It seems to be strange that two different Vinayas, the Shisong lü 十誦律, Ten Recitation Vihana, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, are extant but belong to the same sect, the Sarvāstivādins. The issue of how we should place them in the historical development of the Sarvāstivādins is particularly meaningful with respect to the investigation of the history of Buddhism, but no clear result has so far been found because of a lack of information; we have only some vague traditions.

In this article, the author presents information which clearly shows that the Shisong lü and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya were related with the Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas respectively.

A passage in the Vinaya is quoted in a dispute between the Sautrāntikas and Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas described in the Karmanirdeśa of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The corresponding passage can be found in both the Shisong lü and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and, as a result of a detailed investigation, it turned out that the corresponding passage in the Shisong lü was modified for the purpose of reinforcement of the Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas’ claim in the dispute appearing in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and the corresponding passage in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (Chinese version) was modified to reinforece the claim of the Sautrāntikas.

From this fact, we can establish a close relationship between the Shisong lü and Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Sautrāntikas.

The Kṣāntivādin legend is a family of stories about a preacher and practitioner of forbearance whose limbs and other body parts were cut off by a cruel king named Kalab(h)u (and the analog thereof) or Kali. We can find this tale in many Buddhist texts, both in Pāli and Sanskrit literature, and also in the Chinese translation scriptures. There has been no study that tried to gather parallel texts thoroughly and to compare motifs in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, this article aims to present a list of complete parallel texts of the Kṣāntivādin legend, and to represent the correlation among each text by a classification diagram. To sum up the main points of the motif comparisons, we can conclude that the Kṣāntivādin legend is largely separated into two categories. The first group says that the former birth of the cruel king was Devadatta, and the second Kauṇḍinya, and the latter has the unique plot of milk which has flowed out from the wound instead of blood.

Looking at Pure Land Buddhism from the point of the Four-Wheels (Skt. Catvāri deva-manuṣyāṇāṃ cakrāṇi), we can see the relation between this concept beginning in Early Buddhism and the contents of practice in later Pure Land Buddhism. In this sense, a prototype of Pure Land Buddhism may be traced back to Early Buddhism.

The collation with the texts of early stages, including those of various śrāvaka-schools, where the Four-Wheels is accepted and developed, still remains as a problem, but at least we can point out an apparent similarity of the concept of the First-Wheel, choosing the circumstance of practices, which was to be reconstructed as the concept of rebirth, as reflected in the texts of the Yogācāras, and that Sukhāvatī is the very suitable circumstance for the practice of śamatha-vipaśyanā.

Previous studies show that the Lotus Sutra adopts the concept of six destinies (ṣaḍ-gati) except the latter half of the 5th chapter (Oṣadhī-parivarta), which mentions five destinies (pañca-gati) once. But these studies neither explore related expressions concerning gatis thoroughly nor pay attention to differences among Sanskrit manuscripts and Chinese translations. In this paper, our careful research on almost all the materials related to gatis in the Lotus Sutra shows that more chapters of the sutra can be interpreted to accept the concept of five destinies.

It has been pointed out that there are a number of structural and terminological similarities between the Sa rnam par spyong (^*Viśuddhabhūmidhāraṇī, Viś) in the Tibetan translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa by Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi, and Ye shes sde and the ’Phags pa blo gros mi zad pas shus pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (^*Āryākṣayamatiparipṛcchā, Akṣ) in the Tibetan translation of the Ratnakūṭa by Surendrabodhi and Ye shes sde. This paper considers that the similarities and differences in structure and wording between the Tibetan translations of the Viś and the Akṣ and their parallels in Chinese translations; it also considers whether these structural and terminological similarities between the Viś and the Akṣ can account for the possibility of their translations into Tibetan being due to by the same translator.

A perusal of the texts reveals the following: (1) The fundamental structure of the Viś and the Akṣ closely follows that of their parallels found in the Chinese translations, which leads to the conclusion that all versions of the Viś and the Akṣ are derived from the same Sanskrit original. What draws our attention is that the text of the Viś, except for some scribal errors, is in exact agreement with that of the Akṣ. (2) It is noteworthy that the Viś and the Akṣ, which share several similarities in structure with the Foshuo zhuangyan putixin jing 仏説荘厳菩提心経 (T no. 307, vol. 10) and the Foshuo da fangguang pusa shidi jing 仏説大方広菩薩十地経 (T no. 308, vol. 10), contain features that point to the possibility that the two Chinese translations predate the compilation of the Viś and the Akṣ. (3) The fact that we can find a large number of coincidences in wording between the Viś and the Akṣ strongly suggests the possibility that both the Viś and the Akṣ were translated into Tibetan by the same translator, Ye shes sde.

The Tathāgataguhyasūtra (TG) is a Mahāyāna sūtra frequently cited by śāstras, e.g., the Prasannapadā, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, etc., for its theory (A) that the Buddha never said a single word during the period from his enlightenment to his death. In this paper, firstly I shall discuss the relationship between this theory and the early Buddhist canons, and show briefly how TG used old ideas to construct its theory of “not saying a single word.” I would also like to discuss the theory (B) that Buddha’s voice (śabda) originated from the ether (ākāśa) in TG, and illustrate that theory (B) is adopted by TG mainly for the purpose of reconciling the Buddha’s not saying a single word with Buddha’s exposition of the teachings.

