The Omiya Library of Ryukoku University owns a copy of the Guanxin bianyi 観心辯異, compiled by Daitsū 大通. This is an old manuscript that examines the understanding of guanxin 観心, the most important aspect of the Tiantai school in the Song dynasty 趙宋天台. It can be read as a document that urges us to reconsider the term “Shanjia shanwai” 山家山外 （roughly: orthodox and unorthodox Tiantai）. The manuscript is valuable in showing how the Japanese Tendai school thought about the Shanjia shanwai controversy in the late modern period.

In the field of East Asian Buddhist Studies, the investigation and transcription of manuscripts is essential for scholarly advancement. The present article examines the Tōji-gire 東寺切 manuscript fragments, which have been traditionally ascribed to the eminent Buddhist scholar Kōbō Daishi 弘法大師. Recognized for their distinctive non-joined cursive script, these fragments are generally believed to originate from the late-Nara to early-Heian periods. Existing scholarship confirms that the Tōji-gire corpus includes manuscripts of Wŏnhyo’s 元暁 P’an piryang non 判比量論, along with unidentified Yogācāra texts known as Chiehōmon 智恵訪文 and Jintsū-ron 神通論. Nevertheless, the contents of numerous additional manuscripts within this corpus remain unidentified. Recent studies have disclosed that those fragments also contain unidentified texts related to Yogācāra and Buddhist logic. Notably, these recent findings include fragments of previously unknown commentaries on the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論, among which one fragment is tentatively identified as a manuscript of Wŏnch’ŭk’s 円測 lost commentary.

In this paper, I aim to clarify the role of supernatural power in the bodhisattva’s course of practice by examining the oldest commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, the Da zhidu lun. My focus is on understanding the connection between the Buddha’s supernatural power and that of bodhisattvas.

In the Da zhidu lun, the Buddha’s supernatural power is understood as transcending time and space, and the bodhisattvas and the Buddha’s disciples serve as the medium through which this power is manifested. Consequently, all aspects of the dharmas, including the bodhisattvas’ supernatural power, depend on the Buddha’s power. Thus, the reason why bodhisattvas must possess supernatural powers is because this serves as the agent of the Buddha’s method for enlightening all beings, including the bodhisattvas themselves.

Supernatural power can be gained in two ways: through the practice of the four dhyānas, rooted in the emptiness of dharmas, and as rewards gained from karmic merits of past lives. Through these two methods, bodhisattvas connect the past to the present and extend the path of salvation for all sentient beings into the future, fulfilling their role as intermediaries of the Buddha’s power.

In summary, supernatural power is an integral part of the bodhisattva’s course of practice. It serves not only to manifest the Buddha’s power through the cultivation of their practice, but also to act as an intermediary of that power in the salvation of all beings.

To date, research on the history of Chinese Buddhist doctrine has little explored the development of the concept of the Mind-made body （Sanskrit: manomayakāya; Chinese: yisheng shen 意生身）. In this essay, I intend to delve into the evolution of the Mind-made body concept during the Northern and Southern dynasties in China, based on an analysis of two texts: the Shengman yiji 勝鬘義記 （T. 2761） and the Shengman jingshu 勝鬘経疏 （擬題: S.6388, BD02346）.

First, I will analyze the theory of the Mind-made body at the eighth stage as found in the Shengman yiji. It is evident that in this text, the Mind-made body at the eighth stage is considered synonymous with the dharma-body （Sanskrit: dharmakāya; Chinese: fashen 法身）. Next, I discuss the theory of the Mind-made body at the first stage as found in the Shengman jingshu. This text establishes a correspondence between three types of Mind-made bodies and ten stages.

Furthermore, in the Shengman jingshu, it is clear that the author intends to differentiate between two types of beings from two vehicles: those before the first stage and those between the first stage and the sixth stage. The latter beings are referred as sage bodhisattvas.

In the Nirvāṇa Sūtra（T.375）, juan 11, unique precepts that bodhisattvas have to maintain are mentioned, namely the wǔzhī zhījiè 五支諸戒 and the hùtā-jiè 護他戒. Hereinafter, the two precepts are referred to as the Nirvāṇa Precepts （涅槃戒）.

