The fourth generation Chan patriarch Daoxin (道信 580–651) is considered to be the de facto founder of Chan. Characteristics of his cult can be found in the Bodhisattva precepts (梵網経 Brahmajāla-sūtra) and the Sui-ziyi-sanmei (随自意三昧). The chapter Daoxin of the Lengga-Shiziji (楞伽師資記) is a fundamental source for information on this figure. Traditionally, the original form of Daozin’s Yixing-sanmei (一行三昧) was seen in the system of Tiantaizhiyi (天台智顗)’s meditation, especially the Changzuo-sanmei (常坐三昧). However, it is reasonable to understand that it is the Feixing-feizuo-sanmei (非行非坐三昧) among the four kinds of samādhi (四種三昧) of Zhiyi. Furthermore, Daoxin inherits the Chan of Nanyue Huisi (南岳慧思 514?–577), the teacher of Zhiyi. Based on the two principles of doctrine of Huisi, the bodhisattva precepts, and the Feixing-feizuo-sanmei, Zhiyi’s Chan was handed down.
The main point of the current study is to understand the tradition of Chan of Daoxin regarding the Feixing-feizuo-sanmei (equivalent to Sui-ziyi-sanmei 随自意三昧). Daoxin actualizes the doctrine of the Guan-wuliang-jing’s expression “This mind is Buddha” (是心是佛). The meaning of this expression is based in the definition of the single practice samādhi of the Seven Hundred Line Perfection of Wisdom. Daoxin adopted the Suiziyi-sanmei as a method to actualize that. The two principles of the boshidattva precepts and the Suiziyi-sanmei were handed down to later generations as one of the principles of the Chan tradition.
The Chanmen zhuzushi jiesong, a Chan text from the Song dynasty, incorporates three verses of jiesong with commentary written by Fushan Fayuan (991–1067). Namely, the Xuanzhongming and the Xinfengyin pertaining to Dongshan Liangjie, and the Xueziyin, which according to this study is found to be an anthology of Tong’an Changcha. Among these, by examining the commentary on the Xueziyin, it is clear that Fushan was referencing the Shixuantan, an anthology by Tong’an with a commentary by Dayang Jingxuan (943–1027). This indicates that Fushan was connected to Dayang via Tong’an. Additionally, by looking into the preface to the Xueziyin, it can be said that Fushan was using “Pianzheng Wuwei” under the influence of the Dongshan Wuwei Xianjue. Although “Pianzheng Wuwei” is a method of instruction advocated by Caoshan Benji (840–901), the commentary on the Caoshan Sanzhongduo was also passed on to Dayang, and hence the anthology by Tong’an Changcha and the sect tradition of Caoshan shared between Fushan and Dayang contributed to bridge them.
Biographies of the Northern Qi and Sui dynasty Dilun master Lingyu and the Sanjie jiao movement’s Xinxing are found in the Xu gaoseng zhuan as well as in two separate stone inscriptions. The age of death of Lingyu and Xinxing found in the latter are one year greater than those found in the former. It has already become clear based on Dunhuang manuscript S.2137 that the older death age of Xinxing is correct. In the case of Lingyu, if one follows the Xu gaoseng zhuan’s age at death, problems arise regarding the time he met his patron Lou Rui. Since Lingyu was invited via Emperor Wen of Sui’s imperial decree at the age of seventy-four, it is reasonable to place his date of death in Kaihuang 10 (590). Therefore, Lingyu’s age at death in the Xu gaoseng zhuan is also incorrect: it is 89 years old, not 88.
Fazang (643–712) developed a unique Huayan philosphy placing the Dependent Origination of Dharmadhātu as the central ideology. However, separately from that based on the Discourse on the Awakening of Faith Fazang developed the ideology of the Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha. In order to have a comprehensive understand of Fazang’s teachings, an understanding of the connection between these two ideologies is an important subject.
In this paper, through an examination of his interpretation of the “Section on Establishing the Meaning” in the Discourse on the Awakening of Faith I propose to clarify, in connection to the Dependent Origination of Dharmadhātu, the meaning of Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha, and the reason for which Fazang developed it.
Fazang 法蔵 (643–712) was one highly adept in Chinese Huayan exegesis, and his most important work is the Huayan wujiao zhang 華厳五教章.
This article analyzes the theory of the Pure Land in this Huayan wujiao zhang. The most essential parts are as follows:
From the Lesser Vehicle (xiaosheng 小乗) in the Final Teaching (zhongjiao 終教), there is an expansion of the category of the Pure Land. The Sudden Teaching (dunjiao 頓教) professes itself to be inexpressibility of the Pure Land. With regard to doctrine, the Pure Land of the Identical Teaching (tongjiao 同教) is homologous to the Pure Land of the Special Teaching (biejiao 別教). On the other hand, the Special Teaching shows an aspect of various kinds of the Pure Land. As a final consideration, in the Pure Land of the Special Teaching of the Unique Vehicle (yisheng 一乗), one is immediately all (yiji-yiqie 一即一切).
This study examines the evaluation of Yijing by Nanshan-Luzong during the period of the Northern Song dynasty, reviewing counterarguments made by Yuanzhao against Yijing. Written during the period of the Northern Song dynasty, Yuanzhao’s commentary was the first to refute Yijing’s critique of Daoxuan, which had been published more than 400 years earlier during the Tang dynasty. The central theme of his commentary was Yuanzhao’s open disapproval of the practice whereby precepts observed during ordination could be replaced with others in subsequent ascetic pursuits. He argued that this line of thinking was clearly against Nanshan-Luzong’s teaching of “conformity with rules” and essentially denied the history of Nanshan-Luzong rooted in the preservation of such teaching. However, Yuanzhao’s harsh criticism also inadvertently showed just how deeply Yijing’s thoughts had penetrated the doctrine of Nanshan-Luzong, even as late as the period of the Northern Song dynasty.
Satō Tetsuei, who researched a great many of the works of Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), drew attention to how Zhiyi seldom cites the Vimalakīrti Sūtra in his Cidi chan men 次第禅門, a work based on his lectures from his younger years, yet in the “Three Great Tiantai Works” (天台三大部) that comprise records of his lectures late in life, the number of such citations increases. Satō points out that Zhiyi’s focus on writing a commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra was, in fact, due to an increased interest in the said sūtra. Of the approximately 110 identifiable citations of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra in the Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義, it is clear that from among all fourteen chapters, the majority of them are from the “Observing Beings 観衆生品,” “Buddha Realms 仏国品,” and “Buddha’s Path 仏道品” chapters. Another observed feature is that a number of citations relate to the theories of other teachers in the Fahua xuanyi. This is a result of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra having been constantly treated as an important scripture in the development of doxography in China. Moreover, Zhiyi had a need to clarify the temporal relationship between the Vimalakīrti Sūtra and other scriptures, in particular the sermons of the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, in order to position the Vimalakīrti Sūtra in the fifth time period, hence the increased reliance on teaching classifications.
