According to the Five-period classification that prevailed during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Lotus sūtra does not expound the doctrine of the Buddha-nature or the eternal abiding of the Buddha. In this point the Lotus sūtra was regarded as inferior to the Nirvāṇa sūtra. Zhiyi and Jizang criticize this Five-period classification, arguing instead that the Lotus sūtra, like the Nirvana sūtra, also expounds the doctrine of the Buddha-­nature or the eternal abiding of the Buddha. If their argument is to be accepted, why did the Buddha preach the Nirvāṇa sūtra after the Lotus sūtra? This is the problem taken up for consideration by Zhiyi and Jizang.

Nichiren (1222–1282) wrote the Shūku jisshō-shō 秀句十勝抄 (Ten Superior Doctrines Described in the Outstanding Principles of the Lotus Sūtra; Showa Teihon Nichiren Shonin Ibun, pp. 2359–2383) in some eight years, from around 1271, when he was exiled to Sado Island, to 1278, the fifth year of his seclusion on Mt. Minobu.

In the Shūku jisshō-shō, Nichiren quoted from the Hokke Shūku 法華秀句 of Saichō (767–822), and offered his critical comments on Saichō’s interpretations.

The Shūku Jisshō-shō was written in the period when Nichiren’s life was threatened under the oppression by the Kamakura Shogunate. Few studies have been carried out on this work, although it was written during this most important period in Nichiren’s life.

During this period he produced several works, including the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄,Kanjin Honzon-shō 觀心本尊抄,and Kembutsu-miraiki 顕仏未來記,and it was also during this time that he attained the awakening that “he is ‘the No.1 practictioner of the Lotus Sūtra’, and that “he is ‘the disciple of the eternal Śākyamuni Buddha,’” in other words, that he was the reincarnation of a bodhisattva who emerged from the earth, as stated in the Lotus Sūtra.

The present paper offers a basic hypothesis on the question why it took a full eight years for Nichiren to finish this work.

This article discusses the significance of sōfuzoku 総付嘱 in the Lotus sūtra’s Entrustment chapter (the 22^nd, 嘱累品), in which the great project to save all beings in the Latter Day of the Law (mappō) after the death of the Buddha reaches the ultimate state in the Doctrine of ki-ken-kyō 起顕竟 (Beginning, Revealing, and Completed), presenting Nichiren’s distinctive valuation of the Lotus sūtra. Pursuing the vow made by the Buddha to save people in the Latter Day of the Law and propagate the law, bodhisattvas who came from other realms (迹化菩薩) and other heavenly gods and benevolent deities who were entrusted with the Buddha’s teachings joined this great project to protect the devotees of the Lotus sūtra in the Latter Day of the Law. Such activities could be considered to lead directly to the inheritance of Buddhist tradition and as an expression of gratitude for the Buddha’s blessing. This could also indicate the way in which a disciple joins the Great Maṇḍala World (大曼荼羅世界) as one of the followers of the Lotus sūtra.

Nichiren quoted extensively from Buddhist sūtras in his Risshō-ankoku-ron 立正安国論 of 1260. These quoted sūtras can be classified into five groups, in terms of the topic of the citation: (i) the Sovereign, (ii) Destruction of the Buddha’s Teaching, (iii) Protection of the True Teaching, (iv) Going to hell, and (v) Killing those who defy the True Teaching. Each quotation is related to the sovereign’s political position, and this treatise was submitted to Hōjō Tokiyori 北条時頼 (1227–1263), the former Shikken (執権,shogunal regent) of the Kamakura Shogunate. Therefore, it can be said that Nichiren requested that the ruler should manage the country based on Buddhism, asserting that disregard for true Buddhist teachings should be prohibited and people should embrace the True Teaching.

This paper compares how Nichiren 日蓮 (1222–1282) explained sūtras using the idea of shindoku 身読 (spreading the teachings as described in the sūtras and experiencing the sūtras for oneself), before and after his exile to Sado Island.

Methodologically, I focus on Nichiren’s representative work from his time on Sado, Kaimokushō開目抄,extracting references to his having performed shindoku and comparing these to explanations from documents produced before his exile.

I conclude that Nichiren did not cite from the Lotus Sūtra the expressions rokunan kui 六難九易 (six difficult and nine easy acts) or sanrui no gouteki 三類の強敵 (three powerful enemies) before his banishment to Sado. There were no changes in the way he cited from the same text the expressions kyōmetsu dogo 況滅度後 (‘how much more will this be after his passing’) or issai seken ta’on nanshin 一切世間多怨難信 (‘meeting much hostility and disbelief in the entire world’). However, I observed changes in his explanations of jōmoku gashaku 杖木瓦石 (staves, trees, tiles and stones), fukyō bosatsu 不軽菩薩 (the bodhisattva Never Disparaging), and sakusaku ken hinzui 数々見擯出 (banished again and again).

It is assumed that the Edo Period monk Nichijū日柔transcribed the Rokuge gosho 録外御書 (hereafter Nichijū-hon 日柔本), which is preserving in the Myōkakuji temple 妙覚寺 in Okayama City. The Myōkakuji holds 14 volumes (kan 巻) of the Nichijū-hon, namely the 2^nd to the 15^th; the other volumes have been lost. The date of copying and the original total number of volumes of the book are unknown.

The present author has had the chance to see the 20^th volume of the Nichijū-hon, which contains Nichijū’s signature and the date and time of copying on the last page of the book, something usually recorded in a final volume. It has been pointed out by scholars that the order of presentation of the materials in the book is similar to that in the published Rokuge gosho (issued in 1662). The materials in the 20^th volume closely parallel those in the last (25^th ) volume of the published Rokuge gosho, and hence we may conclude that this 20^th volume was indeed the final volume of the Nichijū-hon.

The 20^th volume contains the Jūō Sandanshō 十王讃嘆抄.It was completed before the published Rokuge gosho, and is a valuable source for our study. This paper discusses the outline of the literature on Jūō Sandanshō based on the published Rokuge gosho, the Sanpōji-hon 三宝寺本 and other materials.

Comparing the three documents, the published Rokuge gosho, Sanpōji-hon, and Nichijū-hon, it becomes clear that the Nichijū-hon is more closely related to the published Rokuge gosho than to the Sanpōji-hon. And a detailed comparison of the published Rokuge gosho and the Nichijū-hon reveals that they are very similar to each other in terms of their texts. It also became clear that the proofreading of the published Rokuge gosho and the Sanpōji-hon in earlier times was not so precise.

The appearance of this new Nichijū-hon has revealed a number of new facts about the Jūō Sandanshō.