Zhìyǐ 智顗 （538–597） incorporated the Nirvāṇa Precepts into the Tiantai academic system as the Biejiao 別教 doctrine in his Dàběn sìjiào yì 大本四教義 （T. 1929）. In Zhìyǐ’s interpretation, the Nirvāṇa Precepts are treated as the precepts for Bodhisattvas. It can be said that this comprehension is in line with the theory of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra.

On the other hand, the Dà bānnièpán jīng jíjiě 大般涅槃経集解 （T. 1763）, which is said to have been compiled by Bǎoliàng 寶亮 （444–509）, shows that the explanations of the Nirvāṇa Precepts by various scholars of the Nirvāṇa school who had been active before Zhìyǐ do not unanimously agree. Slight ideological developments can be recognized among the various theories found in the Dà bānnièpán jīng jíjiě.

In this short paper, I wish to discuss the above from the perspective of exploring the ideological background of Tiantai doctrine cultivated in the late Sui and early Tang dynasties period. At the same time, I wish to mention a part of the development process of the view of Precepts in the Chinese Buddhist tradition.

This study discusses theories about Buddha lands in the Fodi jinglun 仏地経論 （T. 1530） translated by Xuanzang 玄奘. Previous research has held that the Shelun School’s 摂論 doctrine of the “Four Pure Lands” transformed into the Weishi School’s Doctrine about Buddha lands with the appearance of the Fodi jinglun. However, in this study, we examine the Chinese and non-Chinese Buddhist elements of the Fodi jinglun, and find that it was not an opportunity for transformation, but that the text itself was a document intended to serve as a development from an old theory to a new theory.

In response to other sects and schools, Pure Land Buddhists in the mid-Tang period of China put forth various arguments regarding practices. Previously, the author identified the presence of differently oriented perspectives on practice among Pure Land Buddhists in the mid-Tang period by comparing perspectives on practices in the Jingtu cibei ji 浄土慈悲集 （T. 2826, Lüe zhujinglun nianfo famen wangsheng jingtu ji 略諸経論念仏法門往生浄土集, compiled by Huiri 慧日） and the Nianfo-jing 念仏鏡 （T. 1966, compiled jointly by Daojing 道鏡 and Shandao 善道）. The Jingtu cibei ji recommends the practical implementation of jiang jing 講経 and precepts while focusing on nianfo 念仏, while the Nianfo-jing stresses that all other practices are integrated into the single act of nianfo; the two attitudes could be said to run counter to one another.

This could be regarded as the situation before the An Lushan Rebellion. However, after the rebellion, the Buddhist order shifted from a tendency of rivalry to one of reconciliation. How did Pure Land Buddhists’ perspectives on practices develop during that time? Here I discuss the Nianfo sanmei baowang lun 念仏三昧宝王論 （T. 1967; compiled by the monk Feixi 飛錫）, a work that exemplifies Pure Land Buddhism in the mid-Tang dynasty after the An Lushan Rebellion, and I further examine the views expressed in this text.

It is known that the Guan Wuliangshou jing shu 觀無量壽經疏 （T. 1750）, ascribed to Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智顗, was based heavily on the text of the Guan Wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 （T. 1749） by Jingyingsi Huiyuan 浄影寺慧遠. Notably, the synopsis of the Guanjing in this text is similar to that in Huiyuan’s. However, this paper argues that Tiantai’s analysis of the opening section of the sūtra （faqi xu 発起序）, while adopting Huiyuan’s expressions, is original to him. How the text analyzes the division of the introduction of the sūtra is an important factor in his interpretation of siwei 思惟 and zhengshou 正受. In conclusion, this paper clarifies the structure of Tiantai’s divisions, and points out that the interpretation of this section had significant influence on later scholars such as Lingzhi Yuanzhao 霊芝元照.

The Four Truths as Immeasurable （wuliang sidi 無量四諦） and The Four Unconstructed Noble Truths （wuzuo sidi 無作四諦） have been developed from the Śrīmālā-sūtra （Shengman jing 勝鬘経） and Nirvāṇa-Sūtra （Niepan jing 涅槃経）, which are based on the thought of the store of the Tathāgata （rulaizang 如来蔵）. However, these two kinds of Four Truths assume different meanings according to the contexts between Tathāgata and the Buddha nature （foxing 仏性）. In this paper, I will clarify what Zhiyi （智顗） wants to represent in these two kinds of the Four Noble Truths by examining the Doctrine of the Four Teachings （Sijiao yi 四教義, T. 1929）.