The paper reconsiders the Esoteric thought of Zhanran (711–782) in the time period after Zhiyi. Earlier research was not able to confirm Zhanran’s remarkable reference to Esoterism, and neglected to investigate it. But Zhanran positively made use of the technical term frequently employed by Bukong’s community, “Becoming a Buddha in this very body” (即身成仏). As background of this idea, Zhiyi quoted the Pusa chutai jing (菩薩処胎経) in his Fahua Wenju (法華文句), but Zhiyi made no use of the already translated expression “Becoming a Buddha in this very body.” But Zhanran noticed the sūtra passage with the expression, and made positive use of it in his commentary. When early Mahāyāna sūtras were translated into Chinese, the thought behind “Becoming a Buddha in this very body” may have indirectly criticized with the idea that it had been an idea original to Bukong’s community. As for Zhanran’s Esoterism, it is likely that the layman Li Hua played a key role.
Until now, it was thought that Diamond Scalpel (Jinangpi 金剛錍) was written by Zhanran 湛然 to criticize other schools of thought, and that the “visitor from the wilds” (yeke 野客) was a person critical of Zhanran. In this paper, I examine these points with following conclusion: First, the Diamond Scalpel is not a work of criticism but is based on the notion of “opening up the coarse and revealing the sublime” (kaicu xianmiao 開麁顕妙) of the Lotus Sūtra. Moreover, the different thoughts are treated from this standpoint. Second, the “visitor from the wilds” is someone who receives Zhanran’s teaching, and the former’s thought is one that was current among the people of the time.
Kuiji’s 窺基 Youzan 幽賛 (T1710) is one of the earliest commentaries on the Heart Sūtra 心経 translated by Xuanzang 玄奘. In the introduction to this text, Kuiji insists, based on the theory of three periods of teaching 三転法輪 in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra 解深密経, that emptiness (śūnya 空) and existence (bhava 有) are not contradictory, but rather neither existent nor non-existent according to the Middle Way 中道.In the commentary he interprets śūnya in terms of the three approaches of: (1) the three non-natures 三無性, (2) negation of the imaginary nature (parikalpita-svabhāva 遍計所執性), and (3) śūnyatā 空性 as the fully accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva 円成実性), based on the theory of three natures 三性 articulated in the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論.
The Youzan contains Mādhyamika comments on śūnya, which is interpreted from the perspective of the two truths 二諦.However, all of them are criticized from the Yogācāra perspective of the theory of three natures. The remarkable point is this: while Madhyamaka insists that ordinary persons (bāla 凡夫) originally being noble ones (ārya 聖者) depends on the interpretation that form (rūpa 色) is originally emptiness (śūnya 空), Yogācāra insists that there is a difference in ordinary and noble depending on the understanding that there is also difference in form and emptiness.
The difference is clear by the interpretation of practice (caryā 行). Madhyamaka interprets this term to mean “taking nothing as practice,” but the Yogācāras criticize this interpretation, asserting that “there is something as practice.” Kuiji, who was concerned that the Mādhyamika interpretation of śūnya might undermine the theoretical basis for practice, insists that the argument for the usefulness of practice could be supported by the Yogācāra’s expanded interpretation of śūnya.
Thus, it can be said that the emphasis of practice by the Yogācāra interpretation of ‘śūnya’ is a main feature of the Youzan. This explains why the Yogācāra comments on caryā account for the bulk of the arguments made in the Youzan.
In this research, I reveal that Fabao’s work Yisheng foxing jiujing lun (一乗仏性究竟論), which is famous for criticizing the three vehicle adherents, has consistencies with the Disanjie fofa guaugshi (第三階仏法広釈), a work of an unknown Sanjie-jiao monk of the Tang Dynasty. Further, I point out that the Qiongzha bianhuo lun (窮詐辯惑論) which also belongs to a Sanjie-jiao monk, shows influence that it was written in response to the Chinese Yogācāra.
From this the Sanjie-jiao texts can be understood in relation to the controversy over adherent of the three vehicles and the one vehicle.
The question of the authenticity of the Luelun Anle Jingduyi (Brief Discourse on the Pure Land of Bliss) has been a nagging problem within Shinshū studies since the Edo Period when the Tendai scholar Reikū first raised doubts whether it was truly authored by Tanluan. This text, however, is cited in Daochuo’s Anlechi (Collection of Passages on the Pure Land) compiled about eighty years after Tanluan’s death. Daochuo identifies Tanluan’s Zan Amituofo jie (Gāthās in Praise of Amida Buddha) as an authentic work by Tanluan by referring to the Brief Discourse on the Pure Land. Daochuo’s reference to this text is also consistent with the description found in Jiacai’s Chingtu lun (Discourse on the Pure Land). Based on this bibliographic evidence, it now seems likely that the Brief Discourse is Tanluan’s work.
Examining the content of the work also inspires confidence that Tanluan is the author. Passages about the Pure Land are similar to those found in Tanluan’s Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Pure Land, which is undoubtedly Tanluan’s work. The discussion of the ten thought-moments that are the cause for birth in the Pure Land is somewhat different in these two texts: in the Commentary, Tanluan states that it should be understood as mind; in the Brief Discourse, however, he states that it can be understood as both mind and practice (nembutsu). This difference may indicate that a development occurred within Tanluan’s Pure Land thought.
Although some maintain a cautious stance, I conclude that the Brief Discourse on the Pure Land of Bliss is authentically Tanluan’s work.
In Huaigan’s Shijingtugunyilun (釈浄土群疑論) stress is placed on the idea that followers of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha vehicles will obtain rebirth in the Pure Land and attain the Mahāyāna, the influence of Wönch’uk’s idea of the five gotras (五姓各別説), and the criticism offered again Ji’s fundamental denial that Śrāvakas and Pretyelabuddhas are capable of rebirth in the Pure Land.
