The ‘Vastra-haraṇa’ （Kṛṣṇa’s stealing clothes） motif in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa （10th century, in south India） must have pertained to the Paiśācī sentences（1st century BC）quoted by Bhoja （11th century） in his Śṛiṅgāraprakāśa and can be traced back to the Vedic “Purūravas and Urvasī story,” which is considered the global origin of the swan-maiden motif （that is, stealing clothes motif） in tales of marriage between a human and a nonhuman being. According to the ‘ākhyāna theory,’ we can observe that the authors adopted such a motif from vernacular folktales into the sacred Sanskrit books.
In some Buddhist texts, four kinds of lotus flowers in the pools in paradise have been depicted with their indigenous flora names; utpala-, kumuda-, padma- and puṇḍarīka-. However, in the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha, they are depicted with the adjectives blue, yellow, red and white. After confirming that kavi-samaya （poetical convention contrary to real-life experience） is for drawing the supernatural world, we conclude that the author of this sacred work might have tried to equate the four color’s adjectives with Śūdra, Vaiśya, Kṣatriya and Brāhmaṇa in the caste （varṇa） system, based on the methods of kavi-samaya.
During the Northern and Southern Dynasties of China, there were two lineages of interpretation of the ten Bodhisattva stages, one based on Kumarajiva’s translation of the Sūtra of the Ten Stages 十住経, and the other based on Bodhiruci and Ratnamati’s translation of Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Ten Stages 十地経論. This paper focuses on the ten stages and the severing of mental afflictions together with the Pure Land of both within and outside the three worlds, as explained in the Wuliangshoujing yiji 無量寿経義記 and the Jin’gangxian lun 金剛仙論.
First, in examining the Wuliangshoujing yiji we find a common understanding among the three Dharma Masters of Liang （Zhizang 智蔵, Sengmin 僧旻, Fayun 法雲）. They separated the ten stages into four groups: seeing the true path, contemplating the path, loving the Buddha’s merit, and severing ignorance and mental afflictions. Further, they placed Bodhisattvas’ birth into the western Pure Land in the seventh stage.
Next, in examining the Jin’gangxian lun we can confirm the explanation of two types of Pure Lands, one being a saṃskṛta-dharma Pure Land prior to the ten stages, the other an asaṃskṛta-dharma Pure Land outside of the three worlds, placed above the first stage. Bodhisattvas prior to entering the ten stages practice to overcome the mental afflictions, and the ten stages are separated into three groups.
In conclusion, based on this comparison we can clearly see a change in explanation before and after the translation of the Discourse on the Ten Stages.
This paper reexamines the Pure Land beliefs of Lushan Huiyuan, a monk active in the Eastern Jin dynasty, to present the possibility that Huiyuan did not develop his Pure Land belief based on the Pratyutpannabuddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi sūtra, but on other Pure Land sūtras. By examining the materials Huiyuan often presented as proof texts referring to his Pure Land belief, we find such beliefs are mentioned only in the Yu yinshi Liu Yimin deng shu 与隠士劉遺民等書 （Text given to hermits like Liu Yimin） simply as the “plan to attain birth [in the Pure land] 來生之計,” so that it is difficult to confuse Huiyuan’s usage of the term nienfo sanmei 念仏三昧 （mindfulness of the Buddha samādhi） with the Pure Land beliefs used by the followers of Huiyuan’s Order. Additionally, in examining the biographies of the monks Sengji 僧済 and Sengjui 僧叡 mentioned in the Gaosengzhuan 高僧伝 （Biographies of Eminent Monks）, it is notable that both based their Pure Land belief on the teaching of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra.
In the Nianfo jing 念仏鏡 （jointly compiled by Daojing 道鏡 and Shandao 善道）, a collection of writings on the Pure Land from the middle period of the Tang Dynasty, there is a compilation consisting of six topics called the “shizhong yihuo-men 釈衆疑惑門,” in which criticisms against other sects and schools are discussed.
However, among these six topics, in （4） “nianfo dui jiangshuo-men 念仏対講説門,” （5） “nianfo dui jielu-men 念仏対戒律門,” （6） “nianfo dui liudu-men 念仏対六度門,” among others, the subject of the argument is unclear. In particular, regarding the “nianfo dui liudu-men,” which integrates the liudu （Six Perfections） into the nianfo, the argument does not target a particular school or sect, and it is said that it reflects the subjectivity of the compiler. For these reasons, it is important to elucidate the background of the composition of the work.
This problem can be elucidated by examining the ideological link with the Jingtu cibei ji, a Pure Land anthology （compiled by Huiri 慧日） of the same period. Specifically, we first confirm the various views of Daxing 大行, a Pure Land teacher, who influenced the shaping of the Nianfo jing, and the views of Huiri. We also discuss the various views of the editors of the Nianfo jing and further elucidate the phase of ideological history of the “nianfo dui liudu-men.” It is anticipated that this work will clarify that the target of criticism of this section of the Nianfo jing is Huiri.
1. The description of the three kinds of cessation and contemplation meditation in the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観 does not always accurately reflect Zhiyi’s 智顗 intention. Its content has been heavily modified by Guanding 灌頂. It can be assumed that his understanding of the three kinds of cessation and contemplation meditation was not constant.
2. The Liumiaomen 六妙門 （Six Subtle Dharma Gates） corresponds to the indefinite 不定 among the three kinds of cessation and contemplation meditation in the preface to the Mohe zhiguan. However, it is difficult to believe that this too is in line with Zhiyi’s intention. This is because there is no commentary in the Liumiaomen or other works on the six subtle gates that states that it corresponds to indefiniteness.
3. It is difficult to believe that the Liumiaomen was initially preached to show the indefinite in the three kinds of cessation and contemplation meditation. If one looks back after the completion of the cessation and contemplation meditation in the later years of Zhiyi’s life, it is possible to regard the Liumiaomen as a work in which indefiniteness was taught. However, there is no mention of an emphasis on indefiniteness in the Liumiaomen. Furthermore, there is no uniqueness in the Liumiaomen when compared to the lectures on indefiniteness in the Liumiaomen and other works.
As has already been theorized, the Guānyīn xuányì 観音玄義 may be regarded as a text presented as a lecture by Zhìyǐ 智顗（538-597） and documented by Zhāng’ān Guàndǐng 章安灌頂 （561-632）. Therefore, it can be assumed that this document, while presenting the ideas of Zhìyǐ, also contains the ideas of Guàndǐng.
The theory that as bodhisattvas Śākyamuni and Maitreya aspired to enlightenment at the same time and passed nine kalpas together in training, which is preached in the Guānyīn xuányì, can be said to be one of the theories showing the literary characteristic of Guàndǐng’s record of Zhìyǐ’s preaching. In other words, this theory is unique to the Guānyīn xuányì and differs from Zhìyǐ’s view.
In this short paper, I clarify the contents of the theory mentioned above and propose that it can be regarded as being based on Guàndǐng’s thought.