This paper can be summarized as follows.

1. Concerning Zhiyi’s 智顗 theory of practice, the conventional view is that there was a turn from chan 禅 to zhiguan 止観. This is based on the view of Shindai Sekiguchi 関口真大, but there are two problems.

2. The first point is that he viewed the transition from chan to zhiguan as a “turning point.” Considering Zhiyi’s theory of practice, it is possible to contrast the chan in his youth with the zhiguan of his later years, but this should be recognized as a development, not a turn from chan to zhiguan. Certainly it is possible to confirm a strong awareness of the problems of “Chan masters” at that time, but as long as chan itself as a theory of practice is not denied, zhiguan should be considered as an extension of chan. The directions of chan and zhiguan are by no means different.

3. The second point is that Zhiyi’s theory of practice is based solely on three texts: the Shi chan boluomi cidi famen 釈禅波羅蜜次第法門 （T. 1916）, Tiantai xiao zhiguan 天台小止観 （T. 1915）, and Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観 （T. 1911）. There are various discourses in common between the Shi chan boluomi cidi famen and Mohe zhiguan, as well as the Tiantai xiao zhiguan. In all of them, there is a common attitude of trying to summarize all the Buddha Dharma with a specific concept. Taking them all together, it is clear that the development from chan to zhiguan did not take place suddenly. Therefore, it would be inadequate to simply assume that Zhiyi’s theory of practice began with chan and culminated in zhiguan. Both chan and zhiguan need to be considered in the context of an attempt to summarize all the Buddha Dharma through a single word.

The Japanese Tendai interpretation of the Fahua lun 法華論 （Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa） was made by Saichō 最澄 （766/767–822） before Enchin 円珍 （814–891）. However, no quotations from Saichō’s writings can be confirmed in Enchin’s Hokkeron-ki 法華論記. Some previous studies have suggested that Enchin intended to reinforce Saichō’s theory on this point, but there has been no specific examination of this question. This paper examines, from a contemporaneous perspective, whether Enchin’s interpretation of the Hokkeron-ki actually reinforced Saichō’s interpretation. In particular, we deal only with the “category of incorporated subjects” 摂取事門 of the Fahua lun. First, as examples of interpretations prior to Enchin, we examine the interpretations in Zhanran’s 湛然 Fahua wenju ji 法華文句記 （T. 1719） and Zhidu’s 智度 Tiantai fahua shu yizuan 天台法華疏義纉. In particular, some of Zhidu’s interpretations were influenced by those in Kuiji’s 窺基 Fahua xuanzan 法華玄賛（T. 1723）. Next, we made a comparison of Saichō’s and Enchin’s interpretations. Saichō’s interpretation of the Shugo kokkai-sho 守護国界章 was based on the theory of the Fahua wenju ji, but was also unique. We are not able to confirm Enchin’s intention to reinforce Saichō’s theory only in “the category of incorporated subjects” in the Hokkeron-ki.

This study examines the Jogyō-kyō 浄行経, which is cited in Annenn’s （841–915?） Futsuju Bosatsukai Kōshaku, 普通授菩薩戒広釈 （T. 2381）, and which contains several episodes of Śākyamuni Buddha’s previous lives that share some similarities with the Lotus Sūtra, but has different chronological sequences. Through comparison and contrast with the Shingonshū Kyōjigi 真言宗教時義 （T. 2396）, we can determine that the Jogyō-kyō is also known as the Youposai jiejing 優婆塞戒経, and it can be assumed that this corresponds to the fragmentary apocryphon Jingxing youposai jing 浄行優婆塞経 compiled by Xiao Ziliang 蕭子良 （460–494）. Furthermore, various uncertainties have been pointed out by Genshin 源信 （942–1017）, Jōkei 貞慶 （1155–1213）, and others regarding the chronology of the past life episodes in the Lotus Sūtra, and it is likely that the Jogyō-kyō was established and accepted as the forerunner of such controversies.

