After having not been of concern for some time, the matter of whether or not Buddhist studies should be seen as an independent discipline has recently resurfaced within related academic communities. Now that the environments of scholarship in the arts and humanities are being radically transformed in terms of elucidating, preserving, and transmitting knowledge under the strong influence of radical innovations in information communication technologies, another moment has apparently arrived where this subject needs to be brought into careful consideration. In this new digital horizon of research, each product of research that heretofore conveniently existed independently cannot help from getting involved in one vast interconnected context, in which their mutual methodological relationships need to be clarified. This paper, paying attention to the question of “the linguistic turn” in history, reviews the methodologies of Buddhist studies and discusses the great significance of the concept of “textuality” in Buddhist studies in this new environment.
The purpose of this article is to clarify the semantic structure of salvation in the Śaṅkaran tradition of Śṛṅgeri, focusing on how the present Jagadguru of the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha, i.e., Bhāratītīrtha, discourses on the teachings in order to guide people to salvation. In this religious tradition, the relationship between the Jagadguru and his followers constitutes “the relationship between a teacher and his disciples” (guruśiṣya-sambandha), which consists of both the level of world-renunciation and that of ordinary faith. For the ordinary followers, the Jagadguru has the religious significance of a saint who possesses magico-religious powers. Moreover, the performance of their karman and bhakti has the soteriological implications of the “purification of mind” (citta-śuddhi). In this religious tradition, from the viewpoint of salvation, the same term bhakti contains multi-layered meanings according to the inner commitments of the followers.
One common topic for East Asian commentators on the Buddhist Vinaya is the concept known as the “essence of the precepts” or jieti 戒体. This is the idea that, upon ordination, ordinands became imbued with certain “essence” that certifies their ordination and helped them maintain the precepts as long as they remained ordained. The Tang-dynasty scholar and monk Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) elaborates on this theory in several places in his oeuvre, but perhaps the most influential version of this theory comes from his Jiemo shu 羯磨疏 (“Commentary on karman”), where he explains that that the “essence of the precepts” is composed of “seeds” (zhongzi 種子) in the “fundamental storehouse consciousness” (benzangshi 本蔵識).
Because this theory is derived from Yogācāra thought, most historians have pre-supposed that this idea, in contrast to the more traditional explanation found in his Xingshi chao 行事鈔, was borne out of Daoxuan’s interactions with the famous translator and scholar of Yogācāra works Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–660), while Daoxuan worked at the latter’s translation bureau. However, in his commentaries on Daoxuan’s work, the Song-dynasty monk Yuanzhao 元照 (1048–1116), as well as a few modern scholars, have asserted that his theory owes more to pre-existing ideas found in the Yogācāra texts principally translated by Paramārtha (Chi. Zhendi 真諦, 499–596), such as the She Dasheng lun 摂大乗論 (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) and the Dasheng qixin lun 大乗起信論 (“The awakening of faith in the Mahayana”).
Regarding the actual creation of this work, it was found that although Daoxuan began writing the Jiemo shu several years before he met Xuanzang, this work was further edited and enlarged in the years following his stint at Xuanzang’s translation bureau. Nevertheless, his view of the structure of consciousness in this work seems to derive from a variety of works that pre-date Xuanzang. In particular, ideas and terminology from the Dasheng qixin lun as well as the Dasheng yizhang 大乗義章, attributed to Huiyuan 慧遠 (523–592) of Jingying si 浄影寺 were shown to be clearly present in his explanation of the “essence of the precepts.” This shows that although influence from Xuanzang and his translations cannot be ruled out entirely, Daoxuan appears to have drawn heavily on these earlier scholars even after his time at the translation bureau.
The Shoulengyan jing 首楞厳経 is known as a Chinese apocryphal sutra that was composed in the beginning of the 8th century. Recently this sutra has attracted much attention in the study of the controversy between Ekayāna and Triyāna theories in Japan.
In this study, I research fragments of Hongyan’s 弘沇 Da foding jing shu 大仏頂経疏, a commentary on the Shoulengyan jing, and other commentaries. As a result, I point out that the Shoulengyan jing is accepted as an Ekayāna sutra, and is based in the context of criticizing the Triyāna doctrine.
The Tiwei poli jing 提謂波利経 is an apocryphal scripture compiled by the monk Tanjin 曇靖 under the reign of Emperor Wencheng 文成 of the Northern Wei dynasty. Earlier studies argued that the text had be written in order to fill in a gap in the sacred corpus depleted during the persecution of Buddhism under Emperor Taiwu 太武. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Tanjin’s motive was to educate the common people in the basics of the Buddhist faith. My paper calls these scenarios into question and puts forward a new hypothesis.
I start from the premise that the main motivation in compiling apocryphal scriptures lies in the absence in the existing sacred corpus of doctrinal and spiritual point(s) which the respective author(s) want/s to make, no doubt from a putatively Buddhist stance. Such points will stand out as the unique trait(s) of the apocryphal scripture in question. Based on this presupposition, I look at the unique characteristics of the Tiwei poli jing, also taking into account the historical background of the persecution of Buddhism under Emperor Taiwu and its restoration under Emperor Wencheng. This allows me to pinpoint Tanjin’s main motivations and intentions behind the compilation of this scripture.
This paper examines how Zhiyan’s 智儼 interpretation of time shaped the formation of the concept of Mutual Identity (xiangji 相即). In the Huayan tradition, the term “Mutual Identity” is often used together with “Mutual Entry” (xiangru 相入), and it is in Zhiyan’s later writings that a combined term “Mutual Identity / Mutual Entry” (xiangji/xiangru) is used for the first time in the context of a discussion of the concept of time.
