Fǎhuá jīng xuánzàn juézé jì 法華經玄贊決擇記
Decisive-Determination Notes on the Profound Encomium on the Lotus Sūtra by 崇俊 (Chóngjùn, 撰); compiled subcommentary by 法清 (Fǎqīng of Yángzhōu Chánzhìsì, 集疏)
About the work
A two-juan (originally eight-juan) Cí’ēn 慈恩 / Yogācāra subcommentary on Kuījī’s Miàofǎ liánhuá jīng xuánzàn (KR6d0026, T1723), drafted by Chóngjùn 崇俊 and finalised through editorial collaboration with his disciple Fǎqīng 法清 of the Yángzhōu Chánzhìsì 楊州禪智寺. The work is signed in its body Hángzhōu Tiānzhúsì shāmén Chóngjùn zhuàn / Yángzhōu Chánzhìsì shì Fǎqīng jíshū 杭州天竺寺沙門 崇俊 撰 / 楊州禪智寺釋 法清 集疏. It belongs together with Huìzhāo’s Yìjué (KR6d0027) and Zhìzhōu’s Shèshì (KR6d0028) as the third of the principal mid-Táng Cí’ēn-school subcommentaries on Kuījī’s Xuánzàn.
Prefaces
The text opens with the Preface to the Decisive-Determination Notes on the Lotus Sūtra Profound-Encomium (《法華玄贊決擇記序》) by 藏諸 Cángzhū of the Wéiyáng Lóngxīngsì 惟楊龍興寺 (Yángzhōu Lóngxīngsì), dated Dàlì 大曆 3 spring first month (= 768 CE). Cángzhū writes: “Juézé [decisive-determination] means ‘assisting the Xuánzàn and opening interpretation.’ From the time the [Lotus] sūtra was transmitted to eastern Xià, the analytical interpretations have been quite many. But that which alone illuminates the spirit-platform, far surpassing all views, is none other than the Xuánzàn. Because matters must take the ancient as model, [Kuījī] used the foundational treatises as compass; because doctrine must have evidential reliance, [he] used the various sūtras as standard. The meaning is rich and the prose concise, the principle profound and the diction florid. Looking up to it, one rarely glimpses its outline; reaching for it, one cannot fathom its waves. Esteemed by the world, hung high as the sun and moon — how should this be without cause?”
Cángzhū then narrates the production of the Juézé jì: “He [Chóngjùn] was the master of the Tiānzhú of India [actually a Hángzhōu monastery], whose stern moderation lived in correctness, whose modesty cultivated rectitude. The treatises and sūtras translated by the great Táng Tripiṭaka [Xuánzàng] — neither partial-circle in meaning nor great-or-small in section — passed his ear, and he invariably recited them; encountered his eye, and he invariably understood them. … In the intervals of dharma-propagation he wisely sighed: ‘Even the Yì’s images, void and nothing, still required the Tuàn and Xì commentaries. How much more this Xuán’s profound depths — could one not borrow the snare and the net?’ He therefore broadly examined old hearings, gathered new meanings, attached them to this text, and following along made decisive determinations… When the draft was finished, he checked it with his close disciples. The gate-disciple Fǎqīng — whose interpretation, practice, and ethical conduct sequentially upheld the master’s footsteps — … expanded it into eight juan, completing one school’s word.”
Abstract
The Juézé jì is the third of the major mid-Táng Cí’ēn-school subcommentaries on Kuī-jī’s Xuánzàn and is the product of a teacher-disciple editorial collaboration: Chóngjùn drafted the work and Fǎqīng “embellished and polished” it (修飾之。閏色之). The principal doctrinal method is the Yogācāra juézé (Skt. viniścaya, “decisive determination”): a systematic procedure for resolving doctrinal ambiguities through application of the Cí’ēn scholastic apparatus to contested points in Kuī-jī’s Xuánzàn.
The work proceeds chapter by chapter through the Lotus, with focused attention on (1) terminological clarification of Kuī-jī’s technical vocabulary; (2) supplementary canonical citations from the Yogācārabhūmi and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha corpus; and (3) doctrinal harmonisation of Kuī-jī’s positions with the broader Cí’ēn scholastic apparatus as developed by Huìzhāo and Zhìzhōu. The opening passage (preserved in juan 1) demonstrates the work’s method by analysing Cángzhū’s preface phrase by phrase: under gàiwén 蓋聞 (“indeed I have heard”), the text supplies extensive parallels from the Confucian classics (the Xiàojīng shū 孝經疏 and the Yuánjīng 玄經) to establish the rhetorical force of the opening; under zhìjué quánzhēn 至覺權真, it analyses the Buddhist technical content.
The work was originally drafted in eight juan but is preserved in the canonical recension in two juan; the textual relationship between the original eight-juan and the surviving two-juan recensions is not securely established. The work was carried into the Japanese Hossō 法相 library tradition, from which it was eventually reprinted in the Manji-zoku 卍續 supplementary canon.
The composition is securely datable: Chóngjùn’s drafting and Fǎqīng’s editorial work were complete by Dàlì 3 (768 CE), the date of Cángzhū’s preface. Chóngjùn’s wider productive period must therefore have spanned the years preceding 768.
Translations and research
- Hirai Shun’ei 平井俊榮. Hokke monku no seiritsu ni kansuru kenkyū 法華文句の成立に関する研究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1985.
- Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun. London: Routledge, 2002.
- Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士. Heian shoki Bukkyō shisō no kenkyū 平安初期仏教思想の研究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1995.
Other points of interest
The teacher-disciple editorial collaboration between Chóngjùn and Fǎqīng — drafting by the master, editorial polishing and expansion by the disciple — is a characteristic mid-Táng Cí’ēn productive pattern, parallel to the relationship between Xuánzàng’s translations and Kuījī’s editorial reception of them, and between Kuījī’s own works and Huìzhāo’s subcommentary refinement. The pattern reflects a distinctive Cí’ēn ethic of multi-generational scholastic continuity in which doctrinal authority is consciously and visibly transmitted through editorial collaboration rather than through individual authorship alone.