Annen 安然 （841–between 889 and 897）, a prominent Tendai scholar, developed his thought in various descriptions in the Kyōji mondō 教時問答 （Dialogue on Teaching and Time） and Bodaishingi shō 菩提心義抄 （On the Meaning of the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment）, using the main concepts from the Dasheng qi xin lun 大乗起信論 （hereafter Qi xin lun）: xin zhenru men 心真如門 （gate of the heart of suchness） and xin shengmie men 心生滅門 （gate of the heart of vicissitude）. In this article, taking up the five quotations relating to the zhenru suiyuan 真如随縁 （suchness following changing circumstances） from his two works, I discussed the differences between these five quotations concerning the xin zhenru men and xin shengmie men, as well as the cause of these differences.

In the first example, the zhenru suiyuan is described in the xin shengmie men from the Qi xin lun. In the second example, the zhenru suiyuan is described in the xin zhenru men from the Qi xin lun. In the third and the fourth examples, the zhenru suiyuan is simply described only from the Qi xin lun. In the fifth example, the zhenru suiyuan is elaborated in the xin zhenru men as well as in the xin shengmie men. From the five examples, I conclude that Annen’s real intention is comprehensively described in the fifth, and that from his philosophical viewpoint, the other four also stand on the same ground as the fifth. In the end, I refer to the philosophical importance of the five examples with which Annen unifies the idea of zhenru suiyuan with “xin zhenru men [equals] xin shengmie men” （the inseparable conceptual set of the “gate of the heart of suchness” and the “gate of the heart of vicissitude”）.

This paper will use the Jitashū Toketsu Gimon 自他宗唐決疑問 preserved in the Todaiji library （with particular focus on the questions concerning Tendai, Hossō, Kusha and Sūtra & Treatise）, in an attempt to understand, within the large frame of the flow of Buddhist thought, the questions Genshin 源信 （942–1017） sent to China. The following three points become clear.

First, the 22nd article （恵心疑問） in Genshin’s questions is a reconstruction from a critical examination of a discussion in Zhanran’s 湛然 Zhiguan fuxing chuanhong jue 止観輔行伝弘決 （T. 1912）. Second, the first article in the “Questions on Hossō” 法相疑問 is an attempt to revert questions seen in the Shiki 私記 literature of the Southern Capital 南都 Buddhists in Japan. Third, the first article on “Questions on Sūtra & Treatises” 経論疑問, while showing concern towards questions and answers within the debate on Buddha-nature, is a question constructed in critique of the doctrinal basis of the “Hossō Masters.”

In conclusion, the background out of which Genshin constructed his questions was his vast knowledge of Buddhism both in China and Japan.

In his work Ketsujō ōjō-shū 決定往生集, Chingai 珍海 in Chapter 5 Section 3 adheres to the doctrine described by Shandao 善導 in his Guan Wuliang shoufo jing-shu 觀無量壽佛經疏 （T. 1753）. He singles out chanting the name of Amitābha Buddha from among many other practices focused on enlightening the mind as the correct meditative practice. However in this process, Chingai places particular importance on the twentieth of Amitābha’s forty-eight vows. In this paper I examine how Chingai perceives the meaning of ‘hearing the name of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas’ （specifically, ‘hearing the name of Amitābha’） when he chooses the twentieth vow over the eighteenth.

This paper examines Buddhist services in the Teishinkōki 貞信公記, the diary of Fujiwara no Tadahira （880–949）, covering public （those of the imperial court in which he participated in a professional capacity） and private services.

These services were primarily for peace in this life and consisted mainly of the clergy’s sūtra recitations and esoteric rituals （shuhō 修法）. Pre-Teishinkōki national histories rarely mention esoteric rituals, but subsequent aristocrat diaries frequently do. During Tadahira’s time, they began to take root in both public and private Buddhist services.

As for diary entries on religious beliefs and practices regarding future lives, there is one on gyakushu 逆修, in which Tadahira prayed for his rebirth in the Pure Land, and on a memorial service for his parents. There is also an entry on Tadahira having a Pure Land image copied. However, none suggest Amida 阿弥陀 beliefs and practices for his peace in the next life; these were still maturing.