Nearly 90 years ago, Katō Seishin 加藤精神, the Buddhist scholar, pointed out that many Japanese scholars had some misunderstandings about avijñapti or non-expression, one of the distinguishing doctrines of the Sarvāstivāda. The opinion he claimed as a misunderstanding is that “the avijñapti plays a karmic role as a medium force between cause and its future result,” while he suggested the correct interpretation to be “a continuous function to restrain good and evil karma, abandoned in death at the latest.” This suggestion caused some controversies at the time, but afterward many Japanese researchers re-examined and approved his view as correct in its conclusion.

In this paper, we elucidate the reason why those misunderstandings took place, considering the background of research in Japan. In Japanese traditional studies of the Abhidharmakośa, scholars handed down an explanation about avijñapti equal to Katō’s interpretation, and we cannot find any misunderstandings in the descriptions conforming to the tradition in those days. We find the misunderstandings mainly in many untraditional representations from the standpoint of the theory of the bīja or the function of seeds, identifying the avijñapti with the bīja of the Vijñānavāda or Sautrāntika. However, in the Abhidharmakośa, Vasubandhu actually rejects the avijñapti adopting the bīja theory, but he does not deal with the avijñapti as a substitute for the bīja, which is obviously confirmed from the context.

Many Buddhist scholars in Japan used to make light of the Sarvāstivāda doctrine labelling Hīnayāna from the stance of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Such prejudiced approaches prevented them from a rational critique of the Abhidharma texts.

The aim of this paper is an elucidation of the Mahāsāṃghika doctrines in the Apidamo da piposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 and the Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論. A previous work by Watanabe Baiyū collected all the doctrines which had been argued by many types of schools in two Chinese translations of the Mahāvibhāṣā. However, in his work, almost all the doctrines were not satisfyingly examined. In this paper, when I examined the Mahāsāṃghika’s doctrines in the Apidamo da piposha lun and the Apitan piposha lun, I compared those doctrines with the Samayabhedoparacanacakra in order to comprehend the character of the Mahāsāṃghika. As a result, two points were revealed. One is the accuracy of Watanabe’s collection. The other is the necessity to reconsider some Mahāsāṃghika doctrines. Especially relating with latter point, the evidence for the prejudice that the Mahāsāṃghika is more progressive than the Sarvāstivāda is not supported by this research.

Buddhism shows the way from confusion to enlightenment. If we remove confusion, we can attain enlightenment. Thus confusion is vicikitsā, a kleśa. It is translated as “doubt” (yi 疑), or “hesitation” (youyu 猶預).

In this paper, I investigate the description of vicikitsā in order to research the true principle in Abhidharma theory. As the method, I examined the kleśa scheme that contains vicikitsā such as saṃyojana, anuśaya, and nivaraṇa in the Mahāvibhāṣā (Chi. Da piposha lun 大毘婆沙論).

As a result, in most Abhidharma descriptions vicikitsā is defined hesitating to accept the Four Noble Truths. The reason is considered to be that the Sarvāstivāda scheme of kleśa, and the holy path is formed from the four truths.

In contrast, a few descripts show that correcting vicikitsā consists in the observation of cause and effect in the three times, in other words, contemplating dependent arising. I think these ideas come from the practical methodology such as the five nivaraṇa, three disciplines, and so on.

In the end, the Sarvāstivāda truth theory divides into two, four truths and dependent arising. From this, it could be said that Abhidharma ideas contain both ideological and practical elements.

Atiśa does not directly expound the teaching of tathāgatagarbha. However, as one of a very few examples, he mentions tathāgatagarbha in the Bodhimārgadīpa-pañjikā when maintaining that prātimokṣa is essential for receiving the Bodhisattva’s vow (bodhisattva-saṃvara). Referring to tathāgatagarbha, he insisted that there is no distinction of gotra. This paper examines the passage and its sources and aims to clarify that Atiśa’s position on the non-distinctiveness of gotra seems typical of late Mādhyamikas such as Kamalaśīla. Thus the expression “dbu ma chen po” is related simply to the Mādhyamika in general, which contrasts with the Yogācāra doctrine in the same way as in the other passages in the Bodhimārgadīpa-pañjikā, as I have argued elsewhere.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the structure of cognition in the early Yogācāra-vijñapti-mātra school from an analysis of the term “bāhyenātmanā.”

The texts of the early Yogācāra-vijñapti-mātra school show a very complicated structure of cognition. For example, the structure of the following cognition called “the four manifestations” is shown in the Madhyāntavibhāga I. 3: (1) artha is the manifestation of outside, (2) sattva is the manifestation of inside, (3) ātman is the stained self-consciousness that cognizes sattva (= [2]), and (4) vijñapti are six consciousnesses that cognize artha (= [1]). “The four manifestations,” mentioned above, are produced from ālaya-vijñāna.

The question is whether the structure of this cognition is not such as “The subject of the cognition cognizes the object of the cognition” in the Buddhist epistemology that is different from the thought of the early Yogācāra-vijñapti-mātra school.

Vasubandhu says “ātmadharmopacāro hi vividho yaḥ pravartate, vijñānapariṇāme ’sau pariṇāmaḥ sa ca tridhā” in the Triṃśikākārikā 1. Sthiramati uses the term “bāhyenātmanā” in the commentary on this Triṃśikākārikā 1. In this case, ātman does not cognize dharma; it is not the subject of cognition. That ātman is cognized by the stained self-consciousness.

The focus of this paper is an understanding of the theory of “purifying the land” as a Bodhisattva’s practice based on the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (MSA) IX.43, XI.40, 44–46 and XX–XXI.50. This makes a preliminary step to understand the comprehensive view of the Pure Land in the Yogācāra school. Below is the conclusion.