“The Dispute over Buddha-nature” which arose at the beginning of the Tang Dynasty originated when Xuanzang, having returned from his pilgrimage to India, introduced to China the theory of the Five Natures through his translations of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Fodi jinglun. In this paper, I verify that Shenkai, Congfang, and Daoyin, who were viewed as adherents of the Chinese Weishi school by Enchin, accepted in part that those of Fixed nature of the Two Vehicles convert to the Great Vehicle. From this, I propose that the semantic domain of the designation “The Dispute over Buddha-nature” has a tendency not only to indicate those who took either “The Theory that all attain Buddhahood” or “The Theory that there are those who do not attain Buddhahood” as truth, but that it is a technical term which has a much wider range of function. The designation “The Dispute over Buddha-nature” is used also to include the understandings of those such as Shenkai, Congfang, and Daoyin.
In this article, I present a brief history of the Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka (思渓版大蔵経) and the features of its catalogue, the Anjizhou sixi fabaozifuchansi dazangjing mulu (安吉州思渓法宝資福禅寺大蔵経目録).
The Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka was first published in Sixi Yuanjuechan yuan (思渓円覚禅院) temple, located in Guian xian (帰安県), Huzhou (湖州), Zhejiang (浙江), with the support of the Wang Yongchog (王永従) family during the period from the late Northern Song to the early Southern Song. Sometime after its publication, the temple fell into a state of decline, but it was rebuilt as the Fabaozifuchan si (法宝資福禅寺) temple with the support of imperial family during the Chunyou (淳祐) era (1241–1252). With renewed woodblocks, the temple resumed publishing operations after a suspension. The copies printed in Yuanjuechan yuan temple are called the Early Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka (前思渓蔵), and the copies printed in Fabaozifuchan su temple are called the Later Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka (後思渓蔵). Depending on two kinds of copies, there exists two catalogues of the Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka: First is the Huzhou sixi yuanjuechanyuan xindiao dazangjing mulu (湖州思渓円覚禅院新彫大蔵経目録), known as the Early Sixi Catalogue; Second is the Anjizhou sixi fabaozifuchansi dazangjing mulu (安吉州思渓法宝資福禅寺大蔵経目録), known as the Later Sixi Catalogue.
The first Japanese typographical printing of the Later Sixi Catalogue was published in the Comprehensive Catalogue of the Shōwa Hōbō (昭和法寶総目録), as separate volumes of the Taishō Tripiṭaka, in 1929. Even though the Comprehensive Catalogue does not mention bibliographic information about the textual witness (es) on which its editorial work was based, the text of the Later Sixi Catalogue contained in this printed edition is widely referred to as a basic source for research on the Later Sixi Edition Tripiṭaka. In this article, I prove that the Comprehensive Catalogue used a copy of the Later Sixi Catalogue preserved in the library of Kyoto University as its textual witness, and will point out problems that lie in this copy.
This paper considers how Saṅghabhadra criticizes the Sthavira theory of Viparyāsa in the *Nyāyānusāra. Among Sarvāstivāda texts from the *Mahāvibhāṣā to the *Nyāyānusāra, only dṛṣṭiviparyāsa is accepted. The school accepts neither saṃjñāviparyāsa nor cittaviparyāsa. But the Sthavira states that both saṃjñāviparyāsa and cittaviparyāsa arise from ayoniśomanasikāra. Futhermore, the Sthavira explains that both viparyāsas arise in one who has entered the stream which leads to nirvāna (srota-āpanna). Therefore Saṅghabhadra as a Sarvāstivādin criticizes the Sthavira position for improper interpretation of the sūtras’ words. This paper shows the different interpretations found in Saṅghabhadra and Sthavira, and points out the problems that we must be aware of while discussing the viewpoint of Saṅghabhadra.
This paper examines the interpretation of the “Hosshi-hon” 法師品 (“Dharmabhāṇaka-parivarta”) in the Hokekyō-jikidanshō 法華経直談鈔, compiled as a popular commentary of the Myōhō rengekyō 妙法蓮華経 by the Japanese Tendai monk Eishin 栄心 (?–1546).
The author already researched some chapters of this commentary, comparing it with Sonshun’s 尊舜 Hokekyō-jurin-shūyōshū 法華経鷲林拾葉鈔.As a result of these researches, he concluded that most of the content of Eishin’s commentary is clearly based on Sonshun’s.
The Hosshi-hon Chapter in the Hokekyō-jikidanshō consists of 13 topics, while the Hokekyō-jurin-shūyōshū consists of 21 topics. The Hokekyō-jikidanshō is less than a half the size of the Hokekyō-jurin-shūyōshū. Thus, difference in content mainly derives from the omission of the topic “Gojō soku Gokai no koto” 五常即五戒之事 in the Hokekyō-jikidanshō, which is the 4th topic of the Hokekyō-jurin-shūyōshū.
Regarding the 2nd and 3rd topics (五種法師之事, 読誦功徳之事), 2 or 3 interpretations are shown about the word of Hosshi (dharmabhāṇaka), and then simple explanations of juji 受持 (to memorize), doku 読 (to read), ju 誦 (to recite), gesetsu 解説 (to expound), and shosha 書写 (to copy) follows.
However, these explanations are nothing more than traditional interpretations which do not show any new perspective. But the 2nd topic introduces an intriguing episode. The episode narrates that Bhaiṣajya-rāja Bodhisattva 薬王菩薩 took the form of Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗 in China, while he assume the shape of Dengyō daishi Saichō 伝教大師最澄 in Japan. This episode seems to have come up from around Mt. Hiei 比叡山 in about the 15thor 16th century in Japan.
The 3rd topic “Dokuju Kudoku no koto” 読誦功徳之事 shows an episode which is similar to the famous episode of Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, in which his tongue was left unburnt even after his cremation. More specifically, a blue lotus flower 青蓮華 was found on the ground and a coffin lay beneath it. The blue lotus flower came from the tongue. Writing was left on the coffin that the deceased had read the Lotus Sūtra 法華経 a thousand times.
As a result of an examination of these 2 works, the author did not find any new interpretations in Eishin’s work. We can assume Eishin’s editing policy to have been that he basically followed Sonshun’s idea, and yet tried to simplify the Buddhist theory to make it comprehensive and to popularize it.
Shuei was the guard priest of the Emperor Seiwa. He was appointed Bettō (administrator) of Tōdai-ji Temple and chōja (head priest) of Tō-ji Temple. In addition, he was an important person known as the second head of the Zenrin-ji Temple. However, he does not hold a firm position in the research of esoteric Buddhism. For that reason, in researching the esoteric Buddhism of Zenrin-ji Temple, an examination of the influence of the documents brought to Zenrin-ji Temple during its early period by Shuei is of great importance.
