The Development of Faith in Ganhwa Seon: A Comparative Analysis of Dahui, Gaofeng, and Mengshan

Research on Ganhwa Seon has primarily focused on doubt (疑心), whereas systematic comparative studies on faith (信心)—the first element of the Three Essentials (三要) and the basis from which doubt arises—remain limited. This study conducts a comparative textual analysis of the teachings on faith of Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲), Gaofeng Yuanmiao (高峰原妙), and Mengshan Deyi (蒙山德異), whose teachings have been transmitted together within the exegetical tradition (講學) of Korean Seon Buddhism. Drawing on Classical Chinese primary sources, Middle Korean vernacular translations with annotations (諺解本, eonhaebon), and English-language scholarship, this study compares the terminology and semantic characteristics of faith, its content, the relationship between faith and doubt, and the conditions and methods for establishing faith in the teachings of the three masters. The analysis shows that Dahui established decisive faith (決定信) and presented a paradoxical coexistence in which both faith and doubt are indispensable to enlightenment. Gaofeng, by applying the essence-function theory (體用論), defined faith as the essence (體) of doubt and enlightenment as the function (用) of doubt, thereby formalizing a proportional structure linking faith, doubt, and enlightenment. Mengshan strengthened the practical dimension through right faith (正信心) and demonstrated that faith determines the quality of doubt by distinguishing true doubt (眞疑) from contrived doubt (做作). All three patriarchs (祖師) shared faith in original Buddhahood (本來成佛) as the central element of faith. This study demonstrates that faith constitutes the ontological basis of doubt and plays a central role in the theory of Ganhwa Seon practice. Furthermore, it shows that the discourse on faith from Dahui through Gaofeng to Mengshan can be reconstructed, on the basis of thematic continuity, as an analytical model that traces how faith was formed, systematized, and practically elaborated, thereby complementing existing discussions that have been disproportionately focused on doubt.