As is well known, the Śūraṁgama-sūtra 大仏頂首楞厳経, an apocryphal sūtra believed to have originated in Tang China, was considered very important by various Buddhist sects during the Song dynasty, and Tiantai was no exception. Tiantai Shanwai 山外 lineage scholars, represented by Hushan Zhiyuan 孤山智円 （976-1064）, assigned the Śūraṁgama-sūtra to the Fifth Period （fahua niepan shi 法華涅槃時）, the highest rank in the Tiantai doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods （wushi 五時）. Likewise, some scholars of the rival Tiantai Shanjia 山家 lineage placed the sūtra in the Fifth Period. However, the opinions of Shanjia lineage scholars were not unified on this point.
The present paper focuses on Wo’an Benwu’s 我庵本無 （1285-1342） Dafoding shoulengyan jing shiti 大仏頂首楞厳経釈題, according to which the Śūraṁgama-sūtra belongs to the Third Period （fangdeng shi 方等時）. The paper demonstrates that although previous studies overlooked Benwu’s interpretation, there can be no doubt that Benwu clearly placed the Śūraṁgama-sūtra in the Third Period. It further shows that such an interpretation appeared in the Shanjia lineage during the Southern Song and Yuan dynasties.
Referring to Saichō’s 最澄 discussion, this paper traces the development of interpretations of “the garment and the desk” in the Sino-Japanese Faxiang 法相 school.
In the parable of the burning house 火宅喩 in the Lotus Sūtra, there is a scene in which the affluent man ponders whether he should take his children out of the burning house by using his garment 衣裓 and desk 几案, before he prepares the three chariots 三車 for them.
East Asian monks commenting on the Lotus Sūtra interpreted “the garment” and “the desk” in various ways. In particular, it is the interpretation of Kuiji 窺基, the founder of the Faxiang school, that has left interpretive challenges for later generations. He gave two different interpretations of “the garment and desk.” Chinese and Japanese monks of the Faxiang school have attempted to solve this problem and have generally developed two conclusions.
This study examines the issue of the establishment of the Hokke-senbō based on records concerning Ennin’s visit to Tang China. According to the biography of Ennin, Jikaku daishiden 慈覚大師伝, he introduced the Hokke-senbō to Japan, and previous studies have interpreted it in this way. However, it is not possible to confirm these facts from the inventory of books brought by Ennin from Tang China, or from his diary, Nittō guhō junrei kōki 入唐求法巡礼行記. Therefore, this study concludes that it is difficult to know, based on his biography, whether Ennin introduced the Hokke-senbō to Japan, and that further study is needed.
With the progress of research in recent years, the works of Quanming 詮明, who is known as the “first person in the Vijñaptimātratā school of Khitan Buddhism,” have been found in ancient Buddhist circles from west to east, such as in Turfan, Dunhuang 敦煌, the Yingxian Wooden Pagoda 応県木塔, and the Songgwangsa temple 松広寺 in Korea. This paper investigates the relationship between Quanming and Japanese Buddhism through Buddhist texts of the Kamakura period in Japan. Specifically discussed are the writings of Quanming quoted by Jōkei 貞慶 and Sōshō 宗性, and Quanming’s stories of faith in Maitreya were very popular in Japan at that time.
Annen 安然 （841-between 889 and 897）, a prominent scholar of the Tendai school of Japan, interpreted the concept of zhenru suiyuan/shinnyo zuien 真如随縁 （tathatā, suchness or the truth that accords with changing circumstances） from the engyō gi 円教義 （viewpoint of the Perfect Teaching） in his Kyōji mondō 教時問答 （Dialogue on the Teaching and the Time） and Bodaishin gi shō 菩提心義抄 （On the Meaning of the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment）. Annen’s interpretation appears to have been influenced by Tiantai/Tendai masters Zhanran 湛然 （711-782）, Saichō 最澄 （766-822） and Ennin円仁 （794-864）.
The concept of zhenru suiyuan was first used by Fazang 法蔵 （643-712） of the Huayan school in his Dasheng qi xin lun yiji 大乗起信論義記 （Commentary on theAwakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna）. On the other hand, Zhanran reinterpreted and used this concept of zhenru suiyuan from the viewpoint of the Perfect Teaching in his Jingang pi 金剛錍 （Adamantine Scalpel）. Based on Zhanran’s idea, Saichō further developed this concept in reference to the Perfect Teaching in his Shugo kokkai shō 守護国界章 （An Essay on the Protecting of the Nation）. Furthermore, based on Zhanran and Saichō’s ideas, Ennin offered his own explanation of zhenru suiyuan in relation to the Perfect Teaching in his Kongōchōgyō sho 金剛頂経疏 （Commentary on theDiamond Peak sūtra）.
While inheriting the interpretations of these three predecessors （Zhanran, Saichō and Ennin） in reference to the Perfect Teaching, Annen developed his own understanding of zhenru suiyuan from the viewpoint of the Perfect Teaching. By stating that “the entity of the truth is all phenomena; and the entity of all phenomena is the truth” in the Kyōji mondō, vol. 1, he extensively developed the idea of zhenru suiyuan （the truth that accords with changing circumstances） in terms of the Perfect Teaching. In the Bodaishin gi shō, vol. 2, he attempted to theorize the identity of the “truth related to changing phenomena” referred to in the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論 （Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna） with the yinian sanqian/ichinen sanzen 一念三千 （three thousand realms in a single moment） of the Tiantai/Tendai doctrine. Furthermore, he specified the Dasheng qi xin lun itself as a work of the Perfect Teaching in the Kyōji mondō, vol. 1.
In a nutshell, based on the ideas elaborated by his Tiantai/Tendai precursors, Annen developed the concept of the “truth that accords with changing circumstances” as part of the Perfect Teaching.
Regarding the Sentō Saishō-kō 仙洞最勝講, when examining debates in which monks of the Tendai sect served as lecturer, we find four facts. First, as a whole, it is of the same substance as those of the Hosshōji-Mihakkō 法勝寺御八講 and Saishō-kō 最勝講. Second, there was what could be called a shared situation between the sects of north and south, mainly on topics related to Abhidharma. Third, through the practice of debates, the monk Sōshō 宗性 （1202-1278） used Tendai texts to understand Abhidharma. Fourth, there was an example in which the same subject as Sentō Saishō-kō was used even in the internal debates of the Tendai sect.
This paper aims to clarify the singularity of Other Power-shinjin 他力信心 in terms of the Cheng weishi lun. Prior studies point to the similarity of Other Power-shinjin and “Shōge 勝解 （*adhimukti, profound faith）.” But the sixth interpretation of deep mind 深心 by Shandao indicates that only the Buddha’s “wisdom 慧” can dispel “doubt 疑.” Therefore, those apart from the Buddha cannot establish profound faith. On the other hand, according to the fifth interpretation of “deep mind,” it can be acquired by being in accord with the Buddha’s words. This is because the essence of the deep mind is Śākyamuni’s “faith （xin 信）,” Buddhas’ faith which bears witness to the truth of his words, and Amida’s faith which motivates Śākyamuni and Buddhas. In view of the above, the singularity of Other Power-shinjin is in hearing the significance of the Name, putting aside an effort to dispel doubt by one’s own wisdom, being in accord with the significance of the Name, and thereby regarding the agent that gives rise to the shinjin as Amida.
