This paper is a part of a series of articles on the question whether Hōnen acknowledged in theory the possibility of ōjō (birth in the Pure Land) through practices other than the nembutsu. After a decade-long study based on texts written in Classical Chinese (kanbun) such as the Senchaku Hongan Nembutsu shū, the author has come to the final conclusion that Hōnen, although highly reservedly, admitted the possibility of ōjō through miscellaneous practices. The first half of this paper gives an overview of the study. In the latter part of the paper, it will be shown that an examination of texts written in Japanese (wago) has led the author to the same conclusion.
This paper examines the connection between Shitennō-ji and the Pure Land teachings in Nara. During the Insei 院政 era, or the period of rule by the cloistered emperors (1086–1192), the practice of chanting the nenbutsu one million times at Shitennō-ji, primarily at the West Gate, was popular. Around the same time, in the 12th century, the Pure Land teachings, starting with Eikan (永観, 1033–1111), became influential in Nara. Eikan and Chinkai (珍海, 1091–1152) were also both affiliated with the Pure Land teachings at Shitennō-ji, while Eikan’s Ōjō jūin (往生拾因, The Ten Conditions for Attaining Birth in the Pure Land) especially provided a theoretical background for the nenbutsu practice at the West Gate and the rationale for the one-hundred-day nenbutsu practice at Gankō-ji, and encouraged the spread of yūzū nenbutsu 融通念仏, which mobilized numerous people.
In the Pure Land teachings of the Insei era, devotees vowed to be born in the Pure Land and prayed that if they could not, they would be reborn three times until they achieved such rebirth. The essence of this did not lie in the single devoted practice of chanting nenbutsu but rather the idea of birth in the Pure Land by doing good deeds through various practices. In this way, the twentieth of Amida’s vows was emphasized. The Pure Land teachings in Nara and at Shitennō-ji were both practices that placed importance on this vow.
In Chapter V of the Ketsujō ōjōshū 決定往生集 written by Chinkai 珍海 (1092–1152), it is pointed out that an act of making a Buddhist image, reading or copying Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures is able to become a fixed karma (定業). Through a similar statement in his early work, the Bodaishinshū 菩提心集, it is confirmed that the fixed karma is Ketsujō-gō決定業. In addition, discussing the superiority and inferiority of the ten-fold repitition of the nenbutsu (jūnen 十念) in daily life and at the end of life, he clearly interprets both as Ketsujō-gō in the same chapter.
However, given that out of all kinds of Mahāyāna karmas in the Sanron myōkyōshō 三論名教抄 the Ketsujō-gō is missing, a clear contradiction appears in identifying nenbutsu with Ketsujō-gō. Therefore Chinkai shows that rebirth in the Pure Land is enabled by nenbutsu as Ketsujō-gō with a theory that there is no Ketsujō-gō in itself, but only Ketsujō-gō as a relationship.
The Senchakushū 選択集 owned by the Rozan-ji 廬山寺 is an important cultural property of Japan, and has attracted significant attention as the original manuscript of the Senchakushū. For that reason, the actual state of this book has been explained many times. However, the published bibliographic information is confusing. Therefore, based on an investigation record and a restoration report, I describe its bibliography in this paper accurately.
The Rozan-ji’s Senchakushū was restored extensively during the Heisei 平成 era. Its binding was renewed. In the future, a study referring to the present condition will be required. The study of the Rozan-ji’s Senchakushū has entered a new phase.
Action (karma) is an important issue in Buddhism. Based on the basic principle of ‘attaining the results of one’s actions,’ action is associated with the present world of existence as well as the next one. In particular, attention is paid how action is treated in Pure Land Buddhism, that preaches the salvation of an ordinary person possessed of fetters who accumulates sinful actions: the elimination of sinful deeds is indispensable for rebirth in the Pure Land. This paper examines the notion of action as understood by Shōkū 證空.
Hōnen (1133–1212) understood that true nenbutsu pracitioners shall be born in the “reward land” (hōdo 報土), the Pure Land of jōbon jōshō (上品上生, upper grade, upper birth) as described in the Contemplation Sūtra (Guan Wuliangshuofo jing 觀無量壽經). This position was in relation to his doctrinal stance that true practitioners must be born into the highest level of the Pure Land so that they can swiftly return to this world to save all living beings.
Therefore, he taught that, once people undergo a “conversion” (eshin 廻心) in this life, cast away the meditative and non-meditative practices (jōsan nizen 定散二善), and solely practice recitation of nenbutsu, they all shall be born in the Pure Land of the upper grade, upper birth, regardless of their innate human nature corresponding to any of the nine grades. He also maintained that those who doubt the Buddha’s five wisdoms, and practice auxiliary acts (jogō 助行) or miscellaneous practices (zōgyō 雑行), will be born in the border land (henji 辺地), as stated in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra. However, Hōnen neither elaborated his understanding of the “Pure Land of the nine grades” (kubon no Jōdo 九品の浄土) as a whole, nor discussed the problem of birth in the closed lotus flower (kegō 華合) as found in the section of the nine grades of birth in the Contemplation Sūtra.
Among the disciples of Hōnen, those who emphasized the significance of shinjin (信心, faith) in Hōnen’s teaching, such as Shinran (親鸞, 1173–1262), Shōkū (証空, 1177–1247), Kōsai (幸西, 1163–1247), and Ryūkan (隆寛, 1148–1227), show a tendency to teach Amida’s Pure Land as “reward land,” rather than discuss it as the Pure Land of “upper grade, upper birth.” By focusing on the issue of birth in the closed lotus flower explained in the section on the nine grades of birth in the Contemplation Sūtra, and taking the position of equating the nine grades of birth with the ideas of embryonic birth and birth by transformation found in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra, they developed the theory that the nine grades of birth is itself “birth in the transformed border land (kedo 化土) within the reward land.” They also maintain that this “transformed border land within the reward land” is the buddha land for those who doubt the working of Amida Buddha’s Other Power, and that it is a “land of skillful means” taught to ensure that nenbutsu practitioners do not have doubts about the working of Amida’s Other Power.
