The “Tridaṇḍa” is a ritual sūtra or sūtra used for the purpose of liturgical chanting, in which āgama-sūtras are sandwiched between Aśvaghoṣa’s verses. Researchers have so far believed that only the Anityatā-sūtra, which Yijing translated into Chinese, is the Tridaṇḍa. The Sanskrit manuscript of the Tridaṇḍamālā preserved at sPos khang monastery in Tibet, however, contains forty Tridaṇḍa sūtras. With the discovery of this manuscript, it has been proven that the Tridaṇḍa does not indicate the Anityatā-sūtra only, but rather the entire forty texts as a whole. The Anityatā-sūtra is the eleventh among those forty Tridaṇḍa texts. In this presentation, I analyze the eighth Tridaṇḍa, the Paramārthaśūnyatā-sūtra, and provide the entire Sanskrit text of the Paramārthaśūnyatā-sūtra, a famous sūtra often quoted in numerous Abhidharma treatises, fully retrieved from this manuscript for the first time. Furthermore, I was able to identify that the verses presented before and after this sūtra are from Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. It is especially noteworthy that I was able to retrieve fifteen verses on non-self (anātman) from Canto 16 of the Buddhacarita, the Sanskrit version of which had been missing until now. Finally, I have thus far collected 123 verses, corresponding to the missing verses from the Buddhacarita Canto 15 or later from this Tridaṇḍamālā manuscript.

The manuscript of the Senchaku-shū preserved at Rozanji is regarded as a draft. In the eighth chapter of this manuscript, Hōnen quotes sentences from the Kangyō-sho. However, there are some missing parts, including the phrase “as they would brush live coals from their heads” (如炙頭燃). Kaneiwa Kazuhiro has inferred the reason for this to be that the Kangyō-sho which Hōnen possessed at the time he wrote the Senchaku-shū did not have those particular pages.

After examining various documents based on this inference, I have discovered a record implying that Hōnen indeed taught the missing part “as they would brush live coals from their heads”. This leads to the possibility that Hōnen was able to read the missing pages of Kangyō-sho at a certain point in his life, after the composition of the Senchaku-shū.

The extant portion of chū-matsu (中末) scroll of the Shishi fuzō ron 獅子伏象論 (written by Choen 澄円 [1290–1371] [Chien 智演]), which consists of six scrolls, has many descriptions of Hōnen 法然 (1133–1212), based on a “primary biography” (本伝). However, it is not clear what exactly is referred to here. The author believes that the reference is to the Kurodani shōnin den 黒谷上人伝, written by Shinzui 信瑞 (?–1279). In addition to the attributions given by Shinzui himself, the Kurodani shōnin den is considered to have been written using biographies of Hōnen, including the Daigohon 醍醐本 and Shikanden 四巻伝, as its information sources.

One of the characteristic features of the chū-matsu scroll of the Shishi fuzō ron is its frequent reference to Hōnen as “my forefather holy priest”, which the author believes is the key to clarify the source. The author concludes that reference to Hōnen as “my forefather holy priest” points to the chū-matsu scroll of the Shishi fuzō ron as originating in a text written by Shinzui.

The Pure Land is imagined as a land in the far distance, and that description is found explicitly in the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha and some other sūtras. But, in Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, it was denied that the Pure Land is located in the far distance. The doctrine that “the Pure Land is Only Mind” dominated in Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, especially in the Song Dynasty. Kenni 顕意 (1238–1304) was a Japanese monk belonging to the Jōdo School, who recognized and denied that doctrine. In this paper, I reexamine how Kenni tried to prove the reality of the external Amida Buddha.

Jōshō 静照 (?–1003) named Dharmākara’s 法蔵 48 vows one by one in his Amida nyorai shijūhachigan shaku 阿弥陀如来四十八願釈. Hōnen 法然 (1133–1212) accepted many of these. In his Gyakushu seppō 逆修説法, Hōnen interpreted the contents of the 19^th and 12^th vows using Jōshō’s explanation. In his Senchakushū 選択集, , Hōnen understood the word ‘even’ 乃至 in the 18^th vow referring to Jōshō’s explanation. Hōnen called this vow “the vow of birth through the nembutsu” 念仏往生願, the name given it by Jōshō. However, referring not to the name but to the details of his understanding, Hōnen followed Shandao’s 善導 interpretation. In this manner, Hōnen reinforced Shandao’s interpretation using Jōshō’s denominations.

It is the standard understanding in Hōnen’s school to recognize Amida Buddha’s Land as the fulfilled land, not the transformed land, based on Shandao’s teaching. Nevertheless, the nature of Amida Buddha’s Land was one focus of intensive discussion from various viewpoints among Shinran’s followers in the Kanto area in the mid-13th century. However, details are not yet clear due to the lack of historical materials. Ryōchū, the third leader of the Chinzei (鎮西) school, spread his teaching very close to Shinran’s followers in the Kanto area, and left numerous writings, though many of these have not yet been reprinted. This paper aims to examine Ryōchū’s view of Amida Buddha’s Land by examining his unprinted Kangyōsho-kikigaki, and studying how it influenced Pure Land Buddhism in the Kanto area in the mid-13th century.

The Shinran Shōnin Goinnen 親鸞聖人御因縁 is a document created in the early religious community of Jōdo-shin Buddhism. The “Shinbutsu-Innen 真仏因縁, ” which it includes, is a document considered to be the source of the “Kumano-Reikoku 熊野霊告” in Kakunyo’s Shinran Denne 親鸞伝絵. The aim of this paper is to examine the “Shinbutsu-Innen” and “Kumano-Reikoku” from the perspective of the history of theology, and to clarify the passing on and development from Shinran’s views of deities. First, Shinran’s views of deities were confirmed, and the “Shinbutsu-Innen” and “Kumano-Reikoku” were examined from the following three perspectives: judgment of the true, provisional, and false, especially with regard to teachings; acceptance of the local manifestation theory; and views of the pure and the defiled. The “Shinbutsu-Innen” and “Kumano-Reikoku” differ from Shinran’s views with respect to the aspect of acknowledging the local manifestation relationship between Amitābha Buddha and Kumano Gongen 熊野権現. Regarding the perspectives of judgment of the true, provisional, and false and views of the pure and defiled, the succession from Shinran can be seen in the “Shinbutsu-Innen,” but is inconclusive in the “Kumano-Reikoku.”

