The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka record the historical achievements of Śākyamuni. Nevertheless, “who” did “what” to “whom” “where” were written in detail, but “when” was not specified. Why so?
Also, when this “when” is dated as ekaṃ samayaṃ (a certain time) in the Suttapiṭaka, the Vinayapiṭaka distinguishes it by expressing it as tena samayena (then). Why so?
Śākyamuni had a consciousness that he became Buddha as result of following the ancient road that was travelled by the various Buddhas of the past, attaining enlightenment that the various Buddhas had attained, and of preaching the teachings that the various Buddhas of the past had preached. Based on this awareness were the suttas preached. Therefore, the contents of the Suttapiṭaka are universal, and it is not good to be caught in time.
Meanwhile, Śākyamuni had the recognition that the dhamma was extinct because the Buddhas of the past did not preach the Pātimokkha. Under this awareness, he established the Vinayapiṭaka, legislative documents that he originally established for maintaining and developing his saṅgha. Time is an extremely important factor for the law, because the same act becomes a crime or not depending on when the law was enacted.
The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka are canonical records. The Buddha’s disciples edited the suttas in a form not limiting time using ‘ekaṃ samayaṃ,’ and edited the rules in a way that limits “time” using ‘tena samayena’. This is a poor measure of trying to solve two conflicting requests at the same time. Tena samayena does not mean “when”. Therefore, there were no biographies of Buddha in Buddhism.
It is well known that the debate between Saichō and Tokuitsu during the early Heian period had great influence on Japanese Buddhism thereafter. However, its influence during their lifetime has yet to be investigated. In this paper, I examine an example showing that monks who lived during the same time period as Saichō and Tokuitsu did not know any of their points of argument. In conclusion, I point out the possibility that their debate hardly had any influence during their lives.
Among the six works authored by the representative monks of the Buddhist schools of Japan in the Tenchō era (824–833), the Himitsu mandara jūjūshin ron (秘密曼荼羅十住心論) of Kūkai (空海, 774–835) and the Kegon ichijō kaishin ron (華厳一乗開心論) of Fuki (普幾, dates unknown) are extant.
The Sŏk mahayŏn non (釋摩訶衍論), imported to Japan by Kaimyō (戒明, dates unknown) of Daian-ji, had been pronounced an apocryphal work by the Monjō Hakase of the time, Ōmine no Mifune Mahito (淡海三船眞人, 722–785). As a historical development, it is well known that Kūkai made significant reference to this text in constructing the thought of Shingon Esoteric Buddhism.
Kūkai took Huayan thought into account in his discussion concerning the development of bodhicitta in the ninth abode of mind in his Himitsu mandara jūjūshin ron. In his Kegon ichijō kaishin ron Fuki relied on Huiyuan’s (慧苑, dates unknown) Xu Huayan lüeshu kanding ji (続華厳略疏刊定記), along with utilizing the Sŏk mahayŏn non for evidence. Those passages conform with Kūkai’s own exposition of Huayan thought, and it is possible to make some conjecture into the content with which Kūkai was concerned. In this report the author shall demonstrate the differences in the interpretations of the Sŏk mahayŏn non of Kūkai and Fuki.
Over the years spanning the Nara to the beginning of the Heian period, the systemization of large-scale esoteric rites whose purpose was the protection of the state (chingo kokka 鎮護国家) was completed in the Shingon and Tendai traditions, as well as among the seven great temples of Nara. However, during the Insei period, major rites on a national scale that had chiefly been sponsored by the Fujiwara regental houses tended to grow less imposing. Among these rites was the Daigensui myōō hō 大元帥明王法, the rite of Great Commander Wisdom King, that was first performed in Japan by Jōgyō 常暁 of Ogurisu 小栗栖 in Jōwa 7 (840). Jōgyō had received this esoteric rite from Wenji 珍文 of the Qiyun-si 栖雲寺 in Tang China. The rite later became a fixture at the Hōrinji 法淋寺 in the Yamashina area of Kyoto, where it was performed at the behest of Emperor Ninmyō.
The reason for this change can be understood to be due to the differences in the relationship between the political power structure and Buddhism in the Nara and Heian periods. During the former, there had been a unity of politics and Buddhism, as can be seen in Emperor Shōmu’s ordering of the building of provincial temples and nunneries throughout the land. The object of worship at these provincial temples had been either Yakushi nyorai or Shaka nyorai, but the number of rites for other single deities, issonbō 一尊法, increased and methods of worship became varied.
In addition, the Shingon esoteric prayers and rites that had been premised on state sponsorship during the Heian period came to be understood as prayers that would bring various benefits in this world (genze riyaku 現世利益). One of the major objects of worship on such occasions was Daigensui myōō. This prayer ritual took the form of a secret rite (hihō 秘法) that was also known as the Taigen no hō. The origin of its iconography was derived from the demon deity known in Sanskrit as Āṭavaka. A number of excellent examples of this type of principal icon, both paintings and sculpture, have been preserved, especially in Kyoto. Here, I examine in particular the iconography of the eighteen-headed, sixteen-armed type as well as the six-headed, eight-armed version of Daigensui at Tōji and Daigoji, and compare them with the versions painted by Kenshin 賢信 at Daigoji, in order to consider the mechanism by which the faith in Daigensui myōō as a secret Buddhist deity (hibutsu 秘仏) and the object of worship in the esoteric rite was formed. Also, in considering the form taken by prayers for the protection of the state during the ancient through Heian periods, I elucidate at the same time their special character. Furthermore, I also consider the place of the Ryōgai mandara (maṇḍalas of the two realms) that served as the principal objects of worship in the Goshichinichi mishi hō 後七日御修法 (August Secret Rite of the Latter Seven Days) , which was also conducted for protection of the state, but unlike Daigensui myōō, the maṇḍalas are still employed in the ritual space at Tōji in Kyoto. The two rites, the Daigensui myōō hō and the Goshichinichi mishi hō, were conducted at the palace for a period of time and both were considered important esoteric rites that were likewise accorded great significance. Particularly noteworthy is the eighteen-headed, thirty-six-armed Daigensui myōō painted by Kenshin. The vividly colored paintings at Daigoji can be contrasted with the monochrome versions at Tōji.
The image studied here is very rare in terms of iconography, as everyone, including Amitābha, is represented by the figure of a Bodhisattva. Amitābha is represented by the figure of the chief of the Pure Land.