Ishibashi Tanzan 石橋湛山 (1884–1973) was a journalist, economist, and moreover politician, who once served as the Prime Minister of Japan (1956–1957). Ishibashi’s father, Sugita Nippu 杉田日布 (1856–1931), was the 81^st Archbishop of Minobu-san Kuon-ji temple 久遠寺.Although Ishibashi became a Nichiren-shū priest under Mochizuki Nichiken 望月日謙 (the 83^rd Archbishop), he didn’t choose his own career as a priest. Ishibashi is well known as a representative liberalist of modern Japan.

The aim of this study is to clarify Ishibashi’s point of view on Nichiren Shōnin. Ishibashi focused on Nichiren’s vital pursuit of his faith. Nichiren had strong inner strength, never giving in to tradition and authority. Ishibashi’s liberalistic ideology made him think of Nichiren too as a “liberalist”. Differing from modern Nichirenism, which had a great impact on the Nichiren-shū, Ishibashi had his own unique interpretation of Nichiren.

This paper discusses Nichiren’s (1222–1282) faith of the Lotus Sūtra by focusing on his quotations of narratives. In his Hōrenshō 法蓮鈔,Nichiren quoted the story of Wulong 烏龍 and Weilong 遺龍,which is found included in the Tang dynasty Fahua zhuanji 法華伝記 (compiled by a monk whose name may have been, or ended in, Xiang 祥/詳). However Nichiren made many additions and revisions. In the Nichiren version, the additions are mainly based on the Lotus Sūtra, and faith in this text is emphasized. In addition, Nichiren considerably revised the episode of the Sixty-four Buddhas (六十四仏) who appeared from the title of the scripture (題目), and this addition seems to be related to his theory about the Principal object of worship (honzan 本尊) that emphasizes both “personal Buddha” and “impersonal Dharma” (人・法).

There are two major theories concerning Kunōji-kyō 久能寺経,a common name for the Lotus Sūtra preserved at the Kunōji temple. It has been considered a kechiengyō 結縁経,a sūtra copied for the purpose of forming a karmic link, during the Gyakushu 逆修 or Pre-emptive Funeral ceremony for either Toba-in 鳥羽院 (1103–1156) or Taikemmon-in 待賢門院 (1101–1145). This is because it was understood that the kechiengyō was made for the Gyakushu ceremony, and the Gyakushu was considered as a ceremony that creates a karmic relationship with the Tathāgata.

However, because kechiengyō were not part of the Gyakushu ceremony during the Heian Period, the author cannot accept these conventional theories (Refer to the earlier paper, “Heian jidai no kechiengyō” 平安時代の結縁経 [Kechiengyō in the Heian Period]). Furthermore, neither the main purpose of making kechiengyō nor the purpose of the Gyakushu was to connect oneself with the Tathāgata (Refer to the earlier paper “Heian jidai no gyakshu no hensen” 平安時代の逆修の変遷 [The Transformation of the Gyakushu (Pre-emptive Funeral) in the Heian Period]).

In this paper, I discuss the meaning of kechiengyō, to whom it refers and with whom it produces a connection, and for what one accumulates virtue in the Gyakushu ceremony.

This paper aims to make clarify the meaning of the term shūzen 修善 when used by late Heian period (794–1185) aristocracy. I consider the term in Fujiwara-no-Michinaga’s 藤原道長 Midō kanpaku ki 御堂関白記 and Fujiwara-no-Sanesuke’s 藤原実資 Shōyū ki 小右記.

In these diaries, shūzen basically refers to carrying out esoteric Buddhist rituals (shūhō 修法) to acquire worldly benefits. Shūzen originally meant cultivating good acts (zengyō 善業). However, we can see that Heian period aristocrats thought that esoteric Buddhist rituals for worldly benefits were “good acts.” It also appears that during this time the meaning of the compound shūzen changed to include esoteric Buddhist rituals.

The Tamemori hosshin innenshū 為盛発心因縁集 is a tale in which a dialogue between Tsunoto 津戸 and Hōnen 法然 is described, but the contents of the questions and answers have not been fully examined.

Considering the ideological features of nenbutsu ōjō 念仏往生 described in the Tamemori hosshin innenshū, it is clear that the story preached, as Hōnen’s teachings, the idea that all people can go to the Pure Land (gokuraku jōdo 極楽浄土) equally by practicing nenbutsu zanmai 念仏三昧 which focuses singlemindedly on nenbutsu.

In the Tiantai/Tendai doctrine, the Foxing lun 仏性論 (traditionally attributed to Vasubandhu and translated into Chinese by Paramārtha 真諦) wasn’t necessarily regarded as a text representative of the perfect teaching. But Annen 安然 (841–between 889 and 897), a prominent scholar of the Tendai school of Japan, quoted many passages from the Foxing lun and frequently interpreted them based on ideas of the perfect teaching.

For example, in the Dialogue on Teaching Time (Kyōji mondō 教時問答), vol. 1, he identified the faruru zhiruru 法如如･智如如 (discussion on absolute truth and worldly truth in the all phenomena vis-à-vis those in Buddha’s omniscience) of the Foxing lun with the yuanren chuxin 円人初心 (initial aspiration of a person of the perfect teaching) and the chudi chuzhu 初地･初住 (first stage of development and first stage of security in the practice) of the Tendai doctrine. Furthermore, in On the Meaning of the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment (Bodaishingi shō 菩提心義抄), vols. 4 and 5, he put yuanren chuxin into the category of guanxingji 観行即 (stage of perception and action), and chudi chuzhu into the category of fenzhengji 分証即 (stage of progressive awakening) in the liuji 六即 (six stages of practice), respectively. Thus Annen unified the concepts described in the Foxing lun with the perfect teaching of the Tendai doctrine.

In this way, Annen’s interpretation of the Foxing lun as the perfect teaching was influenced by the Tiantai/Tendai masters Zhanran 湛然 and Saichō 最澄.Based on their interpretations of the Foxing lun as the perfect teaching, Annen developed his own theoretical account.

Hakkyō 八教,the famous doctrinal classification (教判論) of the Tendai school, constitutes the eight classifications of the Buddha’s teaching, which are divided into two categories; four kinds of teaching content (化法四教), and four methods of teaching (化儀四教). The former category consists of Hīnayāna teachings (蔵教), Common teachings (通教), Distinct teachings (別教), and Perfect teachings (円教). The latter category consists of Sudden teachings (頓教), Gradual teachings (漸教), Secret teachings (秘密教), and Indeterminate teachings (不定教). However, Saichō最澄 (767–822), the patriarch of the Japanese Tendai School, deviated from the traditional usage of these teachings and incorporated them with the kehō no ton 化法之頓 (content of Sudden teachings) and kehō no zen 化法之漸 (content of Gradual teachings). Kehō no ton and kehō no zen are synonymous with kyōton 教頓 and kyōzen 教漸,which are terms also used in Saichō’s works.

