There are two questions discussed in this article. Firstly, the ritual of Yoga Buddha (瑜伽仏[事]) preserved in the Library Cave at Dunhuang is very different from the sūtra of confession to thirty-seven Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (三十七尊礼懺文) translated by Amoghavajra (不空). The Yoga Buddha ritual is a mixture whose core is the sūtra of confession to thirty-seven Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Secondly, I will analyze the title of this document, and show that the three Chinese characters “瑜伽仏” at the beginning are an abbreviation of the thirty-seven Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and forms the gsol-vdebull crap which is first portion of the whole ritual.

The Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra 勝鬘師子吼一乗大方便方広経 (SMS) is one of the earliest tathāgatagarbha scriptures. The SMS relates śūnya to tathāgatagarbha, and creates śūnya tathāgatagarbha and aśūnya tathāgatagarbha. In this paper, I discuss the peculiar interpretations of śūnya tathāgatagarbha and aśūnya tathāgatagarbha in four Chinese commentaries composed during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. All the commentaries, except the Wumingshi Shengmanjingshu 無名氏勝鬘経疏,explain śūnya in terms of defilements, i.e., the xiangkong 相空.This is obviously different from the explanation of xingkong 性空 in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. This shows that explaining śūnya in terms of xiangkong has become mainstream in Northern and Southern Dynasties Buddhism.

The “Treatise on the Observation of the Mind” handed down by either Bodhidharma or Yuquan Shenxiu is a foundational text that reveals the thought of the Northern Chan school. It has many variants, and if we can piece together how they intersect with and expand upon one another, we may gain precious insight into the history of the early Chan sects. Having said that, our understanding of the relationship between the variants of the text is muddied by several problems. For that reason, before writing this paper, I announced the publication of “Japan’s legacy: Fractured Debates on the Multiple Variants of the ‘Treatise on the Observation of the Mind’ as recorded in the New Edition of Kanazawa Bunko’s Extant and Partial Texts” at the East Asian Buddhist Studies Workshop this past May. In this thesis, I will clarify the relationship between variants of the “Treatise on the Observation of the Mind” produced in the three countries.

The Record of Linji 臨済録 is a collection of sayings and teachings of the Chan Master Linji Yixuan (?–866) at the end of the Tang Dynasty,which is composed of four parts: ShangTang, ShiZhong, KanBian, and XingLu. The edition of the Shizhong was finished at the beginning of the Northern Song Dynasty, about one hundred year after Linji passed away. However, it took a much longer time to collect all the dharma teachings of Linji in the other three parts, ShangTang, KanBian, and XingLu, and form the Linji School. In order to understand how The Record of Linji 臨済録 was edited, it is therefore necessary to investigate the origin and development of each dharma teaching.

This paper is concentrated on study of the formation of the Linji Sanju 臨済三句 in the ShangTang. It is found that the Linji Sanju 臨済三句 is not originally from Linji, but from Fengxue Yanzhao, the fourth disciple of Linji. However, the Linji Sanju 臨済三句 has been widely accepted as teachings of Linji since the end of the Northern Song, including in the widely circulated Record of the Venerable Ancient Master 古尊宿語録 (1267).

Dunhuang Manuscript Hane No. 182 Chengshilun Yiji Volume 4 is an important material for the study of the Chengshi lun 成実論 during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. This essay takes up this text to elucidate several questions. (1) By considering a relation with Jingying Huiyuan’s 浄影寺慧遠 Dasheng Yizhang 大乗義章,I try to set a new date of composition for this manuscript. (2) By comparing the commentaries in this text with the Chengshi lun itself, I try to make it clear how learned monks had understood the Chengshi lun. (3) I point out that the patterns and contents of the commentaries on the sūtras differ from those on the Abhidharma during that period. (4) There are two patterns in the commentaries on Chinese classics, one is Zhu 注,the other is Yishu 義疏.I make it clear that the pattern Yiji 義記 would be an important step in the process of development from Zhu to Yishu.