Mitsujō Sōbin 密成僧敏 was a Tendai monk of the late Edo period. After learning of Hōnen’s Pure Land teachings from the Jōdo monks Tokuhon 徳本 and Ryūen 隆円, Sōbin himself wrote on Jōdo teachings and taught the senju nenbutsu (専修念仏, exclusive nenbutsu practice).

On one occasion, he was asked by a lay senju nenbutsu practitioner whether, if we transfer the merit produced by our nenbutsu, the dead also could also attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

This question led him to write the Nenbutsu Tsuifuku hen 念佛追福編, in which he referred to a Chinese language work called Shōmyō Nenbutsu Tsuisen setsu 称名念仏追薦説, written by Hōshu 宝洲, the sixth abbot of the Hōnen-in, the purpose of his working being to enable any person to understand senju nenbutsu.

This twelve-chapter Japanese language work teaches in detail the way of transferring to the dead the merit generated by nenbutsu practice.

In founding the Jōdo-shū, Hōnen (1133–1212) selected the Wuliangshou jing, Guan Wuliangshou jing, and Amito jing as foundational scriptures, calling them the Three Pure Land Sūtras. His choice was modeled on the adoption of three fundamental sūtras by the Buddhist sects preceding the Jōdo-shū. However, Hōnen did not simply select any three sūtras; his selection rather indicates the depth of his contemplation of the Three Pure Land Sūtras.

Specifically, this paper extracts the portions which present Hōnen’s interpretation of the Three Pure Land Sūtras and examines his interpretational methodology. Through an examination of the process by which Hōnen explains the problems and contradictions that emerged in his reading of each of the Three Pure Land Sūtras by supplementing and interpreting them with the other Pure Land sūtras, it is possible to see in what ways he considered the three sūtras as one, as a “Triple Sūtra.” Further, Hōnen’s explanation is linked to the establishment of the Senchaku fuzoku 選択付属, the sixth of the eight kinds of selection (八種選択義) in the 16th chapter of the Senchakushū 選択集, and meaning Śākyamuni’s selection of the nenbutsu which he entrusted to Ānanda in order that it be passed to future beings.

“Sanshō kasui (三生果遂)” is one of the names of the 20th vow of Amitābha Buddha used in the Jōdo sect, and points to the attinment of rebirth in the Pure Land after three reincarnations.

This idea is based on the “Sanshō ōjō (三生往生)” theory of the Tendai school popular during Hōnen’s lifetime.There are two varieties of this idea, one a Tendai interpretation, based on the teachings of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra. The other is the so-called Nanto interpretation, related to the Nara schools. In Nara, there was discussion over transformational birth in the blissful land of Amitābha, an issue inherited from Chinese Pure Land teachings. Hōnen relied exclusively on the Tendai discussions, and Ryōchū 良忠 established the “Sanshō kasui” theory under this influence.

In Chapter 1 of his Ketsujō ōjō shū 決定往生集, Chingai 珍海 introduces his view of the Pure Land. He basically relies on the ideas of Jingying Huiyuan 浄影寺慧遠 and Jizang 吉蔵, and defines a Pure Land as a land of inferiority compared with all other Pure Lands in the ten quarters.

Moreover, Chingai reinforces his idea of a Pure Land as a shabby land by explaining that both Tanluan 曇鸞 and Daochuo 道綽 also interpreted Maitreya’s land as a poor land for people with inferior abilities. However in Tanluan’s Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註 and Daochuo’s Anleji 安楽集, there are no explicit references that a Pure Land is an inferior place. On the contrary, they seem to demonstrate that Amitābha’s Pure Land is better than all the other Pure Lands. Therefore, it can be said that the basic understanding concerning the idea of Pure Land of Tanluan and Daochuo and that of Chingai are contradictory. Chingai describes his Pure Land as a crude place based on Huiyuan’s and Jizang’s interpretations of that land mentioned in the Avataṁsaka Sūtra. From this, we can say that Chingai tries to support his concept of a Pure Land by correlating his theory with Daochuo’s idea of that land defined in his Anleji.

Although the historical and dogmatic importance of Buddhism in the Edo period is often pointed out, there still remain many aspects to be analyzed. The same can be said about the career, writings, and thoughts of Eon, a Jōdo Buddhist monk in the middle of the Edo period.

The aim of this paper is to explore how Eon understood the theory of the joint practice of Zen and Pure Land (Zen-Jō sōshu 禅浄双修) described in chapter two of his Jōdo kōgen roku.

In conclusion, through a close examination of references cited in chapter two of the Jōdo kōgen roku and the ideology derived from them, it becomes clear that this theory, originated by Yongming Yanshou 永明延寿 in Song-era China, and introduced to Japan in the Edo period through Ōbaku Zen, had a significant degree of influence on Ninchō 忍澂, Eon’s master and Eon. Therefore, it might be possible to say that Eon’s understanding of this theory is based on that of his masters, Yongming Yanshou and Ninchō.

Yuien’s Tannishō is a text that discusses various elements in Shinran’s notion of faith. Chapter 10 of the text in particular “combines the language of Shinran and Yuien’s critical preface.” A common theory long proposed in various works posits that articles 1–10 of the chapter constitute Yuien’s interpretation of Shinran’s words, while articles 11–18 contain Yuien’s criticism. However, dividing the eighteen articles into separate parts produces discrepancies between Shinran’s words and Yuien’s criticism. The previous studies point out this problem, but without resolution, raising the question as to whether the underlying theory is reasonable. This paper reexamines the role of Shinran’s words and Yuien’s criticism by reviewing this two-part composition theory, and proposing an alternative way of understanding the composition of the Tannishō in its entirety.