This paper examines the ideological source of Saichō’s unique usage and his motivation for introducing these phraseologies. I first give an overview of the genealogy of the doctrinal classification of the Sudden and Gradual teachings employed by Chinese Tiantai scholars before Saichō. On one hand, the concept of kyōton is based on Zhanran’s 湛然 (711–782) exegesis of Zhiyi’s 智顗 (538–597) doctrinal classification. In contrast, the concept of kyōzen is newly introduced by Saichō. Second, to clarify how Saichō introduced kyōzen, I focus on the context and the usage of kehō no zen in the first volume of the Shugo kokkaishō 守護国界章 (Essay on Protecting the Nation). In this work, Saichō disputed Tokuitsu’s 徳一 (8–9c) criticism of the Gradual teachings. This indicates that the Gradual teachings are the key issue for Saichō in maintaining his doctrinal legitimacy. Therefore kyōzen is newly introduced by Saichō.

Myōe 明恵 (1173–1232) has his own views on the Practice of the Path, which holds that people spend an immeasurably long time becoming Buddha. Keeping this in mind, he remarks on “Attaining Buddhahood in this very body” referring to both “Exoteric” and “Esoteric” Teachings. Based on this view of the Practice of the Path, I consider his understanding of “Exoteric Buddhism,” “Esoteric Buddhism” and “Attaining Buddhahood in this very body,” and examine his “View on Attaining Buddhahood.”

Myōe’s comprehension of Buddhahood is as follows: his “View of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism” is the teaching that practitioners themselves see and hear along their way of life. In his “View of the Attainment of Buddhahood in this very body,” practitioners of Buddhism who preach the teaching become “Buddha” for those who hear it, while they, who were preached to, may become “Buddha” when they preach to others. This process finally enables all to become Buddha, and reach a state in which their bodies and experiences and the universe fuse together.

I conclude that Myōe’s “View on Attaining Buddhahood” shows that practitioners go first through the stages of the Bodhisattva understanding each teaching suitable for themselves, and then attain the Tathagata’s jūsan ryōtōshin 十三量等身”—sammitsu kajishin 三密加持身 in Esoteric Buddhism― or “total equality”: they seek to overcome any inequality in the world.

This paper investigates how a customary rule of the Eisai tradition was followed by Dōgen, and also how this was maintained thereafter in the Sōtō School. It is specified in Dōgen’s ‘Method of Washing the Bowl” (洗鉢之法) in his essay Fushuku hanpō (赴粥飯法,Regulations for Meals, 1264) that after hearing the strike of the hammer (槌) after the meal the Inō 維那 (disciplinarian) recites the ‘Verse of Purity While Abiding in the World’ (Sho sekai bon no ge 処世界梵之偈), “Abiding in the world as [boundless] as the sky / As water does not cling to the lotus / the mind is pure and transcends that [world] / Thus I pay homage to the supreme lord,” 処世界如虚空,如蓮華不著水,心清浄超於彼,稽首礼無上,and this derives from the rule of the Eisai tradition known as the “The old rule of Yūshō Sōjō [= Eisai]” 是用祥僧正之古儀也.This differs from the rule of contemporary Chan Temples of the Southern Song dynasty, recorded in the Chanyuan qinggui 禅苑清規,which states that the Fashitou 法事頭 or the Weina 維那 recites the verse after the chime 磬 is struck. Dōgen purposely named this rule “The old rule of Yūshō Sōjō”, and practiced it in his temples. Considering the fact that there are no extant historical materials regarding training inside the Kenninji 建仁寺 or in any other temple built by Eisai, this rule of the Eisai tradition which Dōgen recorded can be said to be one of the oldest examples of rules in Zen temples. This particular rule which apparently was not followed at the Kenninji was in fact followed by the Sōtō school throughout the middle ages. It is most interesting to know that it is continually practiced in the Sōtō school to the present day, without the knowledge that it derives from the Eisai tradition. The fact that this rule was introduced by Eisai but was not followed by the Rinzai school is important in the study of the inheritance of the customary rules in the Sōtō school. By studying the history of Eisai tradition rules inherited by the Sōtō school, we have identified a part of the inheritance of rules in the everyday life of the Zen temple from the Middle Ages up to the Edo period.

This paper examines Dōgen’s intentions behind writing the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese (真字正法眼蔵). It has been demonstrated that the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese has script-like characteristics that resemble the Shōbōgenzō in kana (仮字正法眼蔵), and other writings by Dōgen. The issue here is other characteristics of the document beyond this similarity, which have been explained by the theory that the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese was a manual for study for Dōgen’s followers. There are multiple theories on his practical objectives in writing the document, from its use to study the basics of Zen Buddhism to its use to share the same teachings as those of the Shōbōgenzō in kana. This paper examines the theory proposed by Taiyō Bonsei 太容梵清 (1378–1439?) that the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese was used for shin’eki 請益 (response to requests for clarification).

Dōgen’s writings provide evidence that he performed shin’eki. Additionally, it was found that he might have used the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese for the same purpose. This would mean that the document was not complete in itself but completed through its use in shin’eki and other lectures and instructions. Furthermore, creating a script for conducting shin’eki during later periods in this way can be considered one of his intentions when writing the Shōbōgenzō in Chinese. Therefore, the document has the characteristics of a script in every sense of the word.

Finally, with regard to the influences of Dōgen’s shin’eki on later periods, this paper addresses the possibilities that it provided a reason for Keizan Jōkin 瑩山紹瑾 (1264–1325) to discuss shin’eki in his Denkōroku 伝光録,and that it was the precursor to the Daigo 代語-style expressive forms in the Sōtō Zen school.

This paper considers the relationship between shohō 諸法 (phenomena of the universe and matter) and jissō 実相 (real state) in Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵.While one of the chapters of the work is entitled ‘Shohō Jissō’ 諸法実相,the terms shohō and jissō are in fact found throughout the Shōbōgenzō. The term shohō jissō appears in the Hōben (方便品,Skillful Means chapter) of the Lotus Sūtra. Originally, it was understood to mean the real state of the phenomena of the universe, but as time went on, it was understood rather that the phenomena of the universe are the real state of things. The latter can be interpreted by referring to the Shōbōgenzō’s chapter ‘Shohō-Jissō,’ but Dōgen avoids the latter expression. Therefore, it is necessary to give consideration to the ideas of shohō and jissō from chapters other than that. In addition, this paper also investigates whether Dōgen’s expression was intentional. In conclusion, Dōgen’s expression was intentional, and attention should be paid to the term jissō, especially when something is connected with it.

It is reported that there are thirty-one manuscripts of the Denkōroku (伝光録,1300), a record of the lectures of Keizan Jōkin (瑩山紹瑾,1264–1325). These manuscripts are broadly classified into three groups.

The manuscript newly introduced here is stored in Ryūsenji Temple 龍泉寺 and fundamentally relies on the main texts of the oldest group. However, we can notice some contaminations in quotations from the basic texts of other groups. So far, it is known that texts may be different between groups, though it has been unclear why the texts had been changed or how the different groups are related to each other. Nevertheless, the Ryūsenji manuscript shows that that manuscripts from different groups were compared and selective copying took place.

Taking the Ryūsenji manuscript into consideration, we can see that the Denkōroku was copied crossing text groups, and this enables us to present the new viewpoint on the history of the Denkōroku.

During medieval times, the Zen school was attacked by other traditional Buddhist schools, particularly the Tendai. Little is known of the Zen reaction to such attacks. The Hokke Mondo Shōgishō 法華問答正義抄,written by a Nichiren monk Nichizen 日全 (1294–1344) in the 14^th century, contains a chapters on the Zen School, in which Zen and the Tendai or Nichiren sect argue over Zen’s lineage and its philosophy. A Zen representative replies to his opponents more than 64 times. Although he seems to be very familiar with Zen teaching, he calls Saichō ‘the Fundamental Teacher of Japan’ and speaks of ‘my Eizan,’ implying his allegiance with the Tendai school. Moreover, his manner of arguing is different from that of authentic Zen monks, who refrain from argument and insistence on their beliefs. Consequently, I conclude that the Zen representative in the Hokke Mondo Shōgishō is a Tendai monk who is deeply committed to the Zen teaching spreading at that time.

In the seventh chapter of the Shōshū ron 正修論 entitled ‘Shichiwaku’ 質惑,Kokan Shiren 虎関師錬 (1278–1346) classified Zen styles of teaching and practices that existed around him into four types: byōjitsu zen 平実禅,mokushō zen 黙照禅,kattō zen 葛藤禅,and tongyō zen 頓教禅,and criticized each of them. This paper focuses on his criticism of kattō zen (wordy Zen), and examines the content and doctrinal background of this criticism. According to Shiren, kattō zen refers to the Heze School 荷沢宗 of Chan, which was first established by Heze Shenhui 荷沢神会 (684–758), and expanded by Guifeng Zongmi 圭峰宗密 (780–841); it is also known as the Chige (ch. Zhijie) school 知解宗,which promotes “knowing” (jp. chi; ch. zhi 知) as true nature (jp. shinshō; ch. zhenxing 真性). Shiren criticized the kattō zen of the Chige school because, he thought, followers of the school did not distinguish true nature, which he believed originally cannot be revealed by using language, from verbal expression. In addition, the fact that Shiren criticized kattō zen in his Shōshū ron, despite there being no direct lineage of the Heze School in Japan, makes us presume the great influence of the thought of the Heze School (in particular, Zongmi’s thought) on Zen in Japan at the time of Shiren.

Hakuin (白隠慧鶴,1686–1769), creator of numerous Zen paintings, was a Zen monk regarded as the founder of the Rinzai sect in Japan. This study focuses on Hakuin’s belief in Akiha 秋葉,and discusses his paintings of the Akiha Gongen 秋葉権現.

Akiha belief refers to various beliefs centered on Enshu Akiha Mountain 遠州秋葉山,which is said to be beneficial for fire prevention. In addition to Enshu Akiha, there are several other places of worship connected to the Akiha belief, such as the Echigo-Jōanji Temple 越後常安寺,whence Akiha belief originated in the mid-18th century. Hakuin used both Enshu-Akiha and Echigo-Akiha as subjects for his Zen paintings. Interestingly, he preferred to distribute to the public pictures portraying Echigo Akiha, instead of the commonly known Enshu Akiha. In this study, I will analyze how Hakuin’s behavior led to an increase of interest in Akiha belief. Additionally, I clarify Hakuin’s ideas behind the two types of paintings of Akiha Gongen.

It has been generally agreed that Hōnen was greatly influenced by Genshin 源信 (942–1017) in constructing his Pure Land thought. In fact, in his writings and preachings he made several references not only to Genshin’s evaluation of nembutsu practice, but to his interpretations of the Pure Land sūtras. By comparing Hōnen’s understandings of Amitābha Buddha and Buddha-nature found in his Gyakushu Seppō 逆修説法 and others with those of Genshin in his Amidakyō Ryakki 阿弥陀経略記,however, we can find both similarities and differences between their notions. They are in accord about the theory that Amitābha has the three bodies; the Dharma, the Reward and the Transformation body. The difference becomes obvious when we focus on how they regard Buddha-nature as a requisite for ‘enlightenment’. While Genshin maintains that all sentient beings are equipped with Buddha-nature and able to possess the ultimate truth of Buddha-nature, Hōnen seems to be tentative about or gives up the possibility of its existence within human beings. Here we see a distinctiveness of his Pure Land thought, and this cognizance could be said to have led him to emphasize the importance of ‘sole practice nembutsu’ (念仏一行) and the idea of the duality of the world.

It has been thought that Shōkū 證空 (1177–1247) recognized the value of various practices (諸行) other than nembutsu 念仏 and relaxed insistence on the idea of the exclusive practice of nembutsu (senju nembutsu 専修念仏). Here, a dichotomy between the idea of the exclusive practice of nembutsu and the recognition of the value of other practices has been assumed. However, the present study shows that the ideology of Shōkū does not fit into such a dichotomous scheme. He criticized the idea of practice of his time from the standpoint of the exclusive practice of nembutsu. This study also shows that the introduction of the three disciplines (三学) is helpful in situating Shōkū in the history of thought.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the difference between the two books Shikanden 四巻伝 (Honchō soshi denki ekotoba 本朝祖師伝記絵詞,1237) and the Rinnahon 琳阿本 (Hōnen shōninden ekotoba 法然上人伝絵詞,between 1241–1262). This study focuses on the Shikanden’s I.11 (the Emergence of Seiryū 青龍出現) through to II.13 (Facing Shinnō Shōnin 親王上人對座) and the Rinnahon’s II.7 (Genzui 現瑞 of Kegon Hiran Hokke Shugyō 華厳披覧法華修行,one priest Kanmu 感夢) through to V.4 (the Emergence of Sanzon 三尊出現). The arrangement of contents are almost identical in these sections of the two books, except that the Shikanden from I.18 (the Emergence of Sanmai 三昧現前) to I.21 (the Emergence of Sanzon) is divided into two in the Rinnahon’s third scroll with III.4 (the Emergence of Zendō 善導来現), and V.3 (the Emergence of Gokan 五観現前) and V.4 (the Emergence of Sanzon).

The author of the Rinnahon seems to have considered that there was a chronological displacement in the Shikanden from the Emergence of Sanmai to the Emergence of Sanzon. As a result, this portion was shifted to immediately after Daihannya Tendoku 大般若転読,Rinju Mondō 臨終問答 in the Rinnahon. At that time, only the figure of the Emergence of Zendō was placed behind III.4 Etsuzō 閲蔵 in the Rinnahon. It seems that the author of the Rinnahon considered that the Emergence of Zendō had occurred twice.

Hōnen argues in his Ōjōyōshū-shaku 往生要集釈 that “the essentials for rebirth in the Pure Land” explained in chapter five of Genshin’s 源信 (942–1017) Ōjōyōshū, “Jonen hōhō (助念方法)”, are not the main point of the book. This theory is derived from the phrase that keeping the precepts is unnecessary for rebirth in the Pure Land. But there also appears in the Ōjōyōshū a remark that encourages keeping the precepts. Therefore, Hōnen’s interpretation cannot be said to be sufficiently convinced, and Ryōchū 良忠 (1199–1287), therefore, provides a supplementary explanation for that interpretation in his Ōjōyōshū-giki 往生要集義記.Ryōchū, dealing with these contradictory ideas found in the Ōjōyōshū, explains that keeping the precepts is unnecessary to obtain rebirth in Amida’s Pure Land from the perspective that the purpose of Genshin’s work is to convert those with lower religious capacities.

The term tariki jittai 他力実体is found in the Ohara dangi Kikigaki-shō 大原談義聞書鈔.It is synonymous with shinnyo-jisō 真如実相 and konponchi 根本智.According to the understanding of Ryōgyō 良暁 (1251–1328) and Shōkei 聖冏 (1341–1420), respectively the 4^th and 7^th Patriarchs of the Jōdoshū, konponchi is the intelligence which covers the dharma-body 法身,and converts beings. Therefore, to combine shinnyo-jisō and konponchi points to the nature of the Enjoyment body (saṁbhogakāya自受用身). This is also the position of Yūyo Shōsō (酉誉聖聡,1366–1440).

However, Shōsō based himself on the concept of kutai-kuyu 倶体倶用 (cosubstantiality and confunctionality). So, based on the idea of sanjin-bettai 三身別体 (the three Buddha bodies have separate essences), tariki-jittai 他力実体 means the Enjoyment body. But if we think from the perspective of kutai-kuyu, that then must be the Enjoyment body.

Shinran 親鸞 uses the kana “wo” ヲ in a specific way. First, particular forms such as woka をか,woba をば,womo をも,and woya をやare always written using oka オカ,oha オハ,omo オモ,and oya オヤ.Second, all initial “wo” ヲ at the beginning of readings of characters provided in the text are also transcribed with the kana “o” オ.Virtually all of the Bandō 坂東 text (that is, Shinran’s holographic manuscript) conforms to this convention for the use of wo, but there are a few exceptions. Twelve exceptions to the second rule were found in the Bandō manuscript, primarily in the “Chapter on Practice” (行巻). Moreover, most of these instances are in red ink. Therefore, it is difficult to think that Shinran made a mistake in writing these. Instead, it is quite possible that these instances where written by someone other than Shinran.

Previous studies have aimed to interpret the ‘Vow of Great Compassion’ 大悲の誓願 in Shinran’s comment found at the beginning of the chapter of his Kyōgyōshinshō called ‘The True Buddha and Land’ 真仏土文類 by directly connecting it with Amida’s 12^th and 13^th vows. However, this paper challenges this idea by stressing that contextually the ‘Vow of Great Compassion’ is not necessarily connected to the Vows of Immeasurable Light and Life. The reason is that the first sentence does not directly lead to fulfillment by the 12^th and 13^th vows, but after the third sentence it does show that the True Buddha and the Land are created by the 12^th and 13^th vows. For example, Shinran’s Jōdo Wasan 浄土和讃 (Hymns of the Pure Land) speaks of the Tathāgata of Inconceivable Light establishing the Primal Vow, which explains that the True Buddha and Land were made as a cause and result of the ‘Vow of Great Compassion.’ Thus, the ‘Vow of Great Compassion’ does not necessarily represent the 12^th and 13^th vows, but rather possibly represents the 18^th vow.

According to the teachings of Shinran, the sole object of worship is Amida Buddha, not the gods. However, Zonkaku 存覚 (1290–1373) stated that the gods were also an object of faith, a view different from that of Shinran. One of the reason was the strong influence of folk beliefs in Japan at that time. That is why Zonkaku tried to meet the expectations of the country and Jōdo Shinshū believers who placed faith in the gods. Another reason was the influence of the Jōdo sect, that he acquired from his learning of Pure Land Buddhism.

The monks of the Jōdo sect had, for the most part, a tolerant attitude towards popular practices and customs. It seems that such an attitude influenced Zonkaku, and he at last came to think that accepting the gods as an object of faith was a means of attracting people to Jōdo Shinshū. In other words, Zonkaku affirmed the acceptability of faith in the gods influenced by the historical situation of his time and the monks of the Jōdo sect.

In this paper, based on Shinran’s main work, Kyōgyōshinshō, I consider the important elements of the faith in the Daimuryōjukyō clarified by Shinran. In particular, this paper pays attention to the interpretation of the true gate that Shinran sets forth in the “Keshindo no maki” (化身土巻,Chapter on Transformed Buddha-bodies and Lands), and describes the content of the human mind that doubts the Buddha’s wisdom and how he understood one could overcome that doubt.

Enkōji Jōmyō 円光寺浄明,who was propagating the faith based on the phrase “Realizing shinjin oneself and guiding others to shinjin” (自信教人信), was criticized by Sōyō 僧鎔 (1723–1783), who argued that his understanding was different from that of Shinran. The expression of receiving (eru 得る) shinjin is different from the general meaning of the character得,and the manifestation of receiving shinjin is no more than one example, not being limited to a single concrete instance of lineage. This consideration clarified the content of Shinshū propagation. The present paper emphasizes the importance of paying attention to dissidents in the history of the propagation of Shinshū.

The Japanese monk Eichū 永忠 (743–816), who had studied in Tang China, was respected by Emperor Kanmu 桓武 (737–806) and Emperor Saga 嵯峨 (786–842) both as a Buddhist monk and a man of culture. The entry for 815 in the Nihon kōki 日本後紀 notes that when Emperor Saga made an imperial procession to Ōmi, Eichū presented him with tea. Eichū has been said to have been Saichō’s disciple, and was also admired by Kūkai. Kūkai writes in his Go-shōrai mokuroku 御請来目録 that he stayed at Ximing monastery 西明寺 where Eichū had formerly stayed, and in his Henjō Hokki Shōryō shū 遍照発揮性霊集 he records that he wrote a letter to the Chinese court in place of Eichū at this request. This paper will examine the relationship between Kūkai, Eichū, Emperor Saga, and others.

The major feature of the Shingi-Shingon 新義 School is the “Kajishin-setsu” 加持身説, the idea of the empowered responsive body. It is the doctrine that the preacher of Esoteric Buddhism, described in the Mahāvairocana Sūtra, is the empowered manifestation “kajishin (adhiṣṭhānakāya)” of the “Jishōshin (自性身, dharmakāya)”. While there are many critical studies that examine who the preacher of Esoteric Buddhism is, much remains unclear in the details.

In this paper, I discuss the relationship between “Jishōe” 自性会 and “Kaji sekai” 加持世界, focusing on Shōken’s Daisho hyakujō daisanjū 大疏百条第三重.I conclude that both “Jishōe” and “Kaji sekai” are places where the “kajishin” preaching is held, and that the two are in a relationship of identity called “Jishōe-soku-Kajisekai” 自性会即加持世界, or “Fumon-soku-Ichimon” 普門即一門.Furthermore, a comparison of the interpretations of the Shingi-Shingon-School and the Kogi-Shingon 古義 School reveals that they have different interpretations of the preaching in the “Kaji sekai”.

In this paper the issue of the right cause for birth in Amida Buddha’s Pure Land is investigated through Sekisen Sōei’s 石泉僧叡 (1762–1826) interpretation of Shinran’s teaching. Sōei insists that the basic cause for birth in the Pure Land is the working of Amida’s compassionate Vow which manifests itself outwardly as nembutsu and inwardly as shinjin (faith). Thus, if shinjin is the right cause for birth in the Pure Land, nembutsu should also be the right cause. Thus nembutsu as the right cause is to be equated with shinjin as the right cause for birth in the Pure Land. In this way his claim is that the two phases in Shinran’s view of shinjin and nembutsu are maintained by the one element of the working of Amida’s Vow.

Known as the founder of the drinks company Calpis, Mishima Kaiun 三島海雲 (1878–1974) was the son of the Jōdo shinshū abbot Hōjō 法城.He studied at the former Nishihonganji literary dormitory of Ryūkoku University. Subsequently, in 1904 he journeyed to Mongolia and encountered a dairy drink which was a favorite of the nomads, kumis (in Mongol, airag). After his return to Japan, based on this, he commercialized Calpis and became financially successful.

When he was a child, Kaiun had a complicated feeling that he was born as a successor to the temple, so much that his father Hōjō, lost in his sūtra recitation, burned the Buddha statue. When he commercialized Calpis, after studying with Sugimura Sojinkan 杉村楚人冠 (1872–1945), who later became a famous reporter of the Asahi Shimbun, he named the product name “Calpis” (カルピス) after the Sanskrit word sarpimaṇḍa, which refers to the refined essence of milk. When his invention was about to be stolen by Suzuki Saburosuke鈴木三郎助 (1868–1931), the third generation owner of Ajinomoto, he regained control with the help of the Buddhist activist Takashima Beihō 高嶋米峰 (1875–1949), and gradually strengthened himself as a Buddhist.

In his later years, he publicly pushed for reforms with regard to meat eating and clerical marriage (肉食,妻帯) and, spreading the true intentions of the Buddha widely in the world, proclaimed his respect for Shinran. The President of Ōtani University, Yamaguchi Susumu山口益 (1895–1976), said to him, “The Christians have their Bible, but Buddhism does not. So you go and create a Buddhist Bible!” 55 years after he began to sell Calpis, in 1974, he published the Buddhist Bible (Bukkyō Seiten 仏教聖典), and carried out many types of activities to promote Buddhism.

This paper considers modern Buddhism by focusing on the life of Kaiun.

In an effort to reestablish Buddhism as a modern religion, Japanese Buddhists of the Meiji and Taishō eras studied major Buddhist sūtras, including the Huayan Sūtra, from new viewpoints. Focusing on “An Outline of Buddhism” (Bukkyō gairon 仏教概論) published in 1919 by Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄,1881–1976), a Shin Buddhist priest and scholar of the Huayan Sūtra, this paper examines how Kaneko criticized as removed from reality the traditional interpretation of the doctrine known as ‘non-difference of the mind, Buddha, and sentient beings’ (心仏及衆生三無差別説) found in the Huayan Sūtra.

Kaneko pointed out that the interpretation of the above doctrine by the Huayan school patriarch Fazang 法蔵 (643–712), based on his theory of ‘perfect interfusion’ (円融) of all phenomena, was too theoretical and abstract, leading to uncritical approval of the status quo.

In contrast, Kaneko appraised the more ‘real’ appreciation of the doctrine by three different traditions: the Shingon school’s esoteric and physical understanding centered on the Buddha, a strongly proactive understanding centered on the mind by Zen masters, and the Pure Land teaching’s focus on sentient beings’ atavistic fundamental awe towards Infinite Power (大いなる力). On the possibility of forging a ‘real’ interpretation of the doctrine from a Huayan perspective, Kaneko found the Samantabhadracaryā 普賢行 promising. This will be a topic for further examination by the present author.

The Zifang yiwang ji 自防遺忘集 has been studied by means of the sentences quoted under this title in a commentary on Fazang’s Huayan wujiao zhang 華厳五教章 compiled by a Japanese monk, and the Huayanjing yichao 華厳経義鈔 in 10 fascicles, which is considered the only extant source. However, there are two problems. One is the supposition that the Huayanjing yichao is the Zifang yiwang ji on the basis of a colophon of the former, which was written in later times. Another problem concerns the existence of Wenchao’s 文超 Guan jian 関鍵 based on a portion missing from the Huayanjing yichao.

Examining their sentence structures, I confirm that the Huayanjing yichao is the Zifang yiwang ji. And I report the discovery of the page of chapter 8 missing from the Huayanjing yichao, which is relevant for the question of the existence of the Guan jian.

Focusing on the long-neglected corresponding relationship between patience (Skt. kṣānti, the acquisition of wisdom by phases, named as patience of accordance, patience based on awareness of the nonarising of phenomena/ anutpattikadharmakṣānti, etc.) and stages of practice, this paper explores the acceptance and development of patience based on awareness of the nonarising of phenomena in the Southern and Northern Dynasties period. In particular, the paper examines how Huiyuan of Jingying Monastery 浄影寺慧遠,Zhiyi 智顗,and Jizang 吉蔵–the three great masters of the Sui Dynasty–developed a theory of patience based on awareness of the nonarising of phenomena in terms of practice stages.

There was a foundation upon which to build the theory of patience and stage of practice before the three great masters of the Sui Dynasty. Although the views of Huiyuan and Jizang are similar, they differed in their ideas of the stage of practice for Vimalakīrti. Given the special view of four patiences paired with stages of practice in Tiantai doctrine, Zhiyi’s view to bring patience based on awareness of the nonarising of phenomena down to the stage of the arousal of the aspiration for enlightenment, based on his reading of Avataṃsaka Sūtra, can be perceived as a stimulus for the theoretical developments of later periods.

In Tiantai doctrinal discourse, the distinction between the contemplations of Seeing Principles (liguan 理観) and of Seeing Manifestations (shiguan 事観) first appeared in the writings of Jingxi Zhanran 荊渓湛然 (711–782). Today it is generally accepted that Seeing Manifestations applies only to “the samādhi of following one’s own thoughts” (suiziyi sanmei 随自意三昧), the fourth of the Four Samādhis (sizhong sanmei 四種三昧). Although this interpretation can certainly be derived from Zhanran’s thought, it is important to note that Zhanran’s account can equally support alternative readings. Furthermore, parts of the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観 clearly disagree with the standard interpretation outlined above.

Consequently, the present paper takes it as its premise that the exact correspondences between the two contemplations and the Four Samādhis cannot be established on the basis of Zhanran’s doctrinal thought alone, nor can they be derived unambiguously from Siming Zhili’s 四明知礼 (960–1028) works. Proceeding from this premise, the paper shows that today’s standard account of these correspondences was not established in the Southern Song period. The paper points out that Southern Song Tiantai monks beginning with Zhinan Zhongshao 指南仲韶 (d. u.) and Baiting Shanyue 柏庭善月 (1149–1241) in fact advanced the notion that Seeing Manifestations is not limited to the fourth of the Four Samādhis.

Today, Zhanran is understood to have held an idea of an impure dualism, which is different from that of his master Zhiyi. However, examining Zhanran’s theory of Mind Only, it was not possible to reach such a conclusion. First, Zhanran based himself on Zhiyi’s notion that object and mind are equal. Secondly, Zhanran’s theory of Mind Only is based on the traditional three views. His theories are based on Zhiyi’s “four types of mindfulness” (sinianchu四念處). Zhanran faithfully and concretely inherits Zhiyi’s ideas. Zhanran lists the terms that were popular at that time, and redefines them from a Tiantai perspective. Therefore, his understanding is not an impure duality.

The Sūtra on the Contemplation of Amitāyus describes birth in the Pure Land, but it also has an aspect of the meditation sūtra, or manual. In this paper, I focus on this aspect and compare the contemplation process comparing the 8th Contemplation in the Sūtra on Contemplation of Amitāyus with the meditation sūtras. My study confirms that they share a common approach to contemplation, and the same fundamentals are also found explained in the Da zhidu lun. The objects to be focused on necessary for the acquisition of buddānusmṛti-samādhi differ depending on whether one has in view a Buddha statue, the Buddha’s living body, or the Dharma body, and according to the scripture, it is presumed that all of them are collectively included in the Dasheng da yizhang 大乗大義章.Therefore, the buddānusmṛti-samādhi in the Sūtra on Contemplation of Amitāyus is the same as the buddānusmṛti-samādhi of the meditation sūtras.

In this paper, I consider the coexistence of both purity and impurity in Buddha-lands in Jizang’s 吉蔵 writings. In the literature of Chinese Buddhism from the Eastern Jin東晋until the Northern and Southern dynasties period, we find an important question why purity and impurity could co-exist in Buddha-lands, based on the theory of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka法華経 and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa 維摩経.This issue was already being actively discussed at the time of Jizang’s composition of the Fahua xuanlun 法華玄論.There was a common understanding that this issue was very difficult to understand. In response, Jizang wrote the Huayan youyi 華厳遊意,and deepened the thinking about this question.

Shandao 善導 is known for his emphasis on the power of Amitābhā’s original vow. Previous studies have revealed that Shandao widened the meaning of the power of Amitābhā’s original vow by interpreting that it has additional potency to eliminate sins.

In this paper we argue that, in addition to the above, Shandao likewise included in that power the possibilities of meeting good teachers 善知識, being welcomed by Amitābhā to the Pure Land 来迎, and seeing Buddha. Through this widening of his understanding about the power of Amitābhā’s original vow, Shandao constructed a system of rebirth in the Pure Land.

Furthermore, by comparing his Dharma-Gate of Contemplation 観念法門 and Banzhou zan 般舟讃,we can see that the idea of the power of Amitābhā’s original vow developed from that of the three powers of the vow 三念願力.

Last year, I published a book, Tōchūki Jōdokyō ni okeru Zendōryū no shosō (唐中期浄土教における善導流の諸相,Phases of the Shandao School of Pure Land Buddhism in the mid-Tang; Hozokan). There I presented the historical development of the philosophy of Jingtu or Pure Land Buddhism from the period after Shandao’s death to Fazhao’s emergence. In the second part, I referred to the missionary approach of the Jingtu sect teachers, who applied the philosophy of Religious Vows. This aspect was first discovered around the time of Daxing大行,who modified the worship of Xinxing 信行 in the Sanjiejiao 三階教 suppression during the Kaiyuan era. Furthermore, even in the time of the Sanjiejiao revival after the An Lushan Rebellion, this philosophical trend formed a powerful means of preaching.

In the period after the An Lushan Rebellion, the teachings of the Jingtu teachers such as Fazhao was suitable; however, as a characteristic trend, there emerged a philosophy of following the patriarchs using the Shandao ritual style. This characteristic is a further development to what has already been observed in the Nianfo jing 念仏鏡,and it is particularly prominent in Fazhao’s Wuhui fashizan 五会法事讃.As Fazhao’s perspectives have greatly influenced later generations, examining this influence is vital. Therefore, this paper examines aspects of ideological development following the Wuhui fashizan.

After the Second World War, studies on Silla Buddhism developed in Japan and South Korea without any interaction between scholars of the two countries, until diplomatic relations were established with the signing of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965. Consequences of this lack of interaction spanning two decades have still not been overcome. The difference in dominant views on when Wŏnhyo 元暁 (617–686) and Ŭisang 義湘 (625–702) were ordained is a case in point. This paper focuses on three views prevalent in Japan: that Wŏnhyo was ordained at the age of 29; that he was ordained around the age of 15; and that Ŭisang was ordained at the age of 20. Analyses of these views reveal that they are based on inadequate basic research, such as misreading and omissions in reading classical Chinese text. This makes it clear why all three views have been denied as groundless in Korea.

The Yiqiejing yinyi 一切経音義 compiled by Xuanying 玄應 (7th c.) of the Tang dynasty is the earliest extant text on the sounds and meanings of Buddhist texts. It is an important work that reflects the characteristics of Buddhist texts in the process of formation at the time of its compilation. Descriptive expressions such as “the scripture gives (經文作) . . .” in the Yiqiejing yinyi function to propose emendations and to explain and analyze the usage of words in Buddhist texts. Some entries in the Yiqiejing yinyi constitute Xuanying’s proposals for emending terms found in Buddhist texts. On the basis of Old Japanese manuscripts, this paper surveys the differences in word usage between the two Chinese translations of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and attempts to explain the changes these reveal.

Zhisheng 智昇 (8th c.) considered the Sumatidārikā-paripṛcchā 須摩提経 translated by Bodhiruci as a separately circulating text (別生経) of Chapter XXX of the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra, and therefore excluded it from the canonical scriptures recorded in his famous catalogue Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釈教録 (730). The Sumatidārikā-paripṛcchā was, however, included in traditional Tripiṭaka editions belonging to the Zhongyuan 中原lineage, starting with the Kaibao 開宝 canon, and it is included in the Nanatsudera七寺manuscript collection as well. In order to identify the archetype of the Nanatsudera collection, I conjecture the existence of an older manuscript, most likely going back to the scriptural collection which Genbō 玄昉 (?–746) brought from China. A collation of the Nanatsudera text with the Jin金 canon and the Second Edition of the Korean 高麗 canon (both belonging to the Kaibao lineage) reveals that although there are some textual similarities, we can also see differences in formatting. This makes it difficult to conclude that the Nanatsudera text was based on a manuscript belonging to the same lineage as the Kaibao canon. Further research into the Ishiyamadera石山寺manuscript collection, which also contains the text, will shed light on the possibility of identifying a unique old manuscript lineage.

The first biography of Shinran, called Shinran denne 親鸞伝絵,was produced by Kakunyo 覚如 (1270–1351), the great-grandson of Shinran. But he revised the book many times and the Kōei-bon 康永本 is held to be the complete edition. There are 5 revised editions of the Shinran denne produced by Kakunyo, and among these a big change is recognized on two points, namely the title of honor given to Shinran and the ‘rounded flat charcoal brazier.’ The Bukkōji-bon Shinran denne 佛光寺本親鸞伝絵,or the copy preserved in Bukkōji temple, was produced after comparison with five revised editions. Abandoning Shōnin 聖人 and Soshi shōnin 祖師聖人,the Bukkōji-bon adopted Shōnin上人to refer to Shinran as a student of Hōnen 法然,and Shōnin 聖人 to refer to him as a successor of Hōnen. On the ‘rounded flat charcoal brazier,’ the Bukkōji-bon does not portray Shinran making use of this charcoal brazier but rather Hōnen, so the Bukkoji-bon presents it as the symbol of Hōnen. What was the stance by which the Bukkōji-bon decided the two points? To answer this question I turn to the Shinran shōnin sōgomonteira kōmyō 親鸞聖人惣御門弟等交名,handed down by the Bukkōji’s followers 佛光寺門徒.This book is not a simple list of Shinran’s students. It begins with Hōnen’s name, then Shinran’s and so on. In other words, this book emphasizes the relation between the teacher Hōnen and the student Shinran. Consequently, as in the Shinran shōnin sōgomonteira kōmyō, the stance of the Bukkōji-bon Shinran denne is the importance of relation between the teacher Hōnen and the student Shinran.

A number of studies on Kōgyō Daishi 興教大師 Kakuban’s 覚鑁 (1095–1143) famous work Gorin kuji myō himitsushaku 五輪九字明秘密釈 have been carried out by Seiryu Nasu, Yoshitoyo Yoshioka, Fumio Tanaka and Shunsho Manabe. In these studies, the overall contents of the aforementioned work have been sufficiently discussed. Nevertheless, specialized investigations on the diagram of the ‘Images of Five Visceral Spirits’ (五臓神形図abbreviated as ‘IFVS’) appended to Kakuban’s work remain incomplete, and especially its origin is not clearly known.

With regard to IFVS, 4 points have drawn the author’s interest. First, the male figured in the lung god’s image is holding a spear. Second, a boy and girl are figured in the liver god’s image. Third, the jade lady figured in the heart god’s image is holding a jewelled vase. Fourth, the gesture of the spiritual beast figured as the kidney god.

In this paper, the origin of IFVS, with focus on the above four points, will be discussed by examining materials found in a Tang period Taoist text called the Chart on the Procedures for Filling and Emptying the Six Receptacles and Five Viscera according to the Inner Landscape of the Yellow Court (Huangting neijing wuzang liufu buxie tu黄庭內景五臟六腑補瀉圖) by the priestess Hu Yin胡愔 (fl. 848).

There is a manuscript of volume 21 of the Kegon gokyō kenjōshō 華厳五教賢聖章 in the Tōdaiji Library. This text was written by Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321) in 1277, and the manuscript was transcribed in 1368. Gyōnen’s Kegon gokyō kenjōshō has not yet been studied.

In this paper, I introduce an outline and the contents of the Kegon gokyō kenjōshō, and point out the relationship with Gyōnen’s Gokyōshō Tsūroki 五教章通路記,Sōshō’s 宗性 (1202–1278) Kegonshū Kōkunshō 華厳宗香薫抄,and Zhizhou’s智周 (668–723) Dasheng Rudao cidi大乗入道次第.What is especially important is the way that Gyōnen and Sōshō cited their sources. It is possible that Gyōnen wrote the Kegon gokyō kenjōshō based on Sōshō’s lectures on Fazang’s Huayanjing tanxuanji 華厳経探玄記.