In his early writings, on the other hand, Zhiyan uses terms such as “Mutual Production” (xiangzuo 相作) or “Transformation”(bianhua 変化) together with “Mutual Entry” in the context of discussing change in the phenomenal world. This paper demonstrates that the reason for this terminological shift lies with Zhiyan’s use of Xuanzang’s 玄奘 new translations of materials associated with the Consciousness Only tradition (Weishi), in which time is seen as a discreet dharma not concomitant with mind (xin buxiangying xing 心不相応行).
At Baoshan Lingquan si 宝山霊泉寺, where the Northern Qi and Sui dynasty Dilun master Lingyu 霊裕 lived, one finds a stone stele created with the donation of the maternal relative of the Imperial Household Lou Rui 婁叡 upon which the Huayan jing’s 華厳経 “Mingnan” chapter (明難品) is engraved, as well as one comprised of several verses from its “Jingxing” (浄行品) and other chapters and a verse from the Wuliang yi jing 無量義経. I also have discovered at the Fusinian Library a rubbing of a stele upon which the “Chufaxin pusa gongde” chapter (初発心菩薩功徳品) is engraved. Based on the titles of donors and the steles’ shape, text format, and typeface, it appears that these three steles were all made around the same time during the Northern Qi dynasty.
The “Mingnan” and “Jingxing” chapters include teachings, practices, and vows (such as the ten stages of faith) for those beginning Buddhist practice. The “Chufaxin pusa gongde” chapter, which holds that the merit of giving rise to bodhicitta is the same as that of a buddha, was very important for laypeople. According to these steles’ inscriptions, many laypeople took part in their creation along with Lingyu. In this way, we can see that he greatly emphasized sutra passages that were useful for those at the very beginning stage of Buddhist practice and had them engraved on steles.
There were various interpretations of the three nature theory by the Shelun school, which was based on the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (She Dasheng lun shi 摂大乗論釈) translated by Paramārtha in China during the Sui dynasty. During the Tang dynasty, the interpretation of the three natures by the Weishi school became the mainstream, but the process of the establishment of their interpretation was unclear, because there were several models of the three natures contained in the Yogācāra texts translated by Xuanzang 玄奘. To ascertain his aims in translation and the way of acceptance of the school, I will compare the three-natures theories of the following texts.
Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (T no. 1598) by Asvabhāva translated in 647–649
Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (T no. 1597) by Asaṅga translated in 648–649
Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (T no. 1585) by Dharmapāla translated in 659
There are three interpretations about the three natures in the Cheng weishi lun, attributed to Nantuo 難陀, Sthiramati, and Dharmapāla. As its equivalent in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, there is one interpretation by Asaṅga’s interpretation and three by Asvabhāva. Comparing them, the following correspondences are found.
Xuanzang asserts that we should depend on Sthiramati’s and Dharmapāla’s interpretations more than Nantuo’s interpretation, and should also rely on Dharmapāla’s interpretation more than Sthiramati’s in the Cheng weishi lun. When he was translating the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya, Xuanzang was probably trying to make the point that Asvabhāva’s newly introduced interpretation should be emphasized, and sought to devalorize the Asaṅga and Shelun interpretations based on it. But the scholars of the Weishi school did make a conclusive determination of which interpretation was to be followed, resulting in subsequent confusion. Thus, in translating the Cheng weishi lun, Xuanzang had to specify which interpretation should be taken as orthodox. The interpretation of the three natures by the Weishi school was formed from these circumstances.
Satō Tetsuei drew attention to how Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) seldom cites the Weimo jing 維摩経 in his Cidi chanmen 次第禅門, a work based on his lectures from his younger years, yet in the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観 and other records of his lectures from his later years, the number of citations increases. Satō points out that Zhiyi’s focus on writing a commentary on the Weimo jing was, in fact, due to an increased interest in the sūtra. Of the more than one-hundred identifiable citations in the Mohe zhiguan, the majority are from the “Dizi” 弟子 (Disciples) and “Wenji” 問疾 (Illness) chapters, with the latter in particular often being related to important discussions. The latter chapter, as a discussion between Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and Vimalakīrti, who has become ill out of compassion for beings, is rich in philosophical content. In the Mohe zhiguan, the theme of “illness” from the “Wenji” chapter is interpreted as an important basis for explaining Zhiyi’s system of practice. It is argued that the unique quality of Zhiyi’s understanding of the Weimo jing is his emphasis on the “Wenji” chapter within his framework of spiritual practice.
How does one reach the first Bodhisattva stage according to the Jie shengxing 戒聖行 (Holy Practice of Discipline) of the Tiantai Biejiao 別教 (Distinct Teaching) scheme? Different opinions are offered in the Sijiaoyi 四教義 of Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), the Weimo jing xuanshu 維摩経玄疏 of Zhiyi and the same author’s Miaofa lianhua jing xuanyi 妙法蓮華経玄義 (Fahua xuanyi).
In the Southern version of the Nirvana Sutra there are three Holy Practices, Jie shengxing, Ding shengxing 定聖行 (Holy Practices of Meditation), and Hui shengxing (Holy Practices of Wisdom). In the Weimo jing xuanshu it is taught that in order to attain the first Bodhisattva stage in the Biejiao, one must practice the three Holy Practices beginning from the Shixin wei 十信位 (Ten Faiths which form the first portion of the Bodhisattva stages). According to the same text, the Jie shengxing is the tenth stage for the Biejiao Bodhisattva.