Those who developed Hōnen’s teaching in the direction of self-power practices, such as Benchō (弁長, 1162–1238) and Chōsai (長西, 1184–1266), based their theory of the Buddha land on Hōnen’s understanding of Amida’s Pure Land as a “reward land.” However, these two masters taught neither the theory of the transformed border land within the rewarded land, nor the theory of the transformed border land as skillful means. They both understood that the entire section of the nine grades of birth in the Contemplation Sūtra teaches birth in the reward land.
The Jōdo monrui jushō 浄土文類聚鈔 is a book in which Shinran (1173–1262) outlines his main work Ken Jōdo shinjitsu kyōgyōshō monrui (顕浄土真実教行証文類, usually referred to more briefly as the Kyōgyōshinshō). Although Shinran’s original manuscript is not extant, there are several medieval copies of this text.
This paper discusses three new insights learned from a recently discovered copy of the Jōdo monrui jushō which is possessed in Manshoji 満性寺 in Aichi. First, an examination of the kanji characters reveals that the handwriting displays characteristics unique to Shinne (真慧, 1435–1512), and thus it is determined that the copyist was Shinne. Second, the unique reading marks (kaeriten) and other notation marks used in this copy indicate that the original manuscript copied by Shinne may have been Shinran’s original, or a copy very close to Shinran’s original. Reading marks are usually added to the left side of kanji characters of Chinese text to help readers read the passage as Japanese. It is believed that Shinne had easy access to Shinran’s original manuscripts as he was the head priest of Senjuji 専修寺 in Mie, which owns the largest number of Shinran’s original manuscripts. Third, further study of this manuscript may allow us to identify the time when Shinran composed the Jōdo monrui jushō because this manuscript faithfully reproduces the unique penmanship of Shinran himself. This third point could help resolve the decades-long academic debate as to whether this text was written before or after the Ken Jōdo shinjitsu kyōgyōshō monrui.
Although it is unfortunate that the last page of the manuscript is missing, this newly discovered handwritten copy provides important new information to help answer bibliographic questions related to the Jōdo monrui jushō.
This article inquires into Shinran’s view of bodhisattvas in his main work, Kyōgyōshinshō (教行信証), and in particular, attempts to consider it in reference to the word “ultimately equal (畢竟平等) in Tanluan’s Commentary on the Treatise on the Pure Land (浄土論註) quoted in the “Chapter on Realization.” Shinran generally interprets the word “bodhisattva” as meaning “Bodhisattva Dharmākara.” But we also see examples in which the Kyōgyōshinshō expresses “bodhisattva” as equivalent to “the person who has attained shinjin (faith) through the nenbutsu.” Nevertheless, it is one of the features of Shinran’s view of “bodhisattvas” that he doesn’t consider himself to be a “bodhisattva.” This presentation takes the stance that Shinran’s view of “bodhisattvas” will become clear through considering the word “ultimately equal” that appears in the text of “the virtue of sustaining without any futility (不虚作住持功徳)” which is quoted in the “Chapter on Realization,” and thereby attempts to clarify the position of the “bodhisattvas who have not yet realized the pure mind,” which has not been discussed as a main theme until now.
Shinran wrote that devotees who had faith would reach True Pure Land (shinjitsu hōdo 真実報土), that self-reliant righteous people would end up in an expedient Pure Land (hōben kedo 方便化土), and that both places were Pure Lands of Amitābha. This is a unique view not seen prior to Shinran.
What is noteworthy is that Ryōkai 了海, one of the disciples of Shinran, made an argument similar to Shinran’s True Pure Land doctrine in his Tariki shinjin kikigaki 他力信心聞書.For this reason, it became necessary to re-examine the Tariki shinjin kikigaki.
In light of what he wrote in the Tariki shinjin kikigaki, it could be surmised that Ryōkai understood Shinran’s True Pure Land doctrine correctly. However, Ryōkai’s unique view of the Pure Land, including his teaching about the 21 billion Pure Lands chosen by Bodhisattva Dharmākara, as well as the concepts of sō (総, general ideas) and betsu (別, special ideas), could have been influenced by the doctrine of the attainment of Buddhahood during life through spiritual friendship. These were the changes he made to Shinran’s True Pure Land doctrine.
This study is intended to clarify the character of Zonkaku 存覚 (1290–1373) as a dharma preacher (shōdōsō 唱導僧) by focusing on his use of the origin story of the Śākyamuni statue at the Shōryōji 清涼寺 in his Hōonki 報恩記.
This origin story was already widely popular in medieval Japan. It was well-known by the followers of the Nichiren school since Nichiren himself cited the story in his writings. Zonkaku wrote the Hōonki for the Shin Buddhist community led by Myōkō 明光, which was in competition with Nichiren’s followers. Zonkaku adopted this popular story as a common ground that would allow Shin followers to compete squarely with Nichiren followers, and also to help popularize their missionary work among ordinary people.
Unlike Shinran, Zonkaku often explained Shin Buddhist doctrine by appealing to popular Buddhist stories, which probably reflects the social and cultural environment surrounding him and the Shin community.
Keishu (慶秀, 1558–1609) was a Jōdoshinshū scholar in the earliest period of its history. This paper considers his view of Amida’s seventeenth vow concerning the practice of saying the Name. While considering Amida’s Name to be what is recited by the practicer, he regarded it as Amida Buddha’s compassion working on the one who practices it. Namely, he viewed Amida’s Name (Namo-amida-butsu) from the two perspectives.
The Daruma sect 達磨宗 belongs to the the Zen tradition, was founded by Dainichibō Nōnin 大日房能忍, and is known to have propagated Zen in Japan earlier than did Eisai 栄西.
The Daruma sect has long drawn attention since it later joined Dōgen’s Sōtō school to establish the foundation for the early period of Dōgen’s religious organization.
The Shinkon ketsugishō 心根決疑章, newly introduced here, was written in the 3rd year of Jōkyū (承久, 1211) in the beginning of the Kamakura period, by Butchibō Kakuan 仏地房覚晏, the self proclaimed second patriarch of the Daruma sect.
Consequently, the Shinkon ketsugishō may be the only extant writing by a monk of the Daruma sect with its year of composition and author evident. So far this is the most suitable historical material to gain knowledge of the ideology and the circumstances of the Daruma sect in the early Kamakura period.
This source is also valuable since it is the second oldest classical book of the Zen sect. The study on the Daruma sect should be reconsidered, due to the existence of the Shinkon ketsugishō, and taking its contents into account.