Jingxi Zhanran 荊渓湛然 (711–782) offered a detailed interpretation of the concept of Seeing the Inconceivable Realm (guan busiyi jing 観不思議境) taught in the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観. On the other hand, he organized the Four Samādhis (sizhong sanmei 四種三昧) into the two contemplations of Seeing Principles (liguan 理観) and Seeing Manifestations (shiguan 事観). Of these two, Seeing Manifestations can be adapted to all activities of everyday life; it corresponds to what is called “the samādhi of following one’s own thoughts” (suiziyi sanmei 随自意三昧) of the Four Samādhis.

Furthermore, in the Southern Song period, Foguang Fazhao 仏光法照 (1185–1273) emphasized the significance of “the samādhi of following one’s own thoughts” in his interpretation of Seeing the Inconceivable Realm. In order to investigate the factors that gave rise to Fazhao’s specific interpretation, it is necessary to grasp how Song period Tiantai monks explained the correspondence of Seeing the Inconceivable Realm with the two contemplations of Seeing Principles and Seeing Manifestations. The present paper shows that Southern Song period Tiantai monks beginning with Baiting Shanyue 柏庭善月 (1149–1241) developed the notion that Seeing the Inconceivable Realm penetrates the two contemplations of Seeing Principles and Seeing Manifestations, while criticizing Shenzhi Congyi’s 神智従義 (1042–1091) theory of the two contemplations. In this way, the paper clarifies the background of Fazhao’s interpretation.

In Buddhism, words are recited as mantras (shingon) or incantations (jumon), and words are written down as prayers and deposited within the womb-like interiors of Buddhist sculpture. In both cases these are important acts incorporating the wishes of a worshiper or a Buddhist sculptor. In short, their aim is to link these people with the Buddhist icons. Esoteric Buddhist language often accompanies secret rites and frequently forms a portion of Esoteric Buddhist scripture. However, when recited in the context of Esoteric Buddhist ritual procedures to secure this-worldly benefit, this language arouses mysterious power capable of influencing the actions of gods or humans and natural forces as well. Furthermore, its effects are innumerable. Moreover, its aim may alter the fate of nations or the hearts and minds of human beings. The words of Esoteric Buddhist language are often condensations of many linguistic sounds, and these words have a powerful impact. In addition, they have the astonishing capacity to eliminate catastrophes and alter situations that seem impossible for humans. Likewise, when a mantra is recited during spiritual training involving fire and water, the efficacy of the power engendered by the words can be greatly enhanced. The unseen, ineffable force inherent in fire and water incites a level of power that cannot be anticipated. This is similar to the effect and function of a secret Buddha (hibutsu) when it is revealed. It is extremely difficult to grasp the power of the true essence latent within incantations such as mantra and dhāraṇī, but the existence of the power of these words as seen through their utterance and meaning is certain. In any case, it is undeniably true that the power of Esoteric Buddhist language undoubtedly forms the core in responding to the aim of attaining benefit in this world. In addition, it is not only the case with spoken words ladled over the exterior of Buddhist sculpture, but it is also the case with those written within the sculpture (inscriptions in the womb-like interior, the tainaimei), whose efficacy varies as one type differs from the other. In any case, the power of esoteric words undoubtedly forms the core in response to the aim of attaining this-worldly benefit. As inscriptions may have been concealed within the womb-like interior of a statue for decades, the instant the enclosure is opened and they are revealed, the efficacy of the words is instantaneously enhanced and continues to benefit worshippers. Thus, we consider the power of this kind of language from various perspectives. Particularly in the case of Buddhist sculpture, the mantra of Nyoirin Kannon is an example of such language, becoming first a stylized staff-like nyoi and eventually manifesting itself as a jewel, thus giving birth to the physical embodiment of its operation and providing proof of the theory that the existence of life is due to human death. This theory is that of the nyoi, or, in other words, Buddha relics.

Here the Shingon practitioner seeks in the Buddha relic the basis for the generation of Esoteric Buddhist language and considers the mechanism that brings about its physical form.

This paper studies the Hosshinshū, Shasekishū and Tsurezuregusa in relation to Tendai hongaku philosophy. The following results are obtained. Firstly, the Hosshinshū is not affected by Tendai hongaku philosophy. Its stance detests this impure world and encourages seeking rebirth in the Pure Land. The Shasekishū has the idea that everyone can reborn in the Pure Land. However, it does not contain the idea that this real world is a manifestation of Buddha. Finally, the Tsurezuregusa accepts the real world. It finds the truth in the real world and might be affected by Tendai hongaku philosophy.

There is one variety of the short story collection Otogi Zōshi お伽草子 in which there is a story called Tamemori Hosshin Innen shū 為盛発心因縁集, in which the questions and answers of Tsunoto 津戸 and Hōnen 法然 are described. In this story, there are some doctrinal descriptions of Hōnen, so it has been considered a valuable document with respect to aspects of Hōnen thought that were popular in the late medieval period, but the contents of the questions and answers of Tsunoto and Hōnen have been hardly discussed by researchers.

Therefore, here by examining some of the questions and answers in the Tamemori Hosshin Innen shū, I point out the emphasis on the idea of nenbutsu metsuzai 念仏滅罪 and the gokuraku jōdo 極楽浄土, and clarify the Hōnen thought reconstructed in the form of a story, and its acceptance.

Kanzan Yegen (関山恵玄, 1277–1360), the first abbot of Myōshinji Zen temple (妙心禅寺), gave his testament to his disciple Juō (授翁). In his last will he stated his acknowledgements to his two teachers, Nampo (南浦) and Shūhō (宗峯). Here I trace the original texts used in this testament and its materials. I already separated the real and false testaments in a contribution to IBK 63-2. Kanzan offered his disciple Juō the kōan asking why the enlightened Buddha had been born in the secular world. I earlier also traced the original source of this kōan to the Yuanjue-jing (円覚経). This unique kōan was referenced when, 200 years after Kanzan’s death, Emperor Gonara (後奈良) awarded him the postumous title ‘Honnu-Enjō Imperial Preceptor’ (本有円成国師).

