The term “other power” is often misunderstood. This paper aims to address the question of what Shinran was intending to do in setting forth a Buddhist path based on other power. First, I point out that “self power” does not mean the same thing as “effort.” Next, I show that self power refers to relying on oneʼs own capacities or way of thinking and misconstruing Buddhism based on oneʼs own self-centered ideas of what it should be, such that it ultimately ceases to be Buddhism altogether. Finally, I argue that it is the working of Amida Buddhaʼs original vow that overcomes this problem that human beings are faced with, and it is only through other power that a path to Buddhahood that is truly open to anyone can be established.

Zhiyi （538-579） interprets his own theory of Four Kinds of Four Nobles based on the Four Noble Truths in the “Shengxing” chapter 聖行品 of the Niepan jing 涅槃経. For Zhiyi, the theory of Four Ways of interpreting the Four Noble Truths四種四諦was closely related to this sūtra. Taking up the Da banniepan jing jijie 大般涅槃経集解, in which studies on the sutra from before Zhiyi are taken into account, I compare the Da banniepan jing jijie with the interpretation of Zhiyi and clarify the characteristics of his theory of Four Ways of interpreting the Four Noble Truths.

This paper shows that Tathāgatagarbha thought was behind Nanyue Huisi’s （515-577） emphasis on the six pārāmitās. Kumārajīva is famous as a leading figure in Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, but he did not necessarily have a sense of himself as a Bodhisattva. On the other hand, Huisi did have an idea of himself as a Bodhisattva, based on the theory of Tathāgatagarbha, and he considered the six pārāmitās and not only self-oriented meditation but also altruistic other-oriented practice as important for a Bodhisattva. In his organization of Dhyāna, the perfection of Dhyāna is given the greatest attention, and the Course of Ease and Bliss 安楽行 is especially important.

In the Tiantai teachings such as yinian sanqian 一念三千 and shijie huju 十界互具, the true reality of “human beings” 衆生法 is often thought to be attained by contemplation of the mind. However, according to the chapter “The Subtlety of Threefold Dharmas” 三法妙 of the Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義, human beings can be grasped by the three aspects of reality known as “tracks” 軌: the true nature of reality 真性軌, the illumination of wisdom 観照軌, and the perfection of oneʼs disposition 資成軌. The three tracks of an unenlightened person are “the three ways of ignorance” 無明三道. Likewise, for a Buddha, there are “three virtuous qualities” 涅槃三徳. However, in Zhiyiʼs later works, he argued that these three paths of ignorance are identical to the three virtuous qualities. Based on this fact about the true nature of human beings, it is no surprise that yinian sanqian is asserted as the true reality.

Zhiyi （538-597） interprets the idea of the three contemplations三観 based on the terminology of the three contemplations found in the Yingluo jing 瓔珞経. In this context we need to consider whether he was influenced by the idea of the sūtra, and in this paper, I clarify Zhiyiʼs processes of acceptance and development of the idea of the three contemplations by comparing the meaning of the three contemplations in the Yingluo jing with the interpretation of the three contemplations in Zhiyiʼs Weimojing xuanshu 維摩経玄疏.

In the past, the Jin’gang bei 金剛錍 of Zhanran 湛然 （711-782） was considered to criticize the yěkè 野客. This yěkè has been identified as Fazang法藏. In this paper, I show that using the term “ordinary people” （shìrén世人） the author deliberately cites only a part of the Buddha-nature theory of Huiyuan慧遠, Jizang吉藏, and Fazang 法藏, changes their original intention, and for the sake of his own theory insists that there is no Buddha-nature in beings without a heart. The yěkè is the one who learns and follows the shìrén’s teachings, and the person who has the wrong view is the shìrén. Therefore, this treatise disproves the assertion that the yěkè should be criticized.

In his competition with the rival Shanwai 山外 lineage, the Song period Tiantai scholar Siming Zhili 四明知礼 （960-1028） formulated an approach to Tiantai doctrine focused on the notion that not only the mind but also the physical aspect of each and every being is endowed with all other beings. Zhiliʼs theory of “Physical Form within the Land of Eternal Tranquil Light” （jiguang youxiang 寂光有相） is perhaps the most famous of Zhiliʼs many doctrinal innovations. In his Guan wuliangshoufo jing shu miaozongchao 観無量寿仏経疏妙宗鈔, Zhili emphasized that physical forms certainly exist even in the Land of Eternal Tranquil Light （chang jiguang tu 常寂光土）, one of the four types of Buddha-land.

The present paper focuses on the Shanjia 山家 lineage scholar Caotang Chuyuanʼs 草堂処元 （d.u.） negative evaluation of Zhiliʼs theory. Chuyuan explained that physical forms do not necessarily exist in the Land of Eternal Tranquil Light. The paper shows that Chuyuanʼs interpretation was commonly shared by Shanjia lineage scholars, for instance by Beifeng Zongyinʼs 北峰宗印 （1148-1213） elevation of pure over impure form, and furthermore was related to Yuanbian Daochenʼs 円弁道琛 （1086-1153） “Mind-only Pure Land” （weixin jingtu 唯心浄土）.

The tentatively titled Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra （Niepan jing shu涅槃経疏） preserved in the Beijing Library北京図書館 is attributed to the Nandao sect 南道派of the Dilun school 地論宗 chiefly on the basis of its tenet classification system 教判 and its theory of co-arising of the Pure Dharma 浄法縁起. In the Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is classified as a gradual teaching 漸教, since the Buddha-nature does not manifest instantly but emerges gradually under Buddhist practice. That is to say, Dharma-nature inherently exists本有 as essence體, and to acquire the Buddha-nature, which is equivalently essence and function體用一如, practice is essential. In this way, the Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra suggests that the Buddha-nature is initially possessed始有. When illustrating the Buddha-nature, the Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra exceeds the traditional theories of future constant 當常―present constant現常, and inherent possession本有―initial possession始有, and tries to comprehend the Buddha-nature in a dynamic way along with the practice process.

