Within the doctrinal system of Kobo Daishi Kukai _??__??__??__??__??__??_ (774-835), the theory of the ten stages of mind (jujushin, _??__??__??_) is one of the key classification systems. It forms the framework of Shingon doctrine, and took shape in Kukai's ten-fascicle Himitsumandara jujushinron _??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??_ (hereafter Jujushinron)and his three-fascicle Hizo hoyaku _??__??__??__??_. The first organized critique of the theory of the ten stages of mind was formulated by the Tendai scholarmonk Annen _??__??_ (841-889) in his four-fascicle Shingon-shu kyojigi _??__??__??__??__??__??_. In No. 217 ofMikkyo Bunka, the author examined Shukan's _??__??_ (1115-1144) Shingon refutation of Annen's critique of the “five faults” of the ten stages of mind in Shukan's work Juju shanansho _??__??__??__??__??_. In this article the author continues the discussion of the second half of the Juju shanansho which refutes the “two faults” and “three faults” of the Hizo hoyaku given in the Shingonshu kyojigi, and examines the later historical influence of the Juju shanasho. First, the author provides an outline of the Shingon-shu kyojigi discussion of two faults and three faults of the Hizo hoyaku, which like the five faults is a critique of the ten stages of mind theory but focusing on the Hizo hoyaku rather than the Jujushinron. The relevant passages refuting the two and three faults in the Juju shanasho are then outlined, followed by other Shingon refutations of the same. A discussion of Annen's conjectured true intention in his Shingon-shu kyojigi of critiquing the Hizo hoyaku rather than the Jujushinron follows that.