In this paper we presumed the original structures of Myōshinji temple. ‘Hanazono’ (花園) meant the flower garden of Ninnaji temple near Myōshinji temple. But nowadays ‘Hanazono’ has come to indicate the name of Pope Hanazono and the region of Myōshinji temple. The kōan of ‘Buddha’s flower’ (世尊拈花) is the last scene and preceded by the kōan of ‘Buddha’s sermon’ (世尊陞座) in the Zen episode. In the last scene he showed a lotus bloom in the last assembly, and his disciple Mahākāśyapa only smiled. Then Buddha proclaimed that Mahākāśyapa shall get Buddha’s teaching (正法) and a noble heart (妙心). Thus Abbot Shūhō named the new temple created by Pope Hanazono after this episode as ‘Shōbōzan Myōshinji Zen temple’ (正法山妙心禅寺).

The intensive meditation retreat known as Rōhatsu sesshin 臘八摂心, held every year in Japanese Zen monasteries from the morning of December 1^st to the dawn of December 8^th, appears to have originated under the influence of the Ōbaku 黄檗 Zen sect, which was transmitted from Ming 明 China to Japan in the 17^th century. Ming-dynasty Chan had a form of meditation training known as daqi 打七, a retreat that is recorded as having occurred in December. This is thought to have been the source of the Rōhatsu sesshin retreat instituted in Japanese Zen monasteries. Evidence for this is found in the Ōbaku sannnai shingi 黄檗山内清規 (Detailed regulations of Mount Ōbaku), which describes the custom of eating mixed rice gruel 五味粥 on the morning of December 8^th, a custom also observed at the end of Rōhatsu sesshin in Japan.

It is known that Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲, 1089–1163) established Kanhua chan (看話禅), a method of attaining spiritual enlightenment (dawu [大悟]) through training using gong’an (公案), and it is also known that his work Zhengfa yanzang (正法眼蔵) proceeded from a dialogue to a gong’an. Literary sources of the work were studied by Ishii Shūdō. In his study, he investigated all dialogues in the work, counting 667. However, neither he nor follow researchers investigated alterations of these dialogues.

In this paper, I take up alterations of some dialogues in the work and consider whether Dahui retold these dialogues, and how important the role was that he played in the history of gong’an.

Examined of these dialogues, we find that the dialogue “Gone to a mountain of treasures, returned with empty hands” underwent remarkable alterations. Here, I point out the alterations of the dialogue and show influences of the work on the history of gong’an.

This paper discusses the problem of the Tōsha-nomaki 謄写巻 in the Honzanban-Shōbōgenzō 本山版正法眼蔵, in an effort to provide a historical evaluation of the Tōsha-nomaki reproduced in the Jōshin-in-hon 定津院本.

The current official edition comprises 90 volumes reported in 1811, and 5 volumes of the Tōsha-nomaki published in 1906. The facsimile of the Tōsha-nomaki was originally determined to be reproduced at Eihei-ji 永平寺, but was additionally published in 1906.

As originally planned in 1802, there is a variant edition of the Tōsha-nomaki. The 1802 edition may be found at Eihei-ji and Jōshin-in 定津院. The Jōshin-in-hon was used as a manuscript draft by the editor Sodō-Ontatsu 祖道穏達. It is notable for being a copied version of the entire Tōsha-nomaki, that was not believed to exist.

First, I consider the Western-style book published by Ōuchi Seiran 大内青巒 in 1885 with regard to the Tōsha-nomaki published before 1906. The results suggest that no book for copying purposes actually existed at Eihei-ji. This deduction is made on the basis that Ontatsu also intended to publish the Tōsha-nomaki. Further, I compare the Jōshin-in-hon, Ōuchi-hon 大内本, and 1906 versions of the Tōsha-nomaki. In so doing, I clarify that the Ōuchi-hon was the source text for the 1906 edition and that the Jōshin-in-hon was unrelated to the other two editions.

Based on the above-mentioned reasons, I conclude that the Tōsha-nomaki in the Jōshin-in-hon edited by Ontatsu is the legitimate official version of the text, and that the 1906 edition is a variant edition, if the 1811 edition of the Jōshin-in-hon is considered.

I examine Dōgen’s 道元 interpretation of verse 87 “今此三界 皆是我有 其中衆生 悉是吾子” in the Aupamya Chapter of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra that he quotes in the Sangaiyuishin 三界唯心 fascicle in his Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵. I find that Dōgen does not read this passage with its original meaning, but rather insists that the triple world is the ultimate truth, based on the words 我有 and 吾子. In so doing, Dōgen utilizes the teachings of the Chan masters Changsha Jingcen 長沙景岑 (788–868) and Yuanwu Keqin 円悟克勤 (1063–1135). Next, in the Sangaiyuishin fascicle, I clarify the identity of father and child on the basis of the verse regarding the father being old and the child young 父少子老. Lastly, I examine the variant reading in this fascicle, 其父, by looking at various commentaries on the Shōbōgenzō.

Currently, twenty-five documents are confirmed as containing Keizan Jōkin’s 瑩山紹瑾 biographical data. In these documents, how Jōkin received his enlightenment encounter under Tettsū Gikai’s 徹通義介 instruction are described differently, and can be classified in three ways: 1. As through the kōan byōjōshin-ze-dō (平常心是道; sixteen documents); 2. As through the Lotus Sūtra (four documents); 3. As through monshōgodō (聞声悟道; one document). In another four documents, the way to certify enlightenment is not mentioned.

Since Dharma Transmission is only held once between master and apprentice, it is unnatural that multiple examples of the encounter exist.

In fact, all the documents of type 1 in which an encounter is mentioned were created in modern times. By taking notice of the documents composed in earlier ages, namely the Tōkokuki 洞谷記 which incorporates Jōkin’s biographical data and the Busso-shōdenki 仏祖正伝記 composed in 1399, although the Dharma Transmission encounter is not clearly described, in the Busso-shōdenki an encounter of type 2 is described. Therefore, we may conclude that an encounter of type 2 best reflects the actual historical situation. Moreover, an encounter of type 2 corresponds to Jōkin’s enlightenment encounter recorded in the Shōbōgenzō-Bussogosoku 正法眼蔵仏祖悟則 composed between 1366–1399. As far as we can tell by looking at the content of documents composed not long after Jōkin’s death, we find that Jōkin’s enlightenment encounter is strongly suggested as having been of type 2.