In the Fahua xuanyi, one disregards the Ding shengxing and Hui shengxing, only cultivating Discipline and thus goes directly to the First Bodhisattva Stage. In the same manner, in the Sijiaoyi of Zhiyi one attains the First Bodhisattva Stage solely through the Jie shengxing. However, in another place in the same work, agreeing with the Weimo jing xuanshu the text teaches that one must practice all three and not only Discipline.
The problem of these competing schemes is discussed in this paper.
There exist several versions among the xylographs of the Nianfo jing 念仏鏡 written by Daojing 道鏡 (dates unknown) and Shandao 善道 (dates unknown) in the mid-Tang dynasty.
The stemmatics of the different versions of the Nianfo jing is still unclear. Therefore, we have to investigate the historical background of the production of each xylograph.
It is essential not only to deal with the postscripts of the different versions, but also to survey the transmission of the Nianfo jing. We have to pay attention especially to the transmission in the Liao dynasty.
More specifically, we estimate that there is a possibility that some of the different versions of the Nianfo jing might go back to the printed Qidan 契丹 version that was in circulation within the sphere of influence of the Liao dynasty.
In this paper, we provide the bibliographic information that is important for textual criticism.
This paper examines Tanluan’s 曇鸞 Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註 in relationship to Lao-Zhuang thought. Although there are many studies on the relationship between the Wangsheng lunzhu and Lao-Zhuang thought, such as researches conducted by Nabata Ōjun and Aoyama Hōjō, these have been hindered by the problem that it is difficult to clearly identify the points in the Laozi 老子 and the Zhuangzi 荘子 from which Tanluan drew his ideas. Furthermore, since past research has been conducted under different circumstances with varying scopes, the philosophical positioning of Lao-Zhuang thought within the Wangsheng lunzhu has been difficult to ascertain. In order to clarify the relationship between the Wangsheng lunzhu and Lao-Zhuang thought, we must attempt to organize Tanluan’s sources and determine a clear scope of the study.
In this paper, based on preceding studies of Lao-Zhuang thought in the Wangsheng lunzhu, as well as new work on the source texts for Tanluan’s work, I reexamine how Lao-Zhuang thought is used in this text to clarify the relationship between Tanluan and Lao-Zhuang thought.
At the end of the Tang period, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were active as the Three Faiths. Daoism had been adopted as the state religion, and Buddhist and Confucian believers were in decline. Groups aiming to revive Confucianism arose in the bureaucracy, and drew close to Buddhism. Li Ao 李翺 is known as a person who blended Buddhism and Confucianism. However, his teacher, Han Yu 韓愈, was at the forefront of opposition to Buddhism. Why did Li Ao introduce Buddhism into Confucianism? In this paper, analyzing the Fuxing shu 復性書, an important work of Li Ao, I compare it with the thought of Han Yu.
Ennin’s Diary (Nittō guhō junrei kōki 入唐求法巡礼行記) is a four volume diary written by Ennin 円仁, a Japanese Buddhist monk in China during the ninth century. It records reference to a temple (Jŏksan Bŏphwa wŏn 赤山法華院) established by Jang Bogo 張保皐 in China. Ennin wrote his diary while on Buddhist pilgrimage to China for nine years and three months (838–847).
This paper focuses on a study of features of the Buddhist rituals of Jŏksan Bŏphwa wŏn. There are five features. The first is the scripture-lecturing rite at Jŏksan Bŏphwa wŏn. The second is Silla rite of a single-day lecture. The third is Silla rite of reciting scriptures. The fourth is the importance given to dhyāna (禅). The fifth is the importance given to the eight-scroll Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra (金光明経). According to my analysis, these rituals were unique methods of Buddhist repentance (懺法) found only at Jŏksan Bŏphwa wŏn.
Moreover, this paper examines Hieizan’s 比叡山 Buddhist rituals and examines how they are influenced by Tang rituals and those of Silla as seen at Jŏksan Bŏphwa wŏn.
The monk Shunjō 俊芿 (1166–1227) studied in the Southern Song for 12 years. Before studying abroad he studied Tendai in Japan. Shunjō introduced the Tendai Perfect Precepts (Enkai 円戒) to the Southern Song Buddhist community. In the Tendai ordination, the question-and-answer of whether it is possible for one to uphold the three-fold śīla is the formal act (karman). That method was called the three-fold acts (sanju konma 三聚羯磨). Unexpectedly, the Tendai Perfect Precepts were accepted in the Southern Song Buddhist community. After Shunjō returned to Japan, the three-fold act was adopted as the Nara Buddhist ordination, upon which Kakujō 覚盛 (1194–1249) transformed the method of Tendai ordination into the tsūju 通受 or comprehensive ordination of Nara Buddhism.
In recent years, within medieval Japanese Buddhist studies, short writings concerning doctrinal debates or personal records have gathered attention, particularly with regard to themes such as “daikushiki tai” 第九識体, “sanshō jōbutsu” 三生成仏, “hijō jōbutsu” 非情成仏.
This paper presents an outline of the Gubun yuishiki 具分唯識, found in an unpublished manuscript kept in the Tōdaiji Library.
The Gubun yuishiki was created in 1284 and during that time, Myōe’s 明恵 and Kikai’s 喜海 theories had become the norm within Kegon. The Gubun yuishiki is a valuable source in understanding individual themes that were discussed at that time.