Chikotsu Daie 癡兀大慧 was a high-ranking disciple of Enni 円爾, the patriarch of the Shōitsuha 聖一派 sect of Rinzai 臨済 Zen Buddhism at the end of the Kamakura period. According to his biography in the Buttsū zenji gyōjō 仏通禅師行状, Chikotsu Daie was famous for his comprehensive knowledge of both Tendai 天台 and Shingon 真言 Esoteric Buddhism before becoming a disciple of Enni. In addition, it is noteworthy that he frequently relied on his Esoteric Buddhist knowledge in the process of advancing his understanding of Rinzai Zen.
In this paper, I focus on how Esoteric Buddhism influenced Chikotsu Daie. Specifically, I examine his Esoteric Buddhist discourses concerning consciousness, mental activities, and the corporeal mind, and attempt to reveal a hidden genealogy between Chikotsu Daie, the Shōitsuha sect, and Shingon Buddhist traditions.
This paper considers what kind of audience Dōgen assumed in his work the The Collection of Essentials on Studying the Way by the Founding Patriarch of Eihei-ji, or Eiheishoso Gakudō yōjinshū 永平初祖学道用心集 (hereafter Yōjinshū). This work was proclaimed around 1234 by Dōgen at the Koshō-ji 興聖寺.It has a slightly different use of metaphors and citations from other works of the same period, and uses Chinese philosophical materials, Confucian and Taoist works, and so on. Hence, there may be some difficulty to clarify for whom Dōgen intended this work. One opinion holds the audience to have been Ejō 懐奘 and his colleagues, that is, those who converted from the Daruma-shū 達磨宗, while another says that it was Dōgen’s lay believers.
Recently, two remarkable essays have been published considering this issue. One of them, by Chao Zhang 張超, mentions the tendency of Chinese Chan monks to preach to lay supporters in the Song dynasty. Monks frequently used ancient Chinese philosophers’ works. This looks similar to what we see in the Yōjinshū. On the other hand, Ishii Kōsei 石井公成 suggests that Japanese novice monks were required to study Chinese literature at the beginning of their practices during the Heian period. This paper, by analyzing Yōjinshū citations, and evaluating the offered hypotheses, concludes that the Yōjinshū was presented to not only novice monks, but also to lay persons, possibly nobles, in order to bring them into Dōgen’s assembly.
In the middle volume of the Shugo kokkaishō (守護国界章, Essays on Protecting the Nation), written by Saichō 最澄 (767–822) in 818 as part of a doctrinal dispute with Tokuitsu 徳一 (d.u.), the question of the interpretation of the Lotus sūtra and Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa is taken up. In previous studies, it has been pointed out that this discussion is deeply linked to Saichō’s Hokkeron kamon 法華論科文 (Textual Organization of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa), and that the Hokkeron kamon may have been a personal study conducted in preparation for the Shugo kokkaishō. The present paper compares the explanation in the Hokkeron kamon with the argument found in the Shugo kokkaishō concerning “the five section paragraphs” 五分科 of the Skillful Means Chapter 方便品 of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa as paragraphs on the Skillful Means Chapter in the Lotus sūtra. I first confirm the definition of “the five section paragraphs” of the Skillful Means Chapter in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa. Secondly, I give an overview of genealogy, applying it to paragraphs on the Skillful Means Chapter in the Lotus sūtra in Zhanran’s 湛然 (711–782) Fahua wenju ji 法華文句記, Kuiji’s 窺基 (632–682) Fahua xuanzan 法華玄賛 and Saichō’s Hokkeron kamon. Finally, I examine the discussion of the middle volume of the Shugo kokkaishō and consider the relationship of the Hokkeron kamon with the discussion of the Shugo kokkaishō.
The Shugo kokkaishō 守護国界章 was written by Saichō 最澄 in the course of his controversy with Tokuitsu 徳一. What has not been taken up in previous research regarding this text is the section surrounding the interpretation of the Lotus Sūtra in the third volume of the second fascicle. In this paper, I take up Saichō’s discussion about the essence of the “Ox Cart” that appears in the Lotus Sūtra’s parable on the burning house and the three carts and examine its contents.
The Fahua lun 法華論 (*Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa) expounds the “ten peerlessnesses 十無上” pertaining to the Lotus Sūtra. In the eighth statement, which speaks of the peerlessness of the supreme enlightenment of the Buddha, the Fahua lun explicates the Trikāya doctrine, the three bodies of the Buddha and the forerunner of the eighth statement. Enchin’s 円珍 Hokkeron-ki 法華論記 provides a detailed commentary on this. Prior research on the Hokkeron-ki has also focused on this portion. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the ten peerlessnesses in the Hokkeron-ki has not been researched in its entirety. Therefore, this paper investigated Enchin’s commentary, taking up the categories of his interpretation of the ten peerlessnesses of the Hokkeron-ki.
Results of the investigation reveal how Enchin understood the Fahua lun. That is, Enchin defined the seven parables and three equalities as “possible appearances” (nōken 能顕, things manifest), while the ten peerlessnesses were defined as “appearances in situ” (shoken 所顕, explicit principles). As for the classifications in the interpretation of the ten peerlessness, a new discovery in this study is Enchin’s own explanations of the examples of “Ji-Ji 吉基” (that is, illustrative examples originally provided by the Chinese scholars Jizang 吉蔵 and Ji 基). Here, the context is important with regard to Jizang and Ji, clarifying that this commentary was in fact Enchin’s own unique expression.
In Nichiren’s works, the phrase “Eight years on Gṛdhrakūṭa-parvata” 霊山八箇年 is often seen in various places. This means that the Buddha preached the Lotus Sūtra 法華経 for eight years on Gṛdhrakūṭa-parvata. This paper investigates the origin of the idea and how it has been passed down.
Śākyamuni Buddha is said to have died at the age of eighty. Assuming that the preaching period of the Lotus Sūtra was eight years, he must have started preaching it when he was no older than seventy-two.
The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings 無量義経, which is regarded as an introduction to the Lotus Sūtra, says “The Buddha did not reveal the truth for more than forty years,” and the Lotus Sūtra itself says “Since the Buddha was enlightened, forty years have passed.” If this chronology holds, Śākyamuni attained enlightenment at the latest at the age of thirty-two. The biography of Śākyamuni that we commonly know, however, represents that he renounced secular life at the age of twenty-nine and reached enlightenment at the age of thirty-five, after six years of penance.