The aim of this study is to elucidate Zhiyanʼs incentive to compose his Souxuan ji 捜玄記, one of the earliest commentaries on the Huayan jing and one of the most authoritative writings in the Huayan school 華厳宗.

To clarify his motive for composing this work, this paper firstly points out that Zhiyan had a deep interest in the Huayan jing because it contains the non-dual doctrine of Gradual Enlightenment 修成 and Intrinsic Enlightenment 自体. Secondly, the paper inquires further into: 1） Zhiyanʼs criticism of the doctrines of the Dilun school 地論宗, particularly their dual exegesis of practice, namely True Practice 真修 and Conditional Practice 縁修, and 2） his reinterpretation of these two separate practices on the basis of the non-dual doctrine, namely the Manifestation Arising from Nature 性起.

According to the authorʼs investigations, the conclusion emerges that Zhiyan produced the Souxuan ji in order to overcome the conventional dual view and advocate the non-dual idea, or indeed the Manifestation Arising from Nature.

In Tanluanʼs Commentary on the Treatise on the Pure Land浄土論註, we find a passage quoted from Sengzhaoʼs Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa 注維摩経. It is applied to the background of the concept of ʻthe two kinds of dharma-body.’ This concept consists of the following five ideas: 1. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas; 2. Buddhaʼs Dharma-nature and Bodhisattvas’ expedient means for saving beings; 3. The two kinds of Dharma-Body （Buddhaʼs Dharma-Body as dharma-nature and Bodhisattvas’ Dharma-Body as expedient means） originate in each other; 4. The inexpressible aspect of Buddhaʼs reality and expressible aspect of Bodhisattvas’ expedients interact with each other; 5. The two kinds of Dharma-Body are to be identified as ‘Dharma.’

In Sengzhaoʼs Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, we find expressions similar to the usage of the above-stated notions in 1, 2, and 3. The notion stated in 5 can be seen in the same commentary and in the Great Significance of the Mahāyāna大乗大義章. As for 4, no source can be located for this idea.

This study considers ideas about the Intermediate State in Chinese Pure Land, using the Qunyi lun 群疑論 written by the Tang period monk Huaigun 懐感 （d.u.）. Traditionally, it was Huaigun who introduced this discussion into Pure Land thought. However, in this study, I review the points of Huaigunʼs ideas and reconfirm the theory of the Pure Land Buddhists in the early Tang dynasty. As a result, I point out two things: First, the person who introduced the idea of the Intermediate State to Chinese Pure Land religion was Daoyin 道誾 （d.u.）, not Huaigun. Second, Huaigunʼs idea was developed to criticize Daoyinʼs idea.

This paper presents the original text and a modern Japanese translation of an epitaph for the Tang period lay person Bao Baoshou 包宝寿, and then examines connections between Shandaoʼs 善導 writings and the epitaphʼs portrayal of daily life practices for Pure Land rebirth and deathbed rites. The former consist of being mindful of Amitābha Buddha, reciting the Amituo jing, and maintaining the abstinential rules. The daily life practices for rebirth and the signs of the coming of the holy retinue to welcome him to the Pure Land experienced by Bao at the end of his life can be seen as the “highest of the high stage” （shangpin shangsheng 上品上生） as described in the Pure Land Contemplation Sūtra 観無量寿経, and also match the practice for the “highest of the high stage” in the Guannian famen 観念法門. Many lay practitioners were present at the end of Baoʼs life and Shandao also emphasized the existence of fellow practitioners.

The Xifang yaojue shiyi tonggui 西方要決釈疑通規 （commonly known as Xifang yaojue）, said to have been edited by Ji 基 （632-682）, is a Pure Land Buddhist work that can be regarded as an important research focus in the history of Buddhist philosophy in China because it appears to preserve ideas of other schools, such as the Sanjie jiao 三階教 （Three Stages sect）, Chan, and Maitreya worship （the aspiration for rebirth in the Tuṣita heaven）. However, the background of the establishment of the Xifang yaojue has not been clarified, and we cannot currently position the book in the history of thought.

Specifically, there is an issue regarding the editor of the Xifang yaojue. The position of the book in the history of thought varies depending on the conclusion regarding whether the book was edited by Ji or is a creation of later generations. At present, the latter theory is predominant, and many previous studies were conducted on that premise. However, few of those were in-depth examinations of the background of the establishment of the work, and the influence of the theory that it is an authentic compilation has not been entirely rejected. Therefore, this paper organizes previous studies in order to select the focal points of its argument, thereupon examining the background of the establishment of the Xifang yaojue.

Li Hua 李華 （715/717-766/774）, a disciple of Zhanran 湛然 （711-782）, produced an inscription recording the achievements of Zuoxi Xuanlang 左渓玄朗 （674-754）, the Gu Zuoxi dashi bei 故左溪大師碑. Atsushi Ibuki of Tōyō University, in his “Literati Understandings of Chan and Tiantai Buddhism as Seen in Li Hua’s Epitaph for Zuoxi Xuanlang” （李華撰『故左溪大師碑』に見る知識人の仏教認識, Bukkyō shisō no tenkai 仏教思想の展開, 2020）, examined the background of this inscription compiled in the later years after the demise of Heze shenhui 荷沢神会 （684-758）, and argued that the inscription is an example of the avoidance of reference to Shenhui, and that the fact that it mentions the early Chan school rather than the Tiantai lineage is extremely important for understanding the formation of the concept of the Chan ancestral lineage. In particular, he proposed that the Buddhist perception of the of Tang period laypersons belonging to the intellectual class was based on the early Chan school. In this paper, I focus on words from the inscription not given special attention by Atsushi, namely Fuxi 傅翕 （497-569）, Lengjiafa 楞伽法 and Dashi 大師, and debate issues raised from the perspective of Zhanran’s critique of the Chan school.