The activities of Kūya 空也, also of the first half of the tenth century, have many parallels with the Teishinkōki’s misfortune-preventing imperial court services. Such similarities were probably the reason for Kūya’s popularity.

The Tamemori Hosshin Innenshū 為盛発心因縁集 is a story about the dialogue between Tsunoto 津戸 and Hōnen 法然. The date and author of this book are unknown, and previous studies have not fully examined the contents of the dialogue. In previous studies I have considered this book to be a story formed while accepting Hōnen’s teachings. In this article, I focus again on the Pure Land philosophy described in the Tamemori Hosshin Innenshū, and compare it with Hōnen’s Buddhist sermons. This story describes in detail the Pure Land philosophy that Hōnen did not originally actively preach, such as the relationship between Bodhisattvas and those who aspire to rebirth, and the appearance of the Pure Land of Amitābha. It is conceivable that Hōnen’s view of the Pure Land was reconstructed while accepting various scriptures and materials. It can be surmised that the background of Hōnen’s view of the Pure Land described in the story was to inspire not only Tsunoto but also those who enjoyed the story.

In Shando’s 善導 Guan Wuliang shoufo jing-shu 觀無量壽佛經疏 （T. 1753）, there is a widely discussed expression, “One thing is commonly vowed in the forty-eight vows of Amitābha” 一一願言. In particular, the Seizan 西山 school used this as the basis for the vow of salvation through nembutsu, which is common to all vows. This claim of the Seizan school was a controversial one. Through an examination of this debate, this paper will clarify how the understanding of the vows in the Jōdo school developed.

In Shinran’s Hymns on the Pure Land （Jōdo Wasan 浄土和讃）, there is a set of verses based on the Guan wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経 （Contemplation Sūtra）. These hymns are related to the history of discrimination in Japan. Specifically, a hymn about the caṇḍāla, outcaste people discriminated against in ancient India, functioned to promote discrimination against the Buraku 部落 in Japan. In order to consider the meaning of the hymn about the caṇḍāla, we will examine it through a comparison with Shandao’s understanding of the Contemplation Sūtra. We will also examine Shinran’s understanding of the Contemplation Sūtra in order to consider the meaning of the hymn.

In this paper, I examine the Postscript （batsubun 跋文） of the Yuishinshō-mon’i 唯信鈔文意 （T. 2658） and Ichinen-tanen-mon’i 一念多念文意 （T. 2657）. In the postscript, Shinran refers to the students of Kanto who “do not know the heart of letters （文字のこころをしらない）” as “fools （愚者）.” In previous studies, “fool” has basically been regarded negatively. In contrast, this paper redefines “fool” in a positive light as the ideal form of a nembutsu practitioner through a comparison with Hōnen’s Ichimai-kishō-mon 一枚起請文, which speaks of ichimon-fuchi no gudon no mi （一文不知の愚鈍の身）.

This study consider the actual situation of the Kashima monto 鹿島門徒, a group of Shinran’s followers in the Kashima area, based on medieval documents, avoiding use of historical records compiled after the Edo period. I particularly focus on records related to the life of Junshinbō Shinkai 順信房信海, a central figure within the Kashima monto and considered to be a direct disciple of Shinran.

Based on statements in the Ōtani Honganji tsūki 大谷本願寺通紀, Ōtani isekiroku 大谷遺跡録, and Shinran shōnin monryo-kyōmyōchō 親鸞聖人門侶交名牒, Junshinbō Shinkai has been treated as a direct disciple of Shinran. However, the records relating to Shinkai found in these texts were not compiled during the time of Shinran, and for this reason they cannot be used as pieces of definitive historical evidence to prove the relationship. There are also some historical documents written by Junshinbō Shinkai himself. However, they were all written after Shinran’s death. Therefore, they are also not suitable to prove he was Shinran’s direct disciple.

If he were to be mentioned in Shinran’s Letters, this would be sufficient evidence to prove that he was a direct disciple. However, the name Junshinbō Shinkai never appears in the extant Letters, despite the fact that the existence of the Kashima monto is mentioned. Furthermore, historical evidence also raises some questionable points about Shinkai’s direct disciple, Shinjō 真浄.

