Jōgon (浄厳:1639–1702) was a monk of the Shingon sect in the Edo period. In 1690 he authored the Shingon-shugyō-taiyōshō (真言修行大要鈔) as a summary of the training in Shingon esoteric Buddhism. In this work he emphasized that Ajikan Yoga (阿字観), a meditation consisting of the contemplation of the letter A (), was the most important practice in Shingon. In particular, he argued that ‘all phenomena are originally unproduced’ (一切諸法本不生) is the true meaning of the letter A. And he stated that Honpushō (本不生) was a significant idea that indicated metaphysical existence without beginning or end. It is very important that he defined it as the meaning of Eternal Existence (本有). Furthermore, he argued that the content of enlightenment in Shingon Buddhism was superior to that of the Zen Buddhism which was thriving in Japan at the time. He insisted that the Shingon sect had advantages over other Mahāyāna Buddhist sects by clarifying the superiority of realizing Honpushō.

This paper explores how the interpretations of the 2^nd ground (二地) in the theory of Shoji-Sokugoku (初地即極説) are inherited and developed in Shingon Esoteric Buddhism.

At first, it is noteworthy that Jitsuun (実運) applied the Shingon view of the path structure, that is the theory of shoji-sokugoku, to his interpretation of the Yuqi jing’s (瑜祇経) 7^th and 8^th chapters. This is the first point of the idea; that the 1^st ground (初地) is to achieve self enlightenment, and the 2^nd ground (二地) is to provide benefits for sentient beings.

Jitsugen (実賢) and Dōhan (道範) inherited this idea in their commentaries on the Yuqi jing, but Dōhan changed several points in his works written in his later life .

In spite of Raiyu (頼瑜) often quoting Jitsuun’s and Dōhan’s words, he dared to avoid using the theory of Shoji-Sokugoku in his commentaries of the Yuqi jing.

Jōhen (静遍), a teacher of Dōhan, and Shōken (聖憲), a follower of Raiyu, had the common idea that only the 1^st ground exists because if one reaches the 1st ground, one can atain the all wisdoms and charities of the 2nd ground and beyond.

This paper studies meditation as taught in the Kongōkai gōzanze gojūketsugo, a forgery under the name of Kūkai (空海). Two kinds of meditation methods—Susokukan (数息観) and Jirinkan (字輪観)—are taught at the beginning of the text.

The explanation of the Susokukan concentrates on practice with no doctrinal discussion. On the other hand, in its discussion of the Jirinkan, we see not only meditation techniques but also a doctrinal interpretation based on the Tenjiki-tokuchi (転識得智).

The Tenjiki-tokuchi refers to transformation of consciousness into wisdom. This doctrine can be found in other forgeries under the name of Kūkai, such as the Ihon sokushin jōbutsu gi and the Hizō ki. Some common points can be seen in these forgeries. In a nutshell, it seems that the doctrine of Tenjiki-tokuchi had been established and accepted widely at the time of these forgeries, in which Shingon doctrine had been not much developing.

The seven parables discussed in the Fahua lun 法華論 (*Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa) are the first appearance of the seven Lotus Sūtra parables, on which many later seven-parable teachings are based. Enchin’s 円珍 Hokkeron-ki 法華論記 and Jizang’s 吉蔵 Fahua lunshu 法華論疏 are well-known Fahua lun commentaries. This paper compares their interpretations of the seven parables, which have not been considered in existing scholarship.

While they generally adopt a similar position, they sometimes differ in their understanding of the Fahua lun text. While not mentioning Jizang by name, Enchin’ commentary rejects “a certain person’s” view on someone with hubris (through accumulating merit) shedding their delusions through the “Parable of the Jewel in a Topknot”; the view he rejects is the same as that of Jizang. Enchin’s commentary is also notable for understanding the seven kinds of expedient means from a Tendai perspective. From these comparisons, we can see that Enchin, a Tendai scholar–monk, sought to promote Tendai interpretations.

Myōe’s Kegon shinshu gi (Shinshu gi, 1221) was written at the request of Kamo Hisatsugu. This work, based on his interpretation of “the stage of faith” in the Kegon shuzen kanshō nyugedatsu mongi (Gedatsu mongi, 1220), mentions “the accomplishment of faith” of those who are not monks.

In the Gedatsu mongi, Myōe explains that monks must practice the five stages to become a Buddha. In the chapter of “the stage of faith,” he illustrates “the accomplishment of faith” of the monks mainly with “the ten virtues of the Tathāgata” in Li Tongxuan’s Xin Huayan jinglun and “the ten profound dharmas” in Fazang’s Tanxuanji.

The Shinshu gi, based on the content above, develops in a different way from the Gedatsu mongi. He notes that “faith” comes to fruition by relating “the ten virtues of the Tathāgata” directly to “the ten profound dharmas.”

In this paper, I reveal two points by considering the Shinshu gi, which was written for the laity. One is that “accomplishment” and “profundity” concerning “the stage of faith of ordinary people” have a close relation to each other. The other is that “the stage of faith” is not only accomplished but also deepened due to Buddha’s encouragement.

The biography of Saichō, called Eizan Daishiden was written about 1200 years ago. In the biography, it is written that Saichō was repeatedly petitioning the court to allow monks of the Tendai school at Mount Hiei to become ordained as national public priests under the Bodhisattva Precepts, rather than order the traditional ordination system of the prātimokṣa. But his request was rejected, and he passed away on June 4th in 822. After his death, his supporters, usually bureaucrats, including Tomono Kunimichi, petitioned the emperor with Saichō’s earnest wish again. Finally, on June 11th, 7 days after his death, the request for the Bodhisattva Precepts was allowed.