Traditionally, the original meaning attributed to the difficult expression “The Sequence of Death and Life is Orderly” found in The Record of Linji (“Instructions to the Assembly”) was “a phrase which describes the activity of somebody who acts properly according to circumstances and without hindrances, in any daily situation he/she would encounter, one after another.” In such an orderly sequence of death and life, the “four interactions between host and guest” are shown as skillful means.

Later, the comprehension and the interpretation of this expression have been influenced, from the point of view of the history of thought, mainly by the 41st case of the Blue Cliff Records (a work produced during the Song dynasty) and especially by Mujaku.

Dōchū’s The Dragnet of the Record of Zen master Rinzai Eshō, although generally relying on the views expressed in the “old commentaries,” nonetheless adds its own personal considerations.

This paper deals with Yishan’s (義山) idea of “mindfulness of the Buddha” found in the paragraph on guangming bianzhao (光明遍照) in his commentary on the Meditation Sūtra named Guanjing zuiwen jianglu (觀経随聞講録). In this paragraph, Yishan reveals the idea that light symbolizes the nature of Amita-Buddha’s compassion. Under the guidance of this idea, some terms were created in order to explain Amita-Buddha’s compassion taking in every sentient being. His idea conveyed by those terms is somewhat close to realism which was eventually utilized to explain the dynamic relation between observation and reciting (觀・念両宗).

Compared with the syncretism of Chan and Pure Land Buddhism in Ming Dynasty, especially the sect of Zhuhong 雲棲袾宏,they both embraced “invoking the Buddha’s name” as their exclusive practice. However, the ultimate realm of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism emphasizes the might of Absolute Other while Chan and Pure Land Buddhism focus on self-power leading to enlightenment. Regardless of this difference, they both take Huayan as the basis for their interpretations of Pure Land Buddhism.

In this paper, I attempt to recover the beginning part of the Fahua-Xingyi (The rules of training based on the Lotus Sūtra) in the Kyō-U Library, the portion of the document which has been missing, and point out that the Fahua-Xingyi makes reference to Kuiji’s 窺基 Fahua-Xuanzan 法華玄賛 (The Profound Panegyric to the Lotus Sūtra). Also, I show that Huizhao 慧沼 quotes part of the Fahua-Xingyi in his Fahua-Xuanzan-Yijue 義決 (The annotation of the Profound Panegyric to the Lotus Sūtra). From these considerations, I conclude that the Fahua-Xingyi was written around 659 to 695 by a follower of the Lotus Sūtra who had a certain influence over Chang’an 長安 Buddhism in the latter half of the 7th century.

Yancong (彦琮,557–610) of the Sui period participated in the translation project at the Daxingshansi Temple in Chang’an and the translation center in Luoyang. That is why he was recorded in the translators chapter of the Supplement to the Bibliographies of Eminent Monks. He was however not actually responsible for translation. He just wrote a preface and had it attached it to the translated scriptures, because what he wrote is wonderfully brilliant and recorded as being respected by people in Chang’an.

According to my previous surveys, Yancong wrote 25 kinds of preface. I also determined that he gathered those preface together as prefaces of new translated scriptures. Unfortunately, all these prefaces are lost.

Fortunately, however, the Hebu Jinguanming jing (in its Yuan and Ming versions) exists. There are two versions of this preface, with different contents. One is a printed book recorded in the Buddhist canon, the other is a manuscript kept in the Shanghai Library. While their contents differ, both have been regarded as Yancong’s work.

In this paper, as a result of analyzing the contents and writing style of these two versions of the preface, I argue that the manuscript in the Shanghai Library is truly Yancong’s work.

Jizang’s Dapin jing yishu vol. 1 (The Commentary on the Mahāprajñāpāramītā Sūtra) is also named the Dapin jing xuanyi. The Dapin jing xuanyi has yet to be subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. With the manuscript being of poor quality and the text being poorly organized, it is difficult to understand. Therefore, I have made a chart of its textual organization to clarify its structure. This text consists of ten chapters. The first chapter “interpretation of the sūtra’s title” is particularly poorly organized. As Professor Takatoshi Itō researched this chapter, this paper focuses on outlining briefly the part from the second chapter to the tenth chapter. Concerning this part, the Dapin jing xuanyi and the Jingang bore shu (The Commentary on the Diamond Sūtra) have very similar discourses, with the latter’s discourse being much more detailed. It is my assumption that the former summarized the latter.