The term Musa sanjin 無作三身 indicating the idea that one does not obtain the three Buddha bodies through practice, but rather that one is originally awakened, was used by Saichō 最澄 when he explained that the reward body exists forever. But it started to be used as the theoretical basis by which we assume that all living things are really Buddha according to the idea of original enlightenment which developed after the mid-Heian period. The Myōgyō shin’yōshū 妙行心要集 is one of the oldest documents in which the meaning of Musa sanjin can be seen evolving, and so by considering its presentation, I conclude that this evolution underwent the influence of Yogācāra thought.
Concerning the relation between the perfect precepts (enkai 円戒) and the samaya precepts (samayakai 三昧耶戒) goes back to the time of the renewal of vows. An oral tradition relates the perfect sudden vows to the rihimitsu 理秘密(“theoretical truth within mysticism”), and the samaya vows to the jiri kumitsu 事理俱密 (“juxtaposition of both theory and practice within mysticism”). This goes back to Ennin 円仁. It is not only the secret oral transmission of the 14th c. Tendai priest Kōshū 光宗 (1276–1350), but also is found in various records. This oral tradition is also given authority by the circumstances gathered together in the legends of Tendai monks gathered by Enchin 円珍 (814–891). However, Ninkū 仁空 (1309–1388) belonged to a different sect, and criticized the precept ordination. Naturally, this oral tradition, the jiri kumitsu and the Tendai monk legends do not record this. However, beside the tradition of Ninkū the matter is transmitted, and these oral traditions go back to Tankū 湛空 (1176–1253). The development of the precept consecration relies on an oral transmission from Tankū and spread far and wide.
The practice expounded by Hōnen 法然, the founder of the Jōdokyō, is the nenbutsu. Alongside nenbutsu are the “auxiliary practices” (jogō 助業). These comprise reading and reciting scriptures, contemplation, prostration, and giving praise and offerings. The relation between nenbutsu and the auxiliary practices has been discussed since former times. There are two aspects to auxiliary practices: their character of attraction and of continuation.
The Jōdo sanbukyō ongishū 浄土三部経音義集 was written in 1237 by Kyōsaibō Shinzui 敬西房信瑞, who studied under one of Hōnen’s 法然 disciples. It contains analysis of terms in the three major sutras of Pure Land Buddhism.
In Japan, there are nine kinds of manuscripts and three kinds of printed books. In this paper, I mention their bibliographic information and compare them, focusing on their marginalia. I therefore attempt to classify these sources.
In the Ōjōyōshū 往生要集, Genshin 源信 praises Amitābha Buddha as the “Honored One Perfectly Integrated with Complete Virtues” (ennyū mantokuson 円融万徳尊) which Shinran 親鸞 cites in the “Gyōmonrui” 行文類 in the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証. By examining Genshin’s usage of the word ennyū (perfectly integrated), we see that he straightforwardly applies the Tendai understanding of Buddha bodies as “three bodies in one” (sanshin sokuitsu 三身即一) or “many buddhas in the same body” (shobutsu dōtai 諸仏同体) to Amitābha Buddha in accordance with Tendai views on santai ennyū 三諦円融, sanzen engu 三千円具 (the true aspect of reality which is perfect integration of the “Triple Truth” and three thousand existences in the entire universe) based on the Tendai theory of the “Three Truths.” Though using the same word, Shinran did not rely on this latter Tendai theory. Instead, he adopted a twofold truth theory to understand the meaning of ennyū based on Tanluan’s 曇鸞 theory of two kinds of dharma-bodies discussed in his Wangshenglun zhu 往生論註 (Commentary on the discourse on birth in the Pure Land). Shinran further developed his soteriological understanding of the concept of ennyū as the state of mutual integration of the twofold truth with the word jinen 自然 (the ultimate reality as seen in “things-as-they-are”) by saying “Amitābha Buddha fulfills the purpose of making us know the significance of jinen.” Thus, while Genshin uses the word ennyū to express the meaning that Amitābha Buddha fulfills all virtues in his single body, Shinran uses the word to express the dynamic working of Amitābha’s Name actively and naturally saving all sentient beings.
This study examines the concept of “practice” in Shinran’s 親鸞 thought. In this essay, I focus my study on Shinran’s interpretation of the twofold analysis of the cause of birth in the Gyōmonrui 行文類 of the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証, in which he demonstrates his understanding of Pure Land practice from the two perspectives of the three dharma gates (teaching, practice, and realization) and the four dharma gates (teaching, practice, shinjin 信心, and realization). I conclude that the content of Shinran’s Pure Land Buddhist practice differs according to whether his focus is from the aspect of the true teaching itself or from the aspect of sentient beings who receive it.
This paper aims to clarify Shinran’s 親鸞 view of the “Three Minds of Amitābha’s Primal Vow” presented in the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経. In the “Chapter of true shinjin 信心” in his magnum opus Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証, Shinran proved that the “Three Minds” are unified into “One mind” stated in Vasubandhu’s Jingtu lun 浄土論.
This proof, the following two issues are to be considered. “How does Shinran understand the Three Minds?” and “How does he prove that the Three Minds are unified into One Mind?” Concerning these issues, we can consider them from the following two perspectives: one is to consider them in their literal meaning, and the other is from a soteriological viewpoint.
These issues are to be pursued with the aid of three eminent scholars in the past: Jinrei 深励, Sōei 僧叡, and Zenjō 善譲. Very roughly speaking, Jinrei understands that the Three Minds are of the nenbutsu practicers, while Sōei and Zenjō view the Three Minds as the virtue of Amitābha Buddha’s saving work.