However, this tradition doesn’t add up. Nichiren’s other works describe Śākyamuni’s achievements having him renounce at the age of nineteen, and reaching enlightenment at the age of thirty. Nichiren cites Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 as his source for the expression “at the age of nineteen renouncing,” but even there no clear statement of “at the age of thirty he attained enlightenment” is to be found there.
Nichiren’s other works also show that Śākyamuni preached the Lotus Sūtra forty-two years after his enlightenment, citing the Fajiexing lun 法界性論. This work is attributed to Bodhiruci 菩提流支, who came to China from India circa the sixth century. However, the 法界性論 is not extant. Research by Takashi Aoki has concluded that this text was the first known document which touched upon the idea of Śākyamuni’s having preached the Lotus Sūtra forty-two years after enlightenment.
According to the author’s research, the route of propagation of this text in China and Japan is as follows.
It seems to have existed in China at the end of the sixth century when Zhiyi 智顗 was alive, since we find citations from it in Zhiyi’s Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 and Fahua wenju 法華文句, and Zhanran’s 湛然 Fahua xuanyi shiqian 法華玄義釈籖.
Concerning its history in Japan, it seems to have existed at Hieizan 比叡山 since Enchin’s 円珍 time; citations are also found in the Shinnyokan 真如観 by Genshin 源信.
Hōchibō Shōsin 宝地坊證眞, who lived between the later twelfth and the early thirteen century, was the next to cite from it. He composed the Sandaibu shiki 三大部私記, in which relevant citations are found. Citations continue to be found all the way through to the Tendai nishidani myōmoku天台西谷名目in the Muromachi period and the Shutsujō Kōgo 出定後語 by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 in the mid-Edo period.
The Sōzan 草山 teaching refers to the teaching advocated by Sōzan Gensei (草山元政, 1623–1668) to expand the doctrinal study of Honge (本化) (the orthodox teaching of Nichiren). This teaching was organized and systematized through the exposition of the Second Sōzan abbot Emyō Nittō (慧明日燈, 1642–1717). Although the teaching later degenerated and lost substance, it was eventually completed by Honmyō Nichirin (本妙日臨, 1793–1823). Nichirin’s teaching greatly influenced Udana Nichiki (優陀那日輝, 1800–1859), leading to the success of Jūgōen (充洽園) (Buddhist school) graduates as leaders of the Nichiren-shū during the period of the Meiji Restoration.
Existing studies see Gensei → Nichirin → Nichiki as a single lineage, and attempt to understand the thought of Gensei through Emyō’s writings by recognizing Emyō as a faithful exponent of Gensei. On the other hand, some raise an important point that Emyō was the root cause of the loss of substance in the Sōzan teaching.
Nichirin, who looked up to Gensei, positioned himself as Gensei’s “disciple” and worked hard to succeed the spirit of Gensei, which prioritized Zokushu Gohō (続種護法) (passing on and preserving the orthodox teaching), to achieve its spirited appearance in the world. The first question is, what kinds of influence did Nichirin receive from Gensei? Second, how did Nichirin, who is considered to have perfected the Sōzan teaching, perceive Emyō? The purpose of this paper is to examine these questions to contribute to the study of the Sōzan teaching.
Nichirin perceived the two priests as “a master and a pupil between whom entire teachings were passed on” and understood Gensei’s intent through the writings of Emyō. From this, we can point out the need to study Emyō, for which existing literature is severely limited, to further understand Nichirin, Gensei, and the Sōzan teaching.
This paper examines the citations of the Shugo kokkaishō 守護国界章 of Saichō in Nichiryū’s 日隆 (1384–1464) writings.
It concludes that Nichiryū quoted the Shugo kokkaishō in order to clearly distinguish the Lotus Sūtra’s Honmon happon (本門八品, the eight chapters 15–22), the true teaching, from other scriptures. And thus we understand that when Nichiryū quotes from the Shugo kokkaishō “The three uncreated bodies are the true Buddha before awakening” and “The three bodies of the Buddha of the True Teaching are cosubstantial and cofunctional (kutai-kuyū, 倶体倶用),” this defines the Sambhogakāya, which has completed the eternal cause revealed in the Lotus Sūtra’s Honmon-happon.
As for why Nichiryū quoted the Shugo kokkaishō, it is inferred that he tried to show the characteristics of Nichiren doctrine in medival Japanese Tendai.
In relation to the various religious doctrines which became diversified after the death of Nichiren (日蓮), the viewpoint of Honjaku theory (本迹論) is the most important index to examine the characteristics of the disciples. Kōzōin Nisshin (広蔵院日辰, mid-16th c.), who was based in Kyoto during the Sengoku Period, was a notable learned priest who established a major theoretical system of the Honjaku theory. Nisshin discriminated between Honmon (本門) and Shakumon (迹門). The distinctive feature of the theory is that it discusses the superiority of “Chapter 16, Nyorai Juryō-hon (如来寿量品第十六)” out of the 28 chapters of the Lotus Sūtra. In this paper, in order to clarify the characteristics of the Honjaku theory of Nisshin, I compare it with the theory of the Icchi school (一致派) priests who discussed the unity of the Honmon and Shakumon. I took up as my starting point the contention shared by the learned priests of the Shoretsu (勝劣) and Icchi schools, that is, the interpretation of “Myōhō 妙法” in the first introductory chapter. The teachings of the abovementioned priests strongly reflect the characteristics of the doctrines that they upheld. Here I point out that Nisshin interprets this “Myōhō” of the title of the introductory chapter based on the sixteenth chapter.
This research paper examines Tanaka Chigaku 田中智学 (1861–1939) and how he evaluated Nichiren 日蓮 sect scholars. By this method it is possible to achieve a clearer view of Chigaku Tanaka’s philosophical position and thinking. His fundamental position was critical of the Shōju 摂受 thinking of his time. While he praised the views of Gensei 元政 (1623–1668), Nichido 日導 (1724–1789), and Nichiki 日輝 (1800–1859) and their criticism of Tendai-centric interpretation of the writings of Nichiren by Nichiren scholars of their era, he was critical of their interpretation. He was especially critical of Nichiki.