1. The conversion of perceptions (udgraha or pañca-vijñāna) and their objects (artha or pañca/ṣaḍ-viṣaya) enables Bodhisattvas to attain mastery over purifying the land and to manifest their enjoyments. Furthermore, in the foundational conversion (āśraya-parāvṛtti), the mastery of Bodhisattvas is not limited to the land; purification of the land is one of the multiple benefits.

2. Objects and perceptions are elements of unreal mental construction (abhūta-parikalpa) that appears with the nature of the grasped and the grasping (grāhya-grāhaka). By the conversion of the three elements of the grasped including objects, which conjunctionally occurs with the conversion of ālaya-vijñāna, Bodhisattvas realize the uncontaminated realm (anāsrava-dhātu) and by the conversion of the three elements of the grasping including perceptions, four masteries are realized. In four ways, mastery to purify the land is attained in the eighth stage.

3. By reaching the Buddha stage, Bodhisattvas attain mastery of creation (nirmāṇa) and transformation (pariṇāmana) of objects and they will have a perfect command to create something from nothing or to convert something to another. This ability is required for purifying the land. MSA adapts this from the Bodhisattvabhūmi which regards it as one kind of supernatural power that Bodhisattvas master at the attainment in the eighth stage.

“The cessation of the manovijñāna, or consciousness, with the function of conceptualization represents nirvana” (vikalpakasya manovijñānasya vyāvṛttir nirvāṇam), says the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (LAS. 126) which is one of the Mahayana scriptures composed under the influence of Yogācāra thought. This statement, however, seems to be confusing, because in the system of the Yogācāra thought nirvana seems at least not to be associated with the cessation of manovijñāna, but should be attained by the conversion of the ālayavijñāna. Thus, some scholars attempted to interpret the meaning of the manovijñāna in this context. Funahashi Naoya was of the opinion that this manovijñāna plays the role of ālayavijñāna. On the contrary, Kubota Chikara reasoned that the function of manovijñāna is not distinguishable from the manas or self conscioussness.

These understandings appear to be dependent on the premise that LAS explicates Mahāparinirvāṇa. However, a few statements in LAS suggest that nirvana in the disputed statement does not indicate Mahāparinirvāṇa but rather the afflictive hindrances (kleśāvaraṇa). Thus, this paper aims to show a probable understanding of nirvana in this statement by considering the explanation of the śrāvakas and pratytekabuddhas’ nirvana, which is described as the cessation of manovijñāna or consciousness in LAS.

In the Pañcavijñānakāyasaṃprayukta-bhūmi, the first chapter of the Basic Section (BS) of the Yogācārabhūmi, a statement, illustrated with an example of the arising of the visual consciousness, indicates that the arising of consciousness must be fully supplied with three necessary factors, that is, the faculty of sense, the object, and the attention (manaskāra, the function that directs consciousness towards its object). In the statement, both the two expressions “attention” and “visual consciousness” are affixed with the word tajja. Generally, tajja is regarded as a compound of tad + ja, with tad referring to the aforementioned statement. Thus tajja can be interpreted as “arisen from that.” Nevertheless, both the Chinese and Tibetan translations show different understandings when translating tajjo manaskāraḥ. Moreover, as Muroji Yoshihito points out, Vasubandhu explained tajja as “to make that arise” or “to arise in order of that.” Muroji also mentioned the statement in the BS, but did not pursue the matter further.

This article will focus on the statement in the BS and discuss an explanation found in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, revealing that in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, tajja is understood in its basic meaning as “arisen from that,” which offers a suggestion for the explanation of tajjo manaskāraḥ in the BS.

This paper will analyze the characteristics of Maṇḍalas, which are described in ritual texts of the Aṣṭamī-vrata and depicted in cloth paintings, and discuss the relationships among them. Its three main points are summarized below.

1. The 49 deities enumerated in the Maṇḍala of Amoghapāśa-lokeśvara can be found in the Amoghapāśa-lokeśvara-vrata-vidhi-kathā (AD 1981) and Sanskrit manuscripts of the Pūjākarmasaṃgraha (AD 1864) and the Aṣṭamī-vrata-vidhi (AD 1891). Some of the deities in this Maṇḍala can be found in other texts as well. Attendants such as Tārā and Bṛkuṭī are mentioned in the Amoghapāśa-sādhana (P no. 4840). Other attendants including Ajita, Aparājitā, and Mārasainyapramardaṇa can be found in the Āryāmoghapāśa-nāma-hṛdayaṃ mahāyāna-sūtram. Two Buddhas, namely Supratiṣṭhita[guṇa]maṇikūṭarāja-tathāgata and Samantaraśmyabhyudgataśrīkūṭārāja-tathāgata, are mentioned in the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka-sūtra. Further, Buddhas such as Suprakīrtitanāmadheyaśrī-tathāgata and Indraketudhvajaśrī-tathāgata can be found in the Vinaya-viniścaya-upāli-paripṛcchā.

2. The iconographical structure of the Maṇḍala of Amoghapāśa-lokeśvara, which is described in the ritual texts referenced above, can be found in 6 cloth paintings, one of which is preserved at the Guimet Museum in Paris.

3. Because the 49 deities in the Maṇḍala of Amoghapāśa-lokeśvara cannot be found in India and Tibet, we can point out that this Maṇḍala originated in Nepal. It also contains elements of Indian Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism.