Also, while the contour line of the central Buddha was lost its vitality, those of the left and right Bodhisattva have freedom. The latter are reminiscent of the Amida-25-bosatsu-raigō-zu (阿弥陀二十五菩薩来迎図) (National Treasure), owned by the Chion-in (知恩院) . In other words, the time of production of this picture is can be place in the second quarter of the 14th century.
Meanwhile, while the central Buddha has the characteristics of the Southern Song Dynasty of China, the left and right Bodhisattvas are full of Japanese elements.
That is, the model of this painting was a Southern Song painting with only Amitābha painted in order for a dying person to image the moment of going to Pure Land as soon as possible to meet Amitābha. With this South Song painting as their model, the Tendai-Sanmon (天台山門) artists daringly added 2 Bodhisattva to promote their understanding that Raigō (来迎) precedes Ōjō (往生), and produced this picture.
Chōyō (–1139–1143) is known to have studied the Sanron doctrine under Kakuju (1079–1139) at Tōnan’in temple of Tōdaiji, Esoteric Buddhism under Jippan (?–1144) and Jōyō (1079–1120–) and to have believed in Pure Land Buddhism. He was an academic monk who was active during the late Heian period and resided at Kōmyōsanji temple.
His works are the Hishūkyōsōsho and Jūjūsinronsho, which are compiled in Volume 77 of the Taishō canon. Several old manuscripts of his works also exist. Several lost works can be known from inventories such as the Shoshūshōshoroku in three volumes and the Tōnan’in gozen mokuroku. From the above, he is known to have compiled many writings on Esoteric Buddhism, further based on the titles of his works written on Sanron, but no manuscripts of his Sanron writings have been found.
However recently I discovered a work on Sanron by Chōyō in the collections of Zenrinji temple. The manuscript is titled Daijō genron nitaisho shiki, and from the postscript we can know it was written by Chōyō and copied by Chōzen (1227–1307). This text is a commentary on the first chapter of Jizang’s (549–623) Dasheng xuenlun and many of the quotations are composed mainly of Jizang’s writtings. Comparing this with Chōyō’s Jūjūshinron, I found many similarities. As a result, the Daijō genron nitaishō shiki could definitely be presented as the work of Chōyō.
This paper studies the documents and surviving fragments quoted in the 13 chapters of the Daijō gishō-shō 大乗義章抄 (a commentary on the Dasheng yizhang 大乗義章), owned by the Minobu Bunko 身延文庫. The commentary is a written record created by Kanjin 寛信 (1084–1153), who belonged to the lineage of not only Shingon Esoteric Buddhism, but also of the Sanron School. A thorough examination of the commentary reveals that the writings of Jizang 吉蔵—as well as of Huiyuan 慧遠—were actively utilized, and that many surviving fragments were discovered from Sengkan’s 僧侃 Da zhidu lun shu 大智度論疏, which has not been preserved.
Starting with the middle of the Edo period in the 18th century, Japan witnessed the birth and development of an exegetical tradition on Paramārtha’s (Zhendi) 眞諦 translation of the Jin qishi lun 金七十論 (*Suvarṇasaptatiśāstra), a tradition which was to continue for nearly 200 years. Prior to this epoch no similar attempts are known to have existed. This may appear to us as a rather sudden and unexpected phenomenon. Why did the Jin qishi lun become the focus of such an intense scholarly interest in this epoch?
My earlier study of the Notes Concerning the Twenty-five Principles of Sāṅkhya (数論二十五諦記 Suron nijūgo tai ki) revealed that there was a difference between the understandings of Xuanzang’s 玄奘 (and his disciples’) concerning Sāṃkhya and the Jin qishi lun’s view. In the present paper, I examine whether the difference is found in Rinjō Kaidō’s 林常快道 Inmyō sanjūsan ka hon sahō sange kokō 因明三十三過本作法纂解鼓攻.
Regarding Ryūshiken Ogawa Tazaemon, a publisher of early modern Kyōto, his descendant Ogawa Saburō reported in detail in recent years. So far, this report is the most detailed concerning Ryūshiken. However, it does not deal with Buddhist publications.
I am currently researching Ryūshiken as a purveyor to the Sōtō sect. So far, I have researched the publications of Ryūshiken in Komazawa University Library. In this paper, I report in detail on Ryūshiken, with the results of my survey.
Katsudō Honkō 瞎道本光’s Nenpyō Sanbyaku-soku Hōgo-ge 拈評三百則方語解 is a commentary on the works of the Nenpyō Sanbyaku-soku Funō-go 拈評三百則不能語, which focuses on the source texts and word definitions. This study examines the materials that Katsudō used as the basis for his commentary, in particular, those appearing frequently in the Hōgo-ge. Moreover, the study explores parts of the commentary that reveal an association with other works, thereby clarifying both the position of the Hōgo-ge and a part of Katsudō’s basic education and ideological foundation.
First, it is confirmed that Katsudō lived in an environment where he was able to gain access and refer to the whole of the Obaku Edition of the Chinese Canon 黄檗版大蔵経, which was published at a comparatively early stage. However, further investigation into Katsudō’s use of the Zheng zi tong 正字通, which appears numerous times in the Hōgo-ge, is required.
Second, the mutual relationships among Katsudō’s own writings were investigated, leading to the conclusion that the interpretations of word definitions that Katsudō gives in the Hōgo-ge can also be applied to his other works regardless of the period during which they were written. Finally, while examining the relationship with the Giun-oshō Goroku Gei-gotsu 義雲和尚語録輗軏, it emerged that there might have been a specific intention, a premeditation, for the publication of the Hōgo-ge.
In Japan, doctrinal studies within the Jōdo Sect and Jōdo Shinshū sects have played central roles in doctrinal studies of Pure Land thought. They have traditionally taken the teaching of Shandao (善導) as the absolute guiding principle, even regarding it as the global standard in Pure Land studies. However, in view of the historical fact that Shandao’s teaching was soon forgotten in China, and that it hardly left any trace of major influence in Korea, Japanese Pure Land studies centered on Shandao’s doctrine need fundamental revision. This paper examines the background to the idiosyncrasies found in Pure Land studies in Japan by analyzing the categorization of Japanese temples brought about by the One-Temple-One-Sect System (一寺一宗体制), which effectively limited doctrinal studies within each temple to that of its own sect.