On the other hand, he praised the Tendai interpretations of Nichiren’s writings by Nichiryu 日隆 (1385–1464), and especially Nichiju 日什 (1314–1392), who he felt relied on direct interpretation. He was extremely critical of the Taisekiji 大石寺 Sect “Nichiren Honbutsu-ron 日蓮本仏論” and their insistence on “Kechimyaku Sōjō 血脈相承”: the Taisekiji lineage interpretation of the purity of Nichiren’s writings that refused all other lineage interpretations.
In an effort to reestablish Buddhism as a modern religion, Japanese Buddhists of the Meiji and Taishō eras studied major Buddhist sūtras from new viewpoints. Focusing on the text “On Huayan Culture” (Kegon bunka ni tsuite 華厳文化に就て), this paper brings to light ideas relevant for us today that can be found in the innovative reading of the Huayan Sūtra by the Shin Buddhist priest Sasaki Gesshō (佐々木月樵, 1875–1926).
Sasaki called the last chapter of the Huayan Sūtra the “Practice on Earth Section” (地行篇), emphasizing the significance of the story of the pilgrimage of Sudhana told in the section as a model of bodhisattva practice. Sasaki also focused on the “Dependent Origination from Craving” (貪愛縁起) as another important topic of the Sudhana story. Sasaki argued that in reality, the major cause of human suffering is craving rather than the more theoretically important concept of ignorance, a fact often neglected throughout the history of Huayan Sūtra worship by clerical academics too often given to theorizing.
Sasaki believed that Buddhism should base its teachings on the realities of the life of the ordinary person (凡夫) constricted by desires and affections.
The Huayanjing mingfapinnei sanbao zhang 華厳経明法品内三宝章, composed of seven chapters, the first of which is named sanbao zhang 三宝章 and the last of which is named xuanyi zhang 玄義章, was edited not by Fazang 法蔵 but by Kyunyŏ 均如 in Koryŏ 高麗. The editorial policy of Kyunyŏ was reimported to China, and a print book based on this policy was produced in the Song 宋 period. The title of this book in its Song edition was Huayanjing zhang 華厳経章, not Huayanjing mingfapinnei sanbao zhang. These facts cannot be known if we check only the Taishō Tripiṭaka 大正蔵. Rather, they are evident from extant handwritten copies and printed books. The handwritten copies and the Taishō edition contain some different wordings. Future research on the Huayanjing mingfapinnei sanbao zhang should compare these, and work to establish a better text.
Myōe’s (明恵, 1173–1232) disciple Kikai (喜海, 1178–1251) was his successor in Huayan studies at the Kozan-ji 高山寺. Although seven of his works are extant, none are concerned with the Huayan doctrine. Therefore, there has been little research concerning his Huayan understanding.
The Sanshō Jōdō Ryōken 三生成道料簡 kept at the Kozan-ji is Kikai’s interpretation on the attainment of Buddhahood in three births that is explained in Fazang’s (643–712) Huayan Doctrine of the Five Teachings 華厳五教章. Until recently there has been no research on this subject, although this text is a document of great importance.
The theory of attaining Buddhahood in three births is unique to the Huayan school of Buddhism, and within ancient Japan it was a subject of much debate. From such debates many interpretations developed, yet Kikai’s interpretation has yet to be examined. This paper aims to clarify the uniqueness of Kikai’s interpretation by comparing his text with articles of debate from the Todai-ji 東大寺.
Chikō (智光, 708–776?) of the Gango-ji (元興寺) is known as the greatest monk of the Sanron (三論) sect during the Nara period. Attention has been paid to his criticism of the Hossō (法相) sect’s three period teaching classification (三時教判) in the context of the debate regarding emptiness and existence (空有諍論).
In this study, I show that Chikō’s Jōmyō genron ryakujutsu (浄名玄論略述) quotes the early Tang Chinese monk Fabao’s (法宝) Yisheng foxing jiujinglun (一乗仏性究竟論), which is famous for criticizing the three vehicle theory.
In addition, I point out that Chikō’s Jōmyō genron ryakujutsu criticizes the Hossō distinction of the five natures (五性各別) in the context of controversy between the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle theories.
From this, I conclude that Chikō’s Jōmyō genron ryakujutsu was written from the standpoint of criticizing the Three Vehicles theory.
The doctorinal development of the Japanese Hossō sect is based on rongishō (論義抄) which comprehensively investigate problems in the Cheng weishi lun (成唯識論). Ryōzan’s Jōyuishikiron dogakushō (成唯識論同学鈔) is particularly famous, but it has been pointed out that he compiled another rongishō named Gusō. Moreover he had a close relationship with his master Jōkei (貞慶, 1155–1213), who was the most influential monk of the Hossō sect. This is clear based on the fact that Rōzan’s Gusō was compiled with Jōkei’s permission. Thus, studies of Ryōzan’s Gusō are indispensable to elucidate the details of Yuishiki (Vijñaptimātra) doctrine in medieval Japan.
This paper compares Ryōzan’s opinion in his Gusō with Jōkei’s standpoint in his rongishō Yuishikiron Jinshishō (唯識論尋思鈔). At times Ryōzan accepts Jōkei’s views, but not always. From this we can conclude that Ryōzan’s Gusō is a rongishō compiled in close relation to Jōkei, from whom, however, it can be distinguished.
Eikan (永観, 1033–1111) has been studied as a Jōdo thinker. However, he was also active as a debater. In his time, debate was connected with royal power and was very vibrant. Eikan participated in many debates, but refused to participate three times. So we need to consider what he thought of debate.
According to his main work, Ōjō Jūin (往生拾因), he devalued language. He also emphasized continuing nenbutsu practice. This seems to have led to his unwillingness to participate in debate, and he focus instead on long-term nenbutsu recitation.
Studies of Kakuban (覚鑁, 1095–1143) are based on the Kōgyō Daishi zenshū (興教大師全集). However, regarding Kakuban’s representative work, the Gorin kujimyō himitsushaku (五輪九字明秘密釈), a comparison of the Kōgyō Daishi zenshū text with various other sources reveals differences in words and phrases. A comparison of the manuscript and printed editions shows that the following classification can be made: (1) the Hokekyō-ji and Shōmyō-ji texts, (2) the Ninna-ji text and the Buzan Mitsugon shohishaku printed text, (3) the Chisan Mitsugon shohishaku printed text and the Kōgyō Daishi zenshū text, and (4) other manuscripts.