The emergence and propagation of the Kālacakratantra doctrine was a great event in the latter phase of Indian Buddhist history. Standing against antinomian trends that dominated some Buddhist groups in those days, the flag bearers of that doctrine brought some new systems into the Vajrayāna world, which consisted of tantra-oriented bhikṣus and lay yogins.

A commentary on the Hevajratantra named Vajrapādasārasaṃgrahapañjikā (Pañjikā, hereafter) was compiled based on the basic philosophy of the Kālacakratantra circle. First, this paper examines the problem of the complier of that text (Some believe that the Pañjikā was composed by Nāropa). Secondly, it discusses the period of the appearance of the Kālkacakra group. As the contemporary Italian scholar Claudio Cicuzza says, if the Laghutantraṭīkā written by Vajrapāṇi, one of the Cakrasaṃvaratantra commentaries, upon which the Pañjikā is based, and to which it refers several times, was the earliest text of the Kālacakra doctrine, it is highly plausible that a new system of organizational principles (an integrated system of bhikṣu-supremacism and meritocracy) was introduced into the Vajrayāna by Vajrapāṇi through group-oriented practices (caryā) such as the gaṇacakra. Furthermore, the appearance of the ritual called vīrabhojya, the sisterhood ritual of the gaṇacakra, can be ascribed to Vajrapāṇi himself.

In the present paper, the present author will offer a first examination of the *Ratnapradīpa (abbr. RP), a commentary on the Kṛṣṇayamāri-tantra. According to the colophon of its Tibetan translation, RP is attributed to Ratnākaraśānti. The Jñānapāda School and Ārya School were the most influential branches of the Guhyasamāja-tantra in India. Ratnākaraśānti has been estimated to be a successor of the former only, whereas the relationship between Ratnākaraśānti and the latter has never been illuminated.

According to the present author’s detailed research on RP, it was found that RP, without making clear its sources, quotes not only the *Ātmasādhanāvatāra by Buddhaśrī[jñāna]pāda, but also two important texts of the Ārya School, namely the Piṇḍīkrama (vv. 73–74, v. 76; vv. 79–80, v. 82; vv. 85–86, v. 88) by Ārya Nāgārjuna and the Svādhiṣṭhāna[krama]prabheda (v. 36) by Āryadeva, and that RP also refers to the Pradīpoddyotana (Ṣaṭkoṭivyākhyā) by Candrakīrti of the Ārya School. Ratnākaraśānti’s works acknowledged as authentic by the present author, however, have no description of the Ārya School.

As a result of the present author’s detailed comparative research on Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works, it can be acknowledged that the Vajratārāsādhana, the Rahaḥpradīpa, the *Kusumāñjali, the Muktāvalī, the Bhramahara, the Hevajrasahajasadyoga, the Guṇavatī, the Mahāmāyāsādhana, and the Khasamā are authentic. In these all works, Ratnākaraśānti places emphasis on the Yogācāra system and some texts have many passages parallel with the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, a main work of Ratnākaraśānti. RP, on the other hand, has no reference to the Yogācāra system, rather quoting many Mādhyamika texts written by Nāgārjuna and so on.

RP is unique in Ratnākaraśānti’s works in that it has some descriptions of the Ārya School and has no reference to the Yogācāra system. Considering that RP is an authentic work of Ratnākaraśānti, it must be noted that Ratnākaraśānti shows strong correlation with the Ārya School. This fact demonstrates that Ratnākaraśānti succeeds not only to the Jñānapāda School but also to the Ārya School. Further research including the texts of the Ārya School is needed for comprehensive study of Ratnākaraśānti’s works.

The Rushi lun 如実論, which was translated into Chinese by Paramārtha (Chi. Zhendi 真諦), is regarded an important text for understanding the history of Buddhist logic before Dignāga. However, due to the lack of the text’s original Sanskrit or a Tibetan translation, research on this treatise has hitherto progressed only slowly, despite the fact that many excellent scholars, including Giuseppe Tucci, Ui Hakuju, and Erich Frauwallner, have discussed it in the past. More recently, the study of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā chapters 3–4 and 6 that has been undertaken by Katsura Shōryū and his colleagues, as well as Eli Franco’s research on the so-called Spitzer manuscript, have shed new light on the understanding of the early history of Buddhist logic. On the basis of the results of this more recent research, this paper aims to reconsider the historical position of the Rushi lun by clarifying some basic problems regarding this work: its original title, the issue of its incompleteness, and its authorship. This paper comes to three conclusions: (1) In contrast to the opinions of Tucci and Frauwaller, there is no evidence in Sanskrit literature upholding the hypothesis that the original Sanskrit title of the Rushi lun was Tarkaśāstra; (2) The assumption of Ui and Frauwallner that the Rushi lun is a translation of only part of the complete original Sanskrit text is uncertain; (3) It is not impossible to presume that the author of the text that has become the Rushi lun was Vasubandhu, who composed it in his early period, before writing the Vādavidhi.

So far much scholarly attention has been paid to Dharmakīrti’s contention, expressed in his Pramāṇavārttika, second chapter (PV 2), verses 31 to 33, that the cause for the Buddha’s becoming a pramāṇa is his knowledge of the four noble truths and not his knowledge of everything, i.e., his omniscience. However, in the Pramāṇaviniścaya, second chapter (PVin 2), there is a striking discourse in this regard, that is, the discourse about the final moment of an arhat’s mind. It is questioned there whether the final moment has causal efficacy. In the course of this discussion Dharmakīrti reveals that knowing each and every dharma is a prerequisite for the Buddha’s knowledge of what is to be done and what is not to be done, i.e., the four noble truths. This seems to contradict his previous position in PV 2. In this paper, I concentrate on examining this argument in PVin 2. I argue that it is possible to think Dharmakīrti’s real intention is here, not in PV 2. And, it appears that the origin of the notion of sarvasarvajña, i.e., the so-called “full-blown omniscience,” developed in the tradition following Dharmakīrti, is also here.