At the time of death, beings seek liberation not by looking at the Buddha himself, but by gazing on a “Buddha image,” constructed to serve that function. Such images are not intended as miraculous the Buddha images. This paper investigates the creation and contemplation of the Buddha images in Japan as a part of daily life.
Hōnen’s (1133–1212) final chapter of his main work, the Senchakushū, derives eight kinds of selections for Amitabha, Śākyamuni, and all kinds of Buddhas—“The eight kinds of selections” (Senchaku hongan, senchaku santan, senchaku rukyō, senchaku sesshu, senchaku kesan, senchaku huzoku, senchaku shōjō, senchaku gamyō) are based on “The Three Pure Land Sūtras” and the Banzhou sanmei jing (first volume). This is one of the key concepts of Senchakushū, and its stages of development have been clarified.
This paper examines the process of developing “senchaku rukyō,” based on the dissemination directions of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra (Wuliangshou jing). This analysis reveals that “senchaku rukyō” is developed in three stages.
During the first stage, the dissemination directions are quoted, whilst Yixiang zhuannian wuliangshou fo (一向専念無量寿仏) from the Wuliangshou jing (the San paidan chapter) is emphasized. There is no reference to the permanence of nembutsu at that point. During the second stage, the influence of the third chapter of the Ōjōyōshū is seen, and it is explained that nembutsu will remain, even during the end days. At this point, reference to the permanence of nembutsu is made. During the third stage, a similar discussion takes place as in the Dissemination Part directions of Wuliangshou jing and Guan Wuliangshou jing, using the words of Shantao’s (613–681) Guanjing shu as an intermediary. Subsequently, in Chapter 6 of the Senchakushū, this is developed into “senchaku rukyō.”
In order to elucidate the compilation of the Saihō Shinanshō, an anthology of Hōnen’s words, I examined points omitted in the Hōnen Shōnin Oseppō no koto, that is one of the writings in the Saihō Shinanshō. As a result, I conclude that the omitted points have the same peculiarities, so these omissions are made by a certain person. If one holds that Shinran 親鸞 compiled the Saihō Shinanshō, one may consider that Shinran omitted these sentences. On the other hand, if one does not think so, one has to suppose that these omissions were made by another. Today, many researchers consider that Shinran omitted the sentences in Saihō Shinanshō. However, I find that Shinran did not comply Saihō Shinanshō, judging by the style of this anthology handed down until today.
It is well known that Shinran praised Genshin for determining “truly the difference between the fulfilled land and the transformed land.” In this connection, Shinran cites Genshin’s interpretation as of the Realm of Indolence in the “Chapter on the Transformed Buddha and Land.” Shinran holds that the Land of Indolence is closely related to the Castle of Doubt found in the Sūtra of Immeasurable Life, since they are both places where nenbutsu practitioners who rely on self-power are born. Shinran discovered the importance of these two realms by reading Genshin, who also took up the notion of the Land of Indolence. In this paper, I argue that Genshin’s understanding of the Land of Indolence had a great influence on Shinran’s thought found in the “Chapter on the Transformed Buddha and Land.”
This paper examines Shinran’s quotations from the Mappō Tōmyōki (末法燈明記) seen in the Kyōgyōshinshō (教行信証). The main focus is the relationship between Shinran’s conception of kyōkai (教誡, precept) and the six sets of questions and answers (問答) quoted from the Mappō Tōmyōki, and the demonstration that Shinran interpreted the Mappō Tōmyōki as a book of kyōkai.
As one form of media for propagating Shinshū teaching, Shinran created visual materials called Kōmyō honzon. The Kōmyō honzon contains three parts: Amida Buddha’s name, images of the buddhas, and words of the scriptures. The term Kōmyō honzon was first defined in the Benjutsu myōtaishō and was popularized after the publication of the Shinshū jūhō shūei in 1987. The basic definition of the composition of Kōmyō honzon is that it contains three forms of Amida Buddha’s name and portraits of Śākyamuni and Amida within a single scroll.
The Myōgenji Temple in Aichi prefecture possesses a set of three hanging scrolls which is considered to be only remaining example of a Kōmyō honzon composed in Shinran’s lifetime. The middle scroll contains the nine-character Name of Amida Buddha emitting ninety-one rays of light. On the scroll on the left are portraits of the Indian and Chinese masters; on the scroll on the right are images of Prince Shotoku and Japanese masters. There are, however, no images of the two Buddhas.
It is clear that the set of scrolls of Myōgenji Temple does not fit the definition of Kōmyō honzon as described in the Benjutsu myōtaishō. Instead of classifying this set of scrolls under the category of Kōmyō honzon, in this paper I suggest that it is more accurate to identify them as Shinshū Mandara.
In Shin Buddhist studies, Shinran’s understanding of the theory of buddha-nature and that of Shin sectarian scholars in the Edo period have been discussed in the same manner. However, there are noticeable theoretical developments in the understanding of the theory among Edo scholars. In this paper, I compare Shinran’s discussions of buddha-nature in his writings and the most representative Shin Buddhist theory of buddha-nature developed in the Edo period by Dōshin (1773–1824) to identify their differences. In conclusion, I propose that the Shin Buddhist theory of buddha-nature developed in the Edo-Period should be treated as an expansion of Shinran’s understanding of buddha-nature. In order to understand why and how Shin sectarian scholars felt the need to expand Shinran’s understanding of buddha-nature, I also point out that further studies on Edo scholars awareness of the issues related to the buddha-nature theory as well as their socio-historical backgrounds are necessary.
After Shinran, his doctrinal understanding was carried by Kakunyo, Zonkaku, and Rennyo in a lineage within the Jōdoshinshū Honganji-ha, whereas other Japanese Pure Land Schools interpreting matters in a different way, such as the Chinzei and Nishiyama schools, did not exist before the Edo period. Chikū (1634–1718), the second Nōke living in the early Edo period, by referring to the books written by different schools, clarified the Honanji-ha Shinshū doctrine and distinguished it from that of other schools. Chikū created the foundation of Shinshū doctrine by developing the thoughts of the Jūmonfunbetsu, Jikkō-no-setsui, and Busshin-butsdo-ron. He is well known for his several books titled Muryōjukyō-ronchu-yokuge, Wasan-shusho, and Shisaiki.