From this point of view, I focus on the “Rishu-kyō-Juhatte-Maṇḍala” brought by Shuei, and search for its influence within the “Rishu-Kyō-Hiyōshō” which was explained by Gōhō and recorded by Kenpō. Further, by that examination I point out that the existing works of Daigo-ji Temple, Entsu-ji Temple and the Iwasaki Library correspond to the iconography of the Maṇḍala.
The authors Gōhō and Kenpō of the work “Rishu-Kyō-Hiyōshō,” were representative figures of the Tō-ji Temple during the middle ages, and through this examination it is relevant that Shuei’s Maṇḍala was highly influential. Also, through comparison to later Maṇḍalas it is clear that the iconography is based on Shuei’s Maṇḍala, thus further proving his influence.
From this, it is concluded that the influence of Shuei should be reevaluated, and that research could spread to documents that he brought.
Here the “Gozō Roppu zu” (Human Body Anatomical Chart) “五臓六腑図” in the Sōda collection of the library of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies is examined in light of the religious aspects of medical care from the Middle Ages to the early modern era.
Although the age when the Gozō Roppu drawing was produced is unknown, it is an internal organ chart significantly influenced by the Buddhist perspective of the world. In the drawing, each part of the Aji (阿字), Gorin-tō (five-storied pagoda, 五輪塔), Gozō (five organs) and the elemental compositions of the human body are connected with a corresponding part, which illustrate how Aji influences the human body.
These Aji characters are coded into five colors. The “Five colored Aji characters” are thought to have originated from the Tachikawa sect of Shingon Buddhism. Also, the material has a detailed written description, which is a characteristic of this historical material. From the description, we learn the motivation of the producer of this Gozō Roppu drawing; he intended to become a devoted believer of Yakushi Nyorai (the Buddha of Healing) and hoped to cure sick people. This shows how close the relationship between medical care and religion was. We also learn that many parts of the description were quoted from the Sanken Itchi sho (“三賢一致書”), which is thought to have been created by Dairyū (大龍), a Zen monk. The book might have been ideologically influenced by the Tachikawa sect. In the Gozō Roppu drawing, there are many quotations from the Sanken Itchi sho; thus, we learn that the Tachikawa sect had a certain influence on medicine, and that some medical care was based on religious beliefs.
Traditional Japanese Buddhist schools developed doctrinal interpretation through the method of question and answers called “Rongi” or “Dangi.” This method of “Rongi” became popular during the Insei period and a variety of theoretical documents were composed within the Kegon School.
Among the various Rongi texts, the Tangenki Kanyōshō is rare in that it was established in the early Kamakura period and was continually copied for over 600 years until the Edo period. By examining the various copies of this text, one can learn how Kegon Rongi was established.
Initially there were no well-formed topics that were organized into four character titles. However, later the first question of the topic was posted as a table of contents at the beginning of the book, which developed into the current form during the Edo period, and is thus transmitted until today.
Although the title of this text suggests that it is concerned with the essentials of the “Tangenki,” in actuality, rather than being concerned with the essentials of doctrine, it is essential in the sense that it became the standard form for Rongi texts. This can be considered one of the major reasons why the text was copied over such a long period of time. Moreover, by tracing the establishment of Kegon Rongi through this text, it can be inferred that the process through which other schools developed Rongi is similar in methods to the Kegon school.
In this paper, in order to clarify the influence from Song Dynasty Buddhism on Myōe (1173–1232), I investigate the Various Collected Notes on the Chapter of the Five Teachings which was compiled by the Kōsanji-temple monk Junkō. This text gives the interpretations of Myōe and his disciples on The Chapter of the Five Teachings. In particular, the use of the Southern Song Dynasty print of the Huayan Chapter of the Five Teachings as well as commentaries that were compiled during the Song Dynasty is a distinguishing characteristic. Through an examination of this text, it is clear that the commentaries of Song Dynasty Buddhism that were brought to Kōsanji-temple gave a definitive influence to Myōe and his disciples.
In Buddhism, ignorance (mumyō) is understood as the root cause of human delusions. In the Jōdo Shinshū tradition, however, scholars have developed a theory identifying two types of ignorance: ignorance as blind passions themselves (chimumyō), and ignorance as doubting salvation through Amida’s Original Vow (gimumyō).
In recent years, some Shin scholars have presented their opinions against this traditional theory identifying two types of ignorance by maintaining that Shinran did not use the concept of ignorance as doubting Amida’s Original Vow. I disagree.
The Hōrai school, one of the traditional schools of Shin Buddhism, developed a unique interpretation of Shinran’s understanding of the concept of ignorance, opposing the traditional view identifying two types of ignorance. In this paper, I will reexamine the Shin Buddhist theory on ignorance by consulting this alternative theory on ignorance developed by the Hōrai school scholars.
The central issue that Chingai 珍海 wanted to mention in the Ketsujō ōjō-shū 決定往生集was the proof that the ordinary person (bonbu 凡夫) can attain paradise by prayer to Amitābha (nembutsu 念仏). Chingai evaluates shōmyō nembutsu as the most important practice. I elucidate the relationship between shinnen 心念 and kunen 口念, that is, the relationship between kansō nembutsu and shōmyō nembutsu from the viewpoint of three kinds of Karma-actions, words, and thoughts.
This paper examines the influence of the Chinese monk Yongming Yanshou (904–975) on Japanese Pure Land thought, which flourished in Nara during the Insei period (1086–1185). Renowned Japanese Buddhist thinkers of the time, such as Yōkan (1033–1111) and Chinkai (1091–1152), who respectively authored the Ōjōjūin and Bodaishinshū, were informed by Yanshou’s writings.
Yongming Yanshou was a disciple of Tiantai Deshao (891–972) and the third ancestor of the Fayan Chan lineage. Zen monks frequently cited Yanshou’s seminal text Zongjing lu, though he also was prominent as a patriarch of Pure Land teachings in Japan during the Heian period. The Shinshū ōjōden describes Yanshou as having achieved the highest of the nine grades of birth in the Pure Land. This story repeatedly appears in Chinkai’s Bodaishinshū, the Agui text Gensenshū, Kōfukuji sōjō, and other Buddhist writings. Yanshou’s legend circulated with the latest information that came from China in the Heian period. Here, I discuss the transmission of Yanshou’s teachings and legends from the Tōnan-in temple at Tōdai-ji and its impact on Pure Land Buddhism during this time.