In this study, I examine Shinran’s Letters and a historical document written by Junshinbō Shinkai, clarify the relationships between Shinran, Junshinbō Shinkai, Shinjō, and an individual referred to as “Sokushōbō,” and in conclusion question the established theory that Junshinbō Shinaki was Shinran’s direct disciple.

The doctrinal study of Zonkaku （1290–1373） has been primarily evaluated within the context of the tradition of Shinran’s lineage. However, in this paper, I argue that the study of Zonkaku’s doctrine needs to be examined beyond that tradition. Zonkaku’s interests were not limited to the Jōdo Shinshū. Comparing Zonkaku’s Jimyōshō 持名鈔 and the Chishin shūyōki 知心修要記 by the Ji School’s Chitoku 智得 （1237–1319） reveals a number of similarities in their passages. For example, both texts elevate the reverence of human teachers over wooden statues or paper sūtras, which cannot speak. Both authors also treat the benevolence of masters （shion 師恩） in the same way as the benevolence of buddhas, and caution their followers to spare no efforts in offering personal possessions. Based on these similarities, this study concludes that Zonkaku consulted the Ji School’s doctrinal studies and incorporated them into his own theory of the good teacher. This finding suggests that the study of Zonkaku’s doctrinal thought must be approached by going beyond sectarian boundaries.

Chisen 智暹 was a priest of the Honganji Branch of Shin Buddhism in the early modern period. He wrote the Jushin-roku 樹心録, a commentary on Shinran’s Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証. This commentary influenced the study of the Kyōgyōshinshō in the Ōtani Branch of Shin Buddhism. In particular, Hōrei 鳳嶺 quoted the Jushin-roku in his Hōonki 報恩記 many times. He reconsidered the importance of “the chapter on transformed Buddha bodies and lands” （Keshindo no maki 化身土巻） based on the Jushin-roku. Further, he criticized Chisen’s understanding regarding the single thought-moment of practice （gyō no ichinen 行の一念） and Buddha-nature.

The main aim of this study is to discuss the relationship between the Daruma 達磨宗 and the Jōdō Sects 浄土宗, based mainly on how the Shinkon ketsugishō 心根決疑章, a newly discovered historical source of the Daruma Sect, was duly accepted into the canonical works of the Jōdō Sect. As has already been suggested, the only relationship between the Daruma Sect and the Jōdō Sect, based on the extant historical materials, was the documented dialogue between Dainichibō Nōnin 大日房能忍 and Shōkōbō Benchō 聖光房弁長, who was the Second Leader of the Jōdō Sect. However, in 2018 I discovered the Shinkon ketsugishō written by the Daruma Sect’s second leader, Butchibō Kakuan 仏地房覚晏. Furthermore, it turned out that Ryōchū 良忠, the Third Leader of the Jōdō Sect, had cited quotations from this Shinkon ketsugishō in his Kannenhōmon shiki 観念法門私記. Thereafter, this Shinkon ketsugishō was cited continuously in the guiding manual of the Kannenhōmon shiki. Moreover, in the canonical works of the Jōdō Sect, some quotations other than these parts used in the Kannenhōmon shiki were recognized, which shows that the Shinkon ketsugishō was a historical source which was continuously in use by the Jōdō Sect. The Daruma Sect as a religious school died out by the medieval period, but it is demonstrated that although the ideas of Butchibō Kakuan may have been very minor in proportion, they were still successively taken up in the Jōdō Sect.

This study builds on the author’s previous research to postulate the form of the original version of the Keizan Shingi 瑩山清規 （T. 2589）, Keizan’s Monastic Regulations.

My previous research has found that the source version held by the Zenrin-ji 禅林寺, currently the oldest extant manuscript, is close in form to the original version by Keizan Jōkin 瑩山紹瑾 （1264–1325）; subsequent revisions and modifications to the text produced the version edited by Bonsei 梵清本 and the Shōbō-Shingi 正法清規, among others. This study examines the pertinent issues by focusing on the major points of difference between versions of the Keizan Shingi.

Considering that the version edited by Bonsei and the Shōbō-Shingi were produced independently but share common content, we can conclude that both texts are derived from a common predecessor text, and that the differences in interpretation on the part of their respective authors led to textual variations between them. This study posits that the common predecessor text is close to the original version; therefore, it is an important task to reconstruct the manuscript chain leading to the common predecessor text by excluding the revisions and modifications in the version edited by Bonsei and the Shōbō-Shingi.