In this paper, I summarize the case of ōjō presented in the Zoku Myōkōnin-den, edited by Zōō. In previous studies, it has been pointed out that a tale of return from the dead (sosei) which is as an example of ōjō is found in Zōō’s Myōkōninden, but it has not attracted particular attention. As return from the dead is a topic which is only barely mentioned in Shin-Buddhism, this research tried to focus on this topic. As a result, scenes of returning from death have been identified in the three stories of Sheshū Sukezaemon, Jōshū Okiku and Kyōto Osato.
Hiratsuka Raichō (1886–1971) worked hard to acquire women’s rights in modern Japan. In her thought and actions, we can see the influence of the Rinzai Zen that Raichō learned when she was young, but in this paper, examining her critiques of Pure Land thought, I try to elucidate her attitude and view about not only Zen but all of Buddhism. In 1935, she published an essay defending the interpretation of Pure Land of Muramatsu Entai, a monk and Buddhist scholar. Raichō agrees with Entai’s assertion that “Pure Land is to make this world an ideal society.” In the background, there is the idea that “Pure Land is not outside of us, but in our heart,” which has been talked about in Zen and elsewhere. In addition, Raichō universalized the mysterious experiences in Zen and thought that the root of all religions had something in common. Not only Zen but her unique view of religion is reflected in her view on all of Buddhism.
In the modern period, the existence of the Pure Land became a major problem in Japanese Buddhism. In this paper, I examine the case of the Buddhist scholar Kimura Taiken (1881–1930). In new modernist interpretations of Buddhism, the existence of the Pure Land as an objective place for rebirth was virtually denied. However, Kimura’s views differed from those of his contemporaries. According to Kimura, the Pure Land should be realized both mentally and materially in this world, and aspiring to the Pure Land conforms to the fundamental spirit of Mahayana Buddhism.
Kimura’s interpretation of Pure Land as a concrete realm to be realized in this world connects to the theme of “Buddhism and social movements.” Kimura maintains that trying to make this world into a pure land is none other than the embodiment of the fundamental spirit of Mahayana Buddhism, and such work is the proper social activity of Buddhists.
In his youth Nichiren said, “In order to come to a deep understanding of Buddhism through study it is necessary to learn the mysteries of various schools and doctrines,” and devoted his days to this research.
Nichiren took his vows in a Tendai temple, but as Endo Asai has pointed out, there is proof that Nichiren read almost all the works from the early years of the Japanese Tendai sect, from Saichō to Annen, excluding esoteric Buddhism.
I had the great fortune to examine the original transcript of the Honri taikōshūtō-yōmon 本理大綱集等要文 in Ikegami Honmonji Temple. In this paper I offer a bibliographic study regarding this transcript, considering its position as one of the many texts written by Nichiren as he established his ideas about Buddhism.
Kihachi Yamanaka’s disquisition on this text provided forerunning research. This research owes much to his work. Mr. Yamanaka confirmed various quotations in the text and considered such factors as its design and binding, but in this study I have discovered various mistakes and would like to present the continuous order on paper.
As a Nichiren Buddhist monk, Nitchō 日澄 argued against Enchin’s Hanichirengi (破日蓮義) by making use of Lotus Sūtra school teachings. I here scrutinize and clarify the doctrinal thought in his Nisshutsu taionki (日出台隠記). In particular, I pay attention to the skillful means inside and outside the body in the Lotus Sūtra, and since Nichiren raised the problem in his Jisshō shō (十章鈔), it has been continuously discussed. Therefore, the history of Nichiren’s teachings can be clearified by examining in detail this discussion from the Muromachi Period.
Pope Hanazono (1297–1348, 花園法皇) founded Myōshinji Zen-Temple in the year 1337, and his master Shūhō named this temple ‘Shōbōzan Myōshinji Zen-Temple’ (正法山妙心禅寺), as we saw in the last volume of this journal. Pope Hanazono was an earnest Buddhist and wrote the Hokkebonjaku (法華品釋) in Chinese style as well as authoring his famous diary (宸記).
The Lotus Sūtra (法華経) is the most important scripture of Tendai Buddhism. Therefore Pope Hanazono wrote a compendium of all the 28 chapters of this Sūtra naming it Hokkebonjaku. We here announce our revised edition of an approximately 280 year-old publication, in which we have revised and corrected some erroneous or simplified characters, and supplied several omitted words.
Pope Hanazono relates in his preface that he studied Tendai Buddhim for many years. After that, he began to study Zen Buddhism under Master Shūhō and became a Buddhist monk in 1335, after which he moved his palace to Hanazono. The Hokkebonjaku was perhaps produced in this period, because he used the first personal pronoun ‘nossō’ (衲僧) in the style of Zen, as well as the first personal pronoun ‘chin’ (朕) in the style of emperor.
He added verses at the end of each chapter’s interpretation or epitome. The verses show a Zen-style. In the appendix, we added his short ‘curriculum vitae’. Here we decided that he had moved to his palace at Hanazono on the occasion of his becoming a monk, and he opened the temple Myōshinji of Kanzan with his palace Gyokuhōin 1337.
The Japanese Government was established, following the Meiji Restoration (1868), and tried to make Shitoism a state religion. The Government introduced the “Daikyō-in” seminary system to control religious organizations. Hence, Nissatsu Arai was designated as Archbishop of the Nichiren Sect and was entrusted to administer several sub-sects of Nichiren Buddhism.
Nissatsu successively published the writings of Nichiki, and clarified the importance of Nichiki’s “Kanjin Kyōgaku” doctrine, a doctrine of observing one’s mind by chanting Namu-myō-hō-renge-kyō.
At the same time, he rendered remarkable services to set the standard for the rituals the of Nichiren Sect.
As Japan came into the new Meiji era, the Buddhist world was forced to make a big change in the government policy of Shintō as the national religion. This was a time of many influences from various things brought from overseas along. The same can be said about things without form such as thought, culture, technology, etc. Likewise, there were also influences on the tactics practiced in the Japanese Buddhist world, and documents called “document evangelism” were no exception. The Buddhist community until the Edo period carried out missionary work using such documents, but when it came to Meiji, it changed greatly due to modernization. While changes in institutions and mechanisms are factors for this change, the inflow of new technologies made it possible to issue large volumes of printed materials, which can be said one of the reasons for this change. In the light of these circumstances, I examine document evangelism as carried out by the Nichiren Order.
Tanaka Chigaku 田中智学 (1861–1939) represented modern Nichirenism, and had an interesting point of view about Shinto 神道.