In this work, I introduce the structure of the Byang chub lam gyi rim pa, a text commonly attributed to Atiśa. The Byang chub lam gyi rim pa contains fifteen parts including summaries, content lists and such. Within these fifteen parts, I used the content list of the main work to outline the stages to the path of enlightenment as shown in the text. The path to enlightenment begins with the taking of refuge appropriate to an inferior being. With this, one goes from being an inferior being to the next level and then after that to the level of an adept. In this way the characteristics of the different stages of the way are expressed. Besides the Byang chub lam gyi rim pa, there are no other works about Lam rim attributed to Atiśa. Although the Byang chub lam gyi rim pa was edited by a later person, it is clear that it preserves Atiśa’s original Lam rim teachings.

The expression yathārūpeṇādinnādānena, which is translated “隨盜物” in Chinese, appears in the second pārājika offence of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya (摩訶僧祇律). The meaning of yathārūpeṇādinnādānena is “in such a manner of stealing.”

In the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, this is explained with eight types of stolen things, such as medicines taken during normal times (時薬), or medicines for seven-day treatment (七日薬) and so on. Although similar expressions are found in other vinayas, this explanation of yathārūpeṇādinnādānena is absent. In this article, I examine whether the term “yathārūpeṇādinnādānena” is a new addition or not.

The Legends of the Bodhisattva offering his own body for one verse (or a half-verse) have been studied in both Buddhist studies and Art History. In conventional studies on this narrative, there is one tale-motif which was not taken notice of at all in the past. That is the motif of “writing a verse.” I call the narrative including this motif “the legend of writing a verse heard in exchange for one’s own body.” In this paper, I collect eight parallel stories (of which three are new discoveries), offer a motif comparison table of each story, and consider the meaning of “writing” the Buddha-dharma.

Though the salvation for all sentient beings is vowed, there was a clear statement that rebirth into Sukhāvatī was not permitted for those who have committed grave sins, as found in the Sukhāvatīvyūha, the main Pure land sūtra in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. But this limiting tendency for salvation came to be eased gradually through a few prayers, especially the prayers beginning with that of Bhadracarī in the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. As a result, the prayer for the rebirth into Sukhāvatī of all sentient beings has become one of the major features of Pure Land Buddhism in East Asia.

Mahāśītavatī is a goddess represented in the Buddhist scripture Mahāśītavatī. This paper is an exploration of the influence of the physical descriptions of this goddess on how she is visualized in the Sādhanamālā (SM).

The SM, compiled by Abhayākaragupta in the eleventh or twelfth century, is one of the primary sources for the visualization of images of Buddhist deities. It contains nine different sādhana of the goddess Pañcarakṣā. Of these, No. 200 describes the visualization of Mahāśītavatī, separate from the other four goddesses. Nos. 201 and 206 describe all five manifestations of the goddess Pañcarakṣā.

The Mahāśītavatī is a Buddhist scripture associated with the Pañcarakṣā, a collection of five dhāraṇī. This dhāraṇī sūtra has two versions, commonly referred to as A (ŚV-A) and B (ŚV-B). Although they tell the same story, they differ in their precise contents.

Because the names of real animals (owls, crows, pigeons, etc.) correspond to those of Mahāśītavatī in no. 206 of the SM, it is speculated that the depiction of Mahāśītavatī in SM was influenced by that in ŚV-A.