This series of stories has been handed down for 1200 years. However, some reliable reports and works of history have shown that on a day before Saichō’s passing, the emperor had already given permission for the Bodhisattva Precepts.

I propose that the description about Saichō’s last moment in the Eizan Daishiden is false.

Senkan (918–983) began to write his Hokke-sanshū-sōtaishō 法華三宗相対抄 in the year 962 before Ouwa’s 応和 religious controversy. It now is found in the Eizan library preserved in an old manuscript of the Heian era.

This book of 50 chapters with 8 additional volumes, cites the Fahua xuanzan yaoji 法華玄賛要集. Thus, by gathering those quotes one can restore fragments of the Fahua xuanzan yaoji to some extent.

In Genshin’s (942–1017) Ichijō yōketsu 一乗要決, the Fahua xuanzan yaoji is quoted in two places. There are also quotarions from Senkan’s Hokke-sanshū-sōtaishō. Thus, it appears that Genshin quoted the sentences of Senkan as a doctrinal point.

As a result of my research on the contents of this document, it can be concluded that this text is of remarkable value for research on Tendai Buddhism in Heian Japan.

In the past research, it has been shown that in the Sōtō sect from the Muromachi period until the beginning of the Edo period emphasis shifted to Kōan Zen depending on so-called Shōmono, such as Gorokushō and Daigo. All the Shōmono known until today were formed later than the 15^th century, and after the death of Keizan Jōkin (1264–1325), that is after the latter half of the 14^th century, many questions remain concerning the tendencies of thought in such literature.

The Shōbōgenzō bussogosoku is a document of the later 14^th century in which are extracted the main points from Keizan Jōkin’s Denkōroku. The original sources were in a mixed writing style of Japanese and Chinese, but expressed now all in Chinese. In this paper, the style and content of the Shōbōgenzō bussogosoku is carefully examined, and it is shown that this document is to be placed among the trailblazing Shōmono post-dating the 15^th century. Furthermore, it is argued that the original source of the Shōbōgenzō bussogosoku, the Denkōroku, is the first step in the genre of Shōmono texts.

Chōyō or the “Chrysanthemum Festival,” on the 9th of September is one of the special days (sekku 節句), which originated in China. The folk custom of drinking “Euodia wine (茱萸)” on the Chrysanthemum Festival was adopted by Zen temples as instead drinking Euodia tea.

The records of tea are found in historical materials of the Southern Song Dynasty, and as with the example of “Acorus Calamus tea,” it seems to have originated in Chan temples of the Northern Song Dynasty, and was introduced to Japan through Zen temples in the Southern Song Dynasty.

The References of Euodia tea are found exclusively in historical materials related to Zen temples, and it is regarded unique to Zen culture. In Japan, Euodia tea was enjoyed by placing Euodia fruits on green tea, but as no Euodia fruits grew in Japan, the only way to drink Euodia tea was by importing the fruits. With such difficulties in obtaining Euodia fruits, it is not hard to imagine that quite a few Zen temples were unable to provide Euodia tea.

Under these circumstances, Chrysanthemum tea was highly appreciated in Japan, enjoyed by placing flowers of chrysanthemums on green tea. In the Southern Song Dynasty, Euodia wine was very popular, where as Chrysanthemum wine was seen only in a few court events. Moreover, there is no record of drinking Chrysanthemum tea in Chan temples of China. This shows that Chrysanthemum tea was an aspect of tea culture developed strictly in Japan’s Zen temples, due to the fact that as much as they were willing to follow the folk customs and Chan culture of China, it was not easy to drink Euodia tea in Japan.

To drink Euodia tea on the “Double Nine” day was a Chan practice of the Southern Song Dynasty, and was practiced in Zen temples of medieval Japan. But given the fact that no Euodia fruit grew in Japan, Chrysanthemum tea was substituted, giving birth to an aspect of Zen culture that was totally unique to Japan.

This paper studies the religious teachings developed in the Sōtō sect from the early to mid-Edo period (17^th to 18^th century) through the Shōbōgenzō-zokugenkōgi, the main work of Itsudō Kanchū (1684?–1760).

The book is regarded as a criticism of the Shōbōgenzō-benchū, Tenkei Denson’s (1648–1735) major work in his last years (published 1729).

The book has been used for research in the Meiji era when books were revised by Nishiari Bokuzan and Gonda Raifu.

However, I examined the manuscripts held in Aichi Gakuin University and Kōryūji Temple in Nagano Prefecture, and it turned out that the book edited by Nishiari has many problems. Also, the two manuscripts were closer to the form of the original. In the future, we should conduct research using these two manuscripts.

The main purpose of this paper is to take a peep at the early-modern image of Rankei Dōryū (Chinese Lanxi Daolong).

The Dōshō-an Yonse-tenyakukashira-den 道正庵四世典薬頭伝 and the Dōgen-Zenji-yonhyakukaiki-saimon 道元禅師四百回忌祭文 compiled by Kinoshita Bokujun (1616–1690), the 19th generation head of the Dōshō pharmacy of Kyoto, are central historical records. Concerning Kinoshita Bokujun’s image of Rankei Dōryū, this paper examines the role played by these two historical sources.

