從雪峰慧空禪師書簡 看兩宋之際福建禪宗之復甦=The Revivification of Chan Buddhism in Fujian during the Northern and Southern Song Transition Period: With a Special Reference to Xuefeng Huikong’s Letters
Chan master Xuefeng Huikong (1096-1158) left behind seven letters that circulated during the Northern and Southern Song transition period. Of these letters, one mentions that after the Jiangxi Chan Buddhism atrophied Buddhism was unable to regain momentum in Jiangxi and that within three to five years many Chan masters went off to Fujian, where they boosted the growth of Fujian’s Chan Buddhism. This development of Chan Buddhism in Fujian was what Huikong witnessed after he had gone to Fujian in the 23rd year of the Shaoxing reign (1153) to hold the abbacy of the Chongsheng Monastery on Xuefeng. Thus, the letter is an important document that can facilitate our research on and understanding of the regional development of Chan Buddhism in Fujian during the Northern and Southern Song transition period. In this article, I use this letter and other six letters as major sources to bring up the point that argues the occurrence of Chan Buddhism’s revivification in Fujian from the beginning of the Yuanyou reign to the 23rd year of the Shaoxing reign.
The revivification of Chan Buddhism in Fujian was due in part to the fact that Chan masters in Jiangxi entered Fujian, following Dahui Zonggao’s spreading of Chan in Fuzhou and Southern Quanzhou during the 4th and 5th years of the Shaoxing reign. Other reasons include the participation of Chan monks of other schools in disseminating Chan Buddhism. These Chan monks either came from Jiangxi or had some form of connection with the Jiangxi Chan masters. Their diffusion of Chan in the Four Lower Prefectures of Fujian, i.e., Fuzhou, Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, and Xinghuajun, also facilitated the revivification of Chan Buddhism in the areas.
Huikong’s letters represent “epistolary culture” noticeable in the Fujian Chan circle. As an eminent Chan mater, Huikong interacted with a number of monks, officials, scholars, lay Buddhists, and patrons of Chan in Fujian by dint of mutual correspondences. Despite being frail due to an ailment from which he claimed he was suffering, his feebleness did not prevent him from acting compulsively to preside over Xuefeng, nor did it stop him from involving himself in various religious activities. They include the following: connecting himself with Chan monasteries in Fuzhou and Quanzhou; offering sermons in neighboring monasteries; engaging his fellow dharma friends in Chan discourse; urging Kalyāṇa-mitra or good friends to support Buddhism; warning scholars not to infringe monastic rules for personal gains. Activities like these speak volumes about Huikong’s personal engagement in the spread of Chan. His efforts helped revive Chan Buddhism in Fujian. While Huikong’s letters do not provide us with comprehensive information concerning “Chan revivification” in other Fujian districts like the Four Upper Prefectures, i.e., Jianzhou, Nanjianzhou, Tingzhou, and Shaowujun, they doubtless offer a glimpse into the development and flourishing of Chan Buddhism in Fujian during the Northern and Southern Song transition period.
