According to his stūpa inscription (Tang Chanzhisi gu dade fashi Chongjun ta ming bing xu唐禅智寺故大徳法師崇俊塔銘并序; Based on the glass dry plates of Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties), Chongjun (696–760) of the Chanzhisi temple in Yang province learned Yogācāra, Buddhist logic, the Lotus sūtra and Nirvāna sūtra from Zhizhou 智周,and traveled to Tufan 吐蕃 or Tibet. Faqing (or Faxiang), his immediate disciple, a Buddhist layman, responded to a Tōketsu 唐決 (Questions to the Chinese Buddhists) brought by Japanese monk Tokushō 徳清,according to Zōshun’s 蔵俊 Inmyō daisho shō 因明大疏抄 and Gen’ei’s 玄叡 Daijō sanron daigishō 大乗三論大義鈔.Although it is said that there was no doctrinal development of Chinese Yogācāra after Zhizhou, we can see the international interactions between the Chinese Yogācāra school and the surrounding areas in the 8th century.
This paper concerns Jizang’s (吉蔵) interpretation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka in the Fahua lunshu (法華論疏). The Fahua lunshu was written by Jizang in his later years, and is a sub-commentary on the Fahua lun, itself a commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. The Fahua lun is the most important text, through which Jizang understood the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.
The point in this study is as follows. In the beginning, Jizang understood that all Mahāyāna sūtras had the same value. This is the traditional understanding of the Sanlun sect (三論宗). But there is a change in his understanding. In the Fahua lunshu, Jizang states that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is the best sūtra among all Mahāyāna sūtras. In the Fahua lunshu, Jizang’s understanding is clarified for the first time.
Jizang states that a core of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is practice for ourselves (自行) and practice for others (化他行), and it is important for that to be repeated eternally.
The Chan Contemplation in the Liumiaomen 六妙門 was taught in the middle of Zhiyi’s 智顗 carreer. I here examine methods of meditation in the book, and characterize them through a comparison with the Shichan boluomi cidi famen 釈禅波羅蜜次第法門.I explore the ideological changes such a comparison brings to light.
The Six Subtle Dharma Gates (六妙門 Liumiaomen) is one of Zhiyi’s earlier works. It sets forth the Indeterminate Śamatha-vipaśyanā meditation. It is found in the Taishō Tripiṭaka’s forty-sixth volume. Recently, Professor Toshinori Ochiai discovered a version of the Six Subtle Dharma Gates in the Tripiṭaka kept at Nanatsu-dera. Another version is also found in the Zhaocheng Jin Tripiṭaka. Based on the the Nanatsudera and Zhaocheng Jin texts, in this article I will discuss the following two points. First, I will investigate the transmission lineage of the Six Subtle Dharma Gates. Next, I will argue that the Six Subtle Dharma Gates was written before the Sequential Meditative Gates (次第禅門 Cidi Chanmen) and not the other way around as thought earlier. Hence, the order in which the texts discuss the “six subtle dharma gates” meditation is as follows: Six Subtle Dharma Gates, sequential Meditative Gates, Sequence of Dharmadhātu (法界次第 Fajie Cidi) and Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra (法華玄義 Fahua Xuanyi).
Jingxi Zhanran 荊渓湛然 (711–782) interpreted the concept of Seeing the Inconceivable Realm (guan fousiyi jing 観不思議境) taught in the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観 as being comprised of Three Realms (san jing 三境). These Three Realms are the Realm in Principle (xingde jing 性徳境), the Realm of Practice (xiude jing 修徳境) and the Teaching Realm (huata jing 化他境). In the Song period, Tiantai monks developed various explanations of these Three Realms. Yugang Mengrun’s 玉岡蒙潤 (1275–1342) Tiantai sijiaoyi jizhu 天台四教儀集註,which was used widely in the Edo period, contains a unique interpretation of the Realm in Principle and the Realm of Practice. Mengrun declared that the place of practice exists only in the Realm of Practice. This view was criticized in the Edo period. Although Mengrun’s explanation resembles the dominant theory advanced in Northern Song period Tiantai circles, the two theories differ regarding their understanding of the Realm in Principle. The present paper shows that Mengrun’s explanation originates from Southern Song period opposition to Caotang Chuyuan’s 草堂処元 (–1103–) interpretation. Furthermore, the paper argues that one aspect of the strong theory in the Northern Song period emerged from Shenzhi Congyi’s 神智従義 (1042–1091) contribution to this debate.
The Pure Land collection of writings known as the Nianfo-jing 念仏鏡 was compiled during the Mid-Tang dynasty 唐中期 by Daojing 道鏡 and Shandao 善道 to extol the virtues of their master, Daxing 大行 (the dates of birth and death of all three figures are unknown).
The Nianfo-jing reflects Daxing’s focus on his vows toward Buddhism and his self-sacrificing ethos. We can thus infer the compilers’ desire to superimpose the image of Daxing onto that of Shandao 善導 (613–681), the very model of piety as a teacher of Pure Land Buddhism.
This theory gains probability from a close examination of the section of the Nianfo-jing titled “The Proof of Vows to the Study of Buddhist Thought” (The Eighth Branch).
This paper will discuss the background to the compilation of the Nianfo-jing, combining various factors such as the ideology of Mid-Tang dynasty Pure Land teachers regarding bodhisattva vows and Shandao as a model of virtue.
It is well known that Sengzhao’s (374–414) prajñā thought greatly influenced Tanluan’s (476–542) Pure Land teaching. Particularly representative is Tanluan’s reinterpretation of “prajñā” as “wisdom.”