Chisen 智暹 （1702-1768） was a priest of the Honganji school of Shin Buddhism in the early modern period. He initiated a doctrinal controversy referred to as the “Meiwa no hōron” 明和の法論. This was a criticism of ichiyaku hōmon 一益法門 （Dharma Gate of One Benefit）. Ichiyaku hōmon is the doctrine that shōjōju 正定聚 （being in the “company of the truly settled,” thus sure of rebirth in the Pure Land） and metsudo 滅度 （nirvāṇa; immediate attainment of liberation） are one and the same. But Chisen held that the person who has attained faith is illuminated by the Buddha’s light, and this light is not separate from the Pure Land. Later, in the Ōtani school of Shin Buddhism, this understanding of the Pure Land would also be called ichiyaku hōmon. In other words, in the Ōtani school, Chisen was also understood to be a proponent of ichiyaku hōmon.
I have examined the interpretation of the word “shin” 心, which appears in Dōgen’s 道元 ‘Hotsumujōshin’ 発無上心 fascicle of the 75-fascicle version of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵. Dōgen is thought to have explained that a phenomenon called “jindaichi” 尽大地 is the ultimate truth. In addition, he explains that the mind is a mind of wood and stones （木石心）, or the mind of old Buddha （古仏心）. He thus preaches that it is a mind stipulated in such a way that establishes the unsurpassed mind. This is based on the fact that the establishment of the Bodhi mind is the phenomenon that is the ultimate truth. The main assertion made in the ‘Hotsumujōshin’ fascicle is to strive for building stūpas and making statues of the Buddha, and Dōgen emphasized the establishment of the Bodhi mind in order to promote this idea. It is thought that Dōgen wrote his ‘Hotsubodaishin’ 発菩提心 fascicle in the 12-fascicle version of his Shōbōgenzō in his later years, and it is believed that he did not totally abandon his assertions from the ‘Hotsumujōshin’ fascicle.
This paper discusses the grasses-and-trees-mind 草木心 of the Shōbōgenzō’s 正法眼蔵 “Awakening Supreme Mind” 発無上心 chapter, and its relationship with the chapter on “Religious Awakening” 発菩提心 in the twelve-volume version of the Shōbōgenzō’, which bears the same name in the original title.
The grasses-and-trees-mind assumes religious awakenings 発心 in religious awakenings. This premise indicates that each of the various phenomena of the universe and matter 諸法 becomes a real state 実相 within the Buddha’s body 仏身. The virtue of building temples, which has been discussed previously, is also assumed to be included within that Buddha’s body. In other words, the grasses-and-trees-mind is superimposed on religious awakenings.
Next, a part of the description in the “Religious Awakening” chapter is identical to the description in the “Awakening Supreme Mind” chapter. However, since the description is limited to one spot, it is reasonable to say that the description in “Religious Awakening” forms the basis for the description in “Awakening Supreme Mind.” Hence, on the basis of the description in “Religious Awakening,” considering the hierarchy of religious awakenings, the idea of religious awakening in the “Religious Awakening” chapter is placed lower than it is in “Awakening Supreme Mind.”
This paper examines the transmission of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 （Treasury of the True Dharma Eye） in the early Sōtō Zen School, with a focus on Keizan Jōkin 瑩山紹瑾 （1264-1325）. It has been assumed that the text had been passed down following relationships of Dharma transmission, from Dōgen 道元 to Ejō 懐奘 （1198-1280）, to Tettsū Gikai 徹通義介 （1219-1309）, to Keizan. However, based on what can be gleaned from extant documents and their postscripts, it is conjectured that Gikai did not participate in the transcription of the Shōbōgenzō.
I begin by examining the process by which Gikai could have acquired the Shōbōgenzō without participating in its transcription. Gikai was asked to manage the Buddhist scriptures of Hajaku-ji temple 波着寺 by Ekan 懐鑑 （?-1251?）, as his dying wish. There is a postscript stating that the Shōbōgenzō was transcribed at Hajaku-ji in 1273. Consequently, Hajaku-ji held a copy of the Shōbōgenzō on which this transcription was based, and Gikai may have transmitted this to Keizan.
In addition, I examine the possibility that Keizan was introduced to the text by someone other than Gikai. The most plausible candidate for this is Gien 義演 （?-1314）. In 1292, Gien taught Keizan the Busso shōden bosatsukai sahō 仏祖正伝菩薩戒作法 （Instructions on the Bodhisattva Precepts correctly transmitted by the Buddhas and ancestors）. Therefore, it is possible that he transmitted the Shōbōgenzō to Keizan at the same time.
However, the postscript to the Shōbōgenzō said to have been transcribed at Hajaku-ji does not mention the name of the transcriber. Thus, it is speculated that the transcription of the Shōbōgenzō may have been performed not by a single person, but by multiple persons instead. Accepting this premise poses the need to examine a wider range of candidates, including Gikai and Keizan themselves, among others.
The above hypotheses still leave many problems to be solved. Hence, it is difficult to formulate a theory at present, and further study is required.
In previous scholarship, I have used syntactic analysis as a fresh perspective from which to analyze the syntax （kōbun 構文） of five representative volumes of Dōgen’s 道元 （1200-1253） main work, the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵, as well as other Japanese Buddhist texts written in the Kamakura period 鎌倉期 （1185-1133）, and have confirmed that complex sentences are frequently used. Now, I would like to further clarify the characteristics of the Shōbōgenzō’s syntax by analyzing the Chinese classics （kanseki 漢籍） quoted therein. First, I conducted a syntactical analysis of its quotations of the Six Patriarchs （such as Rújìng/Nyojyō 如浄, Zhàozhōu/ Jyōshū 趙州, etc.）, whom the Shōbōgenzō quotes more than 10 times, according to Genryū Kagamishima’s 鏡島元隆 Dōgen in’yō goroku no kenkyū 道元引用語録の研究 （Studies of Dōgen’s Quotations from Zen Texts）. I found that complex sentences made up only 61% of the quotations, compared to 76% elsewhere in the Shōbōgenzō. Moreover, given that more than half of the quotations are written in affirmative complex sentences （fukubun 複文）, and many others are written in simple sentences, we can see that simple sentence constructions are predominant. In addition, the characteristic sentence complexity of paraphrases （iikae 言い換え） in the Shōbōgenzō, as well as its tendency to conceptualize via paraphrasing, are absent in the quotations.