For the past few years, the author has been conducting research in China at Xuedou si 雪竇寺, where Tiantong Rujing 天童如浄 （1163-1228） trained as a monk, and Tiantong si 天童寺, where he became the abbot. The aim has been to determine the historical facts surrounding Tiantong Rujing and to reestablish his historical image by taking a purely Chinese perspective and by eliminating the persistent biased views strongly centered on Dōgen set forth by doctrinal studies within the Sōtō School 曹洞宗. Philological researches in Japan on Tiantong Rujing have hitherto taken the statements in Dōgenʼs Hōkyōki 宝慶記 and the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 for granted, and have only used information included in Chinese sources such as the Rujing yulu 如浄語録 in so far as they did not contradict the Japanese sources. This has resulted in enormous incongruity today between the Japanese and Chinese perceptions of Tiantong Rujing. This paper illustrates this through several examples.

In the past, concerning the text, based on the differences in some characters between the text found in the Siming zunzhe jiao xing lu 四明尊者教行録 and those found in the Tōketsushū 唐決集 of the Tōnihonkokushi nijūshichimon 答日本国師二十七問, it was widely accepted that the different characters were misprints. However, it has been clarified that the text of the Tōnihonkokushi nijūshichimon seen in China by Ruji 如吉 and Fazhao 法照 is close that of the Siming zunzhe jiao xing lu, while in Japan the text of the Tōnihonkokushi nijūshichimon seen by Shōshin 証真 is close to that of the Tōketsushū. Therefore, it is acceptable to view the Tōnihonkokushi nijūshichimon found in the Siming zunzhe jiao xing lu as the text that circulated in China, while that of the Tōketsushū was the text that circulated in Japan. From this we can conclude that the view that the character differences in the respective texts are simply misprints is probably not correct.

This paper discusses the time concept of Tendai hongaku 本覚 philosophy. The Sanjushika no kotogaki 三十四箇事書, one of the main Tendai hongaku texts, states that eternal and present are coming together and dissolving into oneness. It leads to the “eternal now.” In addition, we can see present, past and future at the same time in other spaces as well as this space, although the spaces have their own time. This time concept seems to belong to eternalism, which states that there are things that exist at other times. As a result it leads to the creation of art and literature. However, it is also related to the negative sides of Tendai hongaku philosophy such as discrimination, because the future is already decided.

The definition of the One Vehicle 一乗 is a key issue in the East Asian Buddhism. Many scholar-monks discussed the ten principles 十義 explained in a verse of the Mahāyāna­saṃgraha 摂大乗論, the ten point explanation of for whom the Buddha taught and of the Buddhaʼs intentions in preaching the One Vehicle.

This paper examines how the interpretations of the ten principles have developed in the Sanron school 三論宗. Among the monks of this school, the ten principles were traditionally discussed according to the thesis of the Yisheng foxing jiujing lun 一乗仏性究竟論 written by Fabao 法宝 （fl. 7-8c）. The Ichijō Busshō enichi shō一乗仏性慧日抄 written by Enshū 円宗 （fl. 9c） has almost the same interpretation of the ten principles as Fabaoʼs theory. In the medieval period, Chinkai 珍海 （1091-1152） also took up the ten principles using the Yisheng foxing jiujing lun as a starting point for his discussion in the Sanron genshō mongiyō三論玄疏文義要. However, he set Jizangʼs 吉蔵 （549-623） interpretation of the One Vehicle as his theoretical pillar to elaborate his exegesis.

Hirako Takurei 平子鐸嶺, a pioneer in the study of Chingai 珍海, noted that “Chingaiʼs biography was not clear at all from the olded times. There was no mention in the Genko Shakusho 元亨釈書 written by Kokan Shiren 虎関師錬, until Mangen Shiban 卍元師蛮finally recorded it” （1914, p. 476）. Actually, before the Honcho kōsōden 本朝高僧伝 of Mangen Shiban, no well-organized biography of Chingai was compiled.

In the Enkōdaishi gyōjō gazu yokusan 円光大師行状画図翼賛 edited by Enchi 円智 and Gizan 義山, monks of the Jōdo sect, of around the same times as the Honcho kōsōden, we also find Chingaiʼs biography. Hirako seems to have been the only person to take note of it. Hirako （1914, p. 500） took the skeptical view that the Enkōdaishi gyōjō gazu yokusanʼs description of the death of Chingai is only “an old tradition” and does not reflect any historical fact. Therefore, I would like to examine the theory of Hirako and clarify the historical background of the problematic tradition by examining the document considered to be “an old tradition.”

In constructing his Pure Land thought, Hōnen was deeply influenced not only by Shandao but also by Genshin. In terms of the concept of Buddhaʼs body and realm, however, he inherited the idea of Shandao, regarding Amitābhaʼs body as the Reward body and his realm as the Reward land. Even though Hōnen seemed to show little interest in the very adornments of the Pure Land in many of his writings and preachings, he revealed his distinctive understanding about the topological and functional meanings of the realm in his Gyakushu Seppō 逆修説法. First, he stressed that the Pure Land exists far away to the West of our Sahā world, implying the idea of the duality of the world. Secondly, he indicated that all sentient beings, regardless of their abilities, are able to be equipped with Buddha-nature only in the Pure Land. These two ideas, that had the potential to eventually undermine the basic doctrines of esoteric and exoteric Buddhist schools of the day, can be said to be a logical bedrock of his Pure Land ideology that every person has the sure possibility to be reborn to the Pure Land through nembutsu practice.

The characteristic of Hōnenʼs thought is his belief in the true wish of Amida Buddha and his exclusive practice of Shōmyō nembutsu 称名念仏. In this paper, I limit myself to the Senchaku hongan nenbutushū 選択本願念仏集, which most accurately expresses Hōnenʼs thought, and examine the characteristics of Hōnenʼs nembutsu through the sanmai hottoku 三昧発得 and goshū shōgyō 五種正行 described in the Senchakushū.