Vajrapāṇi, the author of Laghutantraṭīkā, a commentary on the beginning of the ten and a half stanzas of Cakrasaṃvaratantra, presented epoch-making theories and practices, which contributed to the newly emerging circle of the Kālacakratantra school. This paper firstly refers to the vīrabhojya-ritual (Heroes’ feast), which is a saṃgha version of the gaṇacakra introduced to the Buddhist tantric world by Vajrapāṇi. Secondly the paper considers his basic opinion of the bhikṣu-ācārya’s supremacy to the cellaka-ācārya (monastery-dwellers, but non-monks, rather priests) and gṛhastha-ācārya (householders, lay Buddhist tantrists), considering the qualification of vajrācārya or guru. Vajrapāṇi proclaims the enforcement of Vāgīśvarakīrti’s principle, ‘bhikṣuṃ vajradharaṃ kuryāt’ through abhiṣeka rituals. Throughout his opinion of strong monastery-orientation and the principle of the organization constitution in the Buddhists world, we can presume his own identity of formally being a monk, after taking abhiṣeka, becoming a vajradhara (vajra-holder). In the last chapter of the Laghutantraṭīkā, Vajrapāṇi explains the application of Vajrayāna’s discipline and suitable manner (samaya) to each category of Buddhist followers when they participate in the saṃgha’s activities.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the *Vajrābhiṣekamaṇḍala in the Vajrapāṇyabhi­ṣekatantra (VPA). This tantra explains the three types of maṇḍala for abhiṣeka. Preceding studies have discussed the first maṇḍala, but none have discussed the second and the third. For this reason, this paper focuses on the second maṇḍala. This maṇḍala is in the shape of a circle, and it has a double structure, namely interior and exterior. A vajra and a dharmacakra are drawn in the center of the maṇḍala, but the meaning of these symbols is unclear. As for the inside of the maṇḍala, a cintāmaṇi is drawn in the east and symbolizes Samantabhadra. A dharmaśaṅkha, a vajra, and a padma are drawn in the north, which symbolize Avalokiteśvara. A vāyumaṇḍala and a vajra are drawn in the south and symbolize Vajrapāṇi. An utpala is drawn in the west and symbolizes Mañjuśrī. A sword is drawn in the southwest, but its meaning is unclear. Trailokyavijaya and Krodhacandratilaka are drawn on both side of the gates. As for the outside, Īśvara, Indra, Yama, and Catvāro mahārājānaḥ are drawn in the east, north, south, and west, respectively. Durdharṣa? and Abhimukha? are drawn on both side of the gates, and four guards are drawn in the four directions of the maṇḍala.

The Upāyakauśalyaparivarta in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka contains a famous tale known in Japanese as Gosen ki ko 五千起去.A comparison of Verse 39 and its corresponding prose passage reveals that there is a discrepancy between the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation: Skt. ta ātmānaṃ savraṇaṃ jñātvā (in the prose part) is translated into Chinese as you ru ci shi 有如此失.Therefore, if one looks only at the Chinese translation, it is not possible to understand that the arrogant 増上慢 people in the sūtra realised their flaw. Furthermore, how did Kumārajīva construe the discrepancy between you ru ci shi 有如此失 in prose and bu zi jian qi guo 不自見其過 in verse?

My investigation of different lineages of textual transmission in printed editions and manuscripts in Japan and Dunhuang has yielded the following conclusions: (1) The Fuzhou ban dazangjing 福州版大蔵経 contains an interesting variant reading: you zhi ci shi 有知此失,where [you] zhi corresponds, more or less, to Skt. jñātvā. (2) The Ecang Dunhuang wenxian 俄蔵敦煌文献contains the following var. lec.: jie zi jian qi guo 皆自見其過.

The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (Saddhp) is one of the representative sūtras in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. There occur many Middle Indo-Arya (MIA) expressions in the text. There are many different Saddhp manuscripts, which can be generally classified into the Central Asia and the Gilgit-Nepal recensions. I have found so far an example of MIA krīḍāpanaka- / classical Sanskrit krīḍanaka-, which supports the hypothesis advocated by Kern and Edgerton of the progressive Sanskritization of the text in MIA. By investigating the six major manuscripts of the two recensions, I find another sample of a synonym, namely sāntika-, santika-, antika-, which supports the above hypothesis: MIA sāntika-, MIA santika- (=Pāli) appear in the older manuscript parts, with classical Sanskrit antika- in the new corresponding part of the manuscripts. There may be a possibility to acquire a new viewpoint for elucidating the formation process of the Saddhp by extending and evolving these investigations further.