This paper examines the relationship between the Bhagavat speaking while holding discriminative conceptions and his compassion based on the idea of the “two kinds of conceptions” found in the Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā (TSP). To speak one must conceptualize. The Bhagavat conceptualizes in order to preach to sentient beings through words, which he does based on compassion. TSP says that the cause of him speaking is his wish to speak, and that this wish could be due to desire but compassion as well. This idea appears to have been shaped by Pramāṇavārttika(svavṛtti) 1.12. TSP also considers the relationship between conceptions and the wish to speak, and classifies the former into two kinds: afflicted conceptions and positive conceptions that are conducive to benefitting sentient beings. The idea that the Buddha enters into a conceptualizing state and preaches for the benefit of sentient beings can also be found in the Tattvāvatāravṛtti.

The Six Gatekeeper Paṇḍitas (mkhas pa sgo drug) are, according to Tāranātha (1575–1635), preeminent scholars of Vikramaśīla around the 10–11th century, i.e., Ratnākaraśānti, Vāgīśvarakīrti, Prajñākaramati, Nāropa, Ratnavajra, and Jñānaśrīmitra. The notion is found in a number of Tibetan historical sources. The present paper aims to clarify two points: (1) Does the notion “Six Gatekeeper Paṇḍitas” have an Indic origin? (2) Which text first referred to the notion? In order to clarify point (1), I investigated five categories: whether the notion was known by (a) the Paṇḍitas themselves, (b) their direct disciples, (c) Tibetan contemporaries, (d) later Indic traditions, or (e) later Tibetan traditions. Among them, (b) and (c) are testified to by the colophon of Ratnākaraśānti’s Madhyamakālaṃkāropadeśa (D no. 4085), which refers to Ratnākaraśānti as the foremost of sgo srung chen po bzhi (probably a notion preceding mkhas pa sgo drug) and that of Prajñākaramati’s Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛttipiṇḍārtha (D no. 3795), which mentions Prajñākaramati as nub kyi sgo glegs. These expressions in the colophons are of the 11th century, in case they are not later additions. As for point (2), one of the earliest sources is ’Brog mi’s biography in the Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud of Nyang ral Nyi ma’i ’od zer (ca. 1124–1192). ’Brog mi’s biography written by Grags pa rgyal mtshan, which is probably even earlier than Nyang ral’s version, does not mention mkhas pa sgo drug, and almost all other later biographies of ’Brog mi’s refer to the notion. This suggests that Nyang ral’s version is the one of the earliest that mentions this notion among ’Brog mi’s biographies.

Ka/sKa ba dPal brtsegs was a prominent great translation master of the Tubo kingdom, shus chen gyi lo tsa pa, and became one of the three so-called masters called Ka/sKa Cog Shaṅ gsum in later times. Earlier I studied Buddhist texts mentioned in colophons of the Tibetan Buddhist canon (sDe dge edition) focusing on the ḥDul baḥi sde snod (nos. 483–513), dBu maḥi bstan bcos (nos. 573–605), rNam par śes paḥi bstan bcos (nos. 614–654), and others which are described in the dkar chag lDan/lHan dkar/kar ma (Dk.). In this paper, I want to look at those who translated Sanskrit Buddhist texts into Tibetan by considering the colophons which discuss the translator’s role. The translation activities of dPal brtsegs are focused in the second quarter of the 9th c., and he compiled the Dk. in AD 836. So after AD 836, until the Tubo kingdom collapsed in AD 842, if his activities continued, we must consider the Buddhist scriptures described in dkar chag ḥPhaṅ thaṅ ma, compiled in AD 842 or a later year of the dog, khyi lo, to consider his overall translation activities.

According to the above, I arranged dPal brtsegs’s colophons, contained in Dk. nos. 10–458, and organized the information concerning problems involved in the history of the translations of the Tubo kingdom, considering the Indian mkhan po, the translation teachers for junior lo tsa pa, and the translation system.

It is well-known that the tradition of Mādhyamika was divided into two, the so called Rang rgyud pa (*Svātantrika) and Thal ’gyur pa, through the controversies among Buddhapālita, Bhāviveka, and Candrakīrti on the issue of how to establish emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā). It is noteworthy that the scholars of the dGe lugs pa of later periods were split into two groups on the issue of which of Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti should be regarded as the founder (Tib. shing rta’i srol ’byed, lit., one who [first] makes a wheel track, i.e., opens a way) of the Thal ’gyur pa, although they shared the same interpretation on the founder of the Rang rgyud pa. In this small essay, I have investigated this issue mainly based on the discussion found in the lCang skya grub mtha’, and drawn the following conclusions.

1. Tsong kha pa (1357–1419) explained in his Legs bshad snying po that the Mādhyamika was divided into the Rang rgyud pa and Thal ’gyur pa through the above-mentioned controversies of the three Indian scholars. He did not clearly mention, however, which of Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti should be regarded as the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa.

2. mKhas grub rje (1385–1438) established Buddhapālita as the first person who advocated the doctrine of the Thal ’gyur pa in his sTong thun chen mo. He also did not clearly establish, however, Buddhapālita as the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa.