I examine the descriptions of sanmai hottoku and goshū shōgyō because they are deeply related to Hōnenʼs basic thought, shōmyō nembutsu. I believe that this discussion will clarify the relationship between Hōnenʼs shōmyō nembutsu and kansō nembutsu観想念仏. First, I classify the nembutsu with only naming, and second, I classify that with contemplation, and examine how the issues of naming and contemplation appear in Hōnenʼs nembutsu. Through this discussion, I hope to clarify the characteristics of Hōnenʼs nembutsu.

There are some different texts of Hōnenʼs main work Senjakushū 選択集. They are broadly classified into two types. One is the “expanded text” 広本, the other the “abbreviated text” 略本. Which came first has not yet been made clear. In this study, I examine the differences between the two, and conclude that the “abbreviated text” was first.

The author has previously made it clear that Hōnen 法然 （1133-1212） visited Nanto 南都 around the second year of Kao （1170） at the age of 38. In this study, the author discusses the period when Hōnen visited Keiga 景雅 （1103-1185） of the Kegon sect 華厳宗.

The author examines eight historical sources including the Shijūhachikan-den 四八巻伝 and the Daigohon Betsudenki 醍醐本別伝記. As a result, it becomes clear that Hōnen visited Keiga sometime after the first year of Kao at the age of 37. Ashobo Insai 阿性房印西 （c. 1120-c. 1195） introduced Hōnen to Keiga, who was a cousin of Insai. This made it possible for Hōnen to meet Keiga, who held the high rank Hokkyō 法橋.

In his Nembutsu myōgi-shū 念仏名義集, Shōkōbō Benchō 聖光房弁長 （1162-1238）, answering questions from ordinary nembutsu practitioners, takes a normative attitude toward the three-mindsets三心 and deathbed nembutsu. This is so strict that one must not doubt them even if one would have doubts about them. He also makes, however, a few generous concessions, such as that anybody can be equipped with the three-mindsets, or that one can practice ordinary nembutsu even after drinking alcohol or eating garlic. The former normative teachings are intended for single-recitation doctrine nembutsu practitioners in Higo province. The latter generous teachings are those that Shōkō thought particularly important among Hōnen’s teachings.

In his commentaries on Genshinʼs源信 （942-1017） Ōjōyōshū往生要集, Hōnen argues, on the one hand, that Genshinʼs theory of Buddhism is the same as that of Shandao善導 （613-681） and, on the other hand, that Genshinʼs nembutsu is not equal to Shandaoʼs. Previous studies have held that, in his Ōjōyōshū, Genshin adopted Shandaoʼs methods of Buddhist ritual and ceremony, but did not accept his doctrine. Ryōchū良忠 （1199-1287）, in his Ōjōyōshū- giki往生要集義記, accepts Hōnenʼs assertion that Genshinʼs theory of Buddhism depends on that of Shandao, and further reinforces Hōnenʼs interpretation. In addition, he mentions that Genshinʼs idea of nembutsu is different from that of Shandao. Therefore, Ryōchūʼs explanation of Ōjōyōshū in his treatise can be generally said to be based on Hōnenʼs interpretation.

The various sects of Japanese Buddhism not only asserted the superiority of their own sects, but also argued that they were one and the same Buddhism, even though they had different teachings. With this background I examine the Seizan 西山 branch of the Jōdo sect. In particular, Dōkyō Kenni 道教顕意 （1238-1304） argued that other-power is taught in all of Buddhism, and that in this respect, all of Buddhism is united. I show that his assertion is a criticism of other sects that do not understand the idea of other-power.

This paper concerns Ryōei Rihon’s良栄理本 （1346-1428）understanding of juezhaoxing覚照性 in the seventh century Shi Jingtu qunyi lun 釈浄土群疑論 of Huaigan 懐感. Heretofore, it has been understood that the wisdom of the self-enjoyment body自受用身 recognizes the truth 理 of the Dharma body. However, adding to this previous interpretation, Ryōei established the interpretation that juezhao覚照 is the work of wisdom connected with the Dharma body. The main point of these two interpretations concerns the difference between the Dharma body and the self-enjoyment body. That is, if the former interpretation is adopted, the Dharma body and the self-enjoyment body are distinguished. In contrast, if the latter is adopted, the two bodies are the same.

Therefore, the fact that Ryōei uses these two exegeses together suggests that he is using the difference between the Dharma body and the self-enjoyment body in different ways.

The Tamemori hosshin innenshū為盛発心因縁集, which records the dialogues between Tsunoto 津戸 and Hōnen法然, is a tale collection which circulated in the late medieval period, but its contents have not been sufficiently studied.

Here, considering the suicide-rebirth （shashin ōjō捨身往生） of Tsunoto described in the Tamemori hosshin innenshū, Hōnen preaches that Amida Buddha is a Buddha who always watches over nembutsu practitioners 念仏者 and that they can surely be reborn in the Pure Land 極楽浄土 in the future, but in the story, Tsunoto is described as a person who committed seppuku切腹 （a type of suicide） under the influence of the Hōnen shōnin gyōjō ezu法然上人行状絵図 in order to realize his wish to be reborn in the Pure Land as soon as possible, and that he consequently achieved unprecedented rebirth. The tale preaches that people should believe Hōnenʼs teachings and devote themselves to chanting the nembutsu, without recommending others to emulate Tsunoto in committing suicide.