The supernatural powers of the Buddha in the smaller Prajñāpāramitāsūtra guarantee that the words of the speaker are Buddhist, and do not indicate the external greatness of the Buddha. In the case of the Lotus Sūtra, the supernatural powers of the Buddha are arranged according to the progress of the scriptures. The eternal Buddha disclosed in chapter XV exerts divine power in a form that is visible to all sentient beings in chapter XX. The prologue of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (PVP) is a collection of the Buddha’s supernatural powers. That guarantees relief and the absolute Bodhi. Considering the development from the smaller Prajñāpāramitāsūtra to PVP, it is inferred that the compilers of PVP were fully aware of the supernatural powers of the Lotus Sūtra and the theory of divine change. They intend to present a new image of the Buddha that surpasses the Buddha of the Lotus Sūtra and to strengthen its significance as a teaching of the Buddha.

The importance of the dharmabhāṇaka has long been recognized, but there are many aspects that remain unclear, such as whether or not there were renunciants, their relationship with lay believers and bodhisattvas, and their role. In this paper, I accordingly examine the dharmabhāṇaka as described in Mahāyāna sutras and their position from a fresh perspective.

Basically, the dhammakathika as a monk can be seen in both so-called mainstream schools and the Mahāyāna, but the term dharmabhāṇaka is found in the Mahāyāna and only in sutras. However, the term dharmakathika is occasionally found, for example, in the “Pañcabhikṣuśatavyākaraṇa-parivarta” of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra (4 instances), while dhārmakathika appears once in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. In these cases, they are titles applied to specific disciples such as Pūrṇa and Subhūti. In other words, in Mahāyāna sutras the term dharmabhāṇaka was in broad general use, while dharmakathika was no more than a vestige of early Buddhism.

The dharmabhāṇaka replaced the dharmakathika in Mahāyāna sutras, and he would have had the following characteristics:

(1) While inheriting the attributes of the renunciant dhammakathika, the dharmabhāṇaka became a new promoter of Buddhist beliefs.

(2) The dharmabhāṇaka was closely linked to the caitya worship of the early Mahāyāna, with the place where he preached the Dharma becoming a sacred caitya, and the dharmabhāṇaka who preached the Dharma was worshipped in the same way that the Buddha was.

(3) The dharmabhāṇaka was protected by gods such as Śakra and the four lokapālas. When preaching the Dharma, he was confirmed unimpeded wisdom and dhāraṇīs by them, and also granted eloquence (pratibhāna) to facilitate his preaching of the Dharma.

(4) In almost all sutras the dharmabhāṇaka is deemed to be a monk, but in the system of ten stages of practice it is said that the practitioner leaves home to become a renunciant in the fifth stage and then becomes a dharmabhāṇaka.

(5) In the Mahāyāna, no distinction is made between the renunciant and the layman in the case of bodhisattvas and kulaputras. Both the bodhisattva dharmabhāṇaka and those listening to his sermon call each other kulaputra, and there are no distinctions of rank in this term.

(6) The dharmabhāṇaka is usually a monk or a renunciant. But there is the possibility that he may not have been a formally ordained monk and may have resided not in a monastery but in the forest or the wilderness.

In light of above, one cannot gainsay the possibility that the dharmabhāṇaka may have been involved in the creation of new Mahāyāna sutras.

By investigating Chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures and the old catalogues, we can trace the transition of titles of Mahāyāna sutras from *vevulla to vaitulya, and then to vaipulya and finally to mahāyānasūtra. In a collection of vaitulya-cum-mahāyāna-scriptures, *Mahāvaitulya-Mahāsannipāta by name, we find sentences which reveal composers of the vaitulya-scriptures were Mahāsāṃghikas. On the other hand, several facts indicate that the Sarvāstivāda school originally did not accept Mahāyāna Buddhism, e.g. the Abhidharma texts of this school never refer to Mahāyāna sūtras. I assume that members of the Mahāsāṃghikas composed new scriptures, often consisting of questions and answers, condemning the conservative thoughts on Buddhist doctrines and called these newly-composed texts vedulla / vaitulya, meaning that they were “irregular” as Buddha’s scriptures but “incomparable, peerless”. Later, they came to be called, in a more positive way, vaipulya “fullness”. Much later still, they came to be called mahāyāna-sūtra as well. As time went by, and these Mahāyāna scriptures and doctrines became much more popular, members of other schools began to acknowledge and absorb them as well. I assume, further, that the original background of the Madhyamaka school might have been the Mahāsāṃghikas, while that of the Yogācāra school may have been the Sarvāstivādins.