There are many prior studies on Shinran’s 親鸞 understanding of Amitābha’s welcome at the hour of death. According to these previous studies, the practitioner employs self-power (jiriki 自力) in order to be welcomed by Amitābha, and they deny that one may expect such a welcome at death. Shinran asserted that when true faith was acquired one joins the group of those certainly destined to be saved in the present life and that it is not necessary to request Amitābha’s welcome at the hour of death. However, Shinran’s disciples awaited Amitābha’s welcome at the hour of death based on his teachings.
Previous studies focused on the teachings of Shinran and simply mentioned that the disciples did not have an understanding of a singular welcoming by Amitābha at the hour of death. Furthermore, conventional studies seldom mentioned the outlook of Shinran’s disciples in the Kantō region in Japan after the death of Shinran, their focus being on Amitābha’s welcome, and its effect on Shin Buddhist history.
I divide this discussion into the two periods: while Shinran was alive, and after his death, and I discuss the outlook of Shinran’s disciples focusing on Amitābha’s welcome.
In thesectionreferred to exegesis as “heqiu qi benshi” 覈求其本釈 of the last part of the second volume of Tanluan’s 曇鸞 Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註 (Commentary of Vasubandhu’s discourse on the Pure Land), Tanluan examines the deep roots of sentient beings’ salvation through the Pure Land teaching. The discussion of this section is parallels the section of the supplementary discussion, focusing on the beings to be saved, in the latter part of the first volume. Chikū 知空, an Edo period Honganji-ha scholar, analyzed this section in his Muryōjukyō ronchū yokuge 無量寿経論註翼解. While demonstrating the core teaching of Jōdo Shinshū, his methodology is essentially based on the principles of Buddhism as a whole, with citations from the Tang dynasty scholar Chengguan’s 澄観 commentaries on the Huayan jing 華厳経, as well as passages from Jōdoshū scholars such as Ryōchū 良忠 and Ryōe 了慧.
Chikū’s great achievement is, that, with a straightforward reading of Tanluan’s Wangsheng lunzhu, he shows that Tanluan’s theory of Other-Power can be understood “in consideration of [the state of] a Buddha, or in consideration of [the state of] sentient beings” (yakubutsu 約仏, yakushō 約生), or from the direction of Buddha(s) to sentient beings and sentient beings to Buddha(s) (jūbutsu kōshō 従仏向生, jūshō kōbutsu 従生向仏). Chikū takes a multifaceted approach to Shinran’s 親鸞 “profound doctrine of benefit by the Other and benefit for others,” which is based on Tanluan’s idea that the Other-Power path of Amitābha’s Primal Vow assures the swift realization of Buddhahood, in contrast to the generalized Buddhist notion that the bodhisattva path is a path of gradual realization.
This paper examines how Engetsu’s 円月 doctrinal disputes with Zenkai 善海 influenced the development of Engetsu’s theory of practice and faith. In this dispute, Zenkai criticized Gesshu’s 月珠 theory of practice and faith. Gesshu was Engetsu’s master and Engetsu responded to the criticism in place of Gesshu. Zenkai’s criticism contained three major points, the most important being that the virtue of myōgō 名号 lies only in the invocation of Amitābha’s Name, shōmyō 称名. Engetsu responded by emphasizing that the virtues of myōgō are not only contained in the invocation of Amitābha’s Name but embraced in gonen 五念 (five gates of mindfulness). Engetsu emphasized a point that differed from Gesshu on the idea of practice and faith. This difference may be regarded as the development of ideas of practice and faith from Gesshu to Engetsu.
This paper examines Shimaji Daitō’s 島地大等 methodology in Buddhist studies. Shimaji insists on compatibility of traditional methodology with new methodology of Western origin.
Shimaji calls his methodology “Subjective Clericalism.” It is also identified with Shinran’s 親鸞 way. I believe that his methodology and notion of Shinran contribute the construction of new methodology in Shin Buddhist Studies.
The Ōsu Library (Ōsu Bunko 大須文庫) at Shinpukuji 真福寺 in Nagoya is famous of having many good medieval manuscripts, not a few of which have relations with Zen Buddhism. They are now being published in the series Chūsei Zenseki sōkan 中世禅籍叢刊 (A series of Zen texts from medieval Japan), 12 vols. Some of them are works of Yōsai 栄西 (or Eisai) and one of them belongs to the Daruma lineage founded by Nōnin 能忍. They also contain transcripts of lectures by Enni 円爾 at Tōfukuji 東福寺 and by Chikotsu Daie 癡兀大慧, one of the disciples of Enni. In this article, I examine those Zen texts and try to make clear the formation of Zen Buddhism in Japan.
The Hokke mondō shōgishō 法華問答正義抄, written by Nichizen 日全, a monk of Nichiren school in the 14th century, includes citations from a few Japanese Zen texts. The Kenshō jōbutsugi 見性成仏義, whose manuscript in imperfect form is preserved only in the Shōmyōji 称名寺, is thought to be the most important Zen text for Nichizen, because he lists it in a table of contents as a text representing the general Zen teaching and he cites six sections from it. A citation of two sections from the Kenshō jōbutsugi referring to Wuxing lun 悟性論 are not identified in the manuscript of Shōmyōji. I assume those cited sentences in the Hokke mondō shōgishō might cover a part of the lost pages of the manuscript of Shōmyōji.