This paper addresses how to locate the notion of the “Five Right Practices for Birth in Amidaʼs Pure Land” in the entire structure of Shin Buddhist teaching based on Sekisen Sōeiʼs 石泉僧叡 （1762-1826） commentary Gutokushō giki 愚禿鈔義記. He regarded the ‘five right practices’ as a concrete aspect of the notion of nembutsu as an expression of gratitude for Amidaʼs compassionate working. What is to be noted is that the notion of the “five right practices” does not indicate that there are five kinds of expression of gratitude for Amida Buddhaʼs compassion. Concerning this issue, Sōei claims that the notion of the “five right practices” is to be classified into two, main and subsidiary, and “right” is to be used for the main practice.

The basic stance in Kiyozawa Manshiʼs 清沢満之 （1863-1903） Yūgen mugen roku 有限無限録 is that true morality is established by the idea from the Infinite that one should refrain from evil and do good. This can be said to have been derived from Kiyozawaʼs awareness of having been liberated. In Rōsenki 臘扇記, he questions his identity and concludes that he is “one who settles down just as he is” into the working of the Infinite, and that the Infinite endows him with the idea of refraining from evil and doing good as the source of morality.

In Kiyozawaʼs argument in Yūgen mugen roku, the Infinite takes the form of “sanctions” against the “transgressions” of finite beings, thereby causing them to cease such actions. These transgressions, in which one cannot do good or stop evil, are the opposite of the idea from the Infinite. Kiyozawa refers to this structure wherein the Infinite is involved with inhibition of “transgressions” as “the true disciple of the buddha.” This shows that the central issue in this work is Kiyozawaʼs attempt to objectively prove that his own experience of liberation was liberation through the original vow of Amida Buddha.

This paper examines the views on Jizō （Kṣitigarbha） sūtras and Jizō worship expounded in the writings of Sasaki Gesshō 佐々木月樵 （1875-1926） and brings into relief his focus on the realities of the present life in this world 現世, 此土. Sasaki, a Shin Buddhist priest of the Ōtani sect and a disciple of Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之 （1863-1906）, noted that the teachings found in Jizō sūtras comprise a “vehicle for humans and gods” 人天乗, a skillful means 方便 to ultimately lead followers to the Pure Land teachings 浄土教 of Amitābha or Maitreya. However, he emphasized the significance of the doctrine of karmic retribution found in Jizō sūtras as strictly and unwaveringly focused on wholesome and unwholesome deeds and salvation from their retribution in this life on earth. Considering that Sasakiʼs examination of what he called “popular sūtras” 民衆経典 including Jizō sūtras was a part of his effort to remake Buddhism into a modern religion, his focus on the reality of the world around us and our present life provides insight into how we may make Buddhism more relevant for us today.

Kaneko Daiei 金子大榮 （1881-1976） was a scholar of Buddhist studies belonging to the Shinshū Ōtani-ha. Kaneko studied and was influenced by not only Shin Buddhism but also by various doctrines of other Buddhist sects. Therefore, his understanding of Buddhism is unique.

He thought that the Pure Land is a homeland for all sentient beings, and, for sentient beings, returning to the Pure Land is salvation. When they wish to return to the Pure Land, the bodhisattva appears in their faith. This bodhisattva is Dharmākara bodhisattva from the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra. The power demonstrated by Dharmākara is what we call “other power.”

Kaneko interpreted this bodhisattvaʼs appearance as the perfection of two aspects of merit-transference expressed by Shinran. Moreover, he explained that the Other Power of the bodhisattva makes sentient beings practice the samantabhadra-caryā. The word samantabhadra-caryā has a meaning to indoctrinate all sentient beings with perfect freedom. On this point, Kanekoʼs understanding is very enthusiastic and distinctive in the field of Shin Buddhist studies.

This paper considers why Shinran reveres Hōnen as his master. Shinranʼs Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証 refers to Hōnen in the second and final chapters, but does not explain why Honenʼs statements are heard as commands for Shinran, only indicating his profound respect for Hōnen. On the other hand, chapter 1 of the Kyōgyōshinshō cites some texts that describe the reason a World-honored One has the authority （i 威） of a tathāgata. These passages reveal that the reason why tathāgatas appear in the world and have authority is because they have the will to save all sentient beings. For Shinran, when he looks up to Hōnen as a master with the authority to make commands, he sees that his master has this same will. However, in the sūtras cited by Shinran, a disciple does not recognize this will by himself, but ask about the reason for the authoritative face, and then the will is taught as its background. When a disciple sees someone as a master, at first it is based on intuition. Yet through dialogue about that intuition, one can know that the will of tathāgatas is necessary for one to be a master.

This paper clarifies the fundamental structure of “The True Realization of the Pure Land Way” in Shinranʼs thought. In doing so, it focuses on the fact that Shinran positions the two hisshi 必至 （necessary attainment） vows as the subject of true realization.

The two hisshi vows are the 11th and 22nd vows. Shinran views the word hisshi as a common element of these two. This can be seen from the fact that he lists “Necessary attainment of nirvāṇa” and “Necessary attainment of the rank of succession to Buddhahood” as the first name that he gives for these vows. From this choice, it is possible to surmise that he intended to show that these two vows are closely related in that they both contain the word hisshi.

The word hisshi appears only in three places in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra 仏説無量寿経 （T. 360）. Two are found in the vows introduced above, while the other is in Dharmākara Bodhisattvaʼs vow to “necessarily attain unsurpassed enlightenment” 必至無上道. This paper suggests that this commonality is critical to understand the fundamental structure of “The True Realization of the Pure Land Way.”

This paper focuses on the word “everlastingly” （hisashiku 久しく） which is used to refer to the significance of Amidaʼs nineteenth vow in the passage on sangan-tennyū 三願転入 （religious conversion through Amidaʼs three vows） in the “Keshindo no maki” 化身土巻 （Chapter on Transformed Buddha-bodies and Lands） in the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証 of Shinran 親鸞 （1173-1262）. In this passage, when Shinran speaks about the nineteenth vow, he says, “I have departed everlastingly from the temporary gate of the myriad practices and various good acts.” On the other hand, the time of conversion regarding which Shinran writes of entering the ocean of the selected vow is expressed as occurring in the present with the phrase “I have now entered . . .”