In this paper, I examine Tanluan’s understanding of the practices for birth in Amida’s Pure Land developed based on Sengzhao’s prajñā thought. First, in the Commentary on Birth in Amida’s Pure Land, Tanluan introduces two methods of practice for attaining birth in Amida’s Pure Land: the practice of the five gates of mindfulness (五念門), and the ten recitations of Amida’s Name (十念). I particularly focus on Tanluan’s theory of Pure Land practice linking the five gates of mindfulness to the recitation of Amida’s Name ten times in a seamless process. In his “Supplementary Discussion,” Tanluan says, “the recitation of Amida’s Name ten times when one hears the teaching of the ultimate reality (実相) from a good friend who consoles him by various skillful means.” The “reality” here is the very foundation of Amida Buddha and his Pure Land. According to Tanluan, Amida Buddha and the adornments of his Pure Land are to be revealed by the bodhisattva’s “wisdom.” Tanluan understands that “wisdom” cultivated by the bodhisattva’s practice of the five gates of mindfulness enables people to practice the ten recitations of Amida’s Name, even those who are in the lowest level of the lowest grade.
By comparing the thought of Mazu Daoyi 馬祖道一 (709–788) with that of his dharma grandson Huangbo Xiyun 黄檗希運 (d. 850), we will clarify the development of Mazu’s Chan thought which is the keynote of Tang-dynasty Chan. The main point of Huangbo’s philosophy is to divide the “mind” into “one pure radiance” 一精明 and “six harmonies” 六和合.From there, in order for it, to perfectly fit with the mind that is Buddha, his philosophy introduces the idea of “return to śūnyatā” 空.Huangbou had developed a unique philosophy by adding new changes to the ideas of Mazu’s three elements: “the mind itself is Buddha” 即心是仏,“function and activities are nature” 作用即性,“the ordinary with nothing to do” 平常無事.
This paper explores the doctrinal exegesis of tathāgatagarbha and ālaya formulated in the commentaries on the Dari jing. The analysis is divided into three sections: the first section examines the meaning of ālaya, the second investigates the meaning of tathāgatagarbha and the third discusses the logic inherent in the identification of tathāgatagarbha and ālaya. The paper arrives at the conclusion that ālaya and tathāgatagarbha share two closely related characteristics, namely innateness 持此身 and omnipresence 満世間,and it is on this basis that the commentaries on the Dari jing integrate tathāgatagarbha and ālaya.
This paper explores the origins and transformation of Zhiyan’s 智儼 hermeneutical categorization known as the Ten Essential Components 十義門,and considers its relationship to the doctrinal exegesis developed by Ji 基 of the Consciousness-Only school. The paper concludes that 1) the origin of Zhiyan’s categorization can be traced back to the doctrinal thought of the Dilun 地論 and Shelun 摂論 schools; 2) in his later work the Kongmu zhang 孔目章,Zhiyan gives more importance to the Ten Essential Components than in the earlier Souxuan ji 捜玄記; 3) Ji also applied the same concepts of Dilun and Shelun origin in order to formulate his central doctrinal positions. Finally, the paper points out that there has been a common doctrinal background to the various stands of early Tang Consciousness-Only thought.
Undefiled ignorances are one of the criteria by which Buddhas and Arhats are distinguished. According to preceding studies, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism tend to identify undefiled ignorances with hindrances to liberation. And this tendency seems to have begun from the descriptions in the Jushe lunji (倶舎論記).
This paper discusses the reason why Chinese and Japanese Buddhism tend to identify undefiled ignorances with hindrances to liberation.
Dunhuang manuscript S.6388 is a classical Chinese commentary on the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra 勝鬘経.Akira Fujieda inferred that S.6388 was written in China between A.D. 515 and the accomplishment of the Shengmanjing yiji 勝鬘経義記,a work of Jingyingsi Huiyuan 浄影寺慧遠 (523–592). Thechnical terms of the Shidijing lun 十地経論 can be found in S.6388.
The author of S.6388 re-explains the theory of gotra 種姓 through the stages of the bodhisattva, and S.6388 says the dashengwen 大声聞 is in fact the bodhisattva. Furthermore, S.6388 asserts that tathāgatagarbha is a saṃskṛta dharma, and the dharmakāya is an asaṃskṛta dharma. The ti 体 of tathāgatagarbha is invariant. On the contrary, the yong 用 of tathāgatagarbha, which can act as a saṃskṛta dharma, is movable. This theory is very near to the explanation of Fashang 法上 (495–580), who belongs to the early Dilun school. In addition, the author of S.6388 was not familiar with the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論,because there is merely correspondence between them.
The Sok mahayon non treats the main gist of the Awakening of Faith as the teaching of the section on “Establishing the Meaning,” and develops a unique theory to interpret that section employing thirty-three kinds of Dharma gates. The “Encouragement of Practice and the Benefits Thereof” section discussed in this paper recommends the holding, contemplation, and cultivation of the teachings of Mahāyāna, and warns against slandering them. In interpreting the “Encouragement of Practice and the Benefits Thereof” section, the intimate relationship revealed in the Sok mahayon non with the teachings and Dharma gates of the “Establishing the Meaning” section will be discussed.
“Saichō received the doctrines of four sects” is a statement often made in the field of the history of Japanese Buddhism, and we uncritically consider it an old established view. But, in fact, the statement grew gradually over a long time, from the Heian period to modern times. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on this process and avoid the confusion caused by overlooking this fact.
Imported Chinese esoteric ritual manuals at times demonstrate standardized phrasings. Standard phrasings here means wordings that follow a certain (or fixed) pattern.