For another citation the Myōshinshō 明心抄 writes its author’s name as “the venerable monk Shōichi oshō 聖一和尚.” As I compare the citation from the Myōshinshō with some sentences in a manuscript of the Shōmyōji called Myōshin 明心,which does not mention its author’s name, I find that the Myōshinshō and the Myōshin are almost identical in content. However, we cannot accept Shōichi as its author without a little doubt since his historical record and other texts referring to him do not mention either the Myōshinshō or the Myōshin. Further study on Shōichi’s Zen philosophy will be essential in confirming whether the Myōshinshō or the Myōshin is a work by Shōichi.
This paper attempts to clarify Dōgen’s 道元 definition of the phrase sesshin sesshō 説心説性, or “discoursing on mind, discoursing on nature.” Dōgen treats this phrase as a fundamental Buddhist concept in the “Sesshin sesshō” fascicle of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵. However, he then negates this phrase as a misunderstanding of Buddhist thought in the “Sansuikyō” 山水経 fascicle.
In analyzing Dōgen’s works, there are two ways he interprets this phrase. In the first, Dōgen adopts it in order to construct a fundamental understanding of Zen thought. Comparing with its usage in the Biyan lu 碧巌録 (Blue cliff record), this interpretation would be based on the wenzi Chan 文字禅 (“character Zen”) of Song China. After understanding this, he advocates not dwelling on this phrase by negating it.
In the second interpretation, Dōgen emphasizes the importance of religious practice for activating Buddha-hood by giving a broad interpretation of the “discoursing” (setsu 説) of this phrase as not merely “speaking,” but as representing the entire range of activity. This latter interpretation corresponds to Dōgen’s fundamental thinking.
The above thus explain variations in the interpretation of this phrase across Dōgen’s usage.
This paper investigates the doctrinal arguments in the Sōtō school from the early to mid Edo period through the lens of the Itsudō Kanchū’s 乙堂喚丑 Shōbōgenzō zokugenkōgi 正法眼蔵続絃講議. The work is cast as a critique of Tenkei Denson’s 天桂伝尊 (1648–1735) Shōbōgenzō benchū 正法眼蔵弁註. Under the influence of Dōgen’s 道元 Bendōwa 弁道話, building on the germ of the expression “wondrous practice rooted in innate realization” (honshō myōshu 本証妙修) he investigated the Aspiration to Awakening.
Although Itsudō examined Tenkei’s critique of the Aspiration to Awakening in detail, it is not clear how he himself thought. Furthermore, regarding their points of agreement and disagreement, Tenkei emphasized the idea of unity (ichinyo 一如), and wove together the transmission of the Dharma and the attainment of Buddhahood with the Aspiration to Awakening, while Itsudō stressed a process of practice.
The Mumonkan shō 無門関抄 kept in the Tanimura Collection in Kyoto University is the lecture report on the Wumen guan 無門関 by the Sōtō sect monk named Ten’ei Shōtei 天英祥貞, active in the Muromachi period. It is the oldest lecture report on the text in existence. By studying the Mumonkan shō, we can investigate the thought of Ten’ei Shōtei and the actual situation of practicing Wumen guan in the medival Sōtō sect. The Wumen guan was extensively studied by monks, and the theories of schools interacted with each other. As a result, I conclude that the importance of Kōan Zen 公案禅 increased in the Sōtō sect.
The Nichiren sect’s first priest to study abroad was Matsuki Bunkyō 松木文恭, a pupil of Arai Nissatsu 新居日薩. Arai promoted the modernization of Nichiren Buddhism, and Matsuki studied English in Shanghai in 1886, and later went to the U.S. In those days, Arai engaged in educational reform of the Nichiren sect and organized subjects such as English and mathematics in the educational structure of Nichiren Buddhism, aiming at educational enrichment. Moreover, he had his pupils study not only at the educational facilities of the Nichiren sect but also at Keiō Gijuku 慶応義塾. Arai recognized the educational importance of the times, and we may conclude that he had Matsuki study abroad so that his pupil could acquire Western knowledge, and pursue language study. This paper considers the conduct of Matsuki and the regulations for students from the Nichiren sect studying abroad.
This paper considers the curriculum to be studied concerning Nichiren’s 日蓮 teachings in the seminaries (danrin 檀林) of the Nichiren sect. Each sect of Japanese Buddhism made a curriculum to be studied in its seminaries. The curriculum of the Nichiren religious community focused on mastering Tendai doctrine. Nichiren’s teachings were left for last and for self-study. The reason that study of Nichiren doctrine was put off is that first that in order to understand Nichiren one must study Tendai doctrine, but also that Nichiren’s teachings and community were under official pressure at that time. Therefore, Tendai teachings were emphasized in the curriculum.
The use of the expression “Jigu sanzen” 事具三千 (Three Thousand Realms Encompassed in One Thought) as a theoretical term begins in the Tendai of the Kamakura period. It was used in the meaning that all creatures possess Buddha realization.
The first use of “Jigu sanzen” in Nichiren doctrine was in Tenmoku’s 天目 Engoku jitsugishō 円極実義抄. The expression is used in the meaning “the reality aspect of the honmon 本門” (second half of the Lotus Sutra). However, it is not natural to believe that the term was used immediately after Nichiren’s 日蓮 passing.
After the Engoku jitsugishō, the expression “Jigu sanzen” is not seen until Nichiryū 日隆 (1385–1464) of the 15th century (in the Muromachi period) more than 100 years after Tenmoku. Nichiryū uses the expression often.
Perhaps Nichiryū converted the expression from a Tendai term to one of Nichiren doctrine. Therefore, we can conclude that the Engoku jitsugishō was written by a person influenced by Nichiryū in the 15th century.