In group (1), the Hokekyō-ji text (copied 1251) and the Shōmyō-ji text (copied 1254) are in agreement in their attached annotations, obverse annotations, verses, and lacunas. They are clearly in the same lineage. In group (2), the Ninna-ji text (copied 1308) and Buzan printed text (published around 1690) are alike in their okurigana and words and phrases. They are chronologically separated, but the two texts are in a close relationship.
For group (3), the Chisan text is a revision of the Buzan text, with corrections in the Chinese word order and illustrations added. The Kōgyō Daishi zenshū text was edited with reference to the words and phrases and illustrations in the Chisan text. The texts in group (4), including the former Kanchi-in text, the Zuishin-in text, the colored Shōmyō-ji text, the Hōki-in text, and others do not belong to groups (1) and (3), and with the exception of the okurigana are close to (2) the Ninna-ji text.
As explained above, the manuscripts of the Gorin kujimyō himitsushaku fall into four groups. From this it will be noted that the Kōgyō Daishi zenshū text does not necessarily transmit the content of all the preceding manuscripts.
Buddhism Painting can easily be considered from the angle of handicrafts and the aspirations of the common people in early modern Buddhism.
There are many connections between images of Amida coming to meet the dying and Genshin 源信. Thanks to the efforts of artists and related stories, as well as wood-block prints, images of Amida coming to meet the dying portrayed on silk fans were widely distributed. Such images were valued by people as relics.
A characteristic of Goryū Shintō (御流神道) in 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 and later). According to prior research into the Yuiitsu Shintō mokuroku tomo hachijō (唯一神道目六共八帖), this had been transmitted to Eisen in 1726 from Fujiwara no Masayori (藤原正依), a Shintō priest of the Ashimida Shrine (足見田神社). However, examination of the document reveals that the extant works do not accord with the Mokuroku. Accordingly, I searched for the lacking documents and reconstituted Eisen’s shōgyō (聖教), and discovered the missing documents in the Yuiitsu gokuhi (唯一極秘).
Through the discovery of the Yuiitsu Shintō shoshidai (唯一神道諸次第), the facts that Masayori transmitted this content to a monk named Yūga (雄雅) prior to Eisen in 1723, and that Eisen added in the Misogiharae narabi ni tsūyō norito (身曽貴祓并通用祝詞), were made clear. In other words, from the point that Masayori transmitted the above shōgyō to monks in general, his transmission to Eisen seems to have been not so unique.
“The Dispute over Buddha-Nature” which arose at the beginning of the Tang dynasty originated when Xuanzang (602–664), having returned from his pilgrimage to India, introduced to China the theory of the Five Natures through his translations of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Fodi jinglun. However, although it is known that Lingrun (霊潤 580–667?), Shentai (神泰, d.u.), Yirong (義栄, d.u.), Ji (基, 632- 683), Wŏnch’ŭk (円測, 613–696), Fabao (法宝627?–706–710?), Fazang (法蔵, 643–712), Huizhao (慧沼, 648–714), Dingbin (定賓, 8th c.) and Biankong (弁空, ?–788–?) participated in the doctrinal dispute, there are still many points unknown regarding how the dispute developed after Fazang and Huizhao had passed away.
In the Yuzhu Jingang Borejing Xuanyan (御注金剛般若経宣演), the dispute over Buddha-Nature is separated into three differing interpretations: 1) “The Theory that all attain Buddhhood,” 2) “The Theory that there are those who do not attain Buddahood” and 3) “The Theory that the Buddha did not determine which is correct.” In the section explaining these three interpretations the text offers the doctrines used as proof for each interpretation, together with a simple question and answer explanation of each.
This paper examines the Yuzhu Jingang Borejing Xuanyan and clarifies the following two points: 1) Regarding “The Theory that all attain Buddhhood,” it is clear that the text uses Fabao’s Yisheng foxing jiujinglun (一乗仏性究竟論) as an influential reference; 2) Regarding “The Theory that the Buddha did not determine which is correct,” the text offers a new interpretation that appeared after the first two were already established.
According to the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda Sūtra, the birth and death of all living creatures and the cause of every conditioned existence (生滅法) is not the Tathāgatagarbha, but avidyāvāsabhūmi (entrenchment of ignorance 无明住地). However, the question “Why would the Tathāgatagarbha, which is originally free from evil and defilement, generate mountains, rivers and lands (如来藏本来清净, 為什麼突然生出山河大地)?” is asked in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, which indicates that the sūtra has a tendency to consider the Tathāgatagarbha as the origin of mountains, rivers and lands. Additionally, in the same sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha as cittaprakṛti (心性) is qualified with the function of knowing (知). Compared to the theories of Tathāgatagarbha in Indian Buddhism, the theory in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is apparently of a different nature. Then how did this theory form? Combining the theories of Tathāgatagarbha which were presented by Huiyuan of the Jingying-si and Fazang, this article evaluates the theory of the Tathāgatagarbha in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra on the basis of how these theories of the Tathāgatagarbha were altered.
This paper examines the historical development of the pratyutpannabuddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi (banzhou sanmei 般舟三昧) by comparing the practice of pratyutpanna-samādhi discussed in visualization sūtras. In Pure Land texts, there are two methods of visualizing buddhas. One is the practice of seeing buddhas in this life as taught in the Pratyutpannasamādhi Sūtra, and the other is seeing Amitābha Buddha through birth in his Pure Land as expounded in the Guan Wuliangshoufo jing. Comparing these two practice methods, the question arises why there developed two different locations for the attainment, even though they share the same method of visualization.
Examining the sutras, it becomes clear that the difference arises because the pratyutpanna-samādhi is required for practitioners to attain the stage of avinivartanīya (non-retrogression). Since there are many different levels of practitioners aiming at attaining the stage of non-retrogression, it is necessary to provide many different methods of practice to accommodate their needs. When it comes to the visualization sūtras, the practitioners even include “ordinary lay persons,” who were usually not a part of the Buddhist monastic practice of meditation.
Huaigan 懐感 has long been considered a disciple of Shandao 善導, the master largely responsible for the formulation of Chinese Pure Land teachings. Murachi Tetsumyō 村地哲明, however, has questioned this traditional understanding and suggested they had no such relationship. In this paper, I examine Murachi’s theory to reevaluate the relationship between Shandao and Huaigan.