In particular, when apocryphal ritual manuals were written, other ritual manuals were copied. This fact suggests such ritual manuals can be positioned in the initial formative stages of the shidai, or in a stage prior to that. This will be discussed on the basis of the Bhaiṣajyaguru Visualization Manual and the Hayagrīva Manual.
“The First Inspiration to Set One’s Mind on Seeking Enlightenment” (Shohosshinjibenjōshōkaku) is a key term from the “Kegon Sūtra” concerning the theory of attaining Buddhahood in the Kegon sect. “Shohosshinjibenjōshōkaku” has been the subject of a variety of debates since ancient times.
In this paper, I discuss the Kegon interpretations of Shingon priest-scholars (such as Raiyu, Gōhō, Shōken, and Shōdō), who were active during the Middle Ages, from the perspective of “Shohosshinjibenjōshōkaku.” As a result, I am able to clarify differences between the interpretations of Shingi Shingon scholar-priests and those of Kogi Shingon scholar-priests.
Furthermore, the method by which each school understands the “ideal world” provides a background for the differences between the two interpretations.
The writings of Li Tongxuan (李通玄,7–8th century), a Chinese lay Huayan practitioner, left various influences on later Buddhists throughout East Asia. This paper focuses on a lay Chan practitioner and bureaucrat Zhang Shangying (張商英,11–12th century) of China and Myōe (明恵,12–13th century) of Japan to illustrate how the diversity of Li’s Huayan thought can be found in their reception of Li’s ideas.
While Zhang Shangying saw in Li’s writings a theory of “sudden enlightenment and gradual practice”(頓悟漸修), Myōe practiced Buddha Ray Observation (仏光観) based on Li’s writings to realize swift enlightenment which captures the whole scope of a bodhisattva’s practices in one contemplation of faith. Zhang, who spent his life between promotions and demotions in a politically charged age, looked for balanced ways both in his quest for social reforms and in his search for his own spiritual development. On the other hand, Myōe, who held a deeply pessimistic view of himself being born in a degenerate age and a place far removed from the Buddha’s motherland, India, turned to Li’s writings with a more pressing anxiety.
For Myōe, Li’s writings provided him with a definitive tool of meditation to realize buddhahood, while for Zhang Shangying, Li became a mentor who taught him a steady, gradual way to the perfection of buddhahood.
The headquarters Zen temple Myōshinji was planned in 1337 by Emperor Hanazono. He donated his palace Hanazono meaning the flower-garden for a Zen-temple. The first abbot of Myōshinji, Kanzan, was appointed by the Emperor, since Kanzan was the top disciple of Shūhō.
Shūhō named the temple “Shōbōzan Myōshinzenji” after the renowned account of the succession from the Buddha to his top disciple Mahākāśyapa. The key-words of that account were used for the title of “Shōbōzan” (正法山) and “Myōshin-zenji” (妙心禅寺). In studying the texts on which Shūhō may have depended in his naming, we found that the source is not Mumonkan (無門関), but a citation of a Sūtra in the Ninten–Ganmoku (人天眼目), namely the Sūtra on Questions Put to the Buddha by King Mahābrahma to Resolve Doubts (『大梵天王問仏決疑経』).
The account of succession from the Buddha to Mahākāśyapa is: “When Buddha showed his disciples a lotus bloom, Mahākāśyapa only smiled. Then Buddha said to him that he had a ‘shōbō-genzō’ (insight into truth); ‘nehan-myōshin’ (calm and right sense) and ‘jissō-musō’ (real and no figure), so he shall bestow it to him.” In accordance with the account Shūhō named the new temple of the palace of the Emperor Hanazono “Shōbōzan Myōshinji Zen-temple” (正法山妙心禅寺).
The Sūtra was excluded from the canon because it touched on discussing political affairs or because it used the taboo-character, shū (宗), which had been used for the names of the kings of the Song (宋) dynasty. These pieces of evidence were cited by Muchaku (無著,1653–1744) in his Zenrin-Shōkisen (禅林象器箋). The Mumonkan (無門関) added the term, “wise doctrine” (微妙法門), to the above cited account along with “the expression regarding separate transmission apart from the teachings” (不立文字教外別伝). But it turned out that Shūhō had not based himself on this version.
A New Interpretation of Religion (which Suzuki also called The True Meaning of Religion in his introductory remarks), was published in 1896 by Baiyōshoin when Suzuki Daisetsu was 26 years old; it was Suzuki’s earliest published work. In terms of the work’s development, certain aspects are newly clarified from Suzuki’s letters to Yamamoto Ryōkichi, contained in Suzuki Daisetsu’s Unpublished Letters (Zen Bunka Kenkyūjo, 1989). Newly understood information includes the following: Suzuki initially co-authored the work with Shaku Sōen, its first title was Shūkyō Chakuhōgen (The Eye That Discerns True Religion), and the work’s publication funded Suzuki’s trip to the United States in 1897.
Content-wise, we must pay keen attention to Suzuki’s statement, “The true marrow of religion is boundless compassion. However, the attainment of virtue lies in fulfilling duties” (Zenshū, vol. 23, p. 113); Shaku Sōen’s emphatic marks are added to this sentence. Also, Suzuki quotes from Carrying Out the Power of the Vow in the Treatise on the Inexhaustible Lamp of the [Zen] School, written by Hakuin’s dharma heir, Tōrei Enji (1721–1792):
As for the four bodhisattva vows, these are, first, to save all sentient beings, then to clarify self-nature and eradicate the roots of afflictions, to learn all methods and means, and to awaken bodhisattva conduct and fully perfect compassion and wisdom: we call this the Buddha Way. You should know this: that the basis of realizing buddhahood is truly great compassion. (Zenshū, vol. 23, p. 80)
Shaku Sōen was said to have given lectures on the Treatise on the Inexhaustible Lamp of the [Zen] School, but the Matsugaoka Bunko does not possess these records. Thus, the relationship between the Treatise on the Inexhaustible Lamp of the [Zen] School and the Shinshūkyōron is one issue to consider.