The Buddha’s sermon that starts with dāna-kathā, sīla-kathā and sagga-kathā is called “progressive talk” (anupubbi-kathā) in the narrow sense. It appears often in the Sūtras and Vinayas.

In our country, the progressive talk (anupubbi-kathā) has been defined in various ways. For instance, “dāna-kathā, sīla-kathā and sagga-kathā are the Buddha’s instruction delivered to the lay community” or “the progressive talk is the Buddha’s instruction, which is delivered to the non-believers, beginning with common sense conventional views, then gradually guiding them to Buddhistic teachings, and culminating with the discourse unique to Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths, in order to lead them to work toward the first of the four stages of enlightenment.” The remarkable disagreement in the definitions is due to the question as to whom the Buddha was delivering the progressive talk: to the lay community or to the non-believers?

This paper aims at the analysis of the formula, the determination of the audience of the anupubbi-kathā, and the investigation into the reasons for the disagreement in the definitions.

Truth/reality (Skt. satya, Pa. sacca) was a common topic among philosophers, ascetics and wanderers in ancient India, searching for liberation as an ultimate goal. In Buddhism, too, the word sacca has been used in various contexts represented by four truths of the nobles. The Pāli commentaries of the Theravādins not only interpret the canonical words and passages, but also classify important concepts of different meanings which are found in the Pāli Canon. Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga classifies five types of sacca: vācāsacca, viratisacca, diṭṭhisacca, paramatthasacca, and ariyasacca, along with their canonical uses. This method of classification was not invented by him, as a similar classification is found in the Vimuttimagga (解脱道論). The category terms of sacca and the canonical quotations in the Vimuttimagga can be identified with the help of the Tibetan translation of the Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtaviniścaya. It is noteworthy that the Pāli commentaries of the Saṃyuttanikāya and the Suttanipāta added another term, brāhamaṇasacca, in their classification of sacca. More remarkably different is the commentary of the Dhammapada, which classifies it into four types including sammutisacca in contrast to paramatthasacca. It is likely that the Pāli commentaries, basically depending upon their Sīhaḷa sources, differ from the Visuddhimagga. While the Pāli commentaries actually apply these category terms in the expositions of sacca in the canon, two or three terms are sometimes given for one sacca, and even a new term like ñāṇasacca never seen in any classifications appears collaterally with them.

There are many suttas related to so-called the anicca-dukkha-anattan doctrine in the Khandha-saṃyutta. My exhaustive research of suttas in the Khandha-saṃyutta makes it clear that the theme of the Khandha-saṃyutta may be summarized as follows; rūpa [vedanā saññā saṃkhārā viññāṇa] which is anicca, dukkha and unstable by nature should be regarded as it really is, by right insight, “this is not mine, I am not this, this is not the Self of me.” Anicca and dukkha are preached as an introductory guide to anattan. Therefore the anicca-dukkha-anattan doctrine is simply the anattan doctrine. The meaning of anattan is not “no Self,” but “not Self.”

Although Dharmakīrti often uses the term sāmānya in his texts, he uses the term sāmānyalakṣaṇa only ten times. This shows that Dharmakīrti clearly uses sāmānyalakṣaṇa and sāmānya in a different sense.

In the Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti, sāmānyalakṣaṇa indicates the shape appearing in a conception and it is a universal shape which does not produce any effect. Many of the natures of sāmānyalakṣaṇa discussed in chapter 3 of the Pramāṇavārttika are understood as the nature of the shape appearing in a conception. Therefore after sāmānyalakṣaṇa is defined as the shape in a conception in the Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti, its nature is indicated by comparing them one by one with svalakṣaṇa in chapter 3 of the Pramāṇavārttika.