At the last conference of Japanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies, the author discussed the revised edition of the manuscript of the Shōbōzan Rokusoden 正法山六祖伝 within the chapter of ‘the origin of Shōbōzan Myōshinji Zen Temple’ 正法山妙心禅寺記, and mentioned the first abbot Kanzan Yegen 関山恵玄. Now he offers a revised text successively on the biographies of the second abbot Juō 授翁, the third Muyin 無因 and the fourth Nippō 日峰, considering the corrections and readings of Sekkō 雪江. The copiest is identified as the third abbot of the Reiunin 霊雲院, Gekkō Genshin 月航玄津. There are also mistakes made by the author Sekkō. For instance, the phrase 瑞泉日峰舜禅師 is to be corrected to 海清日峰舜禅師, but the editor Tōyō 東陽, the copiest Gekkō and the early Edo period publisher Nōsen 能仙 all failed to make the correction.
The author has connected Nippō with the Zuisenji 瑞泉寺 of Inuyama 犬山 because he was from Owari 尾張 （in Aichi Prefecture）. Jūo first practiced under Shūhō Myōchō 宗峰妙超 at Daitokuji, and was given the name Shūhitsu 宗弼. He did the same under Kanzan 関山. Muyin, also from Owari, ordained at Kenninji Temple 建仁寺 under Jūo, where he became the Ina 維那, but in his thirties moved to Myōshinji Temple, where he became the third Abbot, succeding Jūo. While Setsudō, a disciple of Muyin, was at Myōshinji, the prime minister Ashikaga Yoshimitsu 足利義満 got angry with Setsudō, who was intimate with Yoshimitsu’s enemy, and placed Myōshinji under his uncle Teiyō 廷用 of Nanzenji 南禅寺. After Yoshimitsu died, Teiyō gave Myōshinji back to this school. Some decades later, Nippō, the fourth Abbot of Myōshinji, restored the temple. Thus Sekkō 雪江 wrote these life-stories on his Shōbōzan-Rokusoden.
As mentioned, this manuscript was copied by Gekkō Genshin at his Reiun-in sub-temple of Myōshinji in the year of 1589. We obtained the copy of the manuscript preserved in the library of Ryūkoku University via Shitennōji University, and deciphered and studied it in this paper. We are in debt both the libraries for this study.
This study focuses on tales about the merit produced by chanting the title of a sūtra in the Fahua zhuanji compiled by Sengxiang 僧祥, which is said to precede Nichiren’s （1222-1282） doctrine about chanting the title of the Lotus sūtra, and examines its relationship to Nichiren’s doctrine. It concludes that chanting the title of a sūtra found in the tales in the Fahua zhuanji is a practice performed by ill-qualified persons and that it benefits others, and that these perspectives have great affinity with Nichiren’s doctrine.
Nevertheless, Nichiren cited from the Fahua zhuanji the story of Wulong 烏龍 and Yilong 遺龍, which is the tale about the merit produced by writing the title of a sūtra, not about the merit produced by chanting the title of a sūtra. The reason for this is presumably that the issues of “Family Ties” and “Slander of the Law,” which the story of Wulong and Yilong treats as its subject matter, are themes not found in the tales about the merit produced by chanting the title of a sūtra in the Fahua zhuanji, and Nichiren focused on these themes.
In the past, the author of the present study has engaged in research on the Kyōmyōan Gosho Mokuroku 境妙庵御書目録, a catalogue of works attributed to Nichiren. However, as new documents have been discovered in recent years, it has become necessary to rethink previous research results, with a renewed perspective on the Kyōmyōan Gosho Mokuroku.
Two catalogues, the Kyōmyōan Gosho Mokuroku and Honmonji-hon Kyōmyōan Mokuroku 本門寺本境妙庵目録, have been newly discovered. Therefore, in addition to the various works that have been confirmed so far, the existence of the Hongyōbo Kyōmyōan Mokuroku 本行坊境妙庵目録 and the Kagaminakajō Jōonji-hon 鏡中條長遠寺本, as well as the “Sekimoto shoji-hon” 関本所持本 （Volume owned by Mr. Sekimoto）, were also confirmed. In the future, it is hoped that all of the unseen documents, including those owned by Tamazawa Myōhokke-ji 玉澤妙法華寺, the abovementioned Kagaminakajō Jōonji-hon and the “Sekimoto shoji-hon,” will be made available so that the contents of the documents can be further examined.
This research is based on a manuscript of the Rokunai Gosho 録内御書 that has been newly discovered in the Ryūkoku University Library. This manuscript is currently composed of 33 volumes, including 117 Gosho writings. The person who transcribed and possessed it is unclear, and the reason that it is now kept at Ryūkoku University is unknown as well. Through comparision with other manuscripts of the Rokunai Gosho, from the perspectives of differences in the primary Gosho texts as well as other characteristics, I found that this manuscript seems similar to those possessed by Hompōji 本法寺, Hayashi Nissho 林日邵, and Nikkyōken 日教研.
When I delivered the above result, I suggested that the study of the manuscripts of the Rokunai Gosho should include this manuscript, as well as the other 20 existing manuscripts.
Sakyō ajari Nikkyō 左京阿闍梨日教 was a learned priest who attempted to prove the originality of the teachings of the Nikko 日興 school by citing Nichiren’s 日蓮 testaments and inheritances. In order to clarify Nikkyō doctrine, this study examines his attitude toward the acceptance of the important inheritances. Among Nikkyō writings, this study focuses on the “One Hundred and Fifty Articles” 百五十箇条, written before his submission to Taiseki-ji 大石寺 to scrutinize his quotations.
As a result, this study confirms that Nikkyō accepted the inheritances as Nichiren’s works and used them as a basis for various interpretations of Buddhism. One of the most characteristics is that in Article 21, describing the thirtieth god, the workings of “Nyohōkyō” 如法経 are attributed to the Lotus Sūtra, while in Article 23 explaining that there are three kinds of gods, all the gods are the workings of the Jōgyō Bosatsu 上行菩薩, and that the head of all bodhisattvas is also Jōgyō Bosatsu, and that the Shakuson 釈尊, the head of this school, is also the head of the Bodhisattva. “Honjaku 本迹 of the Benevolent Guardian Deity on Datchaku 脱益” and “Honjaku of the Benevolent Guardian Deity on Geshu 下種” were quoted from the “Hyakurokkashō” 百六箇抄 respectively, and these two serve as a contrast between the lower kinds and the benevolent.
Ichinyoin Nichijū 一如院日重 was a Buddhist priest active mainly in Kyoto from the Azuchi-Momoyama to the Edo period. One of the characteristics of Nichijū’s academic studies that contributed to the formation of his doctrinal thought was his wide-ranging study of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist texts. In particular, when we focus on the study of Shintō among his studies of non-Buddhist texts, we cannot overlook the fact that Nichijū received instruction on Shintō from his teacher, Busshin’in Nichikō 仏心院日珖.