Leaving that aside, I will trace the circumstances under which the Shinshūkyōron emerged―which the “Commentary” of Outlines of Māhāyana Buddhism (Iwanami Bunko, 2016) addresses―and will question how great an influence Shaku Sōen exerted on the development of Suzuki’s Shinshūkyōron. At the same time, I will suggest that the basis of Suzuki’s religiosity was stable from that point onward.
This paper considers the medical thought in Takuan’s philosophy.His medical idea was similar to modern preventive medicine. He thought about a disease as follows: Qi (material force) circulates through a human whole body. When this qi is delayed, a disease occurs. It is necessary to adjust the qi to prevent it from stopping. Thereby it is demanded that the human being becomes mindless (mushin). It may be said that Takuan’s medical thought was based on the theory of li (principle) and qi.
This paper studies the religious teachings developed in the Sōtō sect from the early to mid-Edo period (17th to 18th century) through the study of the Shōbōgenzō-zokugenkōgi, the main work of Itsudō Kanchū (1684?–1760).
The work is regarded as a criticism of the Shōbōgenzō-benchū, Tenkei Denson’s (1648–1735) major work in his last years. Here it is found that some annotations on the Shōbōgenzō and a rebuttal to the Shōbōgenzō-benchū are quoted from several volumes of Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō. This study reviews and examines these quotations one by one.
Itsudō placed emphasis on the whole Shōbōgenzō, which is said to consist of 95 volumes in total, and criticized Tenkei, who tried not to include more than one quotation. Also, this study reveals that Itsudō explored Dōgen’s intention broadly and made use of it, unlike Tenkei, who tried to interpret the Shōbōgenzō in an arbitrary manner.
Tango, the 5th of May, is one of the season’s sectional days which originated in China. A folk custom of drinking Acorus Calamus wine on the Tango day was adopted in Zen temples through drinking Acorus Calamus tea.
Acorus Calamus tea originated in Chan temples of the Northern Song Dynasty, and in the Southern Song it was introduced to Japan. It is confirmed in written documents that ever since Acorus Calamus tea was brought into Japan in the Kamakura period, its adaptation continued until the beginning of the Meiji period.
References to the drinking of Acorus Calamus tea are found exclusively in historical materials related to Zen temples, so that it can be regarded as unique to Zen culture. However, this tradition of drinking Acorus Calamus tea has died out both in China and in Japan.
By reproducing Acorus Calamus tea according to the references shown in historical materials of Zen temples, it is known to be a strong green tea with chopped leaves of Acorus Calamus added to it, and while drinking the Acorus Calamus tea, leaves should be crunched to taste the additional bitterness which was believed to exorcize evil spirits. However, in the Edo period, Tango tended to have a celebratory character,and was gradually made into a festive event with the tradition of Acorus Calamus tea.
In Medieval Japan’s Zen temples, the custom of China’s Southern Song Dynasty’s Chan culture to drink Acorus Calamus tea to exorcize evil spirits was well developed.
The Zen text Kakushōron 覺性論 in the Shōmyōji Collection is incomplete as the latter part has been lost. The author of the Kakushōron starts by criticizing persons who become attached to words without understanding true awakening. He states that the purpose of Zazen, seated meditation, is to achieve awakening, then to live in the awakened condition, which is the dharma nature. Although the targets of his criticism are not identified, two commentaries, the Kenshōjōbutsuron 見性成佛論 and the Jōtōshōkakuron 成等正覺論 written in the same period and kept in the same place as the Kakushōron, are possible candidates. As one piece of evidence, the word xinxing 心性,strongly criticized by the author, is often used both in the Kenshōjōbutsuron and the Jōtōshōkakuron. He also criticizes attachment to the patriarchs’ activities in the biography of Zen schools, which we again find in both the Kenshōjōbutsuron and the Jōtōshōkakuron.
Furthermore, the author of the Kakushōron announces his own Zen teaching without consulting other Zen teachings like the Linji school 臨済宗 or the Caodong school 曹洞宗.
This paper examines the kōan training of Muromachi Sōtō Zen sect, looking at the Genkishū, the sayings of a Sōtō monk named Chikkyo Shōyū. The author reveals following three points. 1. Shōyū made the disciples train in 55 kōans which he emphasized. 2. Among monks contemporary with Shoyū, there were those who thought incorrectly about kōans, and practiced for the sake of fame. 3. Shōyū criticized such monks, and he raised his disciples by a strict Zen approach.
This paper examines Dōgen’s 道元 interpretation of the passage “funyosangai kennosangai 不如三界見於三界” in the Chapter of Tathāgatāyuṣpramāṇa of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra that Dōgen quotes in the Sangaiyuishin Fascicle of his Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵,and the difference in how the passage is interpreted in Senne’s 詮慧 Kikigaki 聞書 and Tenkei’s 天桂 Shōbōgenzōbenchū 正法眼蔵弁註.
In my opinion, Dōgen reads the intent of this passage as acknowledging both “the triple world” by the phrase “funyosangai” and “what one sees” by the phrase “kennosangai.” The Kikigaki passes on a unique interpretation to the effect that “Nothing is better than seeing sangai as sangai,” but I do not think that Senne sufficiently interpreted Dōgen’s intent. The term “sangai” is used quite frequently in the Sangaiyuishin Fascicle. This frequent usage reveals a characteristic peculiar to Dōgen’s first writings following his relocation to Echizen.