Toward this end, I introduce new historical sources about the Dōshō-an’s medicine Shinsen-gedoku-manbyōen 道正庵神仙解毒万病円.

It is recorded in the Dōshō-an Yonse-tenyakukashira-den that Rankei suffered from dysentery and was on the verge of death, but recovered upon being treated by the 4th generation pharmacist of Dōshō-an, Fujiwara Tadatoshi. And it is recorded in the Dōgen-Zenji-yonhyakukaiki-saimon that it was on the recommendation of Dōgen that Hōjō Tokiyori appointed Rankei as the abbot of Kenchō-ji. I conclude that it was in order to promote sales of Dōshō-an’s Shinsen-gedoku-manbyōen medicine that Bokujun offered this depiction of Rankei. I also introduce the Yōshūhushi 雍州府志 and Nihonkanoko 日本鹿子 as new historical sources relevant to the Dōshō-an’s Shinsen-gedoku-manbyōen, and suggest that these sources show that this medicine was widely recognized by people and used as gifts and as a specialty or prestige item.

I conclude that the picture of Rankei Dōryū seen in early-modern times in the Dōshō-an documents was used to form a story for the purpose of promoting the Dōshō-an’s medicine Shinsen-gedoku-manbyōen.

In this article, the author explores Suzuki Daisetsu’s (1880–1966) understanding of Hakuin Zenji (1685–1768) and his teachings. In his many works, Suzuki Daisetsu did not mention much about Hakuin Zenji in his many works. The author enumerates and analyzes the main works written about Hakuin Zenji in the Suzuki Daisetsu Complete Works. The general impression is that in some cases Suzuki Daisetsu used Hakuin’s words to endorse his own thoughts. At the same time, we can see that some of the deepest aspects of Hakuin’s teachings were also grasped by Suzuki.

In the the Gyakushū-Seppō, Hōnen quoted two interpretations from the paragraph describing the meaning of Amitābha Buddha’s Name in the Amidakyō-Ryakki. This paragraph and the Gyakushū-Seppō have the following features in common-1. explaining the two bodies of the Buddha, 2. explaining the two kinds of Light, 3. paying attention to the word “Buddha” as well as the word “Amitābha,” 4. interpreting that the Name contains both Enlightenment and Manifestation. There is a strong possibility that Hōnen configured the preaching of praise of Buddha’s merit in the Gyakushū-Seppō while paying attention to the Amidakyō-Ryakki.

The fifth scroll of the Shijūhachikanden 四八巻伝 (compiled by Shunshō 舜昌 (1255–1335)) has a story of Hōnen’s 法然 (1133–1212) dream of climbing Kōyasan 高野山. This story reveals that Hōnen lived in Saga 嵯峨 for two years from the first through third years of the Jisho 治承 (1177–1179).

The Shinikki 私日記 describes Hōnen as having performed the Gosōjōshinnokan 五相成身之観, a contemplation practice of Esoteric Buddhism.

The author believes that the dream of climbing Kōyasan described in the fifth scroll of the Shijūhachikanden occurred after he had failed to accomplish the Sokushinjōbutsu 即身成仏 practice during his seclusion either in Saga or Kōyasan.

In his dream of climbing Kōyasan, Hōnen was greeted with a nod by Kūkai 空海, though he had cast doubt on Kūkai’s religious principle. His dream can be interpreted to mean that the monks who practiced Buddhism on Kōyasan had no choice but to admit their misunderstanding and accept the ideology of Hōnen’s Jōdo 浄土 in light of Esoteric Buddhism.

In Chapter VI of the Ketsujō ōjōshū 決定往生集 written by Chinkai 珍海, he deals with the contrast that the person who commits the five heinous deeds and who slanders the True Dharma is excepted from the relief of the eighteenth vow in the Lager Pure Land Sūtra 無量寿経, while the person who commits the five heinous deeds and the ten evils is saved in the section on the lowest class of rebirth 下品下生 in the Contemplation Sūtra 観無量寿経.Through those questions and answers in this chapter of Chinkai’s work, I would like to elucidate the originality of the interpretation on the selection of those who commit the five heinous deeds and slander the True Dharma.

In the Kamakura era, Hōnen’s followers headed to the Kanto area and tried spread their teachings, while there were many doctrinal disputes among them about Hōnen’s teaching. One of the discrepancies is clearly shown in Shinran’s letter in 1251 (Kenchō 3) concerning the understanding of Amida’s welcoming at the moment of death, an important issue among Shinran’s followers. Previous research assumes that the dispute was caused by Hōnen’s followers particularly by Ryōchū in the Kanto area. However, there has not been enough research on the situation of Pure Land Buddhism in the Kenchō period in the Kanto area. As a matter of fact, many of the historical records and writings including Ryōchū’s have not yet been published. This paper uses Ryōchū’s unpublished Kangyōsho-Kikigaki, showing his thought of the welcoming of Amida Buddha (raigō) in order to clarify the situation of Pure Land Buddhism in the Kanto area during the Kenchō period.