Why does Shinran use both “everlastingly” along with “now” in this passage? The nineteenth vow has a distinctive position in that there is no reference to entering into it and it is only said that one departs from it “everlastingly.” Thus, focusing on this point, this paper considers the content of the experience described in the passage on sangan-tennyū.

The sūtra named Que wenhuang shenzhou jing却温黄神呪経 contains a method for curing epidemics accompanied by high fever. This method was to recite the names of seven kijin鬼神 demons to eliminate the invisible epidemic. In later times it was believed that enshrining the seven kijin demons or Matari-jin摩怛利神 and reading this text would prevent epidemics. The names of Matari-jinja摩怛利神社 or Shichiki-jinja七鬼神社 shrines remain to the present day.

This paper discusses how the demons in the sūtra are connected to faith in Matari-jin as it developed from the Que wenhuang shenzhou jing. As mentioned above, seven demons are taught in the Que wenhuang shenzhou jing. The Shichi-Kijin七鬼神 painting in the Kyoto City University of Arts is one example of faith in Matari-jin, and can be traced back to the Shichimonyo-ten maṇḍala七母女天曼荼羅 taught in the thirteenth chapter of the Liqu jing理趣経. That is to say, the Shichi-Kijin painting and the Shichimonyo-ten maṇḍala both have Makakyara-ten摩訶迦羅天 as their central deity, with the seven kijin demons painted around him. This Makakyara-ten is Mahākāla, who manifests as Matari-jin, the god of epidemics.

The Que wenhuang shenzhou jing and esoteric Buddhist practice are deeply involved in the background to this faith in Matari-jin, and this sūtra was read and Matari-jin was worshipped to dispel epidemics.

Concerning the word yuishin 唯心, which appears in Dōgenʼs Shōbōgenzō, in the fascicles “Sokushin zebutsu” 即心是仏 and “Beppon shin fukatoku” 別本心不可得, Dōgen does not consider mind only to be the basis of the ultimate truth of phenomena. However, later, in the “Gyōbutsu iigi” 行仏威儀 fascicle, Dōgen considers that mind only indicates that the ultimate truth is the phenomenon of walls and rubble. In the “Shinjin gakudō” 身心学道 fascicle, Dōgen rejects the idea that ʻDharma-Sphere is nothing but mind’ 法界唯心 along with ʻthe triple world is nothing but mind’ 三界唯心. In the “Sangai yuishin” 三界唯心 fascicle, the word yuishin is not used by itself, but all affirmations of the triple world are emphasized. In the “Hotsumujōshin” 発無上心 fascicle, Dōgen teaches that ʻgrasses, trees, and rubble,’ ʻthe four elements and the five skandhas,’ and ʻthe whole realm throughout the ten directions’ are the ultimate truth, and he considers ʻyuishin,’ ʻthe true aspect,’ ʻSuchness [or] Buddha-nature,’ and ʻcertainty of dharma’ as their basis. Here, we can consider that Dōgenʼs fundamental claim is that dharmas are ʻthe true aspect.’

This paper examines the validity of the theory that the mind in Dōgen’s 道元 （1200-1253） argument is the true mind without exception, and it does so by focusing on the Buddha-nature 仏性 fascicule of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵. The mind in Dōgen’s argument includes the cognitive mind of an ordinary person （bonpu 凡夫）. It is difficult to find a description of the cognitive mind of the ordinary person, as the 75-fascicule Shōbōgenzō is said to have been written from the point of view of Dōgen’s enlightenment. However, in the third fascicule, “Buddha-nature”, the relationship between sentient beings and Buddha-nature is mentioned, and a description of the mind can be seen. Therefore, we will consider the description of the mind in the “Buddha-nature” fascicule as the pivot. Then, assuming that the true mind is the true religious awakening, we can view Dōgen’s description of religious awakening, and infer the reason why he does not mention the cognitive mind of the ordinary person and confirm his definition of true religious awakening. This shows that Dōgen distinguished between religious awakening and true religious awakening.

Based on the new perspective of syntactic analysis of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵, the chief work of Dōgen 道元 （1200-1253）, it has been confirmed that the sentence structures in the Shōbōgenzō may be classified into seven types—affirmative, negative, imperative/prohibitive, interrogative/rhetorical complex sentences, expanding complex sentences, paraphrasing, and others, and many complex sentences have been used. In this paper, we aim to further clarify the syntactic features of the Shōbōgenzō through a comparison with and examination of contemporary Japanese texts, in this case the Zenkesetsu 禅家説 （discovered in Shinpukuji in 2006） and Nichiren’s 日蓮 （1222-1282） Kaimokushō 開目抄 （1272）. As a result, it was possible to avoid immobilization through the substitution of words by complex sentences, especially complex expressions based on paraphrasing, and to further advance conceptualization. Further, this conceptualization prevents learned priests pursuing their studies from staying in a passive situation by requiring them to constantly confront themselves, thus compelling them to independently encounter harsh conditions to perform their ascetic practices.

The Bendōwa 弁道話 of Dōgen 道元 （1200-1253） shows the significance of zazen in the Buddhist method of the correct transmission from teacher to disciple （shōden正伝） with 18 questions and answers. The dominant theory is that the original draft version of the Bendōwa is that owned by Shoboji Temple in Iwate Prefecture 岩手県正法寺, and that one question-and-answer combination was deleted in the compilation of Manzan Dōhaku 卍山道白（1636-1715）. In recent years, Noriaki Hakamaya suggested that the conventional view should be reversed, because the subordinates of Keizan Jōkin 瑩山紹瑾（1268-1325） expanded on the deleted questions and answers. It is not possible, based on the examination carried out in this paper, to conclude that the relationship between the establishment of one version and that of the other is reversed, and the author concludes that the dominant theory is, after all, valid.