In a subsequent generation, Tenkei reads this passage based on traditional principles, interpreting “funyosangai” with “through the use of seeing” added on.
The Shisetsu 四節 or Four Seasons, which means the four kinds of Buddhist service, is one of the most important events in Zen Buddhist temples. It refers to the four important turning points in the year, ketsuge 結夏,kaige 解夏,touji 冬至 and joya 除夜.
The Keizan Shingi 瑩山清規 was compiled by Keizan Zenji 瑩山禅師,the fourth generation Zen master of the Sōtō school. In this paper, I use the Keizan Shingi discovered at Zenrinji 禅林寺 temple in Fukui prefecture. I try to shed light upon the establishment of the Keizan Shingi by comparing it with various Shingi texts which were compliled in China and Japan in the same period. Those Shingi texts are bulky, however, so I focus on the ketsuge, and compare the accounts about it in detail.
Moreover, I also try to compare the Keizan Shingi with the “Ango” 安居 chapter of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵,written by Dōgen Zenji 道元禅師,who belongs to the first generation of the Sōtō school. I trust that this study clarifies the most important aspects of the establishment of the Keizan shingi.
Taiyō Bonsei 太容梵清 transcribed the major writings and texts of the Sōtō Zen School, the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 the most outstanding among them. His work was highly significant because these works were transmitted from the medieval to the early modern period. This paper offers a short biography of Bonsei as basic research on the subject. Despite his achievements, Bonsei’s biography has been obscure in that even the year of his death has not been clearly identified. By mainly reexamining relevant prior research, this paper assumes that the years of his birth and death could be in 1378 and 1434 or thereafter, respectively. The paper continues its discussion by setting on 1439 as the year of Bonsei’s death, although this assumption can in no way be verified.
This paper also examines various biographies of high priests written in the early modern period, which have been the core source materials for biographical research. It is found that the sources of information obtained from these documents can be easily inferred from extant historical records. This could mean that Bonsei’s life story had already become fundamentally uncertain by the beginning of the early modern period. Finally, this paper catalogs the transcribed materials and the information on Bonsei available until now, with a particular focus on the periods of his head priesthood at various temples. Bonsei also had exchanges with Zeami and others involved in theater. The paper discusses Bonsei’s impact on the reference frames of Zeami 世阿弥 and his fellows, during the time when the Noh theatre 能楽 came into existence.
The “Sandai-Sōron” is a case held by the Eihei-ji community involving the Kamakura shogunate; the battle of succession between Tettsū Gikai and Gien arose after their master Dōgen died, and concerned the question of which of them was suitable to be the third abbot of the Eiheiji. The seven sources extant describe the incident differently, however, the records contain various problems, and the historical facts are unclear. In former studies, the Hōkyō-yuishoki had been considered the oldest document that speaks of the “Sandai-Sōron.” Recent research indicates however that the Hōkyō-yuishoki was written after the Edo period. Here, I explicate the year of creation of the Hōkyō-yuishoki, as well as specify the year of creation of the entry on the “Sandai-Sōron” in the text, putting it between 1615 and 1688. I do so by comparing it to the Keigagyōjitsushuroku owned by the Tanimura Bunko in Kyoto University.
The Jōdoshū Zensho is a series of books on Pure Land Buddhism, which is widely used by researchers. Unfortunately, however, it includes no information about the relevant original texts or critical revisions. Nonetheless, it is now possible to generate a general description of the original texts, through investigation of the additional remarks attached to the first version of the series and page number symbols in the main text, combined with research conducted at the Library of Taishō University, which possesses many of the original texts of the series. As a result of this investigation and research, three versions of the series have been discovered, but there are many differences among them. In addition, the latest version, which is currently the most widely used, should have been printed by photo reproduction only of the reprinted version of the first version, but part of this latest version (i.e., 9 of the 20 total volumes) was printed by photo reproduction of the first version, a fact which users of this version should be aware of.
In the final chapter of Hōnen’s 法然 (1133–1212) principal work, Senchakushū 選択集,he sets the foundation for the Three Pure Land Sūtras and the first volume of the Pratyutpanna Sāmadhi Sūtra 般舟三昧経,from which he derives “eight kinds of selections” as being the eight “selections” that Amida Buddha, Gautama Buddha, and all Buddhas shared (senchaku hongan, senchaku santan, senchaku ryūkyō, senchaku sesshu, senchaku kasan, senchaku fuzoku, senchaku shōjō, and senchaku gamyō). This is one of the most important concepts of the Senchakushū, and there are levels that have been confirmed within its establishment.
In this paper, I study the process through which the “senchaku shōjō” was established as a basis for the Amida Sūtra 阿弥陀経.In doing so, I consider changing their interpretation of the two Amida Sūtra lines “one day up to seven days” and “various Buddhas in the worlds of six directions,” and verify that these interpretations are consistent with Shandao’s 善導 lines in the Fashizan 法事讃,including the “Buddha selection laws” and others.
However, there is an interpretation that does not fit with this trend. This is the interpretation of “Amida’s Original Vow” as a combination of the Fashizan line “for those who wish to become a Buddha swiftly” and the Amida Sūtra line “one day up to seven days” in the third day of Gyakushuseppō 逆修説法.In the narrowest sense, this combination is only found within writings left by Hōnen. Later lines such as “those who wish to become a Buddha swiftly” in the Fashizan continue to be cited as a change in the method of interpretation as proof of the “long-cherished desire of the birth of Gautama Buddha.” This shows an aspect of trial and error in the formation of Hōnen’s ideology.