Candrakīrti (ca. 7th c.) illustrates an etymological interpretation of the word pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) in his Prasannapadā. The word pratītya, ending in the suffix LyaP by which the suffix Ktvā is replaced, is used in the sense of “attaining” (prāpti). This interpretation corresponds with that of Vasubandhu (ca. 4–5th c.). Moreover, Candrakīrti paraphrases pratītya as “dependence” (apekṣā). Lately, M. Salvini pointed out that his interpretation of the word pratītya as “dependence” was related with an explanation in the Cāndravyākaraṇa of Candragomin (ca. 5th c.). That is to say, he paid attention to the expression parāpekṣayā vā in C1.3.131, and understood that this expression parāpekṣā meant “dependence upon something else.” He concluded that Candrakīrti might have made use of C1.3.131 for his etymological interpretation. In this paper, I claim that Salvini’s understanding of parāpekṣayā vā in C1.3.131 is not proper, and that Candrakīrti’s interpretation on pratītya is grounded on A3.4.20, unlike Vasubandhu’s which is grounded on A3.4.21.

This paper examined the relationship between the word aśeṣajñāna in the final chapter of the Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā (TSP) and omniscience based on passages in related literature. The following became clear. (1) TSP uses the śeṣa / aśeṣa understanding seen in the Pramāṇavārttikapañjikā (PVP) and the Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā (PSṬ). (2) TSP is slightly different from PVP and PSṬ with regard to the words used when discussing śeṣa. (3) TSP thinks that śeṣa is jñeyāvaraṇa, and that one cannot become omniscient without eliminating it. (4) PVP, PSṬ and TSP say that one whose knowledge is aśeṣa can expound the four truths through various means. (5) These texts present aśeṣajñāna as a determinant of whether one can skillfully preach and of the difference between the Bhagavat and śrāvakas / pratyekabuddhas. (6) These texts do not think that the Buddha is merely a knower and an expounder of the four truths. (7) When considering post-Dharmakīrti views of the omniscient Buddha, understandings of aśeṣajñāna should not be ignored.

According to Sthiramati’s Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya, a yogin reaches the climax of darśana-mārga.At that time vijñaptimātratva is realized. Sthiramati speaks of two meanings with regard to this vijñaptimātratva: One is the vijñaptimātratva inside the mind and the other is acitta, absence of mind. In this state of acitta, reality is realized. The doubt that Sthira­mati’s standpoint might be solipsism disappears by taking into account this reality.

For several years, I have been working on a project to edit chapter 6 of a Sanskrit manuscript of Jinendrabuddhiʼs Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā together with two colleagues, Dr. Yasutaka Muroya and Dr. Toshikazu Watanabe. As one result of this project, last year I presented a reconstruction of twenty-five verses from chapter 6 of Dignāgaʼs Pramāṇasamuccaya at the Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies.

Regarding these kārikās of the Pramāṇasamuccaya, Prof. Tucci, Prof. Kitagawa and Prof. Katsura, after examining the Tibetan translations of the same, have already pointed out that several are very similar to verses found in the jāti section of the Nyāyamukha (因明正理門論). The Sanskrit reconstruction of the kārikās of the Pramāṇasamuccaya’s chapter 6 may thus contribute to a better understanding of the verses in the Nyāyamukha’s jāti section and, moreover, help in their Sanskrit reconstruction, the Nyāyamukha being so far accessible only in Chinese translation.

Based on this, I already discussed a few points at the seminar mentioned above, including the Sanskrit reconstruction of one verse (v. 25) of the Nyāyamukha. In this paper, I present my attempt to reconstruct the Sanskrit of all the verses in the Nyāyamukha’s jāti section (v. 19ab, 20–22, 23ab, 24–28). I also clarify a few problems that emerged in the process of the Sanskrit reconstruction in terms of the transmission of the Nyāyamukha’s Chinese translation.

