586 henrik h. sørensen
Characteristics of the Two Classes [of Mandalas]; T. 2081), from 834
C.E. Here it is recorded that Śubhākarasiṃha had one Korean disciple
by the name of Hyŏnch’o (fl. eighth century), to whom he trans-
mitted the methods of the Garbhadhātu Mandala (T. 2081.51:786c).
Another Silla monk, who is said to have studied under him, was Yirim
(702–?).^34 This monk is found neither in the Chinese nor in the
Korean material, but is referred to in the Japanese record, the Naishō
hossō ketsumiaku (Record of the Blood Line of the
Inner Realization of the Signs of the Dharma)^35 by Saichō (767–
822), the founder of the Japanese Tendai school.^36 This work
dates from 819 C.E. Here it is said that Yirim received the teachings
of the Garbhadhātu Mandala and subsequently spread the dharma,
that is, the Esoteric Buddhist teachings, in Silla.^37 It is interesting to
note that Yirim also figures in the lineage of patriarchs presented in
the Buddhist picture scroll, the Kōsō zō (Images of the High
Monks) (TZ vol. 11, 56, pl. 18).
The most important of Śubhākarasiṃha’s Korean disciples, how-
ever, was Pulga Saui (fl. eighth century; MDJ vol. 4, 1895c).
The reason for his importance resides not so much in the position he
may have had among the disciples of the Indian master, but in the
fact that he is the only Korean monk who has produced a substantial
work that gives clear evidence of the doctrinal transmission of Zhe-
nyan Buddhism to Silla. The work in question is the Tae Piroch’ana
kyŏng kongyang ch’adung pŏp so (Out-
line of the Progressive Methods of Making Offerings [Based on] the
Mahāvairocana sūtra), an extensive exposition in two chapters (HPC
vol. 3, 383a–409a). This lengthy work is a combination of a ritual
manual and a commentary on the last five ritual sections (pin ) of
the sūtra in question. It contains several quotations from the sūtra
focusing on how to make offerings with mantras and hymns (chisŏng
(^34) For a study of this monk and an attempt at identifying his lineage of transmission
and Esoteric Buddhist teaching, see Sŏ 1994b, 103–147. Although the information
contained here is useful and constitutes a serious attempt at uncovering the historical
truth about Yirim, it has been greatly inflated with material that cannot be directly
connected with him. Interestingly, Sŏ consistently refers to Yirim as a “Master of Sŏn”
rather than an ācārya, thereby indicating that he may originally have had a different
Buddhist affiliation.
(^35) Nippon daizōkyō (Japanese Tripiṭaka), Tendai shū kenkyū shōso
(Collected Books of Tendai Studies), ch. 1, 17a–19b.
(^36) For Saichō see Dolce, “Taimitsu, The Esoteric Buddhism of the Tendai School,”
in this volume.
(^37) Nippon daizōkyō, Tendai shū kenkyū shōso, ch. 1, 20b.