According to the Chionden 知恩伝,the duration of Hōnen’s 法然 (1133–1212) seclusion in Kōyasan can be narrowed down to about eleven years from the age of 25 to 36.
The Daigohon 醍醐本 (written by Genchi 源智 [1183–1239] and edited by Shukurenbō 宿蓮房 [d. u.]) describes that Hōnen, along with Shinji-nyūdō Shinkanbō Kansai 進士入道真観房感西 (1153–1200) and Ashōbō Insai 阿性房印西 (d. u.), visited Kanga 寛雅 (d. u.) who was Dainagon-risshi 大納言律師 and the leader of the Sanron 三論 school in Daigo 醍醐.This description makes it clear that Hōnen’s visit to the nine sects took place around the first year of Joan (1171) at the age of 39. This roughly corresponds to the result that the author previously derived from the Daigohon and other related literature. Thus he concludes that Hōnen visited the nine sects around the age of 38.
Kenni 顕意 (1238–1304), a monk in the Seizan branch of the Jōdo School, is one of the most remarkable persons who had interaction with Tendai monks. In this paper, I reexamine his ideas of Tendai doctrine through a study of the Chūgo hōben nenbutsu-mon. What I found is that, although he insists there is no essential difference between the doctrine of Tiantai Zhiyi 智顗 and that of Shandao 善導,the point behind his theory is criticisms aimed at Tendai in his era.
Rozanji Temple’s Senchaku Hongan Nenbutsu shū 選択本願念仏集 is considered the original manuscript of Senchaku Hongan Nenbutsu shū, because the book contains some corrections in the margins. There have been several articles about the corrections in the past, but we have to further discuss the elaboration in chapter XII.
Judging from the materials, Hōnen 法然 seems to have instructed a pupil to add the sentence of the “Hairyū no gi” 廃立の義 (the doctrine of abandoning all practices except reciting Amida Buddha’s name). I think the reasons for the elaboration are the following two points. First, Hōnen tried to balance chapter IV with chapter XII. Second, Hōnen wanted to express the attitude of the “Henne zendō isshi” 偏依善導一師 (depending only on Shandao).
In June 1895, Katō Hiroyuki (加藤弘之 1836–1916) criticized Japanese Buddhism for its theory of causation through the three periods of time (三世因果の理) and its precept against killing (不殺生戒). This study considers Kiyozawa Manshi’s (清沢満之 1863–1903) reaction to Katō’s criticism.
Kiyozawa accepted the theory of causation through the three periods of time and stressed the importance of keeping the ten good precepts exemplified by the precept against killing. For Kiyozawa, good is what leads on to the Infinite, while evil is what leads to retrogression from the Infinite. This understanding of good and evil is deeply related to his theory of karma. Kiyozawa opposed Katō’s coercive ethics and maintained the importance of a morality that is applicable at all times.
Kiyozawa understood that “good cause and good result” are executed by the Infinite (無限の善因善果). This is the reason why Kiyozawa cannot accept Katō’s social theory of the good and evil which restricts morality to present society. We must learn, not only from cause and effect of the finite realm, but also from cause and effect of the Infinite realm.
This research examines how Kaneko Daiei understands the Larger Sūtra of Immeasurable Life.
Kaneko comprehends the Larger Sūtra as a story. The Larger Sūtra is a story about how the Tathāgata makes the original vows which consist of 48 vows. Kaneko thinks that the essence of these original vows is the 18th vow. The 18th vow and its fulfillment are both significant. The most remarkable characteristic of Kaneko’s understanding of this sūtra is that Kaneko explores its mutual relationships without treating the vow and its fulfillment as separate things.
The sentence of the fulfillment of the 18th vow includes the expression “immediately attained birth in the Pure Land” (即得往生). Kaneko thinks “immediately attained birth” means one’s self-awareness of having attaining “birth” at this present moment and Amida Buddha’s promise of attaining Buddhahood in the future. Kaneko understands the sūtra as giving us the beginning and the ending to our actual life.
Why did Shinran quote the twelfth passage of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra in the chapter on True Buddha and Land? Earlier studies regarded this passage as three aspects of one teaching. But Shinran’s Japanese reading and conclusion of this chapter indicate that this passage is questions and answers between the Buddha and Kāśyapa. Therefore, this passage reveals why Buddha said “bodhisattvas of the tenth stage see little of Buddha-nature.” The Ratnagotravibhāga explains why Buddha told us Buddha-nature by a similar sentence. It considers that this sentence recommends self-power Bodhi-mind. Also the Ichijō Yōketsu of Genshin which influences Shinran’s works accepts this consideration. Conversely, Shinran considers it as a recommendation to discard self-power practices and take refuge in the Primal Vow, according to this passage.
This paper represents an attempt to clarify the philological position of two Risshō Ankoku Ron manuscripts (Kenmu-Bon and Jōwa-Bon Manuscripts) of Sanukikō-Nichigen (讃岐公日源) in the history of Nichiren-shu literature from the bibliographical stand point.
The study confirms that both the Kenmu-Bon (建武本) and Jōwa-Bon (貞和本) manuscripts are descendants of the Ryaku-hon (略本) Manuscript, which now belongs to Nakayama Hokekyōji temple (中山法華経寺). The study also points out these facts of bibliographical significance: the characteristic usage of guiding marks for reading (訓点) of those two manuscripts respectively represents that the guiding marks in the former manuscript were added in the beginning of the early modern period while those of the latter were added based on the manuscript which was copied by Nissai (日済) in the Kamakura period. These newly found bibliographical facts strongly support the assumptions of previous studies and make clearer the philological position of these two manuscripts.