This paper examines the “merit-transfer invocations” （ekōmon回向文） compiled in Keizan’s Monastic Regulations （Keizan Shingi瑩山清規）. The Monastic Regulations composed by Keizan Jōkin瑩山紹瑾（1264-1325） exist in multiple copies, which differ in terms of the number and type of merit-transfer invocations compiled. This paper examines three primary sources: the Zenrin-ji copy禅林寺本, the manuscripts edited by Bonsei梵清本, and the Shōbō-shingi正法清規. The most common portion of the three, the merit-transfer invocations in these sources, is referred to as the “first half,” and the part present in the manuscripts edited by Bonsei and in the Shōbō-shingi, but completely absent from the Zenrin-ji copy, is referred to as the “second half.”

In recent years, based on the Zenrin-ji copy, questions have been raised whether the “second half” even existed at the time that Keizan was compiling the manuscripts. In response, based on the results of an examination of four of the merit-transfer invocations, this paper reaches the following conclusions:

Both the copies edited by Bonsei and the Shōbō-shingi separately refer to a common original manuscript that included the “second half.” Therefore, there is no relation of direct reference between the two. Furthermore, this common original manuscript may correspond to the shōhon （authentic copy正本） recorded in comparative revisions of the Zenrin-ji copy.

In terms of the “second half” rituals and merit-transfer invocations, the origin of which is attributed to Keizan, this paper shows that the upper limits of compilation in Keizan’s Monastic Regulations may also be found in Keizan. Therefore, the original form of Keizan’s Monastic Regulations should not be sought in the Zenrin-ji copy alone but must be reconsidered through a reexamination, comparison, and evaluation of all the manuscripts.

In the biography of Keizan Jōkin （1264-1325） which was established in the Edo period, it is written that the verse 黒漆崑崙夜裏走 represents Keizan’s enlightenment. The source of the verse had been considered to be the Song period Wudeng huiyuan 五灯会元. However, the verse is not found in that text. Monks from the Taigen lineage of the Sōtō school started to use the verse, which appeared for the first time in the work of Kokai Chūsan 瑚海仲珊 （1390-1469）. After that, the verse became accepted widely in Zen schools through the sixteenth century.

Therefore, the author of Keizan’s biography in the Edo period attempted to proclaim the famous phrase as originated in Keizan and portray his authority by utilizing the famous phrase established by the medieval Taigen lineage as a phrase that expresses Keizan’s enlightenment.

This paper examines Kokan Shiren’s 虎関師錬 （1278-1346） view of practice 修 and enlightenment 証 by investigating the Shōshū-ron 正修論 and his “discourse records” 語録.

Shiren’s understanding of enlightenment is largely based on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna 大乗起信論, and he emphasizes the necessity of the continuous practice of “calming distracting thoughts through quiet sitting” 息慮静坐 as an “effort” （jpn. kufū; chn. gōngfū 工夫） to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, Shiren adopts the method of kanhua 看 話, developed by Dahui Zonggao 大慧宗杲 （1089-1163）, but at the same time he actively recommends the constant practice of quiet sitting, which helps in releasing karma. While Dahui advocates seeking the “unity of movement and stillness” 動静一如 through “effort” and criticizes the bias toward “stillness” （i.e., quiet sitting）, Shiren rejects these arguments and uses the phrase positively, which Dahui criticized as expressing the state of silent illumination Chan 黙照禅, as the enlightened state 悟境. Therefore, Shiren did not completely accept Dahui’s ideas in his theory of practice and enlightenment.

There exists a facsimile of the Shōbōzan Rokusoden 正法山六祖伝, written in 1589 at the Reiun-in 霊雲院 subtemple of Myōshinji. Here I introduce a revised edition of it and that published in 1640. The note added to the copy consists of short life histories of the first abbot of Myōshinji, Kanzan 関山, to the sixth, Sekkō 雪江. The appendix relates the origin of Myōshinji （妙心禅寺記）. The author of the first to the fifth chapters, along with the appendix, was Sekkō. The chapter on Sekkō was written by his disciple Tōyō 東陽. In contrast of the concrete histories of the second to the sixth abbots, Kanzan’s life history is fictitious, without his death data. Sekkō confessed the lack of material about Kanzan in his comment. We offered the testament of Kanzan earlier in this Journal （IBK 62（2）, 2014; 68（1）, 2020）.

Here we offer a revised text of the appendix, that is, the beginning history of Myōshinji, including the latter half of the biography of the first abbot, Kanzan. Sekkō was forced to depend on rumors only for the first half of his treatment of Kanzan, as he confessed. But the latter half of the first chapter is an important source.

The story of the regional name ‘Hanazono’ （Flower Garden） is interesting. In the early years of the capital at Heiankyō, the rice field for the emperor was set in the north-west corner of the capital city. Later his house and garden became the palace of prince Arihito 有仁（1103-1147）. He adorned this garden with flowers. So people called this palace ‘Hanazono’ 花園 meaning the flower garden. The emperor Hanazono （1297-1348） obtained this palace and changed it into a Zen temple. His teacher Daitō Kokushi 大燈国師 named the temple ‘Shōbōzan Myōshinji.’ The emperor installed his master’s first disciple, Kanzan, as the first abbot.

This manuscript of the Shōbōzan Rokusoden is preserved in the library of Ryūkoku University. We owe thanks to the library for their permission to use it for this study.