Based on the Shintō dōitsu kanmishō 神道同一鹹味抄, presented in lecture form by Nichikō and transcribed by Nichijū, which is said to be a commentary on the “Jindai” 神代 volume of the Nihon shoki, I first explore the publication of the book. Next, Nichijū’s Shintō studies are examined in part by presenting the volumes of this book and the period, place, and content of the lectures contained in each volume.
The results of the examination confirm that the Shintō dōitsu kanmishō is a record of the 28 lectures given at Chōmyō-ji 頂妙寺, Kyoto, from May 1 to 28, 1590, with a total of 278 lectures, based on the Nihon shoki’s “Jindai” scroll lectures, the Sanjūbanjin 三十番神, and the transmission from Yoshida Kanetomo 吉田兼倶.
Jakue Ryōgyō 寂慧良暁, Rai’a Nenkū 礼阿然空, and other disciples of Nen’a Ryōchū 然阿良忠 began advocating the teaching that Amitābha achieved the Jijuyū Saṃbhogakāya （the body of personal enjoyment）. If we consider that prior to that the Amitābha buddhakāya was thought to have been achieved via the Tajuyū Saṃbhogakāya （body for the enjoyment of others [beings in the world]）, we can see how radical the Jijuyū Saṃbhogakāya doctrine was.
However, in the historical record, only Ryōchū is described as having passed down the Jijuyū Saṃbhogakāya doctrine, resulting in one of the problems associated with it, namely that details about its sources remain obscure. Thus, the objective of this paper is to establish the sources of the Amitābha Jijuyū Saṃbhogakāya doctrine as well as opportunities for its acceptance.
I have earlier pointed out that some of Shōkōbō Benchō’s 聖光房弁長 （1162-1238） ideas were explained in his efforts to spread the teaching of Nenbutsu. In this article, I try to clarify if there are any claims toward those who know the teaching of Nenbutsu and who recite it, and if so, what kind of claims they are. I mainly look into the Jōdoshū myōmoku mondō 浄土宗名目問答 among his writings.
Those claims were found in discussions about the following three things: the three mindsets 三心, the four cultivations 四修, and the three modalities of practice 三種行儀. Even ordinary people must be equipped with the former two in this life. They will respectively be attained by reciting Nenbutsu while believing that Amida Buddha will come and greet one, and by doing it even only a few times a day, but for a lifetime. The last one will be practiced by keeping to the practice of the ordinary Nenbutsu.
Explaining the importance of Nenbutsu practice to those practitioners following the single recitation doctrine is the main purpose of this writing. We therefore conclude that Shōkō wanted to claim that it is not difficult for Nenbutsu practitioners to be equipped with those three things.
In this paper, I consider how Genshin 源信 （942-1017） understood monmyō 聞名（listening to the names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas）.
Genshin preached in the Essentials for Birth in the Pure Land 往生要集 （985）, a text written in his middle age, that monmyō has the benefit of leaving the world of suffering, and the benefit of realizing bodhi in the future.
Genshin, in his later years, in The Commentary on the Amitābha Sūtra 阿弥陀経略記 （1014）, also preached that monmyō has the benefit of genfutai 現不退 （not to retreat in the middle of Buddhist practice）. Specifically, genfutai means that although we may fall into the world of suffering, we will surely become a Buddha someday.
Genshin made people aware that they had already obtained great benefit as above by monmyō, and advised them to pursue further benefits and practices
The idea of “Evil People 悪人 as the Right Object 正機” is seen as a representative of Shinran’s 親鸞 （1173-1262） thought. There is a view that this idea was advocated not only by Shinran, but also by the Pure Land Buddhism that preceded him. Some believe that this theory is the same as the idea of “Evil People as the Right Object,” based on the doctrine that it is the ordinary person 凡夫 who is the center of salvation. However, there are two kinds of ordinary people, good ordinary people and evil ordinary people - ordinary people are not evil by nature. Recognizing this, Shōkū 證空 （1177-1247） and Hōnen’s 法然 （1133-1212） direct disciples taught the idea of “Evil Ordinary People 悪凡夫 as the Right Object.” In this essay, I reexamined the problem of “Evil People as the Right Object” from the viewpoint of “Evil Ordinary People as the Right Object.”
This study examines the discovery and significance of the Daruma sect’s （darumashū 達磨宗） historical record Ichijiketsu 一字訣, written by Butchibō Kakuan 仏地房覚晏 and housed in the Sanzen-in 三千院 temple’s Enyūzō 円融蔵 （Perfect Interfusion Archive）. In 2018, I came across Butchibō Kakuan’s Shinkon ketsugishō 心根決疑, the study of which led me to discover the Ichijiketsu.
We can gather from the preface, postscript, and the main contents of the Sanzen-in’s copy of the Ichijiketsu that its current edition is based on a 1222 manuscript, with the addition of kunten 訓点 punctuation and an explanation of its contents written in a mixture of kanji and kana. This document can be identified as Butchibo Kakuan’s work by the fact that the preface is signed Kakuan 覚宴, and because the work’s author is identified as the 52nd in the same lineage as Zhuo’an Deguang 拙庵徳光, its 50th successor. My claim of Kakuan’s authorship is further supported by the fact that this document and his Shinkon ketsugishō share quite a number of similarities in content.
I will go into greater detail about this manuscript later, but for now, suffice it to say that it resembles the Shinkon ketsugishō in the way it explicates the Śūraṅgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞厳経, the Perfect Enlightenment Sūtra 円覚経, the Sugyōroku 宗鏡録, and the Vijñaptimatratā 唯識 doctrine. Moreover, Zongmi 宗密 is the only Chan monk mentioned in the Shinkon ketsugishō, whereas Zhuo’an Deguang, Bodhidharma 達磨, Huike 慧可, Huineng 慧能, and Zongmi all appear in the Ichijiketsu, making it more like a Zen text than the Shinkon ketsugishō.
While I have previously identified the Shinkon ketsugishō as the second oldest of Japan’s Zen manuscripts, the Ichijiketsu’s preface and contents reveal that it in fact precedes the Shinkon ketsugishō. By continuing to deepen our understanding of the Ichijiketsu, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the Daruma sect, as well as of Zen sects more broadly, in the early years of the Kamakura period. As such, it is clear that this historical document is of exceedingly great importance.
This paper examines the teachings of Kokan Shiren 虎関師錬 （1278-1346） on “Zen Precepts” 禅戒, a term with multiple meanings. In his theory of practice, Shiren has positioned the precepts as the foundation for attaining enlightenment. Furthermore, for Shiren, “Zen Precepts” means the “Precepts in Zen Buddhism.” Specifically, it refers to the Fanwang precepts 梵網戒, i.e., the ten major precepts and forty-eight minor precepts. Shiren defined the Fanwang jing 梵網経 as the “vinaya piṭaka” in Zen Buddhism and was adamant that the Fanwang jing transmitted from master to disciple within the Zen sect differed from that used in other sects. It should also be pointed out that Shiren was consistent in his emphasis on the Fanwang precepts and discouraged views which stated that the Fanwang precepts （i.e., the “Zen Precepts”） were inferior to the esoteric samaya （Jpn. sanmaya 三昧耶） precepts.
