중국 화엄사상에서의‘원융(圓融)’ 개념의 다양성

Abstract

Textbook accounts of Chinese Buddhism tend to depict the Huayan tradition with abstruse technical terms such as “dependent origination of the dharma realm” and “perfect interfusion.” Of these the latter has often been characterized as a guiding principle of East Asian Buddhism in general. This concept of perfect interfusion emphasizes the fundamental equality underlying different phenomenal objects and denotes the provisional nature of doctrinal categories in the works of Huayan thinkers. If we use such terms without due attention, however, we may run the risk of oversimplifying the tradition by overlooking the subtle differences between the thinkers who were equally inspired by the Flower Garland Sutra but understood the scripture in their own fashion. At the same time, if we are led by stereotyped descriptions of the tradition (predicated in an unwarranted orthodox-heterodox dichotomy) we could be in danger of regarding the concept of perfect interfusion as an exclusive intellectual property of the “orthodox” or mainstream Huayan thinkers. By drawing upon the works of Li Tongxuan (635–730), Fazang (643– 712), and Chengguan (d. 839), this paper aims at demonstrating that the lines separating the orthodox from the heterodox are not as clear as were once thought. Although Li Tongxuan is not considered an “orthodox” Huayan thinker, his slightly advanced formulation of perfect interfusion between the six marks seems to be based on Fazang’s. Moreover, Chengguan’s notion of perfect interfusion between the three sages clearly originated from Li Tongxuan’s. Unlike LI Tongxuan who was free from the master-disciple relationship these two “orthodox” thinkers tried to follow the established doctrinal frameworks in their application of the thesis of perfect interfusion. Thus in order to draw a balanced picture of the tradition, we should examine the thought of such individual Huayan masters more cautiously.