3. These facts left room for further discussions on the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa to later dGe lugs pa scholars.

4. Paṇ chen bsod nams grags pa (1478–1554) first clearly mentioned that the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa is Buddhapālita, probably based on a statement of the sTong thun chen mo.

5. On the other hand, Se ra rje btsun pa (1469–1544), who was contemporary with Paṇ chen, established Candrakīrti as the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa. According to Se ra rje btsun pa, the following two requirements must be fulfilled for the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa: (1) the first is to show that Nāgārjuna’s final understanding abides in the doctrine of the Thal ’gyur pa and (2) the second is to show that the doctrine of the Rang rgyud pa is incorrect.

6. This controversy between Paṇ chen and Se ra rje btsun pa, whose works were adopted as the textbooks (yig cha) of ’Bras spungs blo gsal gling and Se ra byes colleges respectively, caused the followers of the dGe lugs pa to split into two groups on the issue of the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa.

7. lCang skya rol pa’i rdo rje (1717–1786), based on this controversy of Paṇ chen and Se ra rje btsun pa, took the interpretation of Se ra rje btsun pa by criticising that of Paṇ chen as that of “rang re’i mkhas pa kha cig” (a scholar of our [dGe lugs pa]). lCang skya accepted the above-mentioned two requriements for the founder of the Thal ’gyur pa in his Grub mtha’.

8. On the other hand, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa (1648–1721), whose works were adopted as the textbooks of ’Bras spungs sgo mang college, shared the same interpretation as Paṇ chen, although lCang skya insisted that he shares the same interpretation as ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa.

This paper discusses the Mongolian translation of chapter 14 of the Lalitavistara. Referring to the original Sanskrit, its focus is on a comparison between the Tibetan and Mongolian texts, discussing portions that are not translated in a word-by-word manner. In the Mongolian translation, there are cases of word order adjustment, Sanskrit transliteration of names, translated words for which no Sanskrit exists, differences in added or deleted words, disagreement with the source, and so on. In this regard, the author offers some hypotheses for the causes of these phenomena.

Zhisheng 智昇 is well-known for his seminal contribution to Buddhist catalogues. His scholarly output includes not only the famous Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釈教録 but also the Xu datang neidian lu 続大唐内典録, the Xu gujin yijing tuji 続古今訳経図紀, the Xu ji gujin fodao lunheng 続集古今仏道論衡, and the Ji zhujing lichan yi 集諸経礼懺儀. These five catalogues amount to a total of 25 scrolls (巻). The Kaiyuan shijiao lu, compiled in year 18 of the Kaiyuan 開元 era, i.e., 730 CE, is widely regarded as a representative opus of the genre. It has had a far-reaching influence on the history of Buddhist bibliography all across East Asia.

Zhisheng’s work has not been immune, however, to criticism. His reliability has been questioned, for instance, on account of inconsistencies such as the contradictory notations concerning the Shoulengyan jing 首楞厳経. To be more precise, the testimony of the Kaiyuan shijiao lu on the text is different from that of the Xu gujin yijing tuji. Recent research suggests, however, that such inconsistencies cannot be attributed to Zhisheng himself. The old Japanese manuscript versions of these two catalogues, which are among their earliest textual witnesses, do not contain any of the inconsistencies on the Shoulengyan jing which appear in the later recensions. We can hence safely assume that the so-called “inconsistencies” are later scribal corruptions which resulted in the process of textual transmission.

My investigation yields, therefore, the following conclusions:

1. The so-called inconsistencies between the Kaiyuan shijiao lu and the Xu gujin yijing tuji derive from their textual transmission.

2. By the same token, the different accounts concerning the Shoulengyan jing which appear in various catalogues do not constitute proof that the text is apocryphal.

3. The criticism of Zhisheng is unjustified. We can confidently re-assess Zhisheng’s reliability as a serious and cautious compiler of Buddhist catalogues.

Jingxi Zhanran 荊渓湛然, the ninth patriarch of the Tiantai School, is well-known for advocating the doctrine of “the Buddha-nature of insentient beings.” By raising the question about the Buddhist view of life, this paper examines Zhanran’s criticism of the notion that Buddhahood has a substantial nature which only sentient beings can embrace. On the basis of his critique of illusory thoughts in relation to the substance of Buddha-nature, Zhanran articulates that not only sentient beings but also insentient ones have Buddha-nature.

The Qijie foming jing 七階仏名経, produced by the Sanjie movement and founded on tathāgatagarbha thought, is a scripture that was used in the movement’s six daily rituals for worship of buddhas. The portion of this scripture that was compiled in the earliest stage is not oriented toward the peace and stability of the state, but rather the individual elimination of sins and attainment of buddhahood. This analysis also leads to clarification of Sanjie thought and its transformations during the Sui through Tang periods, as well as the Buddhist beliefs and understandings of the laypeople who supported it.

This essay demonstrates that the Qijie foming jing contains sections that were completed during the lifetime of the movement’s founder Xinxing 信行, and sections that were added in later generations. Further, its introduction of buddha names whose earliest extant example is the writings of Zhiyi 智顗, as well as its use of the Zhancha shan’e yebao jing 占察善悪業報経 (which contains Daoist thought and circulated widely) during the process of its compilation clarifies, evidence that the scripture sought to adopt a position of compromise between elite and popular levels of Buddhist society.

The Paeg’am chŏngt’o ch’an 栢庵浄土讃 is a collection of 100 poems praising Pure Land Buddhism written by Paeg’am Sŏngch’ong 栢庵性聡 (1631–1700) in his later years.