A reexamination of various documents recording Myōhen’s thought reveals the following points. First, no document gives any indication that Myōhen developed his Pure Land practice based on the assumption that contemplative nembutsu, or visualization of Amida with concentrated mind, is superior to nembutsu as vocal recitation of Amida’s Name. Second, although Myōhen’s Ōjōron gonenmon ryakusahō is not extant, this text demonstrates that he understood vocal recitation to be the central practice of nembutsu in accord with Hōnen’s instruction. Third, Myōhen considered the Eighteenth Vow in the Larger Sūtra of Immeasurable Life to be the only vow that reveals the true cause for sentient beings’ birth in the Pure Land. He interprets the phrase “up to ten mindfulnesses” (naishi jūnen) as indicating vocal recitation of Amida’s Name. He further identifies the three faith minds required to attain birth in the Pure Land in this vow as the same as the three minds taught in the Contemplation Sūtra. Therefore, practitioners who truly embody the practice and faith revealed in this vow are certain to attain birth in the Pure Land in their next lives.
Moreover, Myōhen did not consider the Twentieth Vow as the vow revealing faith and practice for birth in the Pure Land. He takes note of the phrase “should not eventually fulfill their aspiration” (hatashi togezuha) in this vow and reasons that, for those who cannot sufficiently fulfill the practice and faith revealed in the Eighteenth Vow, and are therefore unable to attain birth in the next life, they are guaranteed to attain birth in the Pure Land in future lives following the next life by entrusting in this vow. Myōhen considers the Twentieth Vow as significant because of this virtue. However, he does not consider the contemplative nembutsu and various Pure Land practices mentioned in this vow to be very significant.
Ideas found in Myōhen’s Gyōja taiyōshō also fundamentally follow the principles of Hōnen’s Pure Land teaching. Although a small part of Myōhen’s writings could be interpreted as reflecting his practice of esoteric Buddhism or as influenced by the Pure Land teaching developed in the traditional Nara Buddhist schools, an examination of the complete body of his work demonstrates that his understanding was based principally on Hōnen’s Pure Land teaching.
In this paper, I compare Shinran’s (1173–1262) and Seikaku’s (1167–1235) understanding of raikō (welcoming of Amida Buddha and bodhisattvas). Raikō is the Pure Land Buddhist belief that Amida Buddha comes with attending bodhisattvas just before the death of the faithful who wish to be born in his Pure Land. Past research has suggested that Seikaku simply adopted the popular Pure Land belief of raikō, while Shinran developed a new interpretation by negating the necessity of raikō at the moment of death. However, in examining Seikaku’s Yuishinshō 唯信鈔 and the Seikaku hōin hyōbyakumon 聖覚法印表白文, my research finds no indication that Seikaku emphasized the anticipation of raikō at the deathbed. Seikaku, in these writings, recognizes the virtues of raikō at one’s deathbed. However, he never recommends people to prepare the deathbed rituals anticipating raikō at the moment of their death. Instead, he clearly places significance on the everyday practice of nembutsu. Seikaku’s understanding of raikō follows his master Hōnen’s, and his emphasis on everyday practice of nembutsu over the popular practice of deathbed rituals is consistent with Shinran’s understanding of raikō.
It has been commonly understood in past scholarship that Shinran strongly rejected the necessity of the welcoming of Amida Buddha and bodhisattvas at the moment of death, based on his remarks in his letter entitled “Concerning Thought and No-thought” (Unen munen no koto) and his Notes on Essentials of Faith Alone. However, it is also known that Shinran affirmed anticipating Amida’s welcome at the moment of death in writings given to his followers.
Though Shinran denied the necessity of the welcoming of Amida, nevertheless, facing the situation of his faith community, he also sent messages to his followers supporting the popular belief of the welcoming of Amida at the deathbed. This paper argues that Shinran’s interpretation of the Nineteenth Vow cannot be strictly fixed to one single point of view. We must also take into account the social situation and locality of his followers when we read his writings.
Following Shandao’s interpretation of the Six-Character Name of Amida Buddha, Shinran developed his interpretation of the Six-Character Name in the “Chapter on Practice” in the Kyōgyōshinshō and the Songō shinzō meimon. In past studies, it is generally agreed that, in the “Chapter on Practice,” Shinran explains the Name as Amida’s working, and, in the Songō shinzō meimon, he discusses it from the perspective of sentient beings who receive Amida’s Name. Shinran’s explanation of the Name in the Songō shinzō meimon can also be understood as his interpretation following a “tradition” transmitted from Shandao to Hōnen, while his discussion in the “Chapter on Practice” can be seen as a demonstration of his unique interpretation based on his “self-realization.” In this paper, I examine the latter.
First, in relation to the characters “na-mo,” previous scholarship has interpreted “taking refuge” (kimyō 帰命) in Amida as his “practice” transferred to us. However, I question how this is intertwined with sentient beings’ faith. In this paper, I reexamine Shinran’s reading of the character setsu 説 and conclude that a unique characteristic of Shinran’s interpretation is that he understood not only myō 命 but also ki 帰 as the working of Amida Buddha.
Next, as for Shinran’s interpretation of the phrase “that is the practice” (sokuze gogyō), in past studies, practice is identified as recitations of the Name “even ten times” (naishi jūnen) as found in the Eighteenth Vow, the “selected Primal Vow” (senjaku hongan). In this paper, I reexamine Shinran’s usage of the phrase “selected Primal Vow” in the Kyōgyōshinshō and come to the conclusion that, for Shinran, his main concern is to demonstrate that we can all attain birth in Amida’s Pure Land through “True Practice” and “True Shinjin.” There is no need for us to consider Shinran’s use of “selected Primal Vow” as limited to the Eighteenth Vow, or recitations of the Name “even ten times.” The “True Practice” can be understood as “all Buddhas’ calling of the Name,” or sentient beings’ recitations of the Name “even ten times” (naishi jūnen). The “True Practice” revealed in the “Chapter on Practice” is none other than “all Buddhas’ calling of the Name” based on the Seventeenth Vow. Therefore, the “calling of the Name” is, simultaneously, the voice of Amida Buddha’s Vow and all Buddhas’ voices recommending sentient beings to recite Amida’s Name.
The main purport of Shinran’s teaching in the “Chapter on Practice” is to demonstrate that Amida Buddha’s Vow is revealed through Śākyamuni’s praise (a voice united in the calling of “Namu Amidabutsu”). The uniqueness, or the self-realization, of Shinran’s interpretation of the Name in the “Chapter on Practice” is his discovery of the significance in the practice of calling (praising) of the Name as “Namu Amidabutsu” by Śākyamuni and other great masters.