The Collation of Variant Readings in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra 大般若経校異, edited by the Rinzai monk Shaku Sohō 釈祖芳 (1722–1806), examines six editions of Xuanzang’s translation of the text. Sohō used a printed edition made by Nakano Zeshin 中野是心 (?–1675) as his basic text, with which he compared five other versions. These include two old Japanese manuscripts, i.e. the so-called Nanto 南都 edition and the Shinsen 神泉 edition, as well as three woodblock print editions. The collation of two old Japanese manuscripts, whose variant readings are not recorded in the Taishō Canon, makes the text a very important source for the study of the Chinese translation of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra.

This paper focuses on the Uchi-Kakochō 内過去帳 (Internal Family Register of Deaths) stored in the Nishiyama-Honmonji 西山本門寺, compiled by its 18th chief priest Nichijun 日順, and examines its composition and content.

The Uchi-Kakochō was compiled in the early modern period and is an old example of a family death register handed down in the Nichiren sect, and an example of the early stage when the standardized modern family register of deaths appeared with the establishment of the Jidan 寺檀 system, namely the system in which commoners must register with their temple.

The Rokuge gosho 録外御書, regarded as a collection of Nichiren 日蓮 documents, was published in 1662. The Rokuge gosho consists of 25 volumes, and contains 259 items written by Nichiren.

However, there is still no research on the source documents of the Rokuge gosho. I have already published a paper concerning the source text of the Jūō sandanshō 十王讃歎抄 in the Rokuge gosho, which I concluded was an another book of the Jūō sandanshō published by Nakamura Gohei 中村五兵衛 in Kyōto. The Nakamura version has the two items, the Jūō sandanshō and the Urabon shō 盂蘭盆鈔.

In this paper, I examine the Urabon shō as the source text of the Urabon gosho 盂蘭盆御書 in the Rokuge gosho.

I have three arguments, as follows;

Firstly, the Nakamura version was published earlier than the Rokuge gosho.

Secondly, the printing plates of the Urabon gosho were copied from the Nakamura version.

Thirdly, as a result of a comparison between the Urabon gosho and the Nakamura version, it is evident that there are the errors of five characters only. When other versions are compared, we find 130 or 300 instances of differences.

In conclusion, I consider that the Urabon shō in the Nakamura version is the source text of the Urabon gosho in the Rokuge gosho.

Kenjuin Nichikan 堅樹院日寛 was the 26th chief priest of the Taisekiji 大石寺 and is famous in the history of Nichiren doctrine as a master who systematized Taisekiji doctrine. One of Nichikan’s doctrines insists that it is not necessary to read the whole Hoke-kyō (Lotus Sūtra), saying that ascetic practices in the Age of Decline (mappō) are only to chant “Namu-myōhō-renge-kyō.” However, Kozoin Nisshin 広蔵院日辰, who was active about 160 years before Nichikan, insisted that it is important to read the whole Hoke-kyō while chanting “Namu-myōhō-renge-kyō.” Thus, although the 2 monks were related to the same Nikkomon 日興門 school, their teachings differed. In Taisekiji at that time, the teaching of Nisshin was the mainstream, so Nichikan severely criticized the teaching of Taisekiji by focusing on the Dokuju Rongi 読誦論義 written by Nisshin in order to change the teaching of Taisekiji from that of Nisshin.

Myōe (明恵, 1173–1232) wrote his Konjishishō-kokenshō 金師子章光顕鈔 (hereafter Kokenshō) in Shogen 4 (1210), based on his interpretation of Fazang’s (法蔵, 643–712) Huayan-jinshizi zhang 華厳金師子章. In the Kokenshō, Myōe criticizes “a certain man” for “his” remark about the Cessation of Defilements and Enlightenment: “When one accomplishes both the Cessation of Defilements and Enlightenment, the others can also do that.” In a previous study on Myōe, however, Shimaji Daitō 島地大等 states that Myōe’s commentary on the Cessation of Defilements is consistent with “his.” Therefore, I consider Myōe’s views on the Practice of the Path with a focus on his interpretation of the Cessation of Defilements and Enlightenment in the Kokenshō.

The Yuqie lunji 瑜伽論記, edited by the Korean monk Tullyun 遁倫, is the only extant Chinese commentary on the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論. This commentary contains much information about Xuanzang 玄奘 and his disciples’ interpretations of Consciousness-only ideas, as well as various theories asserted by the Dilun 地論 and Shelun 摂論 schools during the Northern and Southern dynasties. We can therefore find some useful information about both of these sects and groups.

On the other hand, the explanations based on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra 楞伽経 between the Northern and Southern and the Tang dynasties remain unclear, even though this problem is extremely important for the history of Chinese Buddhist thought. It is notable, however, that the Yuqie lunji mentions the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra many times. For this reason, in this article, I investigate the interpretations of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra from the Northern and Southern dynasties to the Tang dynasty found in the Yuqie lunji.

I find that both the Dilun school and Xuanzang’s group paid attention to the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. In addition, the Dilun school asserted that the meanings of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持経 are the same, in contrast to Xuanzang’s group, who concluded that there is no contradiction between the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and the theory of five types of gotra of beings.

In this paper, I consider the idea of the coexistence of purity and impurity in Buddha-lands in Zhiyi’s 智顗 Weimojing wenshu 維摩経文疏. I investigate the doctrinal influence of Jingyingsi Huiyan’s 浄影寺慧遠 Chapter on the Pure Land 浄土義 in his Dasheng yizhang 大乗義章 on Zhiyi’s Chapter on the Buddha-lands 釈仏国品. Examining the respective discussions in detail, we find that although the chapters and the catuṣkoṭi 四句分別 and so on were referenced, most of the content displays Zhiyi’s original thought. Zhiyi discussed the coexistence of purity and impurity in Buddha-lands from a more monastic point of view, compared to Jingyingsi Huiyan, who discussed it from the point of view of the objectively organizing various Buddha-lands.