He decided to devote himself to Pure Land Buddhism as he agonized his own approaching death, and questioned how a practitioner should meet his death.

After his abundant experiences of three gates practice the approach of equal maintenance of quiescence and alertness, sudden faith and direct serving with the “capping phrase,” he asserted that Pure Land Buddhism is relatively easy. Therefore, monks who have not attained enlightenment yet should follow this method of practice at the end.

His method of practice mainly focused on mindfulness of Buddha. As he devoted himself to Pure Land Buddhism, he abandoned previous practice methods such as doctrine and meditation. Rather he fully concentrated to the practice of invocation of the name of a Buddha.

Paeg’am entirely embraced the practice of invocation of the name of a Buddha, of the type of Shandao 善導, and admired the stage of ten kinds of mindfulness (shinian 十念) and one-pointed concentration on undisturbed recitation of the Buddha’s name.

In Korea, he is one of the rare figures who advocates invocation of the name of a Buddha and the Pure Land of the West. He had great respect for Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 and the White Lotus Society (白蓮結社) that inspired him to form a society by himself.

He was an exceptional Pure Land Buddhism scholar of the Chosŏn era, a devotee of mindfulness of the Buddha, and a practitioner of invocation of the name of a Buddha. Therefore, the Paeg’am chŏngt’o ch’an gave an impetus to the revival of Pure Land Buddhism in the late Chosŏn era and became a foundation for Pure Land faith in present day Korea.

The late Chosŏn period in the 18th century is known as “The Era of Huayan” and the primary object of study at the time was the Huayan jing shuchao 華厳経疏鈔 by Qingliang Chengguan 清涼澄観. The extensive commentaries on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra in the Huayan jing shuchao still remain to the present, and the study by Sŏlpa Sangŏn 雪坂尚彦 (1707–1791) had a powerful influence on later research. The Chaphwabu 雑貨腐 by Sŏlpa refers to a Daśabhūmika commentary, Sipchip’um sagi 十地品私記. Here the author mentioned Jingyingsi Huiyuan 浄影寺慧遠 several times, mostly to criticize him. However, Sŏlpa did not see the Shidi lun yiji 十地論義記 by Huiyuan. Therefore, his understanding of Huiyuan was only possible through Chengguan. For that reason, he reveals limitations of understanding about Huiyuan in studies on Huayan in the late Chosŏn dynasty.

The general understanding of Buddhism’s status during the Chosŏn dynasty is that the period was a dark age for the religion. The Chosŏn regime respected and advocated Confucianism and, as a result, severely oppressed Buddhism. However, kŭmsŏngmun 金石文 (epigraphs) and pimun 碑文 (epitaphs) from the Chosŏn dynasty reveal quite few cases of receiving pigu kye 比丘戒 (religious precepts given to Buddhist monks and nuns). Also, many Buddhist scriptures on religious precepts that were published between the late 17th century and the late 18th century have recently been discovered. In this study, with reference to earlier research we argue that the established understanding of religious precepts during the late Chosŏn period should be reconsidered.

Ŭich’ŏn 義天 (1055–1101) established nine patriarchs under the influence of Jinshui Jingyuan 晋水浄源 (1011–1088) of the Song dynasty, and venerated Wŏnhyo 元暁 and Ŭisang 義相 as founders of the school. This understanding of Ŭich’ŏn on the patriarchs brought many influences and changes. The other religious groups also established their Dharma-lineage, and used the titles of schools which emphasize their patriarch. In addition, the school titles named after their patriarchs such as Punhwang chong 芬皇宗 and Namsan chong 南山宗 appeared.

There were many arguments whether Ŭich’ŏn had an understanding of “sect,” and whether “chong” 宗 meant sect when mentioned in the Taegak Kuksa jip 大覚国師集. I do not think that Ŭich’ŏn’s activities and understanding had any direct relation with the idea of “sect.” I suppose that his understanding of “patriarch” greatly influenced the “sectarianization” of the Buddhist community in the Koryŏ period (918–1392) after the 12th century.

The first edition of the Koryŏ 高麗 canon was later succeeded by the second edition, after the first version of the wood-blocks were lost in a fire at the time of the Mongol invasion. The Chosŏng 趙城 edition was used as the basis for the later Hongfa 弘法 edition of the Yuan dynasty. Sugi 守其, the editor-in-chief of the second Koryŏ edition, left his collation notes to the new carving of the canon. In order to elucidate the range of amendments that reflect preceding revisions of the Kaibao 開宝 canon in terms of its contents and entries, and also the issue of the affinity of Buddhist scriptures, I chose the Bieyi Za ahan jing 別訳雑阿含経as an object of this comparative study. The Bieyi Za ahan jing of the Northern Song canon lineage consists of 16 fascicles, and that of the Southern canon lineage, 20 fascicles. Differences were compared and similarities were analyzed among the lineage of the Kaibao–Koryŏ–Chosŏng, Qidan 契丹, and Southern canons such as the Qisha 磧砂 and others.

The Sŏn’ga kwigam 禅家亀鑑 was written by Ch’ŏnghŏ Hyujŏng 清虚休静 (1520–1604). However, this book was reprinted not only in Korea but also in Japan five times in the 17th century. These materials give us information about how Hyujŏng was evaluated by Japanese people and the Korea–Japan exchange of Buddhism in the 17th century.