The Denkōroku 伝光録 manuscript preserved at Ryūmon-ji temple 龍門寺, written in 1547, is the second oldest manuscript amongst the existing families of Denkōroku manuscripts. The Ryūmon-ji manuscript has postscripts added countless times in later years. Therefore, identifying its original texts has been difficult, since it has not been possible to differentiate some parts of the postscripts from the original texts, and there were parts that were unreadable because of the additional remarks. However, by considering the Denkōroku manuscript preserved at Tenrin-ji temple 天林寺, written around 1696, it is proved that the Tenrin-ji manuscript and Ryūmon-ji manuscript preserve main texts that were derived from a common source. By employing the Tenrin-ji manuscript, it is now possible to differentiate the postscripts and to presume unreadable letters of the Ryūmon-ji manuscript.
This catalog held by Amanosan Kongō-ji 天野山金剛寺 temple （present Kawachinagano City, Osaka Prefecture） has a connection with the monk Shunnyū 淳祐 （890-953） of Ishiyama-dera 石山寺 temple （present Ōtsu City, Shiga Prefecture）. Because the opening section is missing, the actual title is unknown, but as the text states that “among the texts of Ishiyama Naiku Gobō ...,” it is certain that this catalog is concerned with Ishiyama-dera temple. In content it is a catalog of 660 esoteric texts covering a period of about 300 years after Kūkai （774-835） introduced Esoteric Buddhism to Japan. Because it also lists texts written by monks active in the Heian period, it is thought to have been completed in the late Heian period.
Catalogs of temple texts from the same period include the catalog written on the reverse side of the Shishuruijūshō 四種類聚抄 held by the National Institute of Japanese Literature, and the Ono kyōzō mokuroku 小野経蔵目録 at the Ryūmon Bunko 龍門文庫.
In light of the fact that these catalogs were likely produced during the late Heian period, they are significant for an understanding of the kind of studies that were being conducted in Esoteric Buddhism in this period. This catalog occupies an important position in the study of Heian period esoteric texts.
The Kandō Abidarumakusharon, published in the modern era, played a groundbreaking role in the Buddhist world of the time. It is pointed out that the background of this work was the result of the will of the publisher Hōzōkan, which sought to attract new readers, the priests of Sennyuji Temple, who provided their knowledge of the Abidarumakusharon, the traditional text of the Abhidharmakośa, and the Ōtani school priests who managed the entire revision process between the publisher and the scholars.
The philosophy running through the Nanpōroku 南方録 focuses on the aesthetic and spirit of rustic sōan hut-style tea 草庵 through contrasts with the luxurious daisu-style tea 台子 of shoin reception rooms. This philosophy is influenced by the beliefs expounded in the Lotus sūtra and in Zen Master Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō and at the same time is given significance by these texts. The concept of sōan tea was also influenced by the codified regulations that governed daily monastic life at Zen temples, known as the “zenrin no shingi” 禅林ノ清規, and is considered characteristic of the Zen thought in the Nanpōroku. This paper examines what “zenrin no shingi” refers to in the Nanpōroku, and how these regulations influence the philosophy propounded in this text. It concludes that the term “zenrin no shingi” used here refers specifically to the Yuan-dynasty Chan master Zhongfeng Mingben’s 中峰明本 Huanzhuan qinggui 幻住庵清規 （J. Genjū’an shingi） text of monastic regulations, and that the philosophy of the Nanpōroku is influenced not only by the Lotus sūtra and the Shōbōgenzō but also by the Huanzhuan qinggui. In short, it can be said that the concept of the sōan, which emphasizes simplicity and asceticism, underlies the Zen philosophy of the Nanpōroku.
This paper focuses on collections of stories from various eras in Japan, and discusses the understanding of the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa and the role played by the emergence of Jīvaka, considering changes over time. The conclusion is as follows: in the Heian period, the Konjaku monogatarishū 今昔物語集 followed the Mahāyāna Buddhist thought preached in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, telling us that the “aspect of his illness” before the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa was as “a manifestation of an emanation-body for the salvation of all beings” through the emergence of Jīvaka. Furthermore, from the middle of the 12th century a series of civil disturbances continued and society became unstable. War chronicles such as the Heike Monogatari 平家物語 of the Kamakura period and the Taiheiki 太平記 of the Muromachi period emphasized the character of Jīvaka as a famous doctor, and used that description to emphasize that even a famous doctor and his elixirs could not cure a “karmic disease.” In other words, this emphasizes the Buddhist idea of karma and retribution.
This paper analyzes the Zen methodology of Hakuin Ekaku 白隠慧鶴 （1686-1769） and Dahui Zonggao 大慧宗杲 （1089-1163） to make the following three points:
（1） Hakuin, inheriting the method of kōan contemplation systematized by Dahui, presented the following sequence of Zen practice leading to seeing one’s Buddha-nature: first one practices zazen and contemplates a kōan; then one expands one’s state of mental concentration obtained by this beyond zazen to all of one’s activities; and finally one breaks the bounds of samādhi and sees one’s Buddha-nature. Hakuin saw his own Buddha-nature by this method at the age of twenty-four, and he advocated it to others.
（2） While Daihui emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment through constant kōan contemplation in one’s every action, Hakuin emphasized practice after satori, which consists of the two elements of seeking enlightenment and saving sentient beings. Hakuin particularly emphasized the latter, and he realized its importance by a divine revelation from the kami of Kasuga that the moment he would cease to benefit others he would surely descend into suffering. Hakuin was nervous lest he ever cease to benefit others for even a moment, and this vitalized his practice.
（3） Hakuin devised a new method of instruction as he taught the dharma to benefit others when he began issuing three kinds of certificates: one given to those who had seen their Buddha-nature, a second to those who understood the relationship between seeking enlightenment and saving sentient beings, and third to those who had inherited his dharma. Hakuin would assess the levels of each of his disciples with these three kinds of certificates to encourage their continued practice.
Suzuki Shunryū 鈴木俊隆, a Buddhist monk of Japan’s Sōtō school, was one of the first teachers to establish a Zen center in the United States. His Zen center provided a new monastic lifestyle geared not towards Japanese immigrants, but towards Americans in general.
This paper elucidates the characteristics of Shunryū’s Zen, as well as the reasons behind its successful propagation in North America, by examining his biography, Crooked Cucumber, and the first compilation of his dharma talks, Zen Mind Beginners Mind （ZMBM）.