This article clarifies the similarity of the calligraphic style of three Dunhuang manuscripts of the Shijingtu gunyi lun 釈浄土群疑論, Stein 2663, 021, and 078, in The Secret Books of Dunhuang 敦煌秘笈.

Examining common characters of the three scriptures, I found that some forms of the characters were completely the same, and others were substantially the same in terms of the interpretation of dots and strokes as well as the method of simplification of characters. There is consequently a high probability that the three documents are connected with the same writer. In addition, if we pay attention to the colophons of Hane 羽 021, we may assume the compact original form of the text which is complete in two volumes.

Furthermore, the three scriptures employ Chinese characters of the Empress Wu (則天文字). Various simplified forms of the character Nian 年 are seen, which indicates that the writer had high flexibility and a good command of writing.

It could be said that the Stein 2663 V, a manuscript of the Sifen jieben shu 四分戒本疏, gives us new clues to the circulation of the Gunyilun 群疑論.

The integration of Buddhist thought is clearly seen in the Nianfo sanmei baowang lun 念仏三昧宝王論, commonly known as the Baowang lun, composed by Feixi 飛錫. This integration should be assessed against the background of the ideas being discussed during the mid-Tang era.

A favorable acceptance of ideas from the period is clearly evident in the Baowang lun; of particular importance is the notably favorable treatment of Sanjiejiao 三階教 (Three Stages Teaching) concepts in the first volume of the treatise. An assessment of the most prominent subjects further clarifies the state of the integration. The relationship between the Sanjiejiao and integrated Buddhist thought can be elucidated when studied in conjunction with the Nianfo jing 念仏鏡.

The Nianfo jing, compiled by Daojing 道鏡 and his colleague, was composed prior to the Baowang lun during a period of rivalry among sects, and the text exhibits an intense rivalry with respect to the Sanjiejiao. When the views on Sanjiejiao in the two texts are considered in the context of the order of events, one may construct a narrative of events surrounding the An Lushan Rebellion, from the suppression of Sanjiejiao to its subsequent revival. This paper is a comparative examination of the Sanjiejiao stance, as seen through the two works.

It has been traditionally thought that Shandao 善導 understood that a person who slanders the law of Buddha can nevertheless be accepted into the Pure Land because rebirth in a far-off land is described in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量寿経.

If this is so, however, it follows from the above that Shandao acknowledges the rebirth into the Pure Land of a person who questions the law of the Buddha. This would result in a fluctuation of the meaning of faith.

In order to avoid this problem, a more reasonable understanding would be that Shandao, focusing on a doctrine in the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経 that those destined for the lowest birth of the lowest level can be saved by eliminating sins accumulated over eight billion kalpas through chanting the name of Amitābhā Buddha, concluded that a person who slanders the law of Buddha can be reborn in the Pure Land.

This paper focuses on bibliographical information concerning the Pishamen yigui 毘沙門儀軌 translated by Amoghavajra 不空. Previous studies have considered that this work is of non-Indic origin. The Pishamen yigui consists of three parts: Yiguibu 儀軌部, Yuanqibu 縁起部, and Siji 私記. Since the contents of these three parts are not connected to each other, they seem to have developed separately. Moreover, this text is not contained in the catalogue (表制集) of texts translated by Amoghavajra. Therefore, the translator (or compiler) of this Yigui should not be accepted as Amoghavajra.

The text of this Yigui contained in the presently used canons is derived from a version preserved in the Hasedera in Japan. This is most likely derived from a text found in the Kozanji edited by Jijun 慈順.

The Ji gujin fodao lunheng 集古今仏道論衡 compiled by Daoxuan 道宣 in the Tang dynasty is a collection of discussions related to the controversy between Buddhism and Taoism. The compiler quoted numerous ancient books and records, particularly from the Xu Gaoseng zhuan 続高僧伝, and Bianzheng lun 弁正論. In his own Guang Hongmingji 広弘明集 chapters about “Rectification” and “Differentiate,” we find a number of passages cited from the Ji gujin fodao lunheng. These materials have been studied in the context of the acceptance of Buddhism in China and debates between Buddhists and Taoists by scholars such as Yoshitaka Tsukamoto, Yoshitoyo Yoshioka, and Tadashi Kubotoku.

In recent years, Liu Linkui published articles on the establishment and philological value of the Ji gujin fodao lunheng. But there still remain many questions to be discussed. While all old Buddhist manuscripts in Japan of the text are three volumes long, all the print edition of the canons printed after the tenth century, including the Taishi, have the text as four volumes. We learn by comparing records in the sūtra catalogues and the content of the text that the Japanese old manuscripts represent the first draft of this text, and therefore offer important material for the study of the text.

This article presents an overview of the printed text material of Daoxuan’s Ji gujin fodao lunheng. The ancient Japanese manuscripts are introduced, and the process of text change for both printed and written materials is presented in a comparative manner.

The Zhu daban niepan jing 注大般涅槃経 is a commentary on the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa mahāsūtra 大般涅槃経 written by Wei Shen, a prefectural governor under the Tang dynasty. According to the Tōiki dentō mokuroku 東域伝灯目録, the commentary had 30 scrolls 巻. However, only six scrolls survive, i.e. scrolls II, VIII, X, XII, XIV, and XIX. Most of them are nationally designated Important Cultural Properties in Japan.

Little is known about the author Wei Shen, but his title of governor of Daojiang prefecture 導江県 (within Chengdu 成都 today) offers a clue as to his identity. Based on my research so far, I suggest that Wei Shen lived in the early eighth century. The Zhu daban niepan jing was written during the Kaiyuan 開元 (713–741) period, and transmitted to Nara 奈良 period Japan during the Tenpyo 天平 era before 753. In this article, I introduce three important features of Wei Shen’s commentary: lack of source attributions, alterations in vocabulary and style of the quotations, and avoidance of using the same words. This paper is based on research on scrolls II and XII; further investigation will be carried out on the remaining four scrolls.