As background to this publication in Japan of the Sŏn’ga kwigam, I emphasize the question of authenticity of the story of Kāśyapa smiling at the flower held up by the Buddha, and the emphasis Tianwang Daowu 天王道悟 (737–819) placed on the Linji lineage.

The progress of Buddhism in Early Modern Japan was confronted by a difficult and complicated situation caused by Shinto-centralism, the new religious policy enforced by the Meiji government. Because the policy attempted to separate Buddhism from Shinto, the devastation and persecution of Buddhism were extensive. The policy was called Haibutsu kishaku 廃仏毀釈. Although Japanese Buddhism underwent hard times in this period, it returned to a higher status in the social system and became an important center of society. Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士, an expert on Japanese Buddhism, describes the complicated situation of Modern Japanese Buddhism referring to the dual nature of Modern Japanese Buddhism. Sueki offered his Mei-ken setsu 冥顕説, that describes the external aspect of Modern Japan as Ken 顕, the bright side of society, and the internal is the Mei 冥, the dark side of society. Through the theory of Mei-ken setsu, Sueki explores the internal aspect of modern Buddhism as vanished in the external in terms of modernization in the Meiji era. The typical system of internal Buddhism insisted upon by Sueki is the funeral system. Though a number of people criticized this funeral system, Sueki said that it made an important contribution to revive and to economize Buddhism in Early Modern Japan. Alongside the understanding of the internal aspect of Modern Buddhism in Japan, the funeral system of Buddhism is important for understanding the meaning of death. Therefore, the theory of Mei-ken setsu implies that the understanding of the funeral tradition of Japanese Buddhism is related to the resolution of a big human problem, death. Korean Buddhism also was confronted with the same problem, that is, the practice of funeral rites and the understanding of death as a social issue.

In this paper, I discuss the significance of the three vows in the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経, which are identified to be causes for sentient beings’ birth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. In order to save everyone equally, according to the sutra, Amitābha Buddha transfers his Name, which contains every virtue necessary for sentient beings’ salvation. Those who received his Name, therefore, will rejoice in their salvation by Amitābha simply by entrusting his working. On the other hand, according to the passages of the Eighteenth Vow, those who cannot rejoice in their salvation by Amitābha cannot be saved. In order to guide all sentient beings, including those who cannot rejoice in his salvation, Amitābha prepares a skillful means by transforming them to be able to rejoice in their salvation in his Pure Land, which is the role given to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Vows.

To make research methods efficient, various products have been developed since the era of paper media, such as facsimile editions, microfilms, catalogues, concordances, and articles, and these have formed a network of research resources. Recently, they have gradually been replaced with digital resources. However, digital resources not only include several issues by their nature, but also reveal intrinsic problems in research resources which had been implicitly ignored in paper media. To hand down Indian and Buddhist studies into the future, we should address them seriously.

This paper discussed the possibility of setting guidelines and assessment items for social activities by Buddhists. The activities are grouped into three categories. Although it was pointed out that there are some problems in these activities, to overcome these problems, it is demonstrated here that in the discourses of the Buddhist nikāya literature we can find content that can quite possibly be diverted to items of internal assessment.

A. Six years ago, thanks to an antiquarian I could see and get photos of faithful copies of wall paintings which had belonged to cave temple no. 9 at Bezeklik (Albert Grünwedel’s numbering)．All of them are said to be from Kaesong in North Korea．These are 10 praṇidhi paintings, a picture of Goddess Ḍākiṇī (Chi. Tuzhini 荼枳尼), portraits of three abbots (都統, Tutung) with Chinese names, three venerable teacher monks with Sanskrit names, three Uigur noblemen, and two Uigur noble women, together with another 19 Korean Buddhist wall paintings.

B. Among the 10 praṇidhi paintings, six correspond to ①，②，④，⑥，⑪，⑭ of the praṇidhi paintings published by A. von Le Coq, Chotscho (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1913). But four of the praṇidhi paintings are reversed just as a reflected image in a mirror, with the exception of the inscriptions. These are shown here as －①,－②,－③, and－⑪ which correspond to ①, ②, ③, and ⑪ of the original praṇidhi paintings published by A. von Le Coq.

C. The copies of the wall paintings of cave temple no. 9 at Bezeklik would have been introduced to Koryŏ in the late 13th or in the 14th century when Koryŏ became a vassal state of the Yuan dynasty.

D. The origin of Tutung and abbot’s change of social roles through successive centuries.

E. Worship of Avalokiteśvara.

F. Meditative practices and the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経.

G. The Poetical translation into Uigur of the Guan Wuliangshou jing by Kki Kki (Chi. Naonao 巙巙, 1295–1345) circulated in the Yuan dynasty, when Uigur Buddhism was in its glory, until it was expelled by Islamic forces in the next century.

H. A very simple prototype of the so-called praṇidhi paintings can be traced to the wall paintings of the Buddhist grottoes near Kucha, i.e., Kizil, Kumutra, etc., but the latter paintings were so artificially and naturally damaged that we can hardly understand their narrative meaning exactly.

I. Reconsidering the Buddhism of the Northern route of Chinese Turkistan, in areas such as Kucha and Turfan, we can know that the Sarvāstivādin or Mūlasarvāstivādin School flourished there and Mahāyāna Buddhism was believed in as is shown in historical records and excavations.

J. The 13 praṇidhi paintings and other paintings which had originally been in cave temple no. 9 at Bezeklik, and are now only available in photos in A. von Le Coq’s edition, are a nearly perfect copy, and so should be considered as newly found scale copies of these lost wall paintings.