Nichiren 日蓮 said that we, as people born in Japan and far from India during the Latter Age of the Dharma era, were in violation of the Buddha’s teachings and that our existence was marked by spiritual sin. My research questions in what way Nichiren preached salvation from spiritual sin.
I focus on the Five Principles (gogi 五義) because it is possible to see explanations of these Five Principles in Nichiren’s writings and in his teachings that belief in the Lotus Sutra will lead to spiritual salvation.
Research on the teachings of Nichren tends to divide his writings into three periods: the Kamakura 鎌倉, Sado 佐渡, and Minobu 身延 periods. This study considers the descriptions of his teachings in Nichiren’s Kamakura period.
Through this study, I reached the following conclusions: (1) Nichiren identified the Lotus Sutra as the best teaching in Buddhism, and (2) he preached that if one recites the Daimoku 題目, it has the same effect as one having trained in all of Buddhist teachings by listening and study.
The Shūi tontoku 酬医頓得 is a medical book passed down for generations in a family of physicians in Nagoya, thought to have been compiled by Tashiro Sanki 田代三喜 (1465–1544). The book was substantially influenced by Buddhism and it gives information on how Buddhism or monks were involved in medicine in the Muromachi period. Buddhist influences in the book are seen at several points. First, it describes the Medicine Buddha, known as Bhaiṣajyaguru, as the origin of medical treatment. Second, it explains the relation between the five solid organs and the five essential elements and expounds on the structure of human body and the cause of illness from the viewpoint of Buddhism, based on traditional Chinese medicine theory. Further, the book points out that the ultimate goal of medical practice is to attain complete enlightenment because medicine was originally granted by the Buddha. This paper reviews the content of the book and discusses the Buddha as a guardian for medicine. According to the book, those who practice medicine reflecting on their own mind without relying on superficial knowledge can reach the state of enlightenment that cannot be explained by words, and meet the Buddha for treatment. The book indicates that the Buddha gives humans various medicines and, moreover, these medicines are symbolically allocated in the imaginary world created by the Buddha. This paper reveals that the Buddha described in the Shūi tontoku is the guardian for medical treatment, and the being who leads to enlightenment.
My investigations into the meaning of bian 変 in Chinese translations (the earliest example of which dates back to 489), which have parallels in the Indian and Tibetan languages, reveal that it was used to mean “design; figure; mural painting.” The word bian was used also in the meanings of “a figure; statue,” “a relief,” and “a (mural) painting” in the non-translation texts of the pre-Tang periods. In the non-translation texts from the Tang dynasty, the word bian was used to mean “a (mural) painting on a Buddhist theme.”
Bianxiang 変相, meaning the same as bian, came to be used from the 8th century and was probably coined to express the lattermore clearly.
The Sanskrit word citra, meaning “an image, painting, relief” as well as “strange, wonderful,” corresponds semantically very well to bian. The Chinese named Indian flamboyant colourfully-painted artwork, which was totally different from their own traditional artwork and, hence, “unusual, strange,” bian.
Bianwen 変文, found also as part of the titles of several Dunhuang manuscripts, means probably “a script for a painting” used by story-telling monks.
Wilhelm Rau (1974) comprehensively discussed metals in Vedic literature. (Rau, Metalle und Metallgeräte im vedischen Indien, 1974)
In this paper, focusing especially on the base metals “áyas-,” I investigate their usage in every stage of Vedic literature, referring widely to recent studies.
In the RV, áyas- is solely used as a general term for the base metals and there is no reference to its concrete name. In the stage of the Atharvaveda, áyas- is divided into two types, “black” (śyāmá-) and “red” (lóhita-), and other base metals like tin “trapú-” or lead “sī́sa-” become known. The situation in the YSm is almost the same, however, the word lohá-, the substantive for copper, is first used in a passage of the VS and TS.
A pair of passages in the black YSp (KS and MS) suggestively tells the property of pure copper; its high thermal conductivity. In the stage of ŚB, áyas- is no longer classified by color, and on the other hand, we can determine that itconnotes specifically iron in some passages.
The hymn known as sāvitrī or gāyatrī (RV 3.62.10) is the most sacred and popular mantra from the Vedas. The mantra is also considered a kind of white magical spell for good luck or removal of all sin and impurity. However, in the Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa (AVP) chap. 31 “anulomakalpa” and chap. 34 “koṭihoma” (a tranquil rite), there is a topic concerning “pratilomagāyatrī” (PG) chanted in reverse order and used to kill enemies as black magic.
Correlating AVP and the description of PG in the R̥gvidhāna (Rgvidh), PG’s curse effect in Rgvidh is harsher than in AVP, and AVP teaches us rules of chanting and rites specifically.
While the Agnipurāṇa and the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa (VDUP) have a chapter titled “R̥gvidhāna,” there is no adoption in regards to the topic about PG. In VDUP 1.165 there is a description for the reverse gāyatrī against enemies.
In Tantric literature, the Vīṇāśikhatantra, a reverse mantra other than the gāyatrī is described. In a tale from the Kathāsaritsāgara, we can find evidence of a supernatural force (divyavidyā) named pratiloma-anuloma chanting, but which spells those entail is not clear.
PG could be used temporarily and koṭihoma also might have been replaced by the “grahayajña” (a rite for planets), as a tranquil rite, with the rise of astrology. However, the reverse chanting method was likely considered to having the effect of magic.