Murachi’s study focuses on differences in the doctrinal understandings of Pure Land thought between Shandao and Huaigan. He maintains that Huaigan could not have been a disciple of Shandao based on these differences. But since they clearly shared the idea that the attainment of birth in the True-Reward land by ordinary beings (凡夫入報) is the primary doctrinal concern of the Pure Land teaching, I argue that differences regarding other points are not a serious obstacle to consider that Huaigan was a disciple of Shandao.
As Murachi points out, it is an undeniable fact that there are many differences between Shandao’s and Huaigan’s doctrinal understandings. However, the existence of differences on some points does not provide sufficient proof to completely reject the possibility of their master-disciple relationship, particularly when they agree on other major points of doctrine.
This study examines attitudes toward the Sanjiejiao 三階教 in the Qunyi lun 群疑論 written by Huaigun 懐感 (d.u.). In conventional research, only section 6 has been considered to concern the Sanjiejiao. However, I investigated section 2, and as a result I reached two conclusions: 1. The discussion about acquisition and non-acquisition in section 2 is Huaigun’s own discussion. 2. This discussion is likely to have been offered with the Sanjiejiao in mind.
The period between the 8th and 9th centuries was an important one for the formation and development of Chan Buddhism. During this period, early Chan schools such as the Northern 北宗, Southern 南宗 (Heze 荷沢宗), Niutou 牛頭宗, Jingzhong 浄衆宗, Baotang 保唐宗, Hongzhou 洪州宗, Shitou 石頭宗 and others gradually appeared and laid the foundation for Chan Buddhism to become mainstream. However, there are various theories regarding the names of these schools, and their definitions and scope are not always the same in ancient and modern literature. In this paper I look at the names of the various early Chan schools, relying on the works of Zongmi 宗密, as well as other literature and epitaphs. After examining the origins of the names and various problems, I attempt to provide a recommendation of a unified naming system for these schools.
To examine the concept of jia 仮 and its interpretations, I compared the threefold contemplation thought of the Mohe Zhiguan 摩訶止観 with the Weimojing xuanshu 維摩経玄疏. The terminology used by both texts is different, but the method of contemplation is mostly the same. The reason for the difference in terminology is that while the Mohe Zhiguan 観行門 takes a practical stance, the Weimojing xuanshu 教相門 argues through scripture interpretations.
This paper focuses on the concept of Sudden Teaching 頓教 in Tiantai’s classification of sūtras, and investigates the difference between Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) and Zhanran 湛然 (711–782). The concept of Sudden Teaching existed before Zhiyi, but he insisted on developing his own theory against those pre-existing, such as the group of taxonomies known as ‘three in the south and seven in the north’ 南三北七. In contrast to Zhiyi, Zhanran embraced these pre-existing theories, and re-interpreted Zhiyi’s classification of sūtras. This paper concludes that Zhanran inherited Zhiyi’s theory and embraced these pre-existing theories.
This paper explores Zhiyan’s 智儼 (602–668) interpretation of the Buddha Lands and his influence on one of his successors, Fazang 法蔵 (643–712). Zhiyan advocated two accounts of the Buddha Lands on the basis of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. These two accounts, citing the same passage, are mentioned in his earlier Souxuan ji 捜玄記 and later Kongmu zhang 孔目章. In the former composition, he employed the passage to explain inner awareness of the Buddha Lands, while in the latter work, he referred to the sentence in order to define outer awareness of the Buddha Lands. Although these two accounts are supposed to be integrated by Zhiyan, there remained some inconsistency between the two; it was Fazang who identified this disagreement and produced a new Huayan doctrine.
This paper compares the theories of the Two Truths of Jizang (吉蔵, 549–623) and Zhizang (智蔵, 458–522), and considers the differences between them.
Jizang criticized Zhizang’s theory of the Two Truths intensely. The reason is that Zhizang was influenced by the Sanlun school. At first, the Paramārtha satya (ultimate truth) was made the essence of the Two Truths, but Zhizang changed the essence of the Two Truths to the Middle Path, in accord with Sanlun ideas. So the theories are same, but the contents differ.
Zhizang’s Middle Path is the truth which transcends the Two Truths (the Third Truth). It is the first cause from which all others are created. On the other hand, Jizang’s Middle Path is inseparable from the Two Truths. Zhizang considered the ultimate truth and worldly truth (lokasaṃvṛti satya) as “Truth,” but Jizang considered them as “Doctrine.” Therefore Jizang differs from Zhizang, and does not consider the Third Truth.
Chapter I of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密經 is divided into four parts. In the first part, it seems that the relationship between paramārtha-satya and dharmas is interpreted by the two truths 二諦. However, it is better to interpret this relationship using the three natures 三性 of Chinese Yogācāra thought. Paramārtha-satya is replaced by pariniṣpanna, dharmas are replaced by parikalpita, and vastu 事 and saṃskāra 行 between the two imply paratantra.
How were the three natures in this portion accepted by Chinese Yogācāra? In previous studies, it has been stated that Wŏnch’uk 圓測 (613–696) did not understand Yogācāra correctly. But when we read his commentary of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (解深密經疏) carefully, it is clear that he correctly understands that vastu and saṃskāra are paratantra, and that he properly describes the interpretations of this portion by Paramārtha 眞諦 and Xuanzang 玄奘.
Xuanzang’s interpretation of dharmas is the following: (1) saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta are parikalpita; (2) saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta are the object part 相分 of paratantra; (3) that saṃskṛta is paratantra and asaṃskṛta is pariniṣpanna are the paramārtha-satya. According to the third interpretation, the dharmas are not denied. On the other hand, Paramārtha’s interpretation is that the existence of all dharmas is denied as follows: (1) the discrimination by confused consciousness 乱識分別, (2) wrong thought as foundation 根本 (不正思惟), (3) niḥsvabhāva of parikalpita and paratantra 無相無生. This is the interpretation that was used in the Shelun 攝論 school. Wŏnch’uk criticizes this Shelun interpretation, insisting that Xuanzang’s interpretation should be applied to this portion.