These works indicate that the foundations of Suzuki’s Zen are rooted in traditional Sōtō sectarian studies （dentōshūgaku 伝統宗学） established by Nishiari Bokusan 西有穆山 in the Meiji period. Suzuki received these teachings from Kishizawa Ian 岸澤惟安, one of Nishiari’s disciples. Accordingly, Suzuki did not emphasize enlightened states （satori 悟り） that occur during Zen practice. Prof. Huston Smith, another of Suzuki’s disciples, wrote that “in Shunryū Suzuki’s book the words satori and kensho, its near-equivalent, never appear.” （ZMBM, p. ix） This tendency is itself precisely what we might call “traditional Sōtō Zen,” in contrast to the Rinzai style of Zen that D.T. Suzuki brought to America. What is more, Shunryū expressed his distinctive Zen style by interpreting Hakuin’s “one hand clapping” kōan （sekishu no onjō 隻手音声） through a distinctively Sōtō lens.
At the same time, Shunryū insisted on the need for a new model of monastic practice in the United States―though that is not to say that he called for a fundamental reform of traditional practice. His aim, like the reformers of 9th century Chan, was to make modifications according to the realities he faced. Chan acquired its distinctive characteristics by modifying the precepts received from India; likewise, Shunryū sought to make similar kinds of “traditional reforms” （dentōteki kaihen 伝統的改変）.
It seems to be the combination of the above-mentioned tendencies―a traditional Sōtō Zen outlook on practice and appropriate modifications to monastic norms―that has allowed Shunryū Suzuki’s Zen to prosper not only in the United States, but in various countries around the world.
Kakunyo 覚如, the great-grandson of Shinran 親鸞, produced the biography of Shinran called Shinran denne 親鸞伝絵, but the first book was lost. He revised the book many times and there are 5 revised editions extant.
The Mōsu 帽子 garment is one of the characteristics of Shinran. Among 5 revised editions, in the Rinna-bon 琳阿本, the Takada-bon 高田本 and the Gugan-bon 弘願本, there are two facts made clear about the Mōsu. Namely, Shinran wears a Mōsu, but he sometimes takes it off, and second, many monks also wear a Mōsu. Accordingly, in these 3 revised editions, Kakunyo thinks that the Mōsu of Shinran is one of the protections against cold, like the Mōsu of other monks.
On the other hand, in the Kōei-bon 康永本 and the Shōganji-bon 照願寺本 （the contents of which agree with each other）, the monks who wear a Mōsu are few, and thus the Mōsu of Shinran is impressive. The scene in which Shinran keeps wearing a Mōsu is from the scene Inadakōbō 稲田興法 （下巻 第二段） until before his death in the scene Rakuyōsenge 洛陽遷化 （下巻 第六段）. What is Kakunyo’s view on the Mōsu of Shinran in the Kōei-bon in the final complete edition?
In the Kōei-bon, Shinran wears a Mōsu on his journey and at the place of his sermon. And in the scene Rennimusō 蓮位夢想 （上巻 第四段）, for the title of honor given to Shinran, Kakunyo uses Soshi shōnin 祖師聖人 to refer to him as the founder of the Shinshū 真宗 sect. For these reasons, I think that, in the Kōei-bon, the Mōsu of Shinran is the symbol of Shinran who continues his journey for the propagation of his teachings as the founder of the Shinshū sect.
Shinran 親鸞 （1173-1262） is said to have returned to his hometown of Kyoto after engaging in missionary work in the Kantō region for approximately 20 years, passing through Hakone 箱根 on the way. Various reports that a local person had an encounter with Shinran circulated. I discuss the way in which this tradition grew.
When Shinran and his disciples took a break on a flat area （Oinotaira 笈の平; present-day Amazake chaya-shita 甘酒茶屋下）, Shinran told Shōsin 性信, one of the disciples who returned to Kantō, to continue missionary work in his place on behalf of Shinran. It is said that Shōsin put the items he had received from Shinran in his bag and returned to Kanto tearfully.
This tradition occurred under the influence of the Bandō Hōonji 坂東報恩寺 in the middle of the Edo period, and temples of the Hakone district participated in it during a period from the late Edo to the beginning of the Meiji period.
Although Buddhism was strictly controlled by the policies of the Hongwu emperor （Ming Taizu 明太祖） during the early Ming dynasty, Chan monks were also quite influential during this time. One of the most prominent of them was Jitan Zongle 季潭宗泐 （1318-1391）, a member of the Dahui 大慧 lineage of the Linji 臨済 order. As a result of the Hongwu emperor’s administrative policies toward Buddhism, Zongle’s life was marked by ups and downs, with the most notable example being Zongle’s dispatch to the Western Regions. Nevertheless, there are different theories regarding the timing, duration, and reasons for the dispatch, with no conclusion having yet been reached. Based on the existing historical documents, this paper presents the most plausible view at this point and attempts to resolve these issues.
From the end of the Tang Dynasty, the Śūraṅgama-sūtra was annotated by scholars of various Buddhist affiliations, and by non-Buddhist scholars. Because the commentaries have different academic backgrounds, their interpretations of the sūtra are different. Tiantai Buddhist scholars use Tiantai teachings to guide their interpretations, with the tendency of the Song period idea that “the six Confucian classics offer an interpretation of one’s own heart, and one’s heart includes all the things of the world 六経注我.” As a successor of the Huayan School, Zixuan interpreted the Śūraṅgama-sūtra as a way of “communicating with each other” under the guidance of Huayan teachings, adopting ideological elements including those of the “Middle Way” and “Consciousness-Only.”
He interpreted the direction of the Middle Way thought in the Śūraṅgama-sūtra by using the ideas of the Madhyamaka-śāstra. In addition, he interpreted the direction of the Śūraṅgama-sūtra with the thought of the Triṃśikā and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. This fully shows his adoption of many excellent ideas and eclectic characteristics.
Hu Shi insisted that the true Dharma lineage of Shenzhao 神照 and Zongmi 宗密 was not the Heze School, but rather the Jingzhong School 淨衆宗. Although there are major problems with this insistence, it is still widely accepted today. The first purpose of this paper is to show that Hu Shi’s evidence is completely baseless. The second purpose is to reconstruct the biography of the master of Shenzhao and Zongmi, Nanyin 南印, by using various documents to confirm that they are the Heze school. The third purpose is to explain why Nanyin left Zhongyuan 中原 and ordered his disciples to advance to Zhongyuan, by showing that Huijian’s 慧堅 activities in Chang’an 長安 were behind it.
This paper examines the relationship between the tendency of the unity of the meditative and doctrinal approaches 教禅融合 in Chinese Buddhism from the Tang to Song dynasties and the establishment of the Zongjing lu 宗鏡録, and then analyzes the theoretical background of the reason why the Zongjing lu focuses on Huayan’s dharmadhātu theory and the meaning of the concept of dharmadhātu in the Zongjing lu and its relationship with the one mind 一心. The following three conclusions were reached.