This essay offers an analysis of what I will call the “two-finger” illustration, which Bhāviveka discusses in the Vaiśeṣikatattvaviniścaya chapter of the Tarkajvālā, the auto-commentary on his Madhyamakahṛdaya[kārikā], wherein he introduces and criticizes the theories of the Vaiśeṣika school. Going through the early Vaiśeṣika literature, I noticed that these two-finger (dvyaṅgula, two fingers in a unit form, or finger-pair) illustrations only occur in Candrānanda’s Vṛtti, and that they do so in a very clear and straightforward manner. As I will point out, what is a mystery, and what is indeed somewhat perplexing, is the fact that the references to this illustration in the Tarkajvālā are not at all immediately intelligible. This circumstance will be addressed in this essay, in which I will also offer an interpretation and propose a solution to the issue at hand. In addition, the relative chronology of Bhāviveka and Candrānanda, as well as their contemporaries around the sixth century India, will also be discussed.
A study of the word universal (sāmānya) in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school shows a change in its definition. The difference is that the older definition includes the problematic qualification of “the cause of the notion of commonality” (anuvṛttipratyayahetu), while the later (new) definition is composed of three qualifications—oneness (ekatva), eternality (nityatva), and the state of being inherent in many individual entities (anekasamavetatva). The reason why the problematic qualification was eliminated from the new definition is logically unsatisfactory, since not all notions of commonality are caused by universals. However, even such an unsatisfactory over-statement does not explain its elimination, since it applies to the three qualifications of the new definition too. This paper argues and builds a hypothesis for its elimination. Oneness along with the state of being inherent in many individual entities, both of which are parts of the new definition, cause the notion of commonality. Therefore, if “the cause of the notion of commonality” were included in the new definition, then the definition would be too verbose a description. Thus, the elimination may have occurred for the sake of brevity. A significant effect of the new definition is that it now succeeds in showing that universal is a cause of the notion of commonality.
According to Jain dogmatics, souls are uncreated, imperishable. Every soul is an individual entity, independent of the others. But in the oldest Āgamas, we find passages which show a sense of the unity of all things. In this small paper, I would like to indicate a comparable passage which seems to have been overlooked so far.
We find the following correspondences.
The Jain Āgama Dasaveyāliya-sutta IV, 9a reads as follows: savva-bhūy’appa-bhūyassa (a man who identifies himself with all beings). And the Hindu Bhagavad Gītā V, 7c: sarva-bhū’ātma-bhūt’ātmā (whose self has become the self of all beings).
In Sanskrit, the reduplicated present of the root hā-is jáhā-/jáh- “to leave, abandon,” the -ya-present hīyá-/hī́ya-te “to fall, fall behind, be lost,” and the causative hāpaya-ti “to cause to leave, give up.” In Pāli, the reduplicated present becomes jahā̆-ti, and a new -ya-present hāya-ti made to the full grade root is frequently used, although the form hīya-ti which corresponds to hīyá-/hī́ya-te also exists. How is this new -ya-present formation to be understood, and how are the two -ya-presents in Pāli distinguished? So far hāya-ti has been explained as analogous to other -ya-present forms—jñāya-te, khyāya-te, and so on—or as a remodeling based on the present jahā̆-ti. In this paper, I suggest that hīya-ti and hāya-ti have an oppositional relation with the present jahā̆-ti and the causative hāpe-ti, respectively. That is, jahā̆-ti (vt.) : hīya-ti (vi.) and hāpe-ti (vt.) : hāya-ti (vi.) each form a coherent pair morphologically and semantically.
According to the Puggalapaññattiaṭṭhakathā, paññatti means exposition and establishment, showing a dhamma restricted by a certain category by giving a name and establishing the dhamma as the thing which has the name. This is nāmapaññatti, the paññatti by the meaning that it designates something (paññāpanaṭṭhena paññatti). The six paññattis in Pāli, khandhapaññatti, etc., and from the Aṭṭhakathā like vijjamānapaññatti, etc. belong in this category. On the other hand, upādāpaññatti according to an opinion of Ācariya is paññatti by the meaning that it is designated, only avijjamānapaññatti belonging in this category. These two paññattis that have different characters and roles from each other are fixed as two kinds of paññatti in the Abhidhammāvatāra and Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha. While the object of the paññatti which is designated (paññāpiyattā paññatti) is only a thing which does not exist, thepaññatti which designates (paññāpanato paññatti) is applied not only to things that exist but also to those that do not exist. Thus these two kinds of paññatti are not in a correspondent relation in which indicates meaning (attha) and name (nāma) in designating a dhamma.
In this paper, I propose that there is an inconsistency between the Vinayas and the Nikāyas in Pāli literature by showing examples from both. Because some episodes relating to suicide in Nikāyas are not found in the Vinayas and some episodes relating to suicide in the Vinayas are not found in the Nikāyas, we can see that the Vinayas and the Nikāyas have different roles in the Buddhist literature, which should be taken into consideration when we interpret some stories in both collections.
To illustrate these contradictory statements, I will examine a series of episodes regarding suicide in the section of Pārājika three in the Vinayas, which led to the Buddha indirectly circumscribing suicide to maintain order in the sangha. Secondly, in contrast with the first episode, the episode from the Saṃyutta-nikāya regarding three monks who committed suicide but are declared by the Buddha to have achieved nirvana seems to point to the conclusion that the suicide of monks is permissible, because the purpose of the Saṃyutta-nikāya is to teach the Buddha’s doctrine. Thirdly, also from the Saṃyutta-nikāya, I will explain two stories in which Mahā-Kassapa harshly criticized Ānanda. Even though Mahā-Kassapa’s statement includes a falsehood, Mahā-Kassapa himself was not to blame and this episode is not found in the Vinayas.