Shōkō 聖光 (1162–1238) was one of Hōnen’s 法然 disciples. His thought conveys both Hōnen’s thought as it is and what is unique to him. So far, it is considered that his thought was established through his studies of Hōnen’s thought and as a response to criticism from other Buddhists. But it can also be considered that it was established as he tried to convey Hōnen’s thought to Buddhists of his time. In his interpretation of Shōdō-Jōdo 聖道浄土, we find such Tendai 天台 ideas as Goji 五時, Shikyō 四教, and Zhiyi’s 智顗 works. But he still claims that Shōdō and Jōdo stand in completely different positions, and that those who practice in the Shōdō gate should also rely on the Jōdo gate. Shōkō’s unique thought was established to try to teach Hōnen’s thought to Tendai Buddhists of his time.

In Japanese Buddhism, the theory of the degenerate dharma was widely accepted, while there were also monks who posed questions about the three periods 三時 of the Buddhaʼs dispensation. In this paper, I reexamine Shōkū’s 證空 (1177–1247) doctrine that all three periods consist of the degenerate dharma. What I found is that, although he insisted that all three periods consist of the degenerate dharma, he directed his strong attention to various theories of the three periods, and this doctrine was not insisted upon in the Tahitsushō 他筆鈔, which is one of his most important writings.

Shōkū’s fundamental understanding about Nāgārjuna and the Discourse on the Ten Stages is based on the instruction of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Commentary on the Treatise on the Pure Land. He explains that Nāgārjuna aspired to be born into the Pure Land, and the instruction of ‘difficult practice’ and ‘easy practice’ in the Discourse is related with the way for birth into the Pure Land. This follows the traditional understanding of the history of the Pure Land way.

In the Discourse on the Preface of the Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra, Shōkū interprets Buddhism as ‘various practices by one’s own power’ and ‘contemplation by other power.’ As one of the arguments of this interpretation, he quotes the instruction of ‘difficult practice’ and ‘easy practice’ in the Discourse on the Ten Stages. However, according to the context around this interpretation, this quotation is not consistent with the original meaning of the Discourse, but rather is based on the understanding of ‘difficult practice’ and ‘easy practice’ found in the Commentary on the Treatise on the Pure Land.

Hōnen and other disciples of his did not merely follow the traditionally accepted understanding, and conducted various researches into this question. However, Shōkū follows this understanding with no question, and provides a unique interpretation of his own on the Discourse.

In Hōnen’s Jōdo doctrine, according to the idea of Shihō rissō (指方立相, Giving direction and establishing form), a distinction is made between the western Pure Land and the Sahā world. However, from the late Kamakura to the early Muromachi period, this was criticized as a provisional teaching and the Jōdoshū considered inferior to others.

This was countered by Yūyo Shōsō (酉誉聖聡; 1366–1440) of the jōdo Chinzei ha who accepted the non-duality of purity and pollution and the unity of living beings and Buddha as Jōdoshū doctorine. However, the origins of Shōsō’s ideas are not clear. Therefore, this paper discusses this topic on the basis of the expression 無塵法界凡聖斉円之理 in the Ōhara dangi Kikigaki-shō 『大原談義聞書鈔』.

In this paper, I examine Shinran’s citations of Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū in the section of “Great Practice” in the Chapter on Practice in the Kyōgyōshinshō.

In the Ōjōyōshū, Genshin considers the recitation of nembutsu to be inferior to the practice of contemplative nembutsu. In contrast, Shinran, citing the Ōjōyōshū in his Chapter on Practice, interprets recitation of nembutsu as “Great Practice.” How, then, did Shinran develop his interpretation of Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū?

First, Shinran was influenced by his master Hōnen. In the Ōjōyōshū, Genshin sees the nembutsu both as recitative and contemplative practices. Hōnen, however, understood the nembutsu exclusively as a recitative practice. Shinran was the successor of Hōnen’s position.

Further, it seems that Shinran developed his interpretation of the Ōjōyōshū in line with Shandao’s Wangsheng lizan, i.e., recitation of Amida’s Name as a practice praising the Buddha’s virtues.

While accepting Genshin’s nembutsu thought through Hōnen’s understanding of the Ōjōyōshū, Shinran developed his interpretation that the ultimate purpose of Genshin’s nembutsu teaching was to propagate the recitative practice of nembutsu as found in Amida Buddha’s vows and promoted by Śākyamuni and all other buddhas as practices of worshipping and praising Amida’s virtues.

Shinran understood jūnen 十念 as jūnen sōzoku 十念相続 in the Kyōgyōshinshō. In particular, he focused on the aspect of “sōzoku” (Continuing). This phase jūnen sōzoku is from the Commentary on the Treatise and the Collection on the Land of Happiness. Shinran used this term in his discussion of both practice and faith. My suggestion is that we have to understand the meaning of jūnen in Shinran’s thought by considering the relationship between each ichinen 一念 and jūnen sōzoku. From the standpoint of practice, jūnen sōzoku means continuing saying the nenbutsu for life. And from the standpoint of faith, jūnen sōzoku means remaining mindful of the Buddha as shingyō no ichinen 信楽の一念 for life. The reality of ourselves as foolish beings becomes apparent in this shingyō no ichinen. The teachings regarding jūnen sōzoku of faith are a call for us to return continually to this ichinen. The teachings regarding jūnen sōzoku of practice also have this message. Therefore, the significance of jūnen in Shinran’s thought is that it is a call for us to walk the path to Buddhahood by continually returning to shingyō no ichinen for our entire lives.

This paper examines Shinran’s 親鸞 view of ākāśa 虚空, focusing on the quotations of Tanluan’s Commentary on Birth in the Amida’s Pure Land 往生論註 in the Ocean of One Vehicle of the Kyōgyōshinshō.