First, Tanaka understood Shinto from the perspective of Buddhism which focused on the Lotus Sūtra and Nichiren. Based on the theory of Honji-suijaku 本地垂迹説 (the idea that Buddha is Buddha itself, Kami 神 its incarnation), he explained a connection between Buddha and Kami and positioned Kami as the guardian of the Buddha Dharma.
Second, from the perspective of Nichirenism, he denied Shinto (such as Tenri-kyō 天理教, Taisha-kyō 大社教, etc.) as religion. Nichiren’s Mandara was considered to be the core in his religious theory and he was negative about worshipping particular Kami outside the Mandara.
Third, he agreed with the policy recommended by theMeiji government that “Shinto is Japanese culture and convention, not religion.” That caused his religious actions to be seen as Shinto-oriented despite maintaining his Buddhism-oriented view theoretically.
During the Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa eras, Japanese Buddhists faced the task of reestablishing Buddhism as a modern religion. Their efforts in meeting the challenge included reading major sūtras from new viewpoints, as exemplified by the study of the Huayan Sūtra by Inoue Enryō, Sasaki Gesshō, and D. T. Suzuki, among others. This paper examines Akegarasu Haya’s reading of the Huayan Sūtra, focusing on his booklet “The Purport of the Huayan Sūtra” (華厳経の帰趣). Akegarasu saw the idea of ‘turning’ (転, parivarta) found in the Asaṅkhyeya Chapter (阿僧祇品) as the gist of the sūtra, arguing that it signifies the impermanence of all phenomena (諸行無常). He went on to claim that an authentic way of life is to adhere to the Huayan teaching of ‘non-basis’ and ‘non-dwelling’ (無所依, 無所住) and to embrace the truth of impermanence and flux, both of all phenomena and the very self, concluding that one must live each moment as an independent being (独立者) making constant efforts (精進) to be true (正直) to oneself. Although his interpretation may easily become a pretext for indulgence and self-righteousness, his singular reading of the Huayan Sūtra provides us with insights into its essence often forgotten in traditional, doctrinal hermeneutics.
The Chinese Tripitaka preserved in Iwayaji (岩屋寺) consists of 5,463 books in 548 boxes, of which 5,157 books are the Sixi Edition (思渓版), more precisely, the later Sixi Edition printed after the massive repair of woodblocks during the Jiaxi (嘉熙; 1237–1240) and Chunyou (淳祐; 1241–1252) eras. The remaining 195 books are Japanese manuscripts, while 111 books are Japanese printed editions.
This collection of books of the Sixi Edition was brought to Iwayaji by Uemon-no-jo Morimitsu (右衛門尉盛光) as his endowment in 1451 (宝徳3年). We know from the colophon of books that the collection previously belonged to the Kaiden’in (開田院) in 1281 (弘安4年), and then became a property of the Kozanji (高山寺) from 1293 (永仁元年) to 1343 (康永2年). As another piece of evidence, we find detailed kunten (訓点) or guiding marks for rendering Chinese into Japanese, added by Kyōben (経弁; 1246–1326), the third head priest of Kōzanji Jūmujin’in (高山寺十無尽院), in all volumes of the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna (十地経論). They are worthy materials for research on Huayan (華厳) studied in Kōzanji.
A characteristic of the Goryū Shintō (御流神道) at Kōyasan in the early modern period is its transmission in conjunction with Yuiitsu Shintō (唯一神道), which was begun by Eisen (英仙, 1666–1745 or later). According to prior research into Eisen’s Yuiitsu Shintō transmission, based on the writings of Banzen (鑁善, 1774–1845 or later) this had been transmitted to him from Yoshikawa Isoku (吉川惟則). However, there is no discussion of this in the primary materials. Accordingly, the author has reconstructed as far as possible the shōgyō (聖教) of Yuiitsu Shintō of that time, based on the manuscripts in Eisen’s own handwriting preserved in the temple where he was the abbot, the former Nikkō-in. As a result, besides the five examples pointed out in prior research, at present the existence of a total of fourteen examples has been confirmed.
Among them, the colophon of the newly discovered Jimyōin text of the Jinpai no yurushi fuda (神拜之許札) confirms that the Yuiitsu Shintō teacher of Eisen was Yasuda Sadamaro (安田貞麿), a disciple of Yoshikawa Koretaru (吉川惟足). In other words, a portion of the Yuiitsu Shintō shōgyō transmitted by Eisen was taught to him by Yasuda Sadamaro, and not Yoshikawa Isoku.
In Huayan texts in the lineage of the Silla’s Ŭisang (625–702), there is information about Zhiyan that is found only in Silla, not in Japan or China. One example is the testimony of the Kŏryo period’s Kyunyŏ, which holds that when authoring a commentary about a certain text, Zhiyan wrote on its cover ten important phrases, about which the Silla Huayan school’s Pobyun created a commentary entitled Sipku chang. Kyunyŏ wrote a commentary on the Sipku chang entitled Sipku chang wŏnt’ong ki. While existing scholarship has discussed the relationship between Zhiyan and the “ten phrases” based on this testimony of Kyunyŏ, there are no actual materials showing it. It was in this context that I discovered that the same “ten phrases” as those in the Sipku chang are found in the Huayanjing lüeshu held by the Hubei Provincial Museum. This Huayanjing lüeshu was copied in 1202 and had been stored at Kōzanji in Japan. In content it is the same as Zhiyan’s Souxuanji. Is it a historical fact that Zhiyan wrote down these “ten phrases”? Judging from their content, it is doubtful that this is the case, and is thus very likely that the ten phrases in the Huayanjing lüeshu were created to reflect this Silla story.
This paper examines the development of Chinese understanding of the practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi, particularly focusing on its relation to the interpretation of Buddha’s working (foli 仏力) in China. In the history of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi was practiced by Lushan Huiyuan and was considered an important practice within the early Chinese Pure Land tradition. It is also known that the term pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi (banzhou sanmei 般舟三昧) frequently appears in Kumārajīva’s Chinese translations of Indian commentaries, such as the Shizhu piposha lun 十住毘婆沙論 and the Da zhidu lun 大智度論. In this paper, I will focus on the Chinese translations of these two commentaries to understand how the concept of Buddha’s working is discussed in relationship to the practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi.
Comparing the practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi discussed in the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧経 and the usages of the term in these commentaries, the following three distintions are apparent:
・The practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi is identified differently in the stage of non-retrogression in the Shizhu piposha lun and the Da zhidu lun depending on the interpretation of the sutras of these commentaries.