Although the theory of buddhakāya (“Buddha-bodies”) in Chinese Buddhism initially adhered to the twofold Buddha-body, the threefold Buddha-body interpretation later became mainstream after being introduced through the translations of Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, and Paramārtha. This subsequently evolved into the concept of the fourfold Buddha-body. As is well known, this theory of buddhakāya was systematized by the scholars Jingyingsi Huiyan 浄影寺慧遠 and Jizang 吉蔵.
Nevertheless, this system was still essentially that of the twofold Buddha-body, which posited the two bodies of the dharmakāya (“truth body”), which only the Buddha is able to perceive, and the nirmāṇakāya (“transformation body”), which the sattva are also able to perceive. The distinction and differentiation of the buddhakāya were thought to take place according to differences in human capacity among the sattva, or, in other words, the Stages of Practice. This way of thinking seems to have been based on the concept of ganying (感応, literally “stimulus-response” or “cosmic resonance”), a soteriological belief unique to Chinese Buddhism.
Within this understanding, the interpretation of an intermediate body, the saṃbhogakāya (“body of pleasure”), underwent various changes. For example, in Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論) the saṃbhogakāya is regarded as the body of the Buddha, which itself enjoys the fruits of enlightenment and in turn enlightens the sattva. For Jingyingsi Huiyan, on the other hand, the body of the Buddha can be seen in the Pure Land.
While the saṃbhogakāya was thus initially understood as being closer to either the sattva or Buddha, it came to be thought of as divided into the body of the Buddha which can be seen in the Pure Land, and the body of the Buddha which itself enjoys the fruits of enlightenment, and thus, the fourfold Buddha-body developed. This understanding of the threefold Buddha-body through the lens of the twofold Buddha-body (fourfold Buddha-body) was a development unique to Chinese Buddhism. This development was influenced by Paramārtha’s translation of Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (She dasheng lun shi 摂大乗論釈), and by Jizang, who used this work to construct his own theories.
This study aims to assess the value of the Jishō Sekkogi mon (事鈔節古義文) as a reference source in the study of the Nanshan lüzong (南山律宗) in the Northern Song period. This work is the oldest existing commentary on Yuanzhao’s (元照) representative work, Zichi ji (資持記), with numerous citations from the Sifenlü Xingshichao (四分律行事鈔) commentaries, including Xijue’s (希覚) Zenghui ji (増輝記) and Yunkan’s (允堪) Huizhengji (会正記), which are scattered and lost. In this paper, we consider the interpretations of Wusheng (五乗) cited in the Jishō Sekkogi mon and observe differences between Yuanzhao and Yunkan’s opinions regarding the practice of the precepts and enlightenment. The Jishō Sekkogi mon contains important descriptions that provide insights on the relationship between Yuanzhao’s Zichi ji and other commentators and has significant value as a source.
The most famous practice of meditative cessation and observation in East Asia was the Tiantai system called zhiguan 止観, established by Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗 (538–597). Moreover, the type of zhiguan taught in the section on the aspect of practice and the attitude of faith within the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論 (Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith), which in recently years has been shown to have been produced in northern China, was important since it greatly influenced the later Buddhist world. It is thought that the reception and proliferation of zhiguan in the Northern and Southern Dynasties period occurred with the background of this meditative practice.
Zhiguan is generally regarded as a translation of śamatha and vipaśyanā, but the source terms were not limited to these. In addition to examples that correspond to sthāna and upalakṣaṇā (listed among the the six breath meditations or liu xinian 六息念), similarly the parts translated as zhiguan in the Chinese translations of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa by Zhi Qian, Kumārajīva and Xuanzang are all identified as śamatha-vidarśanā in the corresponding Sanskrit text. Having rendered zhiguan from different source words, awareness of the differences in the original vocabulary were lost in the interpretations by Chinese monks. We can consider this one reason underlying the development of the unique system of zhiguan in East Asia.
This paper examines how, for Huiyuan (慧遠, 334–416), the sūtras were so consistent and meaningful. He thought that all teachings in the world, not limited to Buddhism, are ultimately reducible to one fundamental truth, and preachers of doctrines are all appearances of the fundamental Buddha whose form changes depending on the target audience. Therefore Huiyuan recognized that all the sūtras were not necessarily transmitted from the mouth of Gautama Buddha, but the Fundamental Buddha appears at any time depending on seekers’ needs, and what enlightened persons left behind are sūtras or teachings.
Based on the favorable assessment found in the Xu gaoseng zhuan’s 続高僧伝 biography of Xuanzang and other evidence, it has been said that Daoxuan (道宣, 596–667) and Xuanzang had a good relationship. However, in the Datang neidian lu 大唐内典録, written by Daoxuan in his later years, Daoxuan does not speak highly of Xuanzang’s doctrinal studies. Here, Hongfusi Lingrun 弘福寺霊潤 is a key figure. Lingrun was the first person to argue against Xuanzang’s new sūtra and Abhidharma translations. Lingrun’s biography is found in the fifteenth volume of the Xu gaoseng zhuan. Therein, Daoxuan praises Lingrun three times. Furthermore, unusually for the Xu gaoseng zhuan, he introduces and offers high praise for Lingrun’s doctrinal thought, stating that he “correctly understands the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa-sūtra.” Moreover, Lingrun was involved in the selection of the leadership of the Ximingsi (built in 658, Xianqing 顕慶 3), and Daoxuan was chosen as its head. From this we can see that Daoxuan supported Lingrun in the debates between the latter and Xuanzang’s disciples.
In this paper, I examine the doctrine of the five gates of mindfulness and the five gates of virtue in Vasubandhu’s Jingtu lun 浄土論 from the standpoint of syntax.
The doctrine of the five gates of mindfulness consists of (A) interrogative sentences beginning with rúhé 如何, (B) sentences answering the interrogations, and (C) sentences stating the reasoning behind (B) ending with gù 故.
Further, the five gates of virtue consists of (A’) opening sentences beginning by stating which gate is being explained, using 入/出第～門者, (B’) sentences which correspond to (B) beginning with the character yǐ 以, (C’) sentences finishing with gù 故 giving the reasoning which corresponds to (C), (D’) sentences that reveal the contents of the five gates of virtue, and (E’) concluding remarks which begin by stating each gate using 是名入/出第～門.
From this, when examining one sentence explaining one of the gates it is possible to cross reference it with another section written in the same syntax. This paper uses this method to understand the connection between the five gates of mindfulness and the five gates of virtue in Vasubandhu’s Jingtu lun.