In these quotations, Shinran changes the words “the appearance of no purpose” 虚作之相 into “the appearance of ākāśa” 虚空之相.

Although most previous studies maintain that the change is Shinran’s mistake in writing, I infer rather that Shinran intentionally made the change, based on an examination of another passage of Shinran’s and his view of ākāśa.

Prior studies have already taken note of the fact that Daigobon Hōnen Shōnin denki (hereinafter Daigobon) was copied by early adherents of the Takada school. However, there had not been thorough discussion of the content of the manuscript. Therefore, the present study has focused on and conducted detailed analysis regarding the content of Daigobon copied by adherents of the Takada school, and has made the following findings. Manuscript fragments of Takada adherents can be broadly classified into three types: “precepts”, “the coming of Amida Buddha to the Pure Land”, and “rebirth of both good people and evil people in the Pure Land”. The manuscript of the sermon “rebirth of both good people and evil people in the Pure Land” believed to have been made by Hōnen states that “evil people are to be emulated but even good people can be saved.” This may sound similar to the akunin shōki-setsu described in Yuien’s Tanninshō. However, they are not necessarily the same. Still, Kenchi and others probably advocated ōjō of both good people and evil people even though this belief may not have been exactly the same as the akunin shōki-setsu.

This paper studies not only Sekisen Sōei’s (1762–1782) heterodoxy in Shin Buddhism, but also the response thereto by Honnyo (1778–1826) in his Tasshigaki (“Notice”). The result is that it is while one must seek the meaning of the words of the Seven Patriarchs in the mirror of Shinran’s opinions, it is insufficient merely to be satisfied that there are no problems at the literal level: rather, it must be possible for a beginner to understand without being led astray.

The purpose of this study is to consider Kaneko Daiei’s understanding of the Tannishō. Since the Meiji period, people both inside and outside of the Shin sect have read the Tannishō. The Iwanami paperback edition revised by Kaneko played a significant role in making the Tannishō widely read by the ordinary public.

In the Tannishō, various heresies (異義) and misinterpretations of Shinran’s teaching are recorded. Kaneko acknowledges two major issues in these heresies. The first problem is the attitude to persist in a certain perspective in order to maintain the system of the sect. The second problem is to understand the teaching simply as a piece of information that is not related to oneself in real life. Kaneko’s interpretation of these heresies is exactly his understanding of the Tannishō that has developed through his experience in his time and society.

This paper focuses on how Chingen’s Hokke-Genki features sūtras other than Lotus Sūtra. In the Hokke-Genki, the Perfection of Wisdom sūtra is treated negatively, and the Huayan jing is treated positively. Further, the Hokke-Genki shows a strong competitiveness against the Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra. However, on the other hand, the Hokke-Genki claimed that it should not argue over the superiority or inferiority of the sūtras. This claim was inherited by texts such as the Konjaku Monogatari-Shū and Genkō-Shakusho. In addition, this paper also discusses the fact that a unique motif “Flying scriptures in the sky” can be seen in the stories that recognize the combination of the Lotus Sūtra and the Guan Wuliangshuo jing.

By focusing on the essential words of Miao-le’s Hokke Mongu-ki [Annotations on the Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra]—the most used source in the Great Mandalas inscribed by Nichiren—this paper examines the significance of a devotional exercise undertaken by alms-givers’ in their spiritual service to Nichiren from the perspective of practicing honzongi (the purpose of honzon [the object of worship]—to pursue the vow made by Śākyamuni to save all living beings and to change the sahā world into a Buddha land). The praise (the words of reverence for Buddha), explicating shinki zaifuku (admonishment of a categorical belief in karma), calls upon people to have absolute belief in following the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren, the practitioner of the Lotus Sutra, and demonstrates that spiritual service to Nichiren would play a crucial role in making the Lotus Sutra and Buddha’s life work come alive in the reality of the Latter Day of the Law. By practicing the preachings of and through the existence of Nichiren, the disciples can join the world of the Great Mandala, where they can realize the ultimate sense of security. This paper argues that the praise clarifies the significance of such spiritual service.

This paper focuses on the unpublished Nikkō Yōmon-shū or the anthology of essential passages collected by Nikkō (日興筆要文集) Zōzō-Yōmon (雑々要文) in the possession of the Kitayama-Honmonji temple (北山本門寺) , and examines the book, especially centering on its composition and contents.

As a result of the examination, it can be confirmed that the essential passages were cited from various documents such as Buddhist scriptures and other books, as well as Chinese literature and anthologies. Therefore, this book can be viewed as a collection of essential passages, showing them together with diagrams in order to deepen an understanding of Buddhism.

This article studies Nichiryū’s theory of tathatā. As approaches, the development of tathatā theory in Chinese Buddhism, and the dispute over the one vehicle and the three vehicle teachings (三一権実論争) between Saichō and Tokuitsu are surveyed. It is also a goal to define the characteristics of Nichiryū teaching, by comparing and examining Nichiryū’s theory of tathatā.