・Both in the Shizhu piposha lun and the Da zhidu lun, practitioners who have yet to achive supernatural powers can see buddhas through the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi.
・In the Shizhu piposha lun, the necessity of self-effort by practitioners is emphasized in the practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi. In the Da zhidu lun, however, practitioners are able to see buddhas by the working of the buddhas’ light which enhances their samādhi practice, as discussed in the Dapin banruo jing 大品般若経.
The practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi is discussed as an important practice to reach the stage of non-retrogression in other sutras and commentaries. However, different interpretations of the teaching of the Banzhou sanmei jing developed based on the doctrinal background of each text which introduced the practice of the pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi. The differences of the interpretation of the samādhi practice in the Shizhu piposha lun and Da zhidu lun might have arisen the difference of interpretation of the ten stages (daśabhūmi) in each commentary.
The Sūtra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha is one of the six Visualization Sūtras that were translated in the fifth century. However, because it has some philological and linguistic errors, some researchers currently regard it as an apocryphal text, This text has some main sources, for example, the Samādhi texts, and according to some, the Mahāyāna sūtras, the commentaries, and the Huayan sūtras. I notice that the word zahua (雑華) occurs thrice in this text. Zahua represents the Huayan sūtras and the Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra. It is so used in relation to the Huayan sūtras in the Da zhidu lun (大智度論).Thus, I attempt to prove the relationship between this sūtra and the Huayan sūtras through the word zahua.
The Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧経 is known as a Chinese Apocryphal Scripture which was created in the late 7th century. The compilers of this scripture are considered to be related to early Chan Buddism or Wŏnhyo 元暁 and his group.
This study investigates the influence of the controversy between the Three Vehicle and One Vehicle theories in the early Tang dynasaty to the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧経. The One Vehicle ideology in the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧経 can be understood to be influenced by that of the early Chan School, which was based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra 楞伽経. I further point out that the key term Zhenru zhongzi (真如種子) used in the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧経 is related to the controversy between the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle theories in the early Tang dynasaty.
From this, I conclude that the Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧経 was created by early Chan Buddhists, based on the context of criticizing the Three Vehicle theories.
The Shi moheyan lun 釈摩訶衍論 (hereafter Shilun 釈論) is a commentary on the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論, and on the basis of its own distinctive scheme it expounds two kinds of dharma called the “basic Mahāyāna dharma” and the “nondual Mahāyāna dharma.” Without examining differences in the nature of these two kinds of dharma, the origins of the Shilun’s central idea of “thirty-three teachings” have in past research been understood as being based on the chapter “Entering the Teaching of Nonduality” in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. I have previously pointed out some manipulations based on the Shilun’s distinctive view of the Mahāyāna. With regard to the “basic Mahāyāna dharma,” the Shilun adduces the Da zongdi lun 大総地論 and argues that the teachings of the Mahāyāna have eighty dharmas, which it condensed into eight dharmas, and from which it then developed the “thirty-two teachings.” In other words, on the basis of the notion of the perfection of a buddha’s thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks, it added the “nondual Mahāyāna dharma,” defined as the “other shore,” to make thirty-three teachings. That is to say, they were not posited with a view to advocationg ideas related to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa’s dialogue about nonduality and to silence (ineffability), as has been maintained in the past.
What was Xuanzang’s historical viewpoint on the history of sectarian Buddhism?
He learned the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma for two years in Kashmir. When he returned to China, he translated the Yibu zonglun lun (Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines) written by a Sarvāstivādin of Kashmir. From these facts, it seems that Xuanzang was influenced by, and cultivated his historical viewpoint according to, the Sarvāstivādins of Kashmir.
But this investigation has made clear that some records contained in the Datang xiyu ji by Xuanzang are inconsistent with the Buddhist history related in the Yibu zonglun lun. Those records in the Datang xiyu ji are based on the Dīpavaṃsa produced from the southern Theravāda, and the Shelifu wen jing composed by the Mahāsāṃghika. Therefore, it should not necessarily be concluded that Xuangzang’s historical viewpoint was entirely informed by the Sarvāstivādins of Kashmir.
The reason for this is as follows: (1) At the time when Xuanzang visited India, the opposition to the Sarvāstivādins and the other sects was moderated to some extent. (2) As a Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist, Xuanzang was in a position to view sectarian Buddhism in India with some critical distance. (3) He studied the teachings of several sects in India with a positive attitude and a strong desire to learn.
In his Yijuanzhang (一巻章) the Tang monk Lingrun 霊潤 discusses 14 doctrinal points, among which are the Four Noble Truths. I examine this from the perspective of the acceptance of the new-style sutra translations of xuanzang. As a result, I find that doubt is raised in the Yogācārabhūmi and Xianyang shengjiao lun, and resolved in the Cheng weishi lun.
It is clear that Fazang 法蔵 (643–712), as the third founder of the Chinese Huayan sect, received tremendous influence from his teacher Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668). Zhiyan was familiar with the doctrines of the Dilun and Shelun schools, and some consider Zhiyan as a scholar of the Shelun school. We can assume Fazang too deeply researched the doctrines of the Dilun and Shelun schools. Thus, it is quite possible that Fazang utilized the doctrines of the Dilun school in order to structure his Huayan teachings. In previous discussions of the Buddhist scriptures which influenced Fazang, attention was always paid to several classical Chinese translations, such as the Huayan jing 華厳経, Daśabhūmika 十地経論, Laṅkāvatāra 楞伽経, and Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論. In this paper, I want to focus on the Ratnagotravibhāga 究竟一乗宝性論. In other words, my purpose is to reassess the influence on Fazang and the position in his thought on the Ratnagotravibhāga, which has been neglected by scholars of East Asian Buddhist Studies.
Fazang established his theory of jiaopan (教判) in the Huayan wujiao zhang 華厳五教章. Regarding his interpretation of zhongjiao and dunjiao, his explanations concerning tathatā (真如) and gotra (種姓) are the most important. It is interesting that Fazang, who utilizes the Ratnagotravibhāga, emphasizes the independence of zhongjiao and dunjiao through explaining tathatā and gotra. According to the interpretation of Fazang, the theory of xingqi 性起 of Huayan is related to the arising and cause of zhenru foxing 真如仏性 in all beings. In addition, he considers the Ratnagotravibhāga the foundation of this theory. We can find that a passage of the Śrīmālā-sūtra is quoted by the Ratnagotravibhāga if we examine the regarding portion, but there is no term equivalent to zhenru foxing in the Sanskrit text. As is widely known, the theory of xingqi is one of the roots and foundations for Fazang’s Huayan ideas. We can recognize the importance of the Chinese translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga through this case.