The raison d’être of the common predecessor text was to preserve the form of the original version, whereas the manuscript chain of versions held by the Zenrin-ji, deriving from a source version held by the Zenrin-ji, was established by derivation from the common predecessor text. The raison d’être of the versions held by the Zenrin-ji was to maintain appropriate ritual practice by replacing the content, whenever required, to align with the characteristics of the region where the temple was located.

On the basis of the above findings, this study specifies the process whereby the currently extant variants of the Keizan Shingi were established.

This paper offers a consideration of the manuscripts transcribed at the five temples in Sōji-ji 總持寺 from the collection of Denkōroku 伝光録 manuscripts that are records of Keizan Jōkin’s 瑩山紹瑾 lectures. The first to be considered is the newly discovered Denkōroku manuscript preserved at Dairyū-ji 大隆寺 transcribed in 1757. The Dairyū-ji manuscript is a re-transcription of a manuscript from 1530. Since the Dairyū-ji manuscript faithfully copied this manuscript, it is a valuable source.

Secondly, consideration is given to the colophon of the Denkōroku manuscript preserved at the Yōtaku-ji 永沢寺 transcribed in 1813–1814. Concerning the picture of transcription activity of the Denkōroku in the five temples in Sōji-ji, while it had previously been recognized that manuscripts were transcribed from collections from each of the five temples, the Hōshun-in 芳春院 that dominated the Sōji-ji politically and economically preserved several Denkōroku manuscripts, and the Denkōroku was actively transcribed from these collections.

Ryūshiken Ogawa Tazaemon 柳枝軒小川多左衛門 was a bookstore that was a purveyor of books to the Sōtō school. Ryūshiken published many Sōtō school books, and became a purveyor of books to the Eiheiji 永平寺 in the late Edo period. However, the relationship between Eiheiji and Ryūshiken during the mid-Edo period is still unclear. This paper points out that it is highly likely that the Eihei jōshitsu yawa bosatsukai-gi 永平丈室夜話菩薩戒義 and Hokke-kōshiki 法華講式 copyrighted by Eiheiji were published by Ryūshiken, and examines the relationship between the two. As the result, we learn that Ryūshiken was already a purveyor to Eiheiji in the mid-Edo period, but considering that the copyright had been transferred from Eiheiji to Eihukuan 永福庵 and there were few reissues, it seems that the relationship between the two was still fluid.

During the Edo period, the Ōbakusan Manpuku-ji 黄檗山萬福寺 operated under two sets of by-laws, both of which were based on the Ōbaku Shingi 黄檗清規 （Ōbaku code of conduct）, more commonly known as the Dai Shingi 大清規 （Great code of conduct）. The two sets of by-laws were: 1） the Ōbaku Sannai Shingi 黄檗山内清規 （Code of conduct for the Ōbaku temple community）, usually referred to as the Shō Shingi 小清規 （Small code of conduct; later enlarged and revised as the Ōbakusan Shō Shingi 黄檗山小清規）; and 2） the various Suchi 須知. The former supplemented the Great code of conduct, giving detailed regulations and instructions for the daily life and rituals of the temple, while the latter provided information necessary for the various temple positions. The present study shows that ceremonies such as the Jizō Tanshin 地蔵誕辰 （Kṣitigarbha’s birthday） were subsequently added to the by-laws and that changes were made to the Daruma-ki 達磨忌 ceremony （the ceremony honoring Bodhidharma）, facts that were revealed through an examination of the chief priests’ New Year’s greetings to the community. In addition, I hypothesize that the Ōbaku Sannai Shingi was compiled in 1700 by the Ōbaku monk Reichu Genkan 嶺冲元漢 （?–1740）.

Two versions of Nichiren’s Rissho Ankoku Ron have survived, referred to as the Abbreviated and Expanded versions, both of which are considered as correct teachings of the Lotus Sūtra. Five citations of the Lotus Sūtra can be located in the Abbreviated version, and eleven in the Expanded version, a significant increase. The content of the Lotus Sūtra quoted is only the “prohibition of false teachings” in the Abbreviated version, but it is also clