Some verses from Tibetan Buddhism, unfamiliar in Chinese Buddhism, are found among the Chinese esoteric Buddhist ritual manuals used at present in Chinese temples. These are particularly prominent in the esoteric ritual manuals written by the monk Akṣobhyavajra, active during the Xixia 西夏 and Song 宋 periods (ca. mid 11th to late 13th centuries). The Tibetan Buddhist elements in these ritual manuals are not seen in other Song period Chinese manuals, and may be conjectured to have been introduced to these manuals by Akṣobhyavajra, who had been influenced by Tibetan elements in Xixia Buddhism. However, the verses from Tibetan Buddhism found in his Chinese ritual manuals were interpreted differently by Chinese Buddhist monks after Akṣobhyavajra, and Tibetan Buddhist teachings seem to have not been accepted into Chinese Buddhism through them.

This paper seeks to clarify the origins of the term shifangsi 十方寺,which was previously considered to have originated with the Chan sect in China, but which actually existed in China before the rise of Chan, and in fact originated in India.

Kanai Tokuyuki 金井徳幸 argued that it began in the Five Dynasties, and Liu Changdong 劉長東 traced its origins to the Tang. They disagree about the date, but agree in tracing the term to Chan in China.

However, the term can be seen in the Tang before the arisal of Chan. Specifically, it appears in references to the Tang Vinaya masters Xijue 希覚 and Huize 慧則 in the Zenghui ji増輝記.In fact, the origin goes back to India. This is based on a description in Mujaku Dōchū’s 無著道忠 Zenrin shōkisen 禅林象器箋 which discusses sources from the Tang and earlier.

For a long time, Shenhui’s Platform Sermon of the Priest of Nanyang on Direct Realization of One’s Nature According to the Chan Doctrine of Emancipation through the Sudden Teaching (Nanyang heshang dunjiao jietuo chanmen zhiliaoxing tanyu 南陽和上頓教解脫禪門直了性壇語) has been considered as a work written in a relatively early period of Shenhui’s life, because of its use of the name “the priest of Nanyang”. But according to references in The Record of the Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations (Lidai fabao ji 歷代法寶記), we should consider it rather as a work edited between the fourth and the eighth years of Tianbao (天寶,745–749).

If it was edited after his residence at the Heze temple (荷澤寺) in Luoyang, why was Shenhui called “the priest of Nanyang” (南陽和尚)? The answer may be obvious: There were many priests at the Heze temple, so, if one used the name “the priest of Heze temple” (荷澤和尚), nobody could identify it as Shenhui. Therefore, they usually called him “the priest who came from Nanyang” (南陽和上).

This article makes three points through an analysis of the oldest biography of Yongming Yanshou 永明延寿 (904–976) and his works.

First, according to the Chinese researcher Shi Chuanyun 釈伝云,the Repentance ritual of the Da fangdeng tuoluoni jing 大方等陀羅尼経 and the releasing of captive animals recorded in the oldest biography of Yanshou should be regarded as practices of Pure Land Buddhism. However, according to this oldest biography of Yanshou, together with his own writings, it is clear that these practices were not performed for the purpose of being reborn in the Pure Land of Amitābha Buddha.

Second, the ultimate intent of these various practices as taught by Yanshou was rather the attainment of enlightenment in this life.

Third, Yanshou’s intention of praying to Amitābha Buddha everyday was to offer guidance to enable those of middle or lesser capacities to understand the Buddhist teachings.

It is generally held that the ideas Saichō and Kōjō 光定 (779–858) had with regard to the precepts were influenced by Mingkuang 明曠 (late 8th c.). But some scholars point out the differences between Saichō and Kōjō especially with regard to isshinkai 一心戒.One approach to understand Mingkuang’s influence would be to study the quotations from his Tiantai pusajie shu cited in Saichō’s Kenkairon 顕戒論.Therefore, here I focus on the quotations of Mingkuang’s text in the Kenkairon and in Kōjō’s Denjutsu isshinkaimon 伝述一心戒文.Since some quotations from Mingkuang’s text in the Kenkairon are slightly different from the original intention, there is some question whether Saichō placed a particular focus on Mingkuang’s text. However, it is noteworthy that Saichō used Mingkunag’s text to prove the validity of the Mahāyāna precepts as a condition for ordination. On the other hand, Kōjō’s Denjutsu isshinkaimon cites Mingkuang’s text at length, and he accepts Mingkuang’s concept about the heart and precepts as the basis of isshinkai. Some scholars think that Mingkuang’s influence on Kōjō shows his influence on Saichō as well, but we must consider the two cases separately.

This paper discusses Master Chuan’ao 伝奥 and his Huayan thought. Although we can not identify the year of his death, we are able to recognize that he was active in the Late Tang or the Five Dynasties period. He is the author of seven works including the Fanwangjing ji梵網経記 (Notes on the Brahmajāla Sūtra) and the Huayanjing jinguan chao 華厳経錦冠鈔 (Jingguan Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra). These were quite influential on Zixuan長水子璿(965–1038) in the Song Dynasty. His works were not only widely circulated in China, but also spread to Japan and the Korean Peninsula. He is a critical transitional figure linking Zongmi 圭峰宗密(780–841) and Zixuan, as he wrote several commentaries on Zongmi’s works. One of the most important questions about Chuan’ao is whether he, as a disciple of Zongmi, is the Xuangui Zhen’ao 玄珪真奥who was the sixth patriarch of the Huayan School. This paper aims to settle this debate. It will review Chuan’ao’s lifetime, the inheritance between Zongmi and Zixuan in the Huayan School, and the disciples of Zongmi. Based on the discussion, this paper clarifies the status of Chuan’ao in the history of Huayan thought.

The Awakening of Faith 大乘起信論 (AF) is a well-known Buddhist text about Tathāgatagarbha, which profoundly influenced Fazang 法藏’s thought and played an essential role in the development of Huayan Buddhism. As a disciple of Fazang, Huiyuan慧苑 (673?–743?) attached great importance to Tathāgatagarbha, but rarely mentioned the AF in the Xu huayan lüeshu kanding ji 続華厳略疏刊定記.In Huiyuan’s view, the AF is basically a treatise about the theory of “the non-obstruction between the absolute and phenomena 理事無碍”, and its content could be comprehended through the concepts of “mind-only (唯心)” and “dharmatā 法性”. Huiyuan’s twofold interpretation of “ten mysteries (十玄)”,a concept developed from “three greatnesses (三大)”, apparently has a deep relation to the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV). In Huiyuan’s Huayan Budddhism, the superiority of AF is no longer emphasized. It is reasonable to say that this change may be genuinely related to the inheritance of Fazang’s attention to RGV in his later years.

Originally, Tathāgatagarbha is an ontological or spiritual concept, and Dependent Origination (縁起) is a generative concept; there was no direct relationship between them. After the idea of Tathāgatagarbha was introduced into China, its content and meaning gradually changed. Especially when it was combined with Dependent Origination, a new concept called the Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha was generated. Generally, the origin of the Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha is attributed to the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra勝鬘師子吼一乗大方便方広経 (SMS), but the Dependent Origination of SMS only involves the relationship between Nirvāṇa and Tathāgatagarbha, Saṁsāra and Tathāgatagarbha, and does not mention that Saṁsāra and Nirvāṇa were born on the basis of Tathāgatagarbha. Jingyingsi Huiyuan浄影寺慧遠and Jizang吉蔵developed the Dependent Origination of the SMS in their commentaries on the SMS. Finally, the Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha was put forward by Fazang法蔵.This paper investigates the development and evolution of the Dependent Origination of Tathāgatagarbha in Chinese Buddhism, and focuses on several commentaries on the SMS from the Sui and Tang Dynasties.

In the Niepanjing jijie 涅槃経集解, Tathāgatagarbha is considered the synonym of Buddha-nature. Still, the difference between Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature is recognized in that Buddha-nature is a characteristic of Buddha, while Tathāgatagarbha refers to sentient beings. Buddha-nature is Dharmakāya in a visible state. In contrast, Tathāgatagarbha is Dharmakāya in an invisible state, covered by afflictions. This kind of interpretation is seen in works of Jizang 吉蔵 and Huiyuan of the Jingying Monastery 浄影寺慧遠, and is arguably a consensus shared by Chinese Buddhists in the Northern and Southern and the Sui Dynasties. From this interpretation, we may see the influence of the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra and the effect of traditional Chinese ideas on human nature.

To which sūtra does the term “Great sūtra” (Da jing大經) refer, and why is this word used to refer to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra? The usage of this term can reflect how users perceive the Buddhist scriptures and Buddhism itself. In particular, when considering the Mahāyāna movement and its acceptance in China, further consideration should be given to this issue.

This paper refers to the study of Mahā- and Cūḷa- which appear in pairs in the Majjhima Nikāya, and the suffix -mahāsuttaṃ which appears in the Pali Vinaya and in the title of the Sanskrit fragments of Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra. Through those considerations, we may speculate that the meaning of “Great sūtra” gradually changed. This change influenced Chinese Buddhism to a certain degree. In the Buddhist writings of China, the tradition of using the short form “Great sūtra” and “Great Treatise” (Da lun大論) to refer to Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra and Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa was initiated by Jizang. Through an analysis of “Great sūtra” in Jizang’s writings, we can link his usage to the energetic debates on the Buddha-dhātu in the middle and late Northern and Southern dynasties, as well as to the notions of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra consistent with Jizang’s own assertions of a new interpretation of Indian Madhyamaka thought.

The Newar Buddhist manuscript, Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna, no. 106 of the Kyoto University Library, was copied by a scribe named Ṣaḍānanda in A.D. 1923. Another ms., Śiṣyalekhadharmakāvya, no. 389 of the Tokyo University Library, was copied in 1912. The scribe, Ṣaḍānanda, introduced himself as “an inhabitant at Mahābauddha temple in Patan and awarded the title of Vajrācārya (by the Non-Newar Government)”. These two mss. are written in the Devanāgarī script.

Another two mss, Sapādalakṣā Mahāpratyaṅgirā and Kālacakratantra, no. 111 and no. 18 of the Kyoto University Library, were copied in 1901 and 1907 respectively in the Newari script by Ṣaḍabhijñānanda from Mahābauddha.

During the first half of his life, Ṣaḍabhijñānanda copied some mss. in the Newari script. But after gaining possession of the Vajrācārya title, he copied mss. in the Devanāgarī script under the name of Ṣaḍānanda. These changes have been linked to the Non-Newar Government’s policy of rejecting the Newar culture. Unlike many Newar scribes, he acted in line with that policy.

The Dag yig mKhas pa’i ’byung gnas (abbr. DKh) compiled by lCang skya rol pa’i rdo rje (1717–1786) during the 18th century in Mongolia consists of Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhist terminology as well as a set of rules for consistent translation.

DKh (1742) was compiled in almost the same period as the Mongolian Tengyur (1739). It is unclear how much influence the DKh had on the consistent translation of terms utilized in the Mongolian Tengyur.

In this paper, I have tried to shed light on this issue, taking the citations of some verses from the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra as examples, mainly based on two versions of the Mongolian translation of the Byang chub ram rim chen mo: one is the text contained in the Peking edition of the collected works of Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa; the other is the translation by Delger Galsanjamba in the 20th century. I have drawn the following conclusions:

1. The translation by Delger Galsanjamba was translated under the strong influence of the DKh, while the translation of the Peking edition, which I assume was translated a little earlier than the DKh, was outside of its influence.

2. This fact suggests that not all translations in the Mongolian Tengyur necessarily followed the set rules of consistent terminology and the rules prescribed in the DKh.

As for the influence of the DKh on the Mongolian Tengyur and Kangyur, much more detailed information needs to be collected before we can reach any definite conclusions.

The Vajrāsanavajragīti (Rdo rje gdan gyi rdo rje’i glu) and the Caryāgīti (Spyod pa’i glu) are works of Atiśa (982–1054) concerning Tantric Buddhism. Although Atiśa himself clarifies the Caryāgīti as the sequel to the Vajrāsanavajragīti, the relationship of those two works remains unclear in so far as the teachings of the Vajrāsanavajragīti are concerned with Vajrayāna, while the teachings of the Caryāgīti seem more concerned with Pāramitāyāna.

In this paper, I first examine the teachings and the characteristics of those two works, focusing on the procedure of practice. Second, I examine the relationship between the two works, focusing on the terminology that Atiśa uses. Finally, I clarify that the Mahāmudrā tradition plays an important role in Atiśa’s Vajrayāna theory.

In 2002, around 12,000 folio manuscript pages constituting something like 150 texts were discovered in Phuri, an ancient place in the Gung thang Kingdom, near the northern border of modern Nepal. Details of this discovery have recently been made available to scholars in the catalogue Phu ri Manuscripts (2018, 2 vols.) published by the Tibetan Ancient Books Research Institute, Tibet University. Most of the Phu ri manuscripts are ritual texts, dated between the 10th and 13th centuries, the beginning of the Tibetan period of the second diffusion (phyi dar) or that of fragmentation (sil bu’i skabs).

This paper examines the ritual texts in the Phu ri manuscripts, and those bringing down thunder and hail in particular (ser ba dang thog dbab pa’i man ngag, T.P.137); it also considers the transmission of Buddhism to Western Tibet at the beginning of the period of the second diffusion.

No Chinese or Tibetan translation of the Laukikalokottaravajratantra is known, and no Sanskrit original has yet been found. This Buddhist Tantric text was noted in previous studies as possibly corresponding to the fifth assembly of the large text of the Jin’gangding jing金剛頂経in eighteen assemblies and 100,000 gāthās, but that conclusion is based solely on the Tattvasiddhi and needs to be reconsidered based on many actual examples. The present paper provides fragments from the Laukikalokottaravajratantra in Tibetan translation, which are found in translated commentaries on Buddhist Tantric texts such as the *Guhyasamājatantraṭīkā, *Tattvālokakarī, *Śrīparamādyavṛtti, and *Śrīparamādyaṭīkā.

After reviewing the recovered excerpts, it was found that the Laukikalokottaravajratantra is closely related to the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, the Śrīparamādya, and the Guhyasamājatantra. Furthermore, it has been pointed out in previous studies that these scriptures, in turn, correspond to the first assembly, the sixth through eighth assembly, and the fifteenth assembly of the large text of the Jin’gangding jing. Accordingly, the probability that the Laukikalokottaravajratantra corresponds to the fifth assembly is high.

Regarding the introduction of Tattvasaṃgraha (TS) 3440–3441, the Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā (TSP) mentions that the reason for denying omniscience suggested by Kumārila of “being a real thing etc.” could actually prove omniscience. However, in the TS 3440–3441 proof statement, we do not find the phrase “being a real thing etc.” that is found in TSP’s introduction. In its annotation for the relevant portion, TSP presents a proof statement with the expression maulaḥ prayogaḥ. This proof statement demonstrates omniscience by using the phrase “being a real thing etc.” The expression maulaḥ prayogaḥ is based on TS 3446. As can be seen from the fact that it is proving omniscience with the reason that Kumārila used for denying omniscience, its opposition to him is clear. TSP sees the proof statement from TS 3440–3441 as the ground for maulaḥ prayogaḥ. This proof statement is based on Pramāṇavārttika (PV) 2.136, PV 3.285, and the ideas of Dharmakīrti’s followers regarding these passages. A similar proof statement is found in the Madhyamakāloka.

Dharmakīrti states in Pramāṇavārttika 2.1 that pramāṇa (valid cognition) is avisaṃvādi-jñāna (reliable cognition) and that avisaṃvādana (reliability) means arthakriyāsthiti (the confirmation of causal efficiency). Whereas Dharmottara regards pramāṇa as avisaṃvādaka-jñāna, he explains avisaṃvādakatva, which is equal in meaning to avisaṃvādana, as pravṛttiviṣayapradarśakatva (the indication of the object of activity), and does not accept arthakriyāsthiti. What is his reason for doing so?

Dharmottara regards arthakriyā as the obtaining or the shunning of objects in the case of inference (Nyāyabinduṭīkā on Nyāyabindu 1.1). He clarifies that pramāṇa allows human beings to understand an external object but cannot force them to take action (Nyāyabinduṭīkā on Nyāyabindu 1.1). As a pramāṇa, inference cannot always lead to arthakriyā as described above, because there is no assurance that one must take action after making an inference. Thus, the concept of arthakriyāshiti formulated by Dharmakīrti will present the problem that inference as such cannot be regarded as pramāṇa. Dharmottara solves this issue by introducing the concept of pravṛttiviṣayapradarśakatva: The status of being pramāṇa is guaranteed to inference as long as it serves to show the object of activity (Nyāyabinduṭīkā on Nyāyabindu 1.1).

Erich Frauwallner suggested 630–640 as the date of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā of Kumārila in his ‘Kumārila’s Bṛhaṭṭīkā’ (WZKSO 6, 1962), in connection of his supposition of the date of Dharmakīrti as c.600–660. That is, in the Bṛhaṭṭīkā Kumārila criticized the causal logic of Dharmakīrti, but he did not criticize it in his Ślokavārttika. Frauwallner thus supposed Kumārila’s composition of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā to be later than that of the Ślokavārttika. I argue here that Kumārila in fact criticized the apoha theory of the Pramāṇavārttika in his Ślokavārttika. Furthermore, Dharmkīrti criticized the revelation theory of the Vedas, which Kumārila called ‘apauruṣeyatvam’ in the scripture section of his Ślokavārttika. For Dharmakīrti, the Vedas were composed of human words, that is, ‘pauruṣeyatvam.’ As for the authenticity of Buddha’s teaching and the lack of authenticity of the Brahmanical scriptures argued by Dharmakīrti, this is discussed between sections 3 and 3e of the Svārthānumāna chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika. They are thus contemporary and the composition of the Bṛhaṭṭīkā may be c. 600 according to my supposition of the date of Dharmakīrti as c.550–620. See my papers in this Journal 63.1 (2011) and 64.1 (2012).

Kumārila criticized the apoha sentence of k.139 of Dharmakīri’s Svārthānumāna chapter in k.1 and 3 of the Apohavāda section of his Ślokavārttika. In this way the two scholars criticized each other, and they seem to be of the same generation.

In the appendix added to this paper, I report that the southern text of the Pramāṇavārttika cited in the second chapter of the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha by Mādhava is better than the northern texts used by scholars until now, by which I mean to include the Tibetan translations as well. That is, ‘ca vyakter’ (thus an individual) in k.247 of the Pratyakṣa chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika cited by Mādhava is better than the ‘yuktijnāḥ’ (men of wisdom) adopted heretofore. ‘Vyaktiḥ’ (individual) is a keyword of the Sautrāntika Dharmakīrti.

In the Pañcaskandhakavibhāṣā, Sthiramati conducts mainly doctrinal investigations, and considerations of philosophical topics are rare. Among the few philosophical issues, however, his “critiques of the theory of the real existence of dharmas in the three time periods” and “investigations on satkāyadṛṣṭi being based on anātmavāda and kṣaṇikavāda” are worthy of attention. In this paper, I examine the latter topic, Sthirmati’s investigation of satkāyadṛṣṭi, placing it within the broader context of fundamental Buddhist philosophical arguments, in order to better understand the depth of Sthiramati’s philosophical insight.

Sthiramati’s Pañcaskandhakavibhāṣā is a commentary to Vasubandhu’s Pañcaskandhaka. Satkāyadṛṣṭi is classified in the Pañcaskandhaka in the following way: satkāyadṛṣṭi is one of the five wrong views, wherein dṛṣṭi (view) is classified as one of the six kleśas (defiled thoughts), which are listed as saṃskāraskandha (aggregates as conditioned forces) of the five skandhas. Satkāyadṛṣṭi is transliterated-cum-translated into Chinese by Xuanzang as sajiaye jian薩迦耶見.

In the Pañcaskandhaka Vasubandhu defines satkāyadṛṣṭi as “a defiled knowledge (prajñā) which sees the five skandhas as ātman (me) or ātmīya (mine)”.

Following Vasubandhu’s definition, Sthiramati, in his commentary, made a further detailed investigation of satkāyadṛṣṭi in relation with Buddhist theories of anātmavāda and kṣaṇikavāda. This investigation, especially its discussion on the theory of kriyā (activity) accompanying the theory of kṣaṇikavāda, forms the logical background to the idea of transcendence of time and space in the theory of nirvāṇa, which is a central problem within Buddhist philosophy.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the profundity superiority (*gāmbhīryatva-viśeṣa) in chapter six (*adhiśīla) of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha (MS).

MS.VI is based on the śīlapaṭala of the Bodhisattvabhūmi and has four superiorities (*catur-viśeṣa) regarding the Bodhisattvaśīla. MS.VI.5 has three topics about the fourth profound superiority, but they are difficult to understand. This is because Taking Life (*prāṇa-atipāta) is accepted as Skill in Means (*upāya-kauśalya). According to the commentaries on MS and preceding studies, the first topic is based on the śīlapaṭala of the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the second on the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra, and the third on the Vessantara Jātaka (547).

After scrutinizing the commentaries on MS and the original teachings (the motifs of MS.VI.5), I find that the commentaries have restored the original teachings. In the first topic, compared with the śīlapaṭala, the commentaries on MS emphasize the merit of Taking Life as Skill in Means. But MS.VI.5 adds to the second and third topics restored teachings of the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra and Vessantara Jātaka. The second topic means Taking Life is limited to the Bodhisattva’s illusory life (*nirmita). The third topic shows that the Buddha also gave the brāhmaṇa illusory sons. Therefore, MS.VI.5 emphasizes the profound superiority like the merit of Taking Life by Skill in Means, while on the other hand, Taking Life is limited to illusory life.

After supplementing the theory on the genesis of ālayavijñāna proposed by L. Schmithausen from a reconsideration of the original meaning and explanatory phrases, we understood that the Demonstration of the Existence of Ālayavijñāna (8 proofs) was separately arranged in the order of all-Seeds (sarvabījaka) [the 1st proof], appropriator (upādātṛ) [the 2nd, 3rd], part of the Maturation (vipāka) [the 4th, 5th], and finally ālayavijñāna [the 6th, 7th]. In other words, from the discovery of some vijñāna in nirodhasamāpatti of the Initial Passage to the clarification of the mechanism of Transmuted Basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) through meditation, the ālayavijñāna which was a gap-bridger of nirodhasamāpatti develops into the uniquely existing vijñāna at the moment of conception, and after becoming that which takes charge of the function of biological appropriation (upādāna), in the context of death the term ālayavijñāna is used. It can also be read from the order of the 8 proofs. We also pointed out that ālayavijñāna, which had a close relationship with antarābhava by birth, was able to complete the cycle of saṁsāra by expressing the withdrawal of ālayavijñāna in the 8th proof.

The present paper deals with a newly surfaced Sanskrit work entitled *Madhyamakayogācā-rabalābalaparīkṣā, whose original manuscript is preserved at the Norbulingka in the TAR, and whose copy is preserved in a box labeled number 37 at the CTRC, Beijing. The manuscript is incomplete. In total, 11 folios (palm-leaf) are currently available. Since the text suddenly ends in the middle of running text in fol. 11, the colophon is currently unavailable, and thus, the author of the text is unknown. The title *Madhyamakayogācārabalābala­parīkṣā is found on the cover-page folio (written by a later hand; this title is listed in Luo Zhao’s catalogue).

As the text quotes the Pramāṇavārttika, we can date the text after Dharmakīrti, but no precise date of the work is known. At the beginning of the text, the work presents a prayoga (probably from the Yogācāra position), and there follow a critic from the Madhyamaka side against the prayoga, and further debates between the two schools discussing the prayoga. The present paper is a preliminary report on the text, dealing with some crucial points of the debates and other basic characteristics of the text.

This paper investigates the role of Abhidharmic teachings in the theory of practice as found in the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti. According to the author Candrakīrti, Abhidharmic teachings taught by the Buddha are essential to those who have yet to be freed from the views of non-existence and existence.

On the one hand, the establishment of dependent arising in the three times and the inanimate world as postulated in the Abhidharma tradition will eliminate people’s view of non-existence, which wrongly denies the relation between action and its result, and causes them to accumulate all the unwholesome dharmas. Therefore, due to this role of Abhidharmic teachings, they will avoid experiencing unfavorable rebirths.

On the other hand, based on the teachings of the existence of skandha, āyatana and dhātu, those who have yet to be freed from the view of existence will be able to avoid the fault of the view of emptiness and further proceed to attain the ultimate truth. Due to their recognition of the importance of the cessation of transmigration, they will also easily overcome their attachment to nirvāṇa. In consequence, they will be able to understand emptiness as being freed from both non-existence and existence.

In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh), Vasubandhu maintains that form (saṃsthāna) is non-existent mainly on the following two grounds: 1) saṃsthāna would be cognized by two different sense organs (indriya), i.e. eyes (cakṣus) and skin (kāya) if saṃsthāna were to exist; 2) the atoms (paramāṇu) of saṃsthāna do not have their own specific characteristics (svalakṣaṇa). Against this, Saṃghabhadra raises three objections in the Nyāyānusāra. First, saṃsthāna is a different reality from color (varṇa) because it is cognized as such. Second, the forms ‘long, short’ and so on are cognized in two steps: the first step is the perception of saṃsthāna by visual consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna), and this saṃsthāna is existent; the second step is the cognition of ‘long’ and so on by mental consciousness (manovijñāna), and this ‘long’ and so on is non-existent. Therefore saṃsthāna is not cognized by the body. Finally, each atom cannot be apprehended by direct perception (pratyakṣa). It is for this reason that each atom does not appear either as colors like ‘blue, yellow’ and so on or as forms like ‘long, short’ and so on.

This paper reexamines where to position in the historical development of Abhidharma literature a concise commentary of the Abhidharmakośa translated into Tibetan and ascribed to Saṃghabhadra. Saṃghabhadra is known as an Indian Buddhist master who delivered scathing criticism against Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. He composed two texts, the *Nyāyānusāra (T. 1562) and the *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā (T. 1563), both of which were translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. Furthermore, the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur has another concise work ascribed to Saṃghabhadra—Chos mgon pa mdzod kyi ’grel pa mdo dang mthun pa (D. 4091, P. 5592), or *Sūtrānurūpā nāma abhidharmakośavṛtti.

Matsunami [2001, 2002] proposed a hypothesis that the *Sūtrānurūpā was composed as a commentary on the Abhidharmakośakārikā alone, before the composition of Vasubandhu’s autocommentary. His hypothesis is based on the Bu ston chos ’byung.

The Bu ston chos ’byung says the following in its biography of Vasubandhu: After Vasubandhu wrote the Mdzod kyi tshig le’ur byas pa (referred to as the Abhidharmakośakārikā in the biography), Saṃghabhadra presented a commentary called ’Grel pa mdo dang mthun pa (*Sūtrānurūpā). Subsequently, Vasubandhu presented a ’Grel pa (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya). When compared to the names listed in the Buddhist scripture catalog in the Bu ston chos ’byung, “’Grel pa mdo dang mthun pa,” mentioned in Vasubandhu’s biography, is recognized as an abbreviation for the *Sūtrānurūpā. Therefore, Matsunami’s hypothesis certainly agrees with the Bu ston chos ’byung.

In chapter two, “Indriya-nirdeśa,” of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the “twenty categories of thought” are taught from verse 71b to verse 72. The Abhidharmists classify sentient beings’ minds into 20 categories, according to their nature and realm. In this context, the *Sūtrānurūpā suggests that the reader reference the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, with no explanation. It follows that the *Sūtrānurūpā declares itself to be a summary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Therefore, we conclude that the *Sūtrānurūpā’s concise style of writing cannot be explained as being in the midst of a process of gradual expansion of the content of the description of the Abhidharmakośakārikā, the *Sūtrānurūpā, and then the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, but must be seen as a summary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.

The story of the Dragon-king’s daughter, which appears in Chapter 11 of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, is generally considered to teach the doctrine that women can attain Buddhahood suddenly only through sūtra worship, not by practicing the usual bodhisattva path. However, a close reading of the original text shows that this is not the case. In the story, the Dragon-king’s daughter, who has attained the tenth stage of the bodhisattva path, denies that she can attain Buddhahood suddenly. This paper examines the actual meaning of the doctrine of the rapid attainment of Buddhahood, and thereby provides a new interpretation of the story.

In fact, the authors of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra assert that bodhisattvas, after having practiced the path for three kalpas and attained the tenth Bodhisattva-stage, should then worship the sūtra in order to attain Buddhahood rapidly.

The present writer re-edited one of the Gilgit Karmavācanās, which prescribes admission (pravrajyā) and ordination (upasaṃpad) among the (Mūla) sarvāstivādin. At section 4.10 of the Karmavācanā, there is a noteworthy description of preceptors (upādhyāya) and instructors (ācārya). This paper investigates the description by making use of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (Pravrajyāvastu), Uttaragrantha, Genben shuo yiqie youbu baiyi jiemo根本説一切有部百一羯磨,Genben sapoduo bu lüshe根本薩婆多部律攝,and Vinayas-ūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna.

Among the (Mūla) sarvāstivādins, there are two types of preceptor and five types of instructor. Section 4.10 of the Karmavācanā describes that one type of preceptor and two types of instructor are involved in the ordination ceremony. The two types of instructor refers to an inquirer in private (rahoʼnuśāsaka) and an executor of legal acts (karmakāraka), according to the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (Pravrajyāvastu) and so forth. Therefore, the description of the Karmavācanā corresponds to the traditional expression “three teachers and seven witnesses (三師七証)”, which indicates the persons who are obligated to participate in the ordination ceremony.

The Sanskrit manuscript of the Tridaṇḍamālā preserved at sPos khang monastery in Tibet contains forty Tridaṇḍas. The “Tridaṇḍa” is a sūtra used for the purpose of liturgical chanting. In the Tridaṇḍamālā, forty types of Tridaṇḍa-sūtras are sandwiched between Aśvaghoṣa’s verses. In my presentation at last year’s conference at Bukkyo University (September, 2019), I shed light on the strong possibility that many of Aśvaghoṣa’s lost stanzas in the Sūtrālaṃkāra are included in the Tridaṇḍamālā. Furthermore, I also pointed out that many of the stanzas quoted in the well-known *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, translated by Kumārajīva in the 5th century, also contain the same Sūtrālaṃkāra stanzas that are found in the Tridaṇḍamāla. In this presentation, continuing my previous research, I point out that twelve stanzas relating the Tathāgata’s ten titles/names are quoted just as they are in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. I also notice that one of those twelve stanzas was quoted as well in Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu, composed around the 11th–12th century, and that the Sūtropadeśālaṃkāra is considered as the original source of this very stanza.

An image of an object is altered in the process of meditation. According to the theory of Theravāda Buddhism, a sign (nimitta) of a meditation object perceived by five sense organs is modified into an internal sign grasped by consciousness, and then into a pure counterpart sign (paṭibhāganimitta). While in the ten kinds of kasiṇa-meditations one perceives the object and expands its counterpart sign throughout the entire world, the sign should not be expanded in the ten kinds of foulness (asubha) meditation and others. In this paper, investigating various interpretations of this subject found in Theravāda literature, I consider the relation between theory and practice as well as between the canon and the commentaries. According to the Visuddhimagga (Vism), in the mindfulness related to body (kāyagatāsati) and the foulness meditations, the object to be observed is spatially limited to the body itself, and no merit is found in expansion of the sign. On the one hand, Buddhaghosa attempts to justify the theory with a textual account from an unidentified source, “Sopākapañhavyākaraṇa.” On the other hand, he needs to solve canonical inconsistencies such as that in the Theragāthā (Th v. 18) referring to “filling the perception of bones on the earth” and the Dhammasaṅgaṇi (Dhs 55) reference to “having the immeasurable object”. We should note that his interpretations of those problem are not shared with the sub-commentary on the Vism (Vism-mhṭ), the commentary on the Dhs (Dhs-a) and the commentary on the Th (Th-a). Modern scholars have neglected the fact that the Vimuttimagga (Vim) has a discussion on the same topic explicitly quoting both Th v. 18, and the Dhs 55 and shows the other solution. In conclusion, we may point out that the meditation theories arising from various practices regulate the practices themselves in reverse, and that the Pāli commentaries had a function to align the Pāli canon to their doctrine.

The Discipline (Vinaya) is a tool for practicing physical and verbal development in order to have peace and restraint at the beginning, and serves as the basis of mental training and further development of intelligence. There are two intentions of laying down the course of training for monks, namely: 1) Primary intention: Focusing on creating a master plan for the Dhamma of Unity to have purity of the three channels of action (body, speech and mind) both for individuals and for the Buddhist monastic order and for stability of the State. 2) Hidden Intention: the effort to abandon greed (lobha), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha) of each training rule from rough to fine. However, both of these intentions are for the same purpose, namely that of achieving  Enlightenment.

In this paper, I examine the usage of phassa and vedanā, particularly in relation to transmigration, utilizing early Jain and Buddhist scriptures. This paper underlines that phassa and vedanā are connected with the theory of karmic retribution and transmigration, which may have been widely accepted by ascetics at that time.

In addition, since there are a few examples showing that the six internal sense organs are regarded as kamma, the causation saḷāyatana→phassa→vedanā itself can represent karmic retribution in saṃsāric existence as well as a cognitive process classified into six sensations. Therefore, the interpretation of the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination on the basis of the theory of karmic retribution and transmigration can be ascribed to the usage of not only saṅkhāra, viññāṇa, nāmarūpa, and so forth but also phassa and vedanā. Furthermore, phassa and vedanā are much more related to kamma than any other constituents of the chain of dependent origination. In either case, it is plausible that early Buddhist scriptures contain some factors by which the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination is interpreted as a process of rebirth.

The usage of the word Asura differs depending on whether people in the past took Asura as good or evil beings. In my Ph. D. thesis, I threw light on the historical usage of the word Asura in the Vedas, Nikāyas, and early Mahāyāna sūtras, literature created before the dawn of the Common Era. I also investigated the difference between Asura in myths and human Asura, as the usage of the word Asura was applied to each group. Additionally, I found that Asura were written about not only as human beings in some situations but also as spirits in others. In a former study, I examined sūtras but did not examine Vinayas or later sources. Therefore now I use the Mahāvastu and the Datang Xiyu ji大唐西域記,a travelogue of Xuanzang玄奘,and the Datang daci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師伝,a biography of Xuanzang, and I examine the influence of the historical human Asura on the rise in mythical Asura of scriptures from various viewpoints.

Tuṣita heaven兜率天,one of the six heavens of the desire realm六欲天,is known as the place where Maitreya Bodhisattva resides in his present existence. The Guan Mile pusa shangsheng doushuaitian jing観弥勒菩薩上生兜率天経,the only sūtra relied upon by the cult associated with the goal of attaining rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita heaven, has traditionally played a major role in shaping the impression of the Tuṣita heaven. The scripture describes details of the gorgeously adorned Tuṣita heaven, which fascinated devotees with the idea of rebirth in a heaven. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Tuṣita heaven is also called a Pure Land浄土,just as is Amitābha’s Buddhafield, Sukhāvatī.

However, the role of the Tuṣita heaven before the sūtra was translated is different from what is described in the contents of the sūtra. Not only that, but even after the sūtra was translated, different notions of Tuṣita continued to be prevelant in literature and artistic representations. This suggests that there was a tradition apart from the scriptural. Accordingly, this paper examines how people perceived the Tuṣita heaven before the 5th century.

This paper discusses the consequences of bad forms of meditation according to the 14 stages of spiritual progress (guṇasthāna) with a focus on two texts: the Tattvārthasūtra (TAS) of Umāsvāmin, a treatise on the essential principles of Jainism, and the Sarvārthasiddhi (SS) of Pūjyapāda (6th century), the oldest Digambara commentary on TAS. It will show that Pūjyapāda presents unique views on the relationship between the meditator and bad forms of meditation.

Meditation is divided into four different types of meditation, namely, afflicted (ārta), wrathful (raudra), virtuous (dharmya), and pure (śukla). The former two are regarded as bad forms of meditation as they cause reincarnation.

Afflicted meditation is subdivided into four kinds, including desire toward the future (nidāna), according to the TAS. The SS emphasizes that the four occur in the 4th and 5th stages, three excluding desire toward the future occur in the 6th stage. Wrathful meditation occurs in the 4th and 5th stages, according to the TAS. Pūjyapāda emphasizes that from the 6th stage onwards, renouncers who aspire for liberation from reincarnation could not engage in afflicted meditation of desire toward the future, and if they were to indulge in wrathful meditation, they would retrogress from the 6th stage.

For this paper I examined all cases used with √brū in the Ṛgveda, Atharva-Veda, Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, Rāmāyaṇa, Buddhacarita, Mahābhaṣya, Pañcatantra, Abhijñānaśākuntala and Hitopadeśa. I found that the listener denoted when √brū is used shows a diachronic change from dative to accusative.

Three steps to this change of case with √brū may be recognized. First, the listener is expressed in the dative and the content of the speech is expressed with the accusative, direct speech, or the like. Second, the listener is expressed with the dative when the content of the speech is expressed by the accusative, and the accusative when the content is not a noun phrase with a case. Third, the listener is expressed with the accusative and the content is expressed with the accusative, direct speech and so on.

Last but not least, in Classical Sanskrit for the case governed by √brū both listener and text are in the accusative case, which merely occured in the Ṛgveda and cannot be found in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa. The double accusative construction is generally described as an archaic construction in the process of disappearing. However, as far as √brū is concerned, the double accusative construction is not in the process of disappearing, but became a fixed expression.

In this paper I point out that some grammatical explanations concerning Patañjali’s proposal for Pāṇini’s rule A 3.4.32 can also be found in some earlier non-Pāṇinian treatises, especially in the Cāndravṛtti on Cāndrasūtra by Candragomin (fifth century) as well as in the extensive Cāndravyākaraṇapañjikā by Ratnamati (ca. 900–980); in response to these, Kaiyaṭa (early eleventh century) seems to criticize the views of Cāndra grammarians. Presenting a chronological overview of the arguments proposed by Patañjali, the Cāndra grammarians, and Kaiyaṭa, I conclude that the arguments we find in the Cāndra tradition can help us understand arguments of the Mahābhāṣya more precisely. Furthermore, Kaiyaṭa’s criticism against the Cāndra system suggests that the Cāndra grammar had become well-known among Pāṇinīyas at that time, and had an influence on the Pāṇinian tradition.

In the Mīmāṃsāsūtra, there is a section that deals with the diśām-aveṣṭi, a series of offerings to be performed at the end of the Rājasūya, the Vedic royal consecration. The discussion in this section extends to a controversy over eligibility (adhikāra) for the Rājasūya and the grounds for kingship. Of the two parties in controversy, the opponent maintains that one who governs a country, no matter whether he is a Brahmin, a Kṣatriya, or a Vaiśya, is recognized as a king (rājan) eligible for the Rājasūya, whereas the proponent retorts that one who is eligible for the Rājasūya as a king must be a Kṣatriya who has inherited landlordship (kṣatra). The proponent denies kingship to a Brahmin or a Vaiśya even if he has achieved sovereign power (rājya) through political struggles. According to Kumārila, the opponent aims to enlarge the market of the Vedic sacrifice by entitling even non-Kṣatriya kings to royal consecration. The opponent seeks a high gain, and the proponent avoids a high risk. Investigating whether both strategies are found in the Vedic texts of royal consecration, the present paper reexamines the relationship between kings and Brahmin ritualists.