In this paper, I investigate the theory of 3,000 realms contained in one mind and the 10 Worlds, grounded in the concept “Hosshaku Kempon” 発迹顕本,from Nichiren’s 日蓮 (1222–1282) Lotus Sūtra-oriented thought, specifically the Bodhisattva vow of giving relief to all sentient beings in the Mappō 末法 period.
I focused on the Kaimokushō 開目抄,a text representative of the Sado period of Nichren’s exile, and extracted and studied the dogma from the viewpoint of these teachings.
Five items are taught as the dogma of the Bodhisattva vow to give relief to all sentient beings in the Mappō period: the theory of truth of the 3,000 realms contained within one mind; people belonging to the two vehicles can become a Buddha; Devadatta and the Dragon Girl will attain Buddhahood; three types of adversaries; he theory of seeds of Buddhahood in the 3,000 realms contained within one mind.
Negoro-ji temple (Iwade City, Wakayama Prefecture) engaged in woodblock publishing from the medieval period through early modern times. In particular, the editions published there during the medieval period are called the Negoro-ban (根来版). Beginning with the Jikkanjō (十巻章) of Kūkai (空海), the editions of the Sanbukyō (三部経), the Kishin ron (起信論), and the Shittanji ki (悉曇字記), and the Rishukyō (理趣経) are well known. In addition to these, through the investigations of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies the Dainichikyō Jūshinbon (大日経住心品) and Jūshinbon sho (住心品疏) were discovered at Kongō-ji temple (Kawachinagano City, Osaka Prefecture).
Among these, the publication details of the Dainichikyō Jūshinbon are missing, but a comparison with other printed books published by Ejun (恵淳) reveals a similar typeface, and so this was judged to be part of the Negoro-ban. Regarding the Jūshinbon sho a fragment of the second fascicle discovered at Rokujizō-ji temple (Mito City, Ibaraki Prefecture) was previously reported, but at Kongō-ji the first and second fascicles were found. Judging from the publishing details of the Negoro-ban, it is thought that this text was published not as part of the twenty fascicles of the complete commentary, but as just the two fascicles of the Jūshinbon sho.
Among the representative medieval Negoro-ban texts forming the foundation of Shingon doctrine were the Jikkanjō and the Sanbukyō. These can be said to have been systematically published by Akan (阿観), Ejun, and others as part of a long-term project.
Before I examined old manuscripts of the Bianzheng lun 弁正論 volume 6 kept at the Nanatsudera 七寺,Kōshōji 興聖寺 and Kongōji 金剛寺,and have found that they belong to the same genealogy. Similarly, Tsukishima Hiroshi 築島裕 examined old manuscripts of the Bianzheng lun volume 3 held by the Hōryūji 法隆寺 and Isiyamadera 石山寺,and showed that they are also in the same genealogy. In this paper, based on these results, I compare these five old manuscripts of the Bianzheng lun volume 3 and confirm that these all are in the same genealogy.
This paper researches the reason why the Zenrin-ji Yamagoshi Amidazu was painted. Shōkū and his pupils influenced Zenrin-ji. Although he is one of the most important persons in the Pure Land sect, he was also influenced by Tendai Hongaku philosophy. The painting shows that Amitābha is waiting for people in a mountain. It indicates that the Pure Land is in the mountain (this impure land). In addition, the scene includes both cherry blossoms and autumn leaves, which lead to timelessness and the Pure Land. These expressions might be affected by Tendai Hongaku philosophy, which claims that this impure land is the Pure Land. Moreover, two young boys (dōji) who hold flags in the painting might be influenced by the Mukaekō in Taima temple, a ritual enacting the raigō or visitation by Amida, which Shōkū supported. This temple was related to mountain worship which believes that the next world is located in the mountains. Considering these situations, this painting was influenced by Shōkū and Tendai Hongaku philosophy.
This paper focuses on a postscript of episode 2 “Gyōki Bosatsu 行基菩薩” of the Hokke Genki 法華験記 written by Chingen 鎮源.This postscript is not only a simple commentary but also has a storyline of a miraculous story about revelation in a dream and motifs of the Lotus Sūtra. So we may regard both episode 2, which was characterized by its postscript, and the postscript itself, as new tales of the Lotus Sūtra 法華説話.This postscript is also a description which Chingen narrated about his editing activity of the Genki as a miraculous story and summation.
It was in 1687 that the Neo-Confucian Yangmingist Banzan Kumazawa pointed out in his “Questions on the Great Learning” that “if the system of compulsory registration at temples (Tera-uke system 寺請制度) was abolished today and the people allowed to decide according to their faith, there would be many who would not register at any temple.” However, the Buddhist community in Japan has failed to seriously confront this important challenge over the ages. The present author believes that the long-standing failure to tackle this challenge has caused the collapse of the hierarchy of temples that we see in so-called Funeral Buddhism today. This paper examines concrete data on the background and present situations of this problem from the viewpoint of a funeral consultant.
The Jingoji nyohō shigyō mondō (神護寺如法執行問答,Questions and Answers on the Proper Management of the Jingoji Temple) consists of Shōzen’s questions and Myōe’s answers concerning some possessions of the Jingoji Temple. All of these possessions are unclear on their ownership, so Shōzen seemed afraid of committing the sin of reoriented use (goyū, 互用) and asked Myōe to clarify their ownership. Shōzen’s concern also sprang from severe circumstances around the Jingoji Temple, which was caused by the conflict between two groups in that temple. The source of Myōe’s answers is Fazang (法蔵)’s Fanwangjing pusajieben shu (梵網経菩薩戒本疏). Myōe grasped the practical character of Fazang’s commentary and used it to solve the problem. This document is a very rare example of using the precepts of the Fanwang jing in order to manage a temple.