As a result, Nichiryū’s understanding of tathatā was found to differ from that asserted by other sects. In Chinese Buddhism, as well as in the Hossō and Tendai sects, the basis of their tathatā understanding was persistently to attain enlightenment. On the other hand, it was observed that Nichiyū’s interpretation of tathatā was based on the ideas of the Lotus Sūtra’s Honom Happon (本門八品). This is because Nichiryū became aware of the capacity of beings known as ‘mappō-no-shujō’ (末法の衆生) by following the writings of Nichiren as a basis, and because he placed the attainment of Buddhahood achieved only by piety at the root of his theory. It can be said that Nichiryū interpreted tathatā through the Lotus Sūtra in order to derive Buddhahood attained by piety in the Lotus Sūtra, as this is the only means in the time of mappō.

Kenjuin Nichikan was the twenty six chief priest of the Taiseki-ji temple and is highly renowned in the history of the Nichiren sect as the organizer of Taiseki-ji ideology. Nichikan’s philosophy is based on the Ryōgan-Kechimyaku that Nichiren is said to have written. According to this, it is said that the Lotus Sūtra was only profitable for people as long as the Buddha lived. It is Nichiren who is considered to save people after Buddha’s death. With the development of this idea, there came the Nichiren Honbutsu ron, the idea that Nichiren himself is the Honzon.

Ten Nichiren biographical Ema written by Kunihide Utagawa have been found in Shizuoka prefecture. I compared those votive pictures with a biographical Ema, Nichiren daishi shinjitsuden 『日蓮大士真実伝』 written by Taido Ogawa. I conclude that this biographical Ema is the original text of these Ema. Utagawa depicted things related to Nichiren such as religious persection and auspicious omens on his votive pictures. Although in the early-modern period many Nichiren biographical Ema were also produced, many Ema were created in modern times as well. Those Nichiren biographical Ema were hung in temples; therefore many common people were able to encounter a dramatic depiction of Nichiren’s life.

It is said that the Kechiengyō (結縁経) was performed at the time of the Gyakushu ceremony, because the Gyakushu (逆修) was understood as a ceremony that serves to connect oneself with the Tathāgata. However, there is no cases in which the Kechiengyō was conducted at the time of the Gyakushu ceremony during the Heian Period. Therefore, I suppose that the purpose of the Gyakushu was not to connect oneself with the Tathāgata.

The Gyakushu means to pray that one’s soul may rest in peace after death while one is still alive, and to conduct a prayer ceremony prior to one’s death, which is similar to the ceremony conducted posthumously every 7 days during the 49 days after death. It can be understood that the Gyakushu’s rituals are conducted in the same manner as the Chūin’s (中陰, intermediate state) rituals with oneself as the person being commemorated.

In this paper, I discuss why the Kechiengyō was not performed at the time of the Gyakushu ceremony by considering the changes to the Gyakushu’s rituals in the Heian Period and comparing them with the Chūin’s rituals.

The Kōyasan University 高野山大学 library holds an old manuscript of the Bianzheng lun 弁正論. I examine whether this old manuscript is a copy of that mentioned in the list of texts imported by Kūkai 空海, and conclude that there is a possibility that it is. In addition, I find two points at which this old manuscript agrees with the Bianzheng lun quoted in Shinran’s 親鸞 Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証.

This study examines how Buddhists in the mid-Meiji period responded to criticisms about Buddhist interpretations of retributive justice, especially that of Katō Hiroyuki 加藤弘之.

To examine this debate, I used the articles found in the journal Buddhism (Bukkyō仏教), published by the Keiikai 経緯会. Its members included Nishiyori Ichiroku 西依一六, Sakaino Tekkai 境野哲海, and Ōkubo Shōnan 大久保昌南, who were among the young, energetic stars of the Buddhist literary world. In this study, I consider their arguments and their respective role in the debate.

In conclusion, it may be said that, on the one hand they disliked fatalism, but on the other hand agreed that retribution spanned the three temporal worlds 三世因果. Nishiyori in particular understood that this is not fatalism or arbitrarism but causalism. Therefore, the authors considered claimed that the Buddhist notion of retributive justice serves to abolish superstitious practices.

Chinul (1158–1210), a Sŏn priest in the Koryŏ dynasty, cites the works of Wŏnhyo (617–686) of Silla in his Kwŏnsu chŏnghye kyŏlsa mun. In this paper, I consider how Chinul used Wŏnhyo’s words.

The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya defines that the five sense consciousnesses (五識) obtain the suppression not due to discernment (非択滅 apratisaṅkhyānirodha) when the organ of sight (眼) and the mental organ (意) are occupied with a certain visible object (色境).

This paper examines the interpretations of ‘the organ of sight’ and ‘the mental organ’ in this definition found in both Chinese and Japanese commentaries on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.

In this paper I argue that Zhisheng 智昇 exhibits different attitudes toward the Three Levels Movement 三階教 in each of his works. Although he quotes writings from the Three Levels Movement in his Ji zhujing lichan yi 集諸経礼懺儀, he criticizes the movement in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釈教録. This may be because at the time he wrote the Kaiyuan shijiao lu, the Three Levels Movement was oppressed, and Zhisheng, wanting to not oppose government opinion, criticized the movement. However, in the Ji zhujing lichan yi he quoted Three Levels Movement texts in order to preserve them for the future.