Shinran taught that keeping the precepts was an act of acting out one’s own strength (jiriki), and would not lead to one being reborn in the Pure Land. Previous studies have indicated that Shinran’s attitude made it clear that it is possible for a person with the sinful karma of breaking or not following the precepts to be reborn in the Pure Land during the degenerate age of the Dharma (mappō), in which keeping the precepts cannot be realized. In the present study, we focus on the views of the precepts of Shinran and the Kantō region. As a result we see that even Ryōkai, who has been said to have unique ideas differing from those of Shinran, shared a similar view of the precepts. Furthermore, Kenchi (of the Takada school), was noted to be well versed in the precepts, and it was shown that the Monsho 聞書 contains citations of works related to the precepts. In particular, the citations of texts permitting the consumption of the five forbidden pungent roots and meat shows that they had a strong interest in the precepts.
Shinran clarified the meaning of “birth in the Pure Land” and “realization of Buddhahood.” I think that his understanding is based on his distinctive perspective on the Buddha-bodies and Buddha-lands.
Shinran mentions three Buddha-bodies in Notes on Essentials of Faith Alone. There he states, “The Tathāgata of the dharma-body as suchness has neither color nor form; thus, the mind cannot grasp it nor can words describe it … . The Tathāgata of the fulfilled body (報身) has fulfilled the vows which are the cause of Buddhahood.” He also states, “From this fulfilled body innumerable personified and accommodated bodies are manifested.”
Among the three Buddha-bodies, Shinran considered the fulfilled body to be the most important for sentient beings’ salvation. But why did Shinran focus on the fulfilled body? I think that each of the three Buddha-bodies has a different concept of time. By paying attention to the concept of time, we can solve the question how Shinran understood the Buddha-bodies and Buddha-land. This is because Shinran clarified that the time to the fulfillment of Amida’s vows is closely related to our attainment of faith. In this study, I discuss the concept of time found in the three Buddha-bodies and Buddha-lands.
The Shinzen-yushin-gi (真禅融心義) is the text which holds that Esoteric Buddhism and Zen are of the same significance. But the writer reconsiders the total structure, especially investigating the Zen section of the text, and finds that thus contains ideas of the Daruma Sect, Tendai Hongaku Doctrine, Esoteric Buddhism, and therefore overall demonstrates Annen’s (安然) influence.
Dōgen (道元) approaches for Buddhist practice as “Shūshō-Ittō (修証一等)” which nondually integrates practice with nirvāṇa. If practice and nirvāṇa are equal, we can understand the theory of ascetic practice in Dōgen as a theory of attaining Buddhahood. Previously, scholars have questioned whether there is some relation with “Tendai Hongaku shisō (天台本覚思想),” there is no agreed upon stance. As Hanano Jūdō suggests, the reason is that the Tendai Hongaku theory is not specified in Dōgen’s writings. Comparing the theory of ascetic practice of Dōgen with Japanese Tendai, we see an aspect of the ideas of Annen (安然) and Shōshin (証真). This is important, and leads to elucidating the formation of “Dōgen-Zen (道元禅)” in thinking about Tendai Hongaku shisō. This approach may lead to a fresh view of Dōgen’s ideas of practice.
In the early Meiji era, the government implemented religious policies centered on Shinto which created problems for Buddhist society suffer. However, understanding that there were many problems with these policies, it turned to the use of Buddhism. Meanwhile, the Buddhist community, in order to survive, also proposed the establishment of an organization combining Shinto and Buddhism, which was realized. However, this organization broke up in only three years, and Shinto and Buddhism followed their own paths. Through these movements, the government urged the establishment of a parliament, seeking modernization for each sect of Japanese Buddhism. In this paper, I will consider the transition to the parliamentary system of the Nichiren sect.
Enshin criticized the doctrine of the Nichiren-sect on a 62-item basis in a sharp manner in his Hanichirengi. This paper focuses on the interpretation of the Lotus Sūtra in the Hanichirengi. I examine the logical structure with which Enshin accused the Nichiren sect, which he did from the viewpoint of equality.
Each of the chapters in Keirin Nichiryū’s (1385–1464) Honmon-gugyō-shō (abbr. Gugyō-shō) consists of three parts: (1) the reason for the chapter’s current location in the sūtra, and the overall meaning of the chapter; (2) the content from the meaning of the title of the chapter; and (3) a detailed commentary on each passage in the sūtra. This paper attempts to demonstrate that for the third part of each chapter, Nichiryū made use of the outlines in his copy of the Kezhu-miaofa-lianhua-jing (Sectionalized and Annotated Edition of Kumārajīva’s Translation of the Lotus Sūtra, abbr. Kezhu), and shows the close relationship between the Gugyō-shō and the Kezhu. Previous studies have pointed out that the commentary in the Gugyō-shō makes reference to the Kezhu along with the three great works of Tiantai and their commentaries by Zhanran, but that the actual content is uncertain. The author has previously examined the quotations of the Kezhu in the Gugyō-shō, and showed that Nichiryū’s copy of the Kezhu was Xu’s commentary in the Gozan Edition. In this paper the author demonstrates that the previously uncertain outlines in the Kezhu were not only taken from the Fahua-wenju, but are also found in the Fahua-wenju-ji, the Fahua-wenju-fuzheng-ji and the Guanyin-yishu-ji. The outlines of Kezhu coincide with the section headings in the Gugyō-shō, suggesting a close relationship between the Gugyō-shō and the Kezhu.
Research on Shintō shows that the ideals of ōharae (大祓) meaning “great purification” and hojō (放生) meaning “release of wildlife” were influence by the Yakushi Sūtra. However, the original text of the Yakushi Sūtra was included in the Kanchō Sūtra, which mentions the method of preventing national disasters. It also explains the benefits of gonju (禁呪) being the treatment though magic. It is relevant that Yakushi beliefs were accepted in ancient Japan to further Shintō ideologies.
First, there is a record of jugonshi (呪禁師) who came to Japan from Paekche (百済) in 577. Jugonshi were holy men who cured sickness through incantation of the Kanchō Sūtra’s Mantra and Mudrā. Second, there is a record of the priest Toyokuni being invited to aid the Emperor on his sickbed. Buddhism and magic prospered in the ancient Toyokuni region. The Daitōrikuten (大唐六典) names these Buddhist magicians jugonshi.
From this, it can be concluded that Yakushi beliefs were introduced into Japan by the jugonshi from Paekche.