In addition, the Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotravibhāga states: “There is light of tathāgata in the bodies of beings including mithyātva 邪定聚. It will become the merits and great roots of beings and magnify great dharmas in the future.” According to Takasaki, this is the quote of the Sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra 智光明荘厳経. In contrast, the Chinese translation clearly states that this as a quote of the Avataṃsakasūtra 大方広仏華厳経. It is extremely interesting that Fazang takes the standpoint of the Chinese translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga in order to demonstrate that the Avataṃsakasūtra is the real resource and foundation of the xingqi theory of his Huayan ideas. However, it is incredible that in the extant Chinese translation of the Avataṃsakasūtra, we find no portion similar to the quote above. That is to say, it is very possible that Fazang mainly utilized the Chinese translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga, instead of the Sanskrit text, and the Chinese translation of the Avataṃsakasūtra, to demonstrate his xingqi theory of Huayan.
This paper is part of my recent comparative research on the Xu Gaoseng zhuan and inscriptions. I discuss the relationship between the “Monument Extolling the Vinaya Master and Eminent Monk Zhishou” 智首律師高徳頌碑 (Zhishou monument) and the Xu Gaoseng zhuan’s biography of Zhishou. The Zhishou monument was built in the twelfth month of Xianqing 1 (656), over twenty years after his death in Zhenguan 9 (635). One of the reasons for its construction was that a plot was in the works to isolate Xuanzang, who was reigning over the Chang’an Buddhist world after returning to China and receiving the patronage of Taizong; he was seen by Gaozong and Wu Hou (later Wu Zetian) as part of a faction of Taizong’s former senior statesmen. The Zhishou monument was built at the gate of the Hongfu-si, where Zhishou had last resided. It became a place that highlighted the returning power of Zhishou’s disciples. This probably led to Zhishou’s top disciple, Daoxuan, becoming the senior monk at the Ximing-si in Xianqing 3 (658). Judging from the Zhishou monument text’s sequential composition and use of similar words and phrases, it is highly likely that it drew from the Xu Gaoseng zhuan (first version: ca. Zhenguan 19). However, the Xu Gaoseng zhuan mentions this monument. It appears that this was added when this collection of biographies was revised after Daoxuan became the senior monk at the Ximing-si.
This study examines the interpretation of the Fentong-Dacheng (分通大乗) by the Nanshan-Lüzong (南山律宗) school during the Northern Song period. The Fentong-Dacheng is a view of the main precepts of the Nanshan-Lüzong school advocated by Daoxuan (道宣) during the Tang Dynasty. This philosophy is subsumed within the Sifen-lü (四分律) text of sectarian Buddhism. Because of criticism by other religious thinkers during the Northen Song period, Yuanzhao (元照) went on to reinterpret the Fentong-Dacheng. In addition, Yuanzhao promoted a further Dacheng-ization of the Nanshan-Lüzong school by interpreting newly extracted descriptions of Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy in the Sifen-lü on the basis of the philosophy of the Fahua-jing (法華経). Yuanzhao’s interpretations of the Fentong-Dacheng using the Fahua-jing became one of the main underpinnings of the Nanshan-Lüzong school’s philosophical approach during the Northern Song period.
Traditionally, the Lotus Sūtra is understood to be a particularly excellent scripture. In recent years Zhiyi 智顗 and Zhanran 湛然 are also believed to have had a similar understanding of this sūtra. However, in this paper, I argue that Zhiyi understood this scripture as preaching the Buddha’s insight which cannot be expressed in words, and that Zhanran also understood it in the same way. The Lotus Sūtra does not preach any concrete doctrine in words. The Lotus Sūtra belongs to a different level from other sūtras and just because it cannot be expressed in words, everything is the Lotus Sūtra. This point has been misunderstood in the past, and for this reason, the Lotus Sūtra has been regarded as an especially excellent sūtra.
In general, Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗 (538–597) is said to have realized the five stages of disciples (wupin dizi wei 五品弟子位). Dashi Zhipan 大石志磐 (d. u.), however, opined in the Fuzu tongji 仏祖統紀, edited in the last years of the Southern Song period, that Zhiyi reached the ten degrees of faith (shixin 十信). Furthermore, when explaining Zhiyi’s original stage of realization, Zhipan cited Liangsu’s 梁粛 (753–793) account of the Tang period to argue that Zhiyi had reached the stage of either virtual enlightenment (dengjue 等覚) or supreme enlightenment (miaojue 妙覚).
When problematizing Zhiyi’s stage of realization, two problems have to be taken into account. First, according to hagiographic accounts Zhiyi gained the dhāraṇy-āvartā nāma dhāraṇī 初旋陀羅尼. And second, the five stages of disciples theoretically are included in the ten degrees of faith. The present paper shows that Shenzhi Congyi 神智従義 (1042–1091) of the Northern Song considered Zhiyi’s stage of realization to correspond to the ten degrees of faith. Furthermore, the paper points out that the notion that Zhiyi’s stage of realization exceeds the five stages of disciples can be found in Siming Tanzhao’s 四明曇照 (d. u.) Zhizhe dashi biechuan zhu 智者大師別伝註 as well as in other Southern Song Tiantai materials, including the writings of Baiting Shanyue 柏庭善月 (1149–1241). In this way, I would like to clarify a part of the history of Song period Tiantai thought, which contributed to the formation of Zhipan’s opinion.
It is said in the first of eight dialogues of the Commentary by Tanluan 曇鸞 on the Upadeśa on the Sūtras of Limitless Life that the transgression of the five gravest offences can be expiated. According to this theory, the expiation occurs in the inside of a lotus. Thus the lotus bud is a kind of purgatory. From this, we can say that there are three types of expiation: that of pre-rebirth in the lotus bud, that of post-rebirth in the lotus bud, and that achieved after the blooming of the lotus. This leads to the possibility that expiation is possible in the pure land, while it is generally thought that beings have to make up for the transgression of the five gravest offences while in this world.