First, the trend towards the Chan-ization of Chinese Buddhism became more pronounced. There is a Chan tradition that emphasizes the one mind. Based on this, Yanshou 延寿 accepted Zongmi’s 宗密 idea of the harmony of the meditative and doctrinal approaches 教禅合致, worked to unify the doctrines of the various sects through ‘the one mind sect’ 一心宗, and compiled the Zongjing lu.
Second, the interpretation of dharmadhātu in the Zongjing lu is a synthesis of the discussions of various schools of thought, centering on the teachings of Zongmi.
Third, it maximizes the Chan tradition of ‘以心為宗’ （to consider mind as the implicit truth） and includes the dharmadhātu doctrine of the Huayan school in ‘能詮’ （to express in words, the efficacy of an explanation or a commentary） that is used to articulate the one mind. This is arguably the greatest theoretical contribution that the Zongjinglu gives to the view of dharmadhātu.
According to Zhipan’s 志磐 Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀, the 40 fascicleDa Fangguangfo Huayan jing （hereafter referred to as the 40 fascicle Huayan 四十華嚴, translated in 795-798） is a translation by Chengguan 澄觀 together with Master Prajñā 般若三藏 of Kapiśi 罽賓國, of the Huayan jing, a Sanskrit text presented by the kingdom of Uḍa 烏荼國.
The 40 fascicle Huayan contains more descriptions of Avalokitesvara than does the 60 fascicle Huayan 六十華嚴, the Luomojia jing 羅摩伽經, or the 80 fascicle Huayan 八十華嚴, and among the additions are two chants that are not found in the 60 fascicle Huayan. In these two verses, we can see the ideas of Chengguan. For example, the idea that only one of the “the three poisons 三毒” can be considered “the three poisons,” and the interpretation of the Huayan jing based on the “Chapter of the Universal Gate 普門品” of the Lotus Sūtra are Chengguan’s own ideas and interpretations, and it is highly possible that he included his own view of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva in the 40 fascicle Huayan.
This study is an examination of Li Tongxuan’s understanding of Queen Māyā 摩耶夫人. Li Tongxuan has a unique understanding of good teachers in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. He refers to Guanyin 観音 Bodhisattva as “the head of great compassion” 大悲之首 and to Queen Māyā as “the head of great kindness” 大慈之首. This study focuses on his understanding of Queen Māyā. By understanding this point, we will be able to understand the characteristics of Li Tongxuan’s Huayan thought. In previous studies, Li Tongxuan’s understanding of Queen Māyā has not been discussed. Through a comparative study of the data of Zhiyan 智儼, Fazang 法蔵, and Li Tongxuan, we clarify that for Li Tongxuan, Queen Māyā is the perfect practitioner of the practice of Samantabhadra （Puxian 普賢）, understood as the head of great compassion, and that Queen Māyā has the same status as Guanyin Bodhisattva.
In this paper, I consider one of the schemes of doctrinal classification proposed by Xingman 行滿, a disciple of Zhanran 湛然, in his Compendium on the Teachings of Tiantai Buddhism 學天台宗法門大意, and conclude that Xingman’s classification is a typical example of the doctrine shared by Zhanran and his disciples as the doctrine of Zhiyi 智顗.
Although Tathāgatagarbha thought and Consciousness-only thought belong to different lineages, there is certainly a close relationship between them in the history of Buddhist thought. Jingyingsi Huiyuan 浄影寺慧遠 and Kuiji 窺基 belong to the Dilun and the Faxiang School, respectively. They are the inheritors of the old Yogācāra and new Yogācāra thought. Since their commentaries on the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra ― Huiyuan’s Shengmanjing yiji 勝鬘経義記 and Kuiji’s Shengmanjing shuji 勝鬘経述記 ― are extant, we can systematically compare their interpretations of concepts such as tathāgatagarbha, mind-nature and śūnyatā. By comparing their commentaries, we will see how Chinese Buddhist thinkers started from their respective theoretical backgrounds and completed the digestion and absorption of tathāgatagarbha thought, while at the same time also clarifying the difference between the old and the new ideas of the Yogācāras.
In traditional Chinese thought, shenming 神明 is an idea that largely refers to the jingshen 精神 （spirit） and yishi 意識 （mind） of a person, or more generally, the spirit of humanity. As Buddhism was introduced to China and gradually transmitted, the idea of shenming was absorbed in Buddhist terminology and was reinterpreted as “the imperishable subject that experiences saṃsāra.” Furthermore, in texts such as the Mingfo lun 名仏論, the Ming baoying lun 名報応論, the Niepanjing jijie 涅槃経集解 and the Shenming chengfo yi 神明成仏義, shenming was related to Buddhist ideas, such as Suchness （Skt. tathatā） and the Buddha nature（Skt. buddha-dhātu）. In Chinese Buddhism, the idea of shenming was expanded by including the idea of Buddha nature from Indian Buddhism and thus absorbed into and dissolved the concept of spirit that has an entitative aspect. This eventually surpassed the monistic understanding of shenming and ended the debate on whether the spirit will perish.
It is said that Chinese Buddhist thought converted from an orientation on “innate emptiness related to the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras” to “marvelous existence related to the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa sūtra” during the Jin and Liu Song dynasities. This paper considers how Chinese Buddhists interpreted the problem of emptiness and non-existence through the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa sūtra. Therefore, I focus on the concept of “middle way,” which includes terms such as emptiness, existence, and non-existence, which are inseparably interconnected to the concept of “middle way” in the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa sūtra. This is interpreted in the compendioius commentary titled Da banniepan jing jijie 大般涅槃経集解. Because the Da banniepan jing jijie with 71 fascicles is a massive commentary, I focus on the interpretations of Sengliang 僧亮 （400?-468?）, Sengzong 僧宗 （438-496）, and Baoliang 宝亮 （444-509） in their commentaries on the concept of “middle way” in the chapters of “Evil and Good” （邪正品） and “the Nature of the Tathāgata” （如来性品）.
In the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持経, the three categories of pure precepts include the traditional precepts such as the complete precepts, established in early sectarian Buddhism before the Mahāyāna emerged. On the other hand, those in the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業経 do not include them, and accept the ten grave precepts from the Fanwang jing 梵網経. Some studies have pointed out that the Pusa yingluo benye jing abandons the traditional precepts, sometimes referred to as the “Hīnayāna” precepts. However, in the fifth century, the time of appearance of the Pusa yingluo benye jing in China, the traditional precepts were not considered as “Hīnayāna,” and this sūtra requires Mahāyāna practitioners to receive the three categories of pure precepts after leaving home, which means receiving the complete precepts and becoming a monk or nun. The Chujiaren shou pusajie fa 出家人受菩薩戒法 created in the early fifth century shows two methods, receiving again and converting, as the meanings of keeping the traditional precepts as the Mahāyāna precepts. It can be considered that the former would be related to the Pusa dichi jing, and the latter to the Pusa yingluo benye jing. These views can be supported by the theories of Ŭijŏk 義寂 and Zhanran 湛然 in later times.