A persistent misunderstanding about Zhanran 湛然 holds that he criticized other schools using terminology of the Huayan school, and thus promoted the Tiantai sect. This is wrong, first, because it does not touch upon Zhanran’s essential understanding, and second, because Zhanran reinterprets the teaching of the Huayan school by going back to the intention of the Buddha’s sermons, and there is no difference in meaning due to differences in wording. There are three reasons for this misunderstanding: (1) we are unconsciously influenced by the Anlelu 安楽律 sect and are critical of the Huayan school, (2) we cannot escape from the view that the Lotus Sūtra is special and (3) we do not understand the inconceivable as inconceivable but understand it from the standpoint of the conceivable.

The Tang dynasty monk Zhanran 湛然 (711–782) added detailed commentaries to the three major treaties of Zhiyi 智顗 (538–1857), and criticized various sects promoted in the Tang dynasty, declaring the ideological superiority of Tiantai theory. There have already been many studies that have examined Tiantai Lotus philosophy, and the position in the history of Chinese Lotus philosophy has been shared by researchers. However, in recent years, Mr. Kashiwagura has published his view, which concludes that the historical fact that Zhanran critiques the Lotus sūtra view of the Tang dynasty emerging sects is a baseless story. There is some confusion in his assumptions. In this report, therefore, I would like to clarify the problems surrounding the opponent in Zhanran’s Jingangpi 金剛錍 (Adamantine Scalpel) proposed by Mr. Kashiwagura, and rethink the probability of the assumption that the “Mahāyāna teachers” belong to the early Chan sect.

The Chanmen koujue 禅門口訣 was taught by Zhiyi 智顗. In this paper, I try to clarify the characteristics of the Chanmen koujue through comparison with the Shichan boluomi cidi famen 釈禅波羅蜜次第法門, the first lecture of Zhiyi. As a result, it became clear that the Chanmen koujue describeds how Zhiyi understood the various Chan contemplations.

Shandao engaged in many works to promote social welfare. This mainly involved building temples, creating Buddha statues and paintings, and copying scriptures. How did he raise the money?

In China the Amituo jing is called the “Four sheets of scripture”, and therefore it would have required 400,000 pieces of paper to produce 100,000 copies of the scripture. In addition, it seems that Pure Land Paintings (maṇḍala) were produced by top-class painters from Central Asia. Building and repairing temples must also have required enormous funds.

Where did Shandao raise funds to conduct Buddhist welfare? We can understand the answer by knowing the situation of Buddhism in Chang’an at that time. In short, Shandao performed many rituals such as lecturing on scriptures, preaching, offering servies of requiem and worship, and it seems that he practiced many social welfare activities by using the money received by these rituals.

The Fahua zhuanji 法華伝記, arguably regarded as having been written in the Tang dynasty, contains biographies of monks and secular people who experienced miracles related to the Lotus Sūtra. Since this work deals with miracle tales, in studying the history of ideas, researchers have not yet paid serious attention to its significance as an important source.

In this paper, I examine various hypotheses concerning the date of the Fahua zhuanji, and the related significance of the biography of Shi Zhiyuan 釋志遠. It has been thought by many that the Fahua zhuanji was written in the middle of the Tang dynasty. However, I argue that it is more valid to think that it was actually composed during the latter half of the Tang period.

This paper is based on the surviving fragments of Zhizang’s 智蔵 Chengshilun dayiji 成実論大義記, in particular, the seventh volume “prajñapti and satya dharma theory” and the eighth volume “satyadvaya theory”. By analyzing Xiaotong’s 蕭統 lingzhi jie erdiyi (令旨解二諦義), I try to discover how people understood and discussed satyadvaya in the early days of the Liang dynasty. Starting from Jizang’s 吉蔵 critical quotations and his tiyong (体用) framework, I reexamine the satyadvaya theory of Zhizang. Ultimately, this investigation provided the opportunity to examine the accuracy and coherence of Jizang’s citation and criticism of Zhizang’s satyadvaya theory.

The ritual of Renwang is one of the most famous and influential Buddhist rituals. It was established in the Southern and Northern dynasties of China. During this period, the ritual is said to have been meant to place an emphasis on academic interpretation. During the ritual, the master would explain whole Benevolent Kings sūtra, while another master would play the role of debater to pose many questions to the former master. Over time, this tradition changed gradually. Based on the Dunhuang document P. 3808, we find by the latter Tang dynasty a new ritual of Renwang very different from the traditional ritual. The new ritual was more a performance than an actual religion rite. During this new ritual, the master only explained one sentence of the sūtra, and correspondingly the debater just sang a sentence without any debate and questions. After the sermon, the ritual became a hymn, and the master sang many hymns to felicitate the emperor’s birthday and praise his merits.

Document II-16-C-1374 in the Tōyō bunko 東洋文庫 contains two texts, the Summary of the *Daśakuśalakarmapathasūtra 十善業道經要略 written by Peixiu 裴休, and the Devatāsūtra 天請問經 recorded as being translated by Kumārajīva 羅什, both of which were inscribed at the Pota 繁塔 pagoda in Kaifeng 開封, the old capital of the Northern Song dynasty 北宋. Both the Taishō Canon and the Dunhuang manuscripts ascribe the translation of the Devatāsūtra to Xuanzang 玄奘. By examining Chinese translations of such Sanskrit words as Bhagavat, Śrāvastī, Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāma, we can determine that the translator is indeed Xuanzang and not Kumārajīva, as attributed by the Pota inscription.The inscription is also important for understanding the teachings of Master Zhiyun 志蘊, who resided at the Tianqing temple 天清寺 and studied the Vijñaptimātratā system during the Song dynasty. It can also shed light on the relations between the Buddhism practiced in the central regions of China and Dunhuang Buddhism.