Shōsō (1366–1440) was the Eighth Patriarch of the Jōdo-shū, founder of the Zōjōji, an advocate of the idealist position that rather than being externally existent, Amida Buddha exists only within one’s mind. Consequently, he considers rebirth in the Pure Land to be equivalent to the practitioner gaining an understanding that all things are ultimately unproduced. Thus, in his Taima Mandara-sho, the Western Pure Land is originally signless, but temporally possesses physical features. Shōsō nevertheless esteems this Western Pure Land, since ordinary beings aspire to attain rebirth there. Therefore, one must necessarily pay it attention.
In this paper, by analyzing diaries from the Heian period, I shed light on the fact that handwritten sūtra transcription by women were not rare.
The Kechiengyō is one example of women’s handwriting. One type of currently existing Kechiengyō is called Kunōji-kyō. Kunōji-kyō is a common name of the Lotus Sūtra introduced to Kunōji temple. Among the existing 25 scrolls, women’s names are written on 15.
Considering these cases, the possibility that Kunōji-kyō was indeed handwritten by women cannot be excluded.
Enchin 円珍 frequently quotes Tiantai commentaries, including those by Zhiyi 智顗 and Zhanran 湛然, in the annotations found in his work Hokkeron-ki 法華論記.In the latter half of the seventh volume, there is a long paragraph annotating the passage regarding the four types of śrāvaka certification found in the Hokkeron 法華論, which was also used by Saichō 最澄 and Tokuitsu 徳一, in their debate regarding the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles, Similarly, in the Hokkeron-ki, Enchin develops his discussion while frequently quoting Tiantai commentaries.
Enchin presents his own interpretation regarding this passage using six identities and reflects on the near and far in vyākaraṇa as well as the ripe and unripe in relation to the capacities of beings. He quotes many commentaries to support his views on these subjects, such as Zhiyi’s Fahua-wenju 法華文句 and Zhanran’s Fahua-wenju-ji 法華文句記.
Overall, quotations from commentaries by the likes of Zhiyi and Zhanran occupy a considerable portion of the latter half of the seventh volume. In addition, the author generally follows quotations from Ji’s 基 Fahua-xuanzan 法華玄賛 with those from Zhiyi’s Fahua-wubaiwenlun 法華五百問論 to refute views found in the former. Furthermore, in the second half of the latter half of the seventh volume he temporarily ends his annotations by stating, “The interpretation of our sect is what has been discussed in detail above,” and then follows the remark, “Now I will present other interpretations to aid in the understanding of the marvelous meaning,” quoting teachings from the Linzutan-jing 六祖壇経 over the course of twenty-four lines.
Elizabeth Anna Gordon (1851–1925) was a British religious scholar who lived for many years in Japan from the late Meiji to the late Taishō periods, passing away in Kyoto in 1925. Her thought was characterized by ideas on the unity of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Christianity, or of the two maṇḍalas’ principles and Christianity. This paper focuses on the first four years of her research, the time when her comparative studies of Buddhism and Christianity seems to have developed dramatically. The four years in question cover the period of her second visit to Japan in August 1907 up to October 1910, when she erected a replica of the Chinese Nestorian stele at the Okunoin in Kōyasan. Her scholarship and thought are considered to have taken shape within her interactions with such persons as Timothy Richard (1845–1919), Shaku Keijun (1869–1919), and Saeki Yoshirō (1871–1965).
The life time of the compiler, Myeong Yeon (明衍, ? –1704–?), of the Yeombulbogwonmun (念仏普勧文) is unknown but it can only be presumed that he lived around the 17th and 18th centuries as a descendant of Cheong Heo (清虚).
The title of the preface is “大弥陀懺畧抄要覧普勧念仏文” and he summarizes the cases of going to the pure land after death found in the Linian mituo daochang chanfa (礼念弥陀道場懺法) of Wang Zi cheng (王子成). The first half is compiled from various sūtras and commentaries by Myeong Yeon. It was engraved on wood blocks and printed at the Yongmunsa (竜門寺), Yechenon (醴泉), in 1705 (康熙甲申年). The purpose of the compilation was to propagate the belief on mindfulness of a Buddha through spreading both the Chinese version, for those who could read Chinese, and the Korean version, for those who could not read Chinese. As time went by, this text was engraved and printed at many places and new materials from various sources have been added, which means that this text has become popular more and more.
The main characteristics of this text are to emphasize the belief in mindfulness in Amita buddha and translate the Chinese version into Korean in order that it might be read by anyone. This text might be said to be a comprehensive propaganda text of the belief on mindfulness in Amita buddha in that it explains the benefits of recommendation for reading and spreading this text.
The Chan master Farong 法融, who succeeded to the lineage of the fourth master, Daoxin 四祖道信, is the founder of the Niutou sect 牛頭宗.In recent years however, it has become clear that the Chan master called “Farong” did not really exist, which we know thanks to some historical studies on the texts of the Xu gaoseng zhuan 続高僧伝 and so on. Therefore, it follows that his biography, dialogue, and books are fictions. The creation of “the founder of the Niutou sect, Farong 牛頭山初祖法融 and the attribution of these fictions to him was one of the needs to establish its religious philosophy after Dongshan famen 東山法門 was formed.
The Xinming 心銘 (the Song of the mind) is written in rhyme and speaks of the state of enlightment, xinxing 心性.It is characteristic of the Xinming to negate the way to cultivate the mind by the mind, and to emphasize the ultimate state of Chan, xinxing. It also resembles the Xinxinming 信心銘 which is attributed to the third master Sengcan 三祖僧璨 by virtue of its literary style and philosophy. They both negate the conflict of duality and they are essentials of the Chan of Xinxing which was typical of eighth century Buddhism.
This paper examines when the text was established and what is the philosophy, comparing the Yongjiaji 永嘉集 written by Yongjia Xuanjue 永嘉玄覚 who attempted to integrate contemplation and Chan in the eighth century, and the Xinxinming.
In this paper, we analyze the first three sections on mtshan nyid kyi mtshan nyid (the “definition of definition”) by examining five logical works from four scholar-monks who preceded Sakya Pandita. The headings of these sections are:
1. A criticism of the argument that the definition of definition is not necessary.
2. A criticism of rNgog lo tsa ba’s idea of the definition of definition.
3. What is the definition of definition?
In the expression “definition of definition,” the second instance of the word “definition” is not a real definition, but a definiendum (mtshon bya), which should be defined by the real definition (that is, the first instance of the word “definition”). This idea was commonly accepted by later scholar-monks in Tibet, but the Kadam pa scholars may have also acknowledged it.
rNgog lo tsa ba argued that the definition of definition is “the reason for attributing definiendum to the subject (mtshan gzhi).” However, Phya pa and later scholars criticized rNgog’s idea. They stated that the definition of definition was not a genuine reason for attributing the definiendum, but was rather a simple synonym of definiendum.