A real entity has many aspects. It can be apprehended with various concepts such as pine, tree, earthen, substance, existent, and object. People can extract a certain aspect of an entity by means of words. According to Dignāga, this extraction is possible only through excluding the other meanings. His claim implies that this extraction is impossible in the framework of realism, in which universals are posited in accordance with their corresponding concepts. According to Dignāga, a co-referential expression sad dravyam cannot be explained in the realist view, because there is a difference in level between the substratum and the property. In other words, the expression would become figurative (aupacārika, bhākta). If one forcedly pulled down the properties to the ground level, undesirable consequences such as contradiction (virodha) between properties or confused perception (mecakadarśana) would follow. It is impossible to extract a single property when many properties cohabit in an entity. The theory of exclusion (apoha), however, does not run into this problem, because exclusion is not a substance (adravya). Many exclusions, such as the exclusion of non-pots and so on, can cohabit in an entity. A certain exclusion can be extracted in accordance with the difference of the excluded objects. Therefore, Dignāga claims that a certain aspect of a real entity is apprehended in the world by excluding the other meanings.

In his Dhammasaṅgahaṇi 956ff., the Śvetāmbar Jain monk Haribhadra Yākinīputra (9th century) speaks of an opponent who asserts the legitimacy of sex by a mendicant who is driven by sexual appetite. This paper shows how the opponent legitimates his assertion and how Haribhadra criticizes his opponent’s claims. This paper also speculates on the object of the opponent’s view. The opponent’s assertion clearly reflects the affirmation of kāma as one of the puruṣārthas in the Brahmanical view on life. Thus at first glance the opponent seems to be a non-Jain who is based in a certain Brahmanical background. But it should be noted that one of the Śvetāmbar Jain texts on monastic rules, the Vyavahārabhāṣya (6th–7th century), gives permission to male mendicants who cannot control their sexual urges to have sex with women (up to three times). It is also possible that the opponent is none other than a Jain who is not very rigorous about the sexual rules governing Jain mendicants.

Neminātha, the 22nd Tīrthaṃkara, has been mentioned as a theme of Jain literature since the early Jain canons. The story originally follows Nemi who renounces the world after observing suffering animals to be offered for his marriage ceremony.

Jain authors made some additions to the story historically. We can classify the additions in three stages; first, focusing on the conviction of Rathanemi, who is a brother of Nemi, by Rājal, a bride-to-be with Nemi; second, merging with the story of Kṛṣṇa; lastly, showing the sorrow of Rājal in the style of Bārahmāsā.

This paper focuses on the Uttarajjhāyā, Harivaṃśapurāṇa, and Nemināthacatuṣpadikā as models of the three stages. We attempt to clarify the characteristics of each stage through a change of Rājal’s role in each work.

Bhaṭṭa Jayanta, a well-known Nyāya scholar (ca. 9–10th century), touches upon the “not-causing [reason]” (aprayojaka[-hetu]), the sixth type of pseudo-reason (hetvābhāsa), in his Nyāyamañjarī. He refers to it as anyathāsiddha, which is included as a subdivision of sādhyasama, one of the traditional five pseudo-reasons, by Uddyotakara and others. Several studies, e.g. Gokhale [1992] and Ono [2002], already partially discuss this fallacy, but have not examined the criticism of it that appears in the Nyāyamañjarī: “this type of pseudo-reason is the same as the ‘inconclusive reason [anaikāntika-hetu].’” This paper examines this section and shows that in the background to his acceptance of the sixth pseudo-reason that deviates from the traditional five conditions was Buddhist and Cārvāka criticism of the Naiyāyika theory of pervasion-determination and pseudo-reasons; that is, Jayanta proposed his theory of universal pervasion-determination and prayojaka/aprayojaka to answer this criticism. In this way, he tried to avoid the criticism of the bādha theory by Buddhists like Dharmakīrti and to suggest a solution, while clarifying the problems in the extreme antarvyāpti theory and the empirical bādha-theory.

It has been pointed out that Śaśadhara, who was active in the 14th century, greatly influenced Gaṅgeśa (ca. 14th c.), i.e., the consolidator of the Navya-nyāya school, who is a predecessor to or contemporary with him. To construct the early history of this school, we must investigate Śaśadhara. Among various philosophical concepts, I focus upon that of cause and analyzed the “Cause-ness Chapter” (Kāraṇatā-vāda) of his Nyāya-siddhānta-dīpa. Based upon his discussions of five provisional definitions and three conclusive ones, I clarified the characters of those conclusive ones. The first two definitions are for a cause which produces its effect; the third is for a cause which does not produce its effect. For him the first definition is the simplest; the second and third are correct from the logical point of view.