A special characteristic of Sŭngjang’s 勝莊 Pŏmmanggyŏng sulgi 梵網經述記 is its quotation from the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論 and its use of the five gotra theory 五性各別説. The use of the Yogācārabhūmi is also seen in Ŭijŏk’s 義寂 Posal kyebon so 菩薩戒本疏. However, Sŭngjang did not use the Yogācārabhūmi in order to explain the Fanwang jing 梵網経, but to position the Yogācārabhūmi and embrace the Fanwang jing. Earlier commentaries described those who undertook precepts with reference to the expression that “All Sentient Beings Possess Buddha-nature” found in the Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra 大般涅槃経. But, Sŭngjang used the five gotra theory to distinguish into categories those who undertook initiation. This is an important issue in determining the location of Sŭngjang in the history of Fanwang jing annotations. As such, Sŭngjang’s Pŏmmanggyŏng sulgi has a different way of explaining than previous commentaries. This is a different view from the Dharma-characteristics school 法相宗 of Silla, and thus requires comparison with Ŭijŏk and Taehyŏn 太賢. In this study, I examine the Pŏmmanggyŏng sulgi in detail to reveal the differences from previous commentaries.

Mingkuang 明曠 states that his Tiantai pusajie shu 天台菩薩戒疏 is based on Zhiyi’s 智顗 works. Most scholars of Mingkuang have pointed out that Mingkuang’s perspective on the precepts affects Saicho’s 最澄 concept that “Hīnayāna” precepts should be abandoned. Both Zhiyi and Mingkuang refer to the ten types of precepts 十種戒 from the Da zhidu lun 大智度論. Zhiyi categorized the first three precepts of the ten types as the disciplinary precepts 律儀戒, considering them as “Hīnayāna” precepts. On the other hand, Mingkuang defines the disciplinary precepts as those of the Mahāyāna Fanwang jing 梵網経. This difference in their understandings of the disciplinary precepts could lead to the idea that Mingkuang abandoned the “Hīnayāna” disciplinary precepts. However, the difference actually arises due to their unique approaches to the ten types of the precepts. Throughout the Tiantai pusajie shu, Mingkuang recognizes that “Hīnayāna” precepts are also Mahāyāna Bodhi­sattva precepts, stating that practitioners should uphold both precepts of “Hīnayāna” and Mahāyāna equally. His thinking is close to that of his mentor, Zhanran 湛然.

The Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra 勝鬘師子吼一乗大方便方広経(SMS) is one of the earliest tathāgatagarbha scriptures. The SMS relates śūnya to tathāgatagarbha, and creates śūnya tathāgatagarbha and aśūnya tathāgatagarbha. In this paper, I discuss the śūnya tathāgatagarbha and aśūnya tathāgatagarbha in three Chinese commentaries: Jingyingsi Huiyuan’s 浄影寺慧遠 Shengmanjing yiji 勝鬘経義記, Jizang’s 吉蔵 Shengman baoku 勝鬘宝窟 and Ji’s 基 Shengmanjing shuji 勝鬘経述記, all composed during the Sui and Tang dynasties. The Shengmanjing yiji and Shengman baoku understand śūnya as xingkong 性空, while the Shengmanjing shuji understands śūnya as xiangkong 相空. Combining the interpretation of the commentary of the SMS during the Southern and Northern dynasties, it can be seen that the route of the Chinese Buddhist understanding of the śūnya of the SMS is from xiangkong to xingkong and then back to xiangkong.

It is said that Sengquan (僧詮) did not lecture on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and that Falang (法朗) was the first person from the Sanlun tradition to propagate it energetically. Falang’s disciple Jizang (吉藏) wrote the Niepan jing youyi 涅槃經遊意 and Daban niepan jing shu 大般涅槃經疏 (not extant, but Hirai Shun’ei collected its lost passages). Hirai pointed out that Jizang incorporated the thought of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra into the contemplation of emptiness on the basis of prajñā. Hyegyun (Chn. Huijun 慧均), the author of the Dasheng silun xuanyi ji 大乘四論玄義記 (Kor. Taesŭng saron hyŏn’ŭi ki), was also Falang’s disciple. Therefore, he provided some vitally important materials to allow the consideration of the relationship between the Sanlun tradition and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. This paper considers the citations from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which appear approximately 200 times in the Dasheng silun xuanyi ji.

Since long ago, Chan masters have emphasized the superiority of Chinese Chan to Indian dhyāna by using two opposing concepts: “tathāgata-dhyāna (如來禪)” and “patriarch-dhyāna (祖師禪)”. In general, the concept of “tathāgata-dhyāna” is recognized to have been brought into Chan Buddhism by Heze Shenhui (荷澤神會), based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and to have been inherited by his follower Guifeng Zongmi (圭峰宗密). However, this is not correct. Shenhui created this concept from the descriptions of the Annals of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasure (傳法寶紀, Chuan fabao ji), and Zongmi first connected it to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.

The Record of Linji (臨済録) documents the words and deeds of Linji Yixuan 臨済義玄, a Chan master of the late Tang dynasty. The book consists of four parts: “Shang Tang (上堂)”, “Shi Zhong (示衆)”, “Kan Ban (勘弁)”, and “Xing Lu (行録)”. However, there are some questions regarding its formation, and further in-depth investigations are needed. This paper uses the “Four Distinctions” 四料簡 in The Record of Linji to examine its formation, and finds it highly probable that Master Kefu (克符), one of Linji’s disciples, created the “Four Distinctions ”. Since then, Chan monks of the Linji School have adopted the “Four Distinctions” as their main tenet of Linji thought, demonstrating their common focus. Under such an influence, Yuanjue Zongyan (円覚宗演) of the Northern Song Dynasty republished The Record of Linji and placed the “Four Distinctions” at the beginning of its main part “Shi Zhong,” as an indication of its status as an important summary of Linji’s dharma teachings. Consequently, this led to differences between the layouts of the two existing systematic editions of The Record of Linji. Subsequently, Yuanjue’s edition was included in the revised and extended edition of two similarly named works, The Record of Venerable Ancient Masters (続開古尊宿語要, 1238) and The Record of Venerable Ancient Masters (古尊宿語録, 1267), and later was independently published until the commonly circulating edition of the Edo Period appeared in the 18^th century.