The Satsuma Domain (Satsuma-han) invaded and controlled the Ryūkyū Kingdom in 1609, and after the fifteen rules (掟十五条) had been issued in 1611, by which the Satsuma dominated the Ryūkyū Kingdom, Buddhism was restricted. This made Buddhism stagnate and gradually decline. In 1910, Buddhism in the Ryūkyū Islands was unified with mainland Japanese Buddhism, and the five temples of the old royal domain of the Shō family, who ruled until 1879, were forced to become private temples. Accordingly, there was no danka (parishioner) system which needed to be abolished. Temple management met financial difficulties at that time. Here I give consideration to this process, consulting a wide variety of sources from the region itself, as well as diplomatic reports.
A recent theory has proposed that Kūkai (空海) was not the author of Benkenmitsu nikyōron (弁顕密二教論) based on the absence of this text in An’nen’s (安然) works. This paper cites passages from the Benkenmitsu nikyōron appearing in Kyōnichi’s (教日) Jubodaishinkai gishiki (授菩提心戒儀式) (Tenri Central Library), written in 871 within An’nen’s lifetime (841–915), therefore suggesting that the author of the text was Kūkai.
The Dengyō Daishi zenshū 伝教大師全集 is the complete collection of the works of Dengyō Daishi Saichō 伝教大師最澄 (767–822). However, many have propounded theories stating that the Sambyōdō gi 三平等義,a work contained in this collection, was not actually authored by Saichō but was instead the work of Ennin 円仁 (794–864). But this work was in fact not written by a single author, but was put together by more than two writers.
In this paper the author of the main text, Ennin or Saichō, will be considered, focusing on the following two points. First, it is difficult to recognize this text as a work of Saichō. Second, there is a possibility that Ennin and his disciple Annen 安然 (841–889?) were both involved in the creation of this text.
Specifically, Shōshin 証真 (1124–1208) and Nichiren 日蓮 (1222–1282) paid particular attention to this text. Shōshin quotes from the text in his Hokeshō shiki 法華疏私記,and Nichiren quotes from it in the Chū hokekyō 注法華経. However, comparing the text with other works by Saichō, many terms that are not used in other works by Saichō can be found in the section that Shōshin and Nichiren focused on. Therefore it is difficult to recognize it as a work authored by Saichō. Katō 可透 (1682–1734) first stated that the work was authored by Saichō in his Dengyō Daishi Senshūroku 伝教大師撰集録.Previously the work had been said to be a work of Ennin.
Furthermore, the Sambyōdō gi was influenced by the Myopopyonhwakyongnon chachu 妙法蓮華経論子注,written by Wonhong 円弘 (7th to 8th century). Also, there is a peculiar form to the works attributed to Ennin. Works written by Annen share this characteristic. Therefore, it is possible that Ennin and Annen were involved in the creation of the Sambyōdō gi.
The newly discovered Scroll 6 of the Kegonryakki 華厳略記第六 has been confirmed to be a manuscript linked to Scroll 5 of the Kegonryakki 華厳略記第五 held in the collection of the Nezu Museum 根津美術館.This is a text already known in academic circles. Judging from its codicological and philological features, its copying date is believed to be quite early. Both manuscripts rely heavily on the Huayan jing tanxuan ji 華厳経探玄記 by Fazang 法藏 (643–712). It is a commentary on Scrolls 6 to 10 of the Xu huayan lueshu kanding ji 続華厳略疏刊定記 written by Huiyuan 慧苑 (673?–743?). The fact that it preserves the lost portions of the Xu huayan lueshu kanding ji makes it an extremely valuable document. As for the author, earlier studies suggest that it may have been Jurei 寿霊 (–757–791–). I think, however, we should also take into consideration the possibility that the text may have been connected to Faxian 法詵 (718–778), Huiyuan’s disciple.
During the process of systematization of the Joseon Buddhist order, various lineages and branches wereestablished over the first half of the seventeenth century. As the so-called “Imje-T’aego dharma lineages 臨濟太古法統” established a self-consciousness for the lineages and branches firmly formed along with the identity of Joseon Buddhism as a proponent of the Seon (Zen 禪) school.
Given this, the systems of monastic education and practice also wereestablished by focusing on the dual cultivation of meditation and doctrinal teachings 禪敎兼修 as a basic principle, thereby pursuing an elevation of the spirit of kanhwa Seon 看話禪.In the latter half of the Joseon dynasty, the dual cultivation of Seon and Gyo (敎,teaching) was combined with the recitation practice of the name of Amitabha Buddha.
Taehyun 太賢 commented on the Fanwang-jing 梵網経 in his Pommanggyong kojokki 梵網経古迹記,and saw it as the One Vehicle teaching 一乗教.He accepted the trividhāni śīlāni and included the Precepts for the seven groups of disciples 七衆戒 and the Yogācāra precepts in the precepts of the Fanwang-jing 梵網戒.In addition, he cited the Yogācāra precepts as a basis for the non-transgression 無違犯 of Bodhisattvas.
Taehyun is the founder of the Silla Yogācāra School, and it is natural that he quotes Yogācāra precepts. However, he did not comment on the Yogācāra precepts as did Seungjang 勝荘,but cited the Yogācāra precepts as the basis of his commentary.
In this study I confirm the characteristics of quotations from the trividhāni śīlāni and Yogācāra precepts in Taehyun’s Pommanggyong kojokki. And I examine how it had an influential relation with commentaries later tham Zhiyi 智顗.I further confirm the location of Taehyun in the history of commentaries on the Fanwang-jing.