Comparing fascicles 2 and 3 with fascicles 14 and 16 of his Tanxuan ji 探玄記, it becomes obvious that Fazang 法蔵 (643–712) advocated slightly different versions of the theory that the natural environment attains Buddhahood. A majority of previous studies has suggested the possibility that Fazang compiled this work over a long period of time, and that he himself might have added new passages throughout his lifetime. Consequently, it is impossible to determine the development of Fazang’s thought by simply following the order of fascicles. This paper tentatively takes up fascicles 1 and 2 of the Tanxuan ji and in comparison with Fazang’s earlier Wenyi gang mu 文義綱目 demonstrates that Fazang reedited the first fascicle of the Tanxuan ji, whereas the second fascicle remained untouched.

This paper examines the seven scriptures which are traditionally regarded as translated by Śubhakarasiṃha and finds that there are some stages of development in those translations as follows:

1. The meditation practices of the Zunsheng yigui 尊勝儀軌 and Cishi yigui 慈氏儀軌 are based upon that of the Guangda yigui 広大儀軌, with the addition of some elements of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha.

2. The maṇḍalas of the Sanzhong xidi gui 三種悉地軌 and the Po diyu gui 破地獄軌 have the maṇḍalas of the five elements in the center and the deities of the Vajradhātumaṇḍala surrounding them.

3. The three versions of the Po diyu yigui 破地獄儀軌 teach a homology of the five syllables, which symbolize the five elements, with the five viscera, the five Tathāgatas, etc. Ideas of the native Chinese Yinyang Wuxing 陰陽五行 are also found in the Sanzhong xidi gui 三種悉地軌.

In the Shanjia/Shanwai 山家山外 debates that arose in the South-era Song period, Hushan Zhiyuan 孤山智円 (976–1022) is known as a monk representative of the early Shanwai group. In his works, he often emphasized that each of the Three Dharmas 三法—namely, mind 心/Buddha 仏/Beings 衆生—, include Three Thousand aspects 三千差別法, and the idea of the Perfect Three Dharmas 円融三法 is based on each including Three Thousand aspects equally. However, even if Zhiyuan adopts the theory of each Dharma including Three Thousand aspects, as did the Zhili 知礼, the theoretical ground is quite different from him.

This study focuses on the Zhiyuan’s interpretations about the idea that Each of the Three Dharmas includes Three Thousand aspects and how different this idea is from the position of Shanjia and Post Shanwai. Through this, I consider Zhiyuan’s understanding of the Perfect Three Dharmas.

It is widely known that the Putidamo Wuxinglun (Bodhidharma’s Doctrine of Understanding), representing the seminal text of Bodhidharma, was disseminated to Japan by Yuanzhen (814–891) and is now recorded in the Damodashi sanlun (Three Doctrines of Bodhidharma) and the Shaoshi liu men. However, in academic circles, most contemporary scholars maintain that this text is not an authentic work of Bodhidharma but rather was written during the middle Tang period by individuals inside one of the orders of the Chan school, in order to falsely authenticate or validate the teachings of their group’s doctrines as in a direct line with Bodhidharma’s original transmission. Thus, the author believes that this text holds an important position in understanding the early philosophical ideologies of Chan’s historical establishment and development in China. This paper mainly focuses on the discussion of xin (mind), as it is explained in the “Doctrine of Understanding,” and seeks to pinpoint the connections between the text “Doctrine of Understanding” along with both Er ru sixinglun changjuanzi and Guanxin lun, other early Chan texts, in order to elucidate some possible reasons for the emergence of the ideas regarding xin (mind) as it is discussed in the Bodhidharma text.

Linji’s Chan thought is reflected in the concepts of “the person with nothing to do” and “the true person without rank.” Inherited from Mazu Daoyi 馬祖道一 through Mazu’s successor Huangbo Xiyun 黄檗希運, Linji’s thought centered on unconditional faith in truth as the direct manifestation of absolute emptiness. As a means of reifying this view, Linji added the element of function to the concept of “the person with nothing to do,” which Chan masters of the Mazu lineage employed to emphasize nondiscrimination. Furthermore, he introduced the notion of “the true person without rank” as a way to more clearly express his view of the equivalence of self and function.

This article examines the background of the term huyong (互用) and jiaoge (交割) in Chan Pure Rules from the viewpoint of their economic and Buddhist doctrinal aspects.

In the Chanyuan qinggui and Chixiu Baizhang qinggui, the word jiaoge appears when a new officer or an abbot takes a former ones’ place. They examine together with a book of public property of the monastery whether they are lost or in deal to be found. As the word has its root in one of the five precepts, “not stealing,” it shows that there existed arrogations or stealing of public property in Chinese monasteries.

The word huyong also has its root in the moral restraints in Buddhism. It refers to mixed usage of the three treasures. For instance, there is a tale quoted in the Chixiu Baizhang qinggui, in which a monk suffers from heavy punishments because of having spent money offered to provide a meal for monks instead on building a saṃgha hall.

The meanings of these two words have their origin in Buddhist rules and precepts, and at the same time they function to show some economic aspects of Chinese Chan monasteries from the 12^th to 14^th centuries.

This paper considers the formation order of works related the Pure Land thought in Jingyingsi Huiyan (淨影寺慧遠). My hypothesis about their order is as follows.

(1) Jingtuji (淨土義)

(2) Wenshi yuiji (維摩義記), Wuliangshoujing yishu (無量寿經義疏)

(3) Guanjing yishu (觀經義疏)

※ Reservation: Sanfoji (三佛義)

If this hypothesis is right, Huiyan was deepening his belief in Amitābha Buddha gradually. This is because I assume that the Guanjing yishu (觀經義疏) was written in Huiyan’s sunset years.