Phya pa conceived the definition of definition as having the following three characteristics (chos gsum):
(a) It should be a substantial being.
(b) It is not the reason for attributing names other than the definiendum.
(c) It should exist in the subject.
Kadam pa scholar-monks who succeeded Phya pa maintained the idea of the definition containing the three characteristics, but did not mention the details.
The commentary by Dol po pa, known as the advocate of the “other-emptiness theory,” on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra is a unique text in that it is only slightly dependent on Haribhadra’s interpretation, unlike those written by most Tibetan masters belonging to the other sects, which are subcommentaries on Haribhadra's Sphuṭārthā.
The root text refers to the sarvākārajñatā, the mārgajñatā, and the sarvajñatā as the triple sarvajñatā or omniscience, again in general terms, and it comprises eight abhisamayas in which the triple omniscience is a reference to the first three of the eight. The triple omniscience (mkhyen pa gsum) described in Dol po pa’s commentary is identified with prajñāpāramitā itself, and sometimes classified into three kinds according to basis, path, and fruit. However, Dol po pa might have preferred a twofold classification of the triple omniscience with one entity and different entities. This is in accord with the twofold classification into true and conditional prajñāpāramitā. The former, the true prajñāpāramitā, shows no difference with regard to basis and fruit; the latter, the conditional prajñāpāramitā, depends on the path. The triple omniscience with one entity must be the true prajñāpāramitā, and the triple omniscience with different entities is the conditional prajñāpāramitā.
Dharmakīrti, in the Pramāṇaviniścaya, defines perception as a valid cognition because it is reliable (avisaṃvāda) with regard to the fulfillment of one’s goal (arthakriyā) after one has discerned (paricchidya) the object of valid cognition. On the other hand, it is also well known that in his philosophy perception is supposed to be devoid of conceptualization. How is it possible to discern via perception that is unrelated to conceptual constructs?
rNgog lo-tsā-ba, in his commentary on the Pramāṇaviniścaya entitled dKa’ gnas rnam bshad, tries to solve this problem using Dharmottara’s assertion that perception, which “rides the carriage of conceptual knowledge,” discerns the object of valid cognition. rNgog lo-tsā-ba divides discernment into two levels: the primary (don dam pa) and the conventional (tha snyad pa). He claims that while valid perception can discern by itself an object on the primary level, it discerns an object on the conventional level only with the support of conceptual knowledge. He asserts that discernment on the conventional level is what Dharmakīrti and Dharmottara had in mind.
In this paper, I investigate how rNgog lo-tsā-ba’s explanation serves to strengthen Dharmottara’s argument.
The aim of this paper is to clarify Tsong kha pa’s view of spros bral in his later Madhyamaka thought by considering his use of the term in the Rigs pa’i rgya mtsho, a commentary on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and in the dGongs pa rab gsal, a commentary on the Madhyamakāvatārakārikā.
Tsong kha pa has two different concepts of prapañca (spros pa): 1) as the mistaken belief that things truly exist and the things that are believed to truly exist; 2) as the conventional existence of what appears in a cognition on the basis of language because of a predisposition born out of ignorance. When he uses the term spros bral, he intends to refer to what lacks in prapañca (spros pa) as the latter. Accordingly, spros bral (niṣprapañca) means the ultimate reality which appears in the Buddha’s cognition and the non-defiling cognition of a sage who has attained a concentration and which is beyond duality. Thus, according to Tsong kha pa, the state of being free from prapañca must be Buddhahood, which is the final goal of nirvāṇa in Madhyamaka Thought.
Vibhūticandra, according to Tibetan historical accounts, fled from Jagaddala monastery in East-Bengal to Central Tibet accompanying his master Śākyaśrībhadra and leading his junior colleagues in ca. 1204, but his sojourn in Tibet was not always peaceful. His verses in question were most probably composed during those unpleasant days in Tibet, as hinted at by his laments expressed there. Irregular arrangements of akṣaras and a number of corrections on the manuscript suggest that this is his autograph-draft. We can date the composition of the verses to around his sojourn at Sakya in 1209, since the manuscript is written on Tibetan paper (instead of on a palm leaf) and since it was probably once preserved at Sakya monastery (before being transported to Zha lu ri phug). The verses were first edited by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana in 1937. Since then, however, they have not been sufficiently studied. In this paper, I re-edit the verses on the basis of a relatively clear photo-image of the manuscript (provided by Prof. Ye Shaoyong). It is notable that Vibhūticandra composed a verse modifying a seemingly well-known verse of Dharmakīrti (also cited in Vidyākara’s Subhāṣitaratnakośa) taking it as a basis and reflected his own feelings into his modified verse by making use of expressions of the original verse. The addressee of this verse must have been someone who was familiar with the verse of Dharmakīrti, and thus, was probably his master Śākyaśrībhadra, who is mentioned as kāśmīrapaiṇḍapātikasatpaṇḍita in this very draft.
In the Hetubindu, Dharmakīrti defines the non-cognition of the pot which is a negative object as the cognition of the spot (pradeśa) which is another cognitive object in the passages of the reason of non-cognition (anupalabdhihetu). Such a spot is qualified which has the nature of not being associated (asaṃsṛṣṭa), which is isolated (kevala) and which is another object (anya). This paper examines how Arcata interprets such qualifiers in the Hetubinduṭīkā.
Arcata interprets the spot which has the nature of not being associated with the pot as divided into the two cases that the spot is another and that it is isolated. In the former case, it indicates logical non-association. In the latter case, it indicates ontological non-association.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the development of the Buddhist account of yogic cognition of past and future objects from Vasubandhu to Jñānaśrīmitra. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (99.1–10), Vasubandhu introduces three opinions of the Buddha’s cognition of future results, namely, 1. inference-based understanding, 2. cognition like fortune-telling, and 3. immediate cognition in accordance with the subject’s wishes. While the first and third opinions are individually interpreted by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla in TS 1852–1855, 3473–3474/TSP thereon, Prajñākaragupta unifies the two in order to show the progress of a yogin’s or the Buddha’s cognition from the inferential to the immediate cognition, in which the difference of past, present, and future is explained by “relying on other’s viewpoint” (anyāpekṣayā). On the problem of how to distinguish three times in a yogic perception that is related only to present objects, Jñānaśrīmitra, who knows well his predecessors’ arguments, finally replies by using the notion of conceptual determination (adhyavasāya), which functions in yogic perception for distinguishing past, present, and future times, though the cognition itself is ultimately undividable.