in the Sui and Tang dynasties. I will focus on the dates of completion for their works, the differences in their context, and their interpretations of the full title of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa (inconceivable liberation), and other topics to identify the core ideas behind their interpretations and the relational development of Chinese Buddhist scholastic thought.
Huiyuan uses “ontological true mind” as the core idea for his commentary, interpreting the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa as a text representing “true mind only.” Zhiyi focuses on the concept of inconceivability but integrates ideas from the Lotus sūtra and the Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to interpret it from a Tiantai perspective. Jizang emphasizes the concept of non-duality (advaya) and identifies it with emptiness (śūnya), signlessness (alakṣaṇā), and non-acquisition (anupalabdha), finally identifying the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa as a prajñāpāramitā sutra.
Although “ontological true mind” is Huiyuan’s fundamental perspective, he includes ideas from the Daśabhūmika śāstra, Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra, and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna to interpret the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. However, he does not attempt to establish his own school yet. Zhiyi’s Tiantai school was growing at the same time of his interpretation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, and he used the idea of perfect teachings and the Lotus sūtra and Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to integrate ideas from various sūtras. Jizang inherited the tradition of the Sanlun school, taking emptiness (śūnyata) as the ultimate truth and interpreting other texts from this perspective.
There are multifaceted hermeneutic points of view toward the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. These three masters have their own explanations, although none of them is the only correct interpretation. It is just as the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: “The Buddha explains the Dharma with one sound and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their capacity.” The phenomenon of hermeneutic difference has shown this completely.

Poceski, Mario. “Evolving Relationship between the Buddhist Monastic Order and the Imperial States of Medieval China.” Medieval Worlds 6 (2017): 40–60.

The article explores central aspects of the relationship between the Buddhist monastic order and the various imperial states that ruled China during the medieval period (roughly between the third and the tenth centuries CE). It focuses especially on the points of tension created by the monastic order's efforts to establish a sense of autonomy and receive special economic, political, or social exemptions on one hand, and the royal imperium's assertion of absolute authority over all subjects on the other hand. While the monastic order's efforts to safeguard its independence and ward off the encroachment of a totalitarian state was largely a losing proposition, in a protracted process that involved complex socio-political negotiations and shifting religious realignments, the Buddhist clergy was able to secure important exemptions from the Chinese rulers' demands. Most notably, these included exemptions from certain forms of taxation, military conscription, and forced labour, which helped secure the economic foundations of monastic life and enhance the prominent place of Buddhism in Chinese society. To illustrate these issues, the article explores some of the key debates that pitted prominent Buddhist monastics such as Huiyuan (334-416) against key segments of the Chinese socio-political elites, many of whom were influenced by a Confucian ideology that was often inimical to monastic institutions.

The commentaries on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra preserved in the Dunhuang manuscripts are crucial to the study of Buddhist literature. In particular, the manuscripts of the Weimo yiji (Record of Meanings of the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra), for its early dates, illustrated the popularity of this scripture in the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the doctrinal interpretations of this scripture, and the development of the Buddhist doctrinal commentaries. This paper aims to offer a comprehensive investigation of various manuscripts of the Weimo yiji in numerous Dunhuang and Turfan collections for an analysis. So far seventeen manuscripts from Dunhuang and four manuscripts from Turfan have been identified. This paper attempts to date them and categorize them into five transmission traditions based on their content, including the one from Dunhuang and another one by Huiyuan. This paper focuses on the entries in catalogues and their verifications, the commentaries and their sources, and the original commentaries and their additions. It also deals with the compilation of these five traditions, the manuscript traditions, and the colophons of the manuscripts.