In Pure Land Buddhism during the middle of the Tang dynasty, there are many commonalities with the Sanjie-jiao (Three Stages sect). Of those, the most striking is the ideology of sect-founder worship. That is, just as we can confirm the deification of Xinxing (540–594), we can also see the worship of Shandao (613–681) in the Nianfo-jing in Pure Land Buddhism.

Since the foundation of the Sanjie-jiao precedes Pure Land Buddhism, it is thought that there is a high likelihood that Pure Land received this aspect from the Sanjie-jiao, but this is where the challenge at hand begins. Criticism to the Sanjie-jiao is seen in the Nianfo-jing. In the middle Tang dynasty, although Pure Land adherents criticised Sanjie-jiao, the former tried to assimilate the latter.

Furthermore, the traces of disputes between Shandao and Jingang (dates unknown) in the Nianfo-jing can be assumed to contain some symbolic attributes related to the external appearance of Pure Land. These are thought to be explicable by reading it from the perspective of mid-Tang dynasty Pure Land adherents’ view of the Sanjie-jiao. This paper will examine the traces of dispute seen in the Nianfo-jing, while relating it to its oppositional stance to the Sanjie-jiao, and explain the aspects of teacher worship in mid-Tang dynasty Pure Land Buddhism.

Although Wenling Jiehuan’s (溫陵戒環, ?–1182 or 83 ) commentary Lengyan-jing Yaojie (楞嚴經要解) greatly influenced later generations, research on the commentary is scarce. Qian Qianyi (錢謙益, 1582–1664) mentioned that the commentary is closely related to Changshui Zixuan’s (長水子璿, 965–1038) Shoulengyan Yishuzhujing (首楞嚴義疏注經). To elucidate the Yaojie’s features and validate Qian Qianyi’s remarks, this paper investigated references to other Sūtras or documents, as well as other sources that Jiehuan might have referred to, focusing on the relationship between the Yaojie and the Yishuzhujing. The results shows that Qian Qianyi’s opinion has some validity.

The meditation of long duration on selflessness is mentioned in the final chapter of the Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā (TSP). Eliminating jñeyāvaraṇa and becoming omniscient depends on whether this meditation is performed. This meditation is carried out not by śrāvakas and pratyekebuddhas but by compassionate ones (kāruṇika).

In Pramāṇavārttika (PV) 2.136, when explaining śāstṛ, the meditation of long duration on means is mentioned. Considering the context, it appears that this meditation is performed by someone who aims to preach based on compassion. As the Pramāṇavārttikapañjikā (PVP) and Pramāṇasamuccyaṭīkā (PSṬ) express, this meditation on means is meditation on selflessness.

PVP and PSṬ hold that this meditation is performed not by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas but by a bodhisattva who aims to preach. In the proof statement on selflessness meditation in PVP and PSṬ, the word kāruṇika is not mentioned. But it appears that TSP uses the word kāruṇika in the proof of omniscience based on PVP’s idea that this meditation is performed by a bodhisattva who aims to preach.

In light of TSP’s introduction, it is difficult to think that TSP is uninterested in compassion in its final chapter. Of course, TSP does not mention this idea directly. However, we can say that TSP, based on PV2 and PVP, holds that the meditation of duration on selflessness is motivated by compassion and done in order to preach.

This study aims to clarify the role of the Būkkyōgakkai in expressing the position of the Ōtani sect during its patronage and support of the Enthronement of Emperor Taishō (the ceremonies held for the change of emperor). The Būkkyōgakkai was a correspondence school formed under the Ōtani sect of Shin Buddhism that also published proselytizing literature. The following points became clear as a result of this study.

The first is the publication of “The Enthronement and Shin Buddhism” (1913), prefaced by the full text of the Enthronement Reception Letter (the letter given by a high priest at the enthronement of a new emperor) by High Priest Shōnyo. The publication featured essays by prominent scholars of the sect to patronize and support the Enthronement.

The second is that this publication discussed the Two Truths Doctrine, which is defined in the doctrine of the Ōtani sect of Shin Buddhism, and had a tendency to emphasize the “provisional” (saṁvṛti) truth aspect more than the “ultimate” (paramārtha) truth aspect.

The third is that through this publication, the Būkkyōgakkai played a significant role for believers in the process of the Ōtani sect of Shin Buddhism following the state as Imperial-Way Buddhism.

Chinkai (1091/92–1152) discussed the ‘conviction’ chapter (信解品) of the Lotus Sūtra in his work Sanron gensho mongi yō (三論玄疏文義要) and questioned whether the Three Turnings of the Wheel (三輪説) could fully contain all the meaning of the Buddha’s preaching. Chinkai thought that some scriptures such as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā and the Vimalakīrinirdeśa are neither fundamental nor insignificant. They should belong to the Mahāyāna, as scriptures about Bodhisattvas. As he pointed out, although the Zhonglun (中論) was used to explain the Three Turnings of the Wheel as a general theory, it was not difficult to see that, from the two aspects of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, Chinkai included the Larger Prajñāpāramitā into Mahāyāna, and thought it was a mistake to consider the Mahāyāna scriptures other than the Huayanjing and Lotus Sūtra as mere expedient teaching (枝末法輪). In conclusion, Chinkai believed that the Three Turnings of the Wheel (三転法輪) was an incorrect and subordinate view in terms of Tenet Classification (教判).