Duli Xingyi 独立性易 （Dokuryū Shōeki） went to Japan in exile at the time of the transition from the Ming to the Qing Dynasty, and became a monk in Japan. Therefore, his ideas have always been considered Buddhist or a unity of the Three Teachings. However, Duli’s Commentary on the Genkō shakusho 元亨釈書評閲, revealed here for the first time, suggests otherwise. It is a critique of the Buddhist history book Genkō shakusho 元亨釈書 and intensively reflects a Confucian standpoint and his views on Buddhism. First, I introduce the context in which Duli’s Commentary was written. Secondly, I illustrate that the Commentary is mainly a critique of the “Shichihyō” 資治表 chapter of the Genkō shakusho, criticized for its imitation of the writing style of the Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋, and attempts to demonstrate that Buddhism is helpful to governing. Thirdly, I analyze several typical excerpts that indicate that Duli not only believes that politics is the business of Confucianism, in which Buddhists should not participate, but also maintains that the corruption of government is precisely due to Buddhism. Therefore, although Duli was forced to become a monk, his thinking was still Confucian.

The Rissho Ankoku-ron, authored by Nichiren in 1260, severely criticizes Hōnen and his Senchaku hongan nembutsu shū by labeling the latter as slander of the true teachings of Buddhism from the standpoint of unquestioned faith in the Lotus Sūtra.  Born as a disciple of Śākyamuni, he expresses a religious stance of believing in the Lotus Sūtra, the king of all sūtras.  Further, there are four places where “ichidai goji” 一代五時 is written, positioning the Lotus Sūtra in the fifth period as “myōden” 妙典 （an excellent sūtra）, and “kanjin” 肝心 （the whole point）.  This is where Nichiren’s outlook manifests itself.  Based on these ideas and creeds, he criticized others.

Nichiren was exiled to Sado island, where he spent two years and five months. It has become a principal center for Nichiren’s ideas and beliefs. It has already been reported that priests of the Nichiren sect crossed to Sado and reconstructed the sacred place shortly after Nichiren’s death. The pilgrimage to Sado became popular among ordinary people since Early Modern times, and therefore, it is considered that they are deeply related to the formation of the holy place of Nichiren.

This paper examines the reasons why priests of the Nichiren sect, mainly in the Early Modern period, went to Sado, and the process by which a sacred land dedicated to Nichiren was created on Sado as described in guidebooks of the sacred place. 

In medieval Sado, famous for its connection with Nichiren, many hermitages and Hokke-dō halls were built. Among them, Anryū-ji, Konpon-ji, Myōsen-ji and Honkō-ji were maintained and converted into sacred places. Some other sacred places were established by merger and relocation. 

Since the biography and folklore of Nichiren was spread among the ordinary people, temples and sacred sites associated with Nichiren in Sado were recognized as such sacred spots. Thus, Nichiren Buddhists began to make pilgrimages to Sado after the time of the imperial restoration at the end of the Edo period. 

In addition, because this sacred spot was introduced in the Nichiren Biography published in the Early Modern period, it was maintained as a sacred place. 

In the Late Tokugawa Period, a Nichiren Hall was built in a place called Maura, the last port from which Nichiren left Sado as he was returning to Kamakura. Local residents still maintain it. 

This paper discusses the doctrines derived from Nichiren in the Hokke kanyō ryakuchū shukushū 法華肝要略注秀句集, a pseudepigraphic work attributed to Saichō.

The Hokke kanyō ryakuchū shukushū justifies Nichiren’s idea, found in his Kaimokushō 開目抄, that the “Anrakugyō-hon” 安楽行品, chapter 14 of the Lotus Sūtra, is not considered appropriate for the Latter Day of the Dharma, and it did so using wording similar to that in the Kaimokushō, emphasizing the significance of the Bodhisattvas who rose out of the earth.

Furthermore, the Hokke kanyō ryakuchū shukushū associates Nichirens’ idea in his Kanjin honzonshō 観心本尊抄 that the title of the Lotus Sūtra is considered as “good medicine” with the statue of Bhaiṣajyaguru made by Saichō, thereby making Nichiren the legitimate successor to Saichō.

Finally, the Hokke kanyō ryakuchū shukushū cites not only doctrinal literature but also folk-tales, such as the Fahua zhuanji 法華伝記compiled by Sengxiang 僧詳, in order to recommend chanting the title of the Lotus Sūtra.

In the history of Nichiren sect doctrinal studies, Sakyō ajari Nikkyō 左京阿闍梨日教 appears as a scholar who tried to prove the originality of the ideas of the school of Nikkō 日興by quoting from traditionally transmitted records and Nichiren’s last writings. In order to fully understand the teachings, it is indispensable to examine how these seemingly important pieces of evidence have been accepted. While many of his writings have been handed down in manuscript form, this study focuses on the only surviving authentic copy, the Ruijūkanshūshi 類聚翰集私, to verify its citations.

I found that Nikkyō used in particular the Hyakurokkashō 百六箇抄 of the Ryōgan Kechimyaku 両巻血脈 among the records. For example, in Article 5, while quoting the Kaimokushō 開目抄 and Hōonjō 報恩抄 from the last writings, Nikkyō characteristically uses records, such as the Hyakurokkashō in its conclusion. He also argues for the theory of Nichiren honbutsuron 日蓮本仏論 with Nichiren as a principal deity, and claims that the Buddhadharma was passed to Nikko after Nichiren, and has been inherited by successive generations of priests since then.

Based on the results of a survey of the historical materials held at the Nishiyama Honmonji 西山本門寺, this paper focuses on the development of temple buildings in the early modern period, which has not been examined in the past.

It was found that the Nishiyama Honmonji was a three-hall temple consisting of Honzon-dō本尊堂, Miei-dō御影堂, and Kaisan-dō開山堂 halls, and that these three halls existed all together by the Kanbun 寛文period （1661-1673） at the latest. In addition, the study revealed that the Kyaku-den客殿 was built in 1648 and reconstructed in 1700, the relationship between the construction of the Ten-dō天堂 and Suijaku-dō垂迹堂 halls and Tsuneko-naishinno常子内親王, and that the Kuromon黒門 gate was rebuilt at least three times.