In this paper, I consider the coexistence of purity and impurity in Buddha-lands in Jingyingsi Huiyan’s (浄影寺慧遠) Chapter on the Pure Land (浄土義) of his Dasheng yizhang (大乗義章). In the literature of Chinese Buddhism from the Eastern Jin dynasty 東晋 until the Northern and Southern dynasties period, it was an important issue why purity and impurity could co-exist in Buddha-lands, based on the theory of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (法華経) and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa (維摩経). I point out that Jingyingsi Huiyan was trying to solve this problem by presenting the original theory based on the understanding that Buddha and sentient beings each had their own Buddha-lands.
The phrases “it is difficult to continue” (相続也大難) and “the blood lineage is not interrupted” (血脈不断) are found in the Biyan lu 碧巌録, one of the most important works of gong’an Chan 公案禅 during the Song dynasty. These phrases came from the sayings of two patriarchs of the Cao-Dong 曹洞 lineage, Dongshan Liangjie 洞山良价 and Caoshan Benji 曹山本寂. There is a possibility that these phrases had been passed down in the traditions of the Cao-Dong lineage. These phrases show that, when interpreting gong’an, the Biyan lu had a tendency to show an appreciation of monks changing their positions constantly and developing questions and answers without interruption. In this interpretative perspective, emphasis is placed on skillfully preserving the flow of dialogue, and individual phrases of a gong’an are not interpreted on the basis of their inherent meaning. This is one of the reasons that the Biyan lu is difficult to understand.
Xutang Zhiyu 虚堂智愚 (1185–1269) was a Chan monk of the Linji school 臨済宗 representative of the late period of the southern Song. His lineage was transmitted and extended in Japan and is linked nowadays to the Japanese Rinzai. Materials like Logia of the Master Xutang and Records of the life of Xutang are preserved so that we can know his biographical dates. One of the salient features of his biography is that Xutang was deeply committed to the monks of Caotong school 曹洞宗. During the late Southern Song period, the Caotong school decayed so that we do not know in what state it was, but it seems that it gave importance to sitting meditation (zuochan) qualified as silent enlightenment. After becoming a monk, Xutang first trained earnestly under the direction of Changweng Rujing 長翁如浄 (1162–1227) and exchanged dialogues with him in the Jingci Temple 浄慈寺 in Hangzhou 杭州. Rujing was a Chan monk of the Caotong tradition and is well known as the master of Dōgen 道元 (1200–1253). Xutang maintained very deep relations with Chan Caotong monks, even after becoming a superior of Jilinqi 棘林杞 (?–1258), Duanpengyuan 短蓬遠 (?–1247) and Donggu Miaoguang 東谷妙光 (?–1253). A disciple of Dōgen, Kangan Giin 寒巌義尹 (1217–1300), travelled to China carrying the Extended records of Eiheiji Temple 永平寺 of Dōgen, and a disciple of Rujing, Wuwai Yiyuan 無外義遠 (?–1266), choose excerpts of this work to compile a collection in one volume, the Logia of Zen Master Dōgen of Eiheiji. At that time, Giin went to the Jingci Temple and obtained a postface of Xutang who was the superior of this temple. By reading the logia of Dōgen, Xutang praised the personality of Dōgen who surpassed his masters. We can see in this way that the biography of Xutang is related with a large number of Chan monks of the Caotong school, and that the activities and facts concerning Xutang have an importance that we cannot neglect in any effort to discover the reality of the Caotong school at this time.
In a Śaṅkaran religious tradition, the method of ascetic training called “hearing, reflection, and meditation” (śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsana) has been traditionally transmitted for the purpose of attaining emancipation (mokṣa). This method of training is believed to be necessary for the intuitive experience of the truth that brahman is identical with ātman. At first, “hearing” (śravaṇa) is to listen to the Upaniṣadic scriptures from a teacher who is believed to have obtained the truth. Through the words of scriptures, a disciple may obtain a conviction that the scriptural words could lead one to the knowledge of brahman. After learning the Upaniṣadic teachings, one may move to “reflection” (manana), which means reflecting upon the meaning of these scriptures logically. Moreover, at the third step of “meditation” (nididhyāsana), one may deepen the understanding of the “identity of brahman with ātman.” Through the deep contemplation of the Upaniṣadic teachings, one could attain the intuitive experience of the truth. In regard to the traditional method of ascetic training in the Śaṅkaran religious tradition, this paper attempts to clarify how this spiritual training is related to the understanding of the meanings of the Upaniṣadic scriptures.
Since the Zen sect arrived in Japan during the Kamakura period, Zen temples have played the role of a place for samurai to study Bushidō and neo-Confucian philosophy.
By the Meiji restoration, the role of the temple as an academic place was much reduced, but it did not change even after the restoration, and among the so-called “right wing” who kept longing for Bushidō, Zen meditation held an important place.
Although he decided to become an activist of the armed communist party and dropped out of Tokyo Imperial university, Tanaka Kiyoharau who turned from leftist ideas to conservation, Tokyo Imperial University, Uesugi Shinkichi’s “emperor sovereign theory” was depressed, Uesugi after death, he studied under Inoue Nisyo, was questioned responsibility for conviction to the clan team case, and two of Yoshitaka Yotsumoto who served as prisoners, in the young age, Yamamoto Genpo who was a priest of Ryotakuji in Shizuoka prefecture I will refer to the footprints that became big fixers to move the successive regimes after the war based on what I realized through his experiences, from the standpoint of those who studied at the sect school of graduate schools of zen sect.
This paper examines the publication history of the newsletter Taiwan Kyō-hō. At the start of Japanese rule in Taiwan, which began in 1895, monks from various schools—including the Sōtō, Jōdo, Jōdo Shinshū Honganji-ha, and Shingon sects—accompanied the Japanese military to Taiwan and competed for local followers. One of the most active monks was Chinryu Sasaki of the Sōtō school. Sasaki not only established the Dainippon Taiwan Library and Dainippon Taiwan Buddhism Association, he also founded a school to teach local children Japanese to contend against the Taiwan Buddhist Association formed by the other three schools.
This paper, after investigating official publications, comes to a significant conclusion: Sasaki published the Taiwan Kyō-hō, a representative publication, with the intention of magnifying the influence of Buddhism in Taiwan through the Dainippon Taiwan Buddhism Association. However, only the first issue of this newsletter has been found. The Taiwan Kyō-hō is thus a precious record of the Japanese Buddhist missionary movement in Taiwan. It also marks the beginning of Japanese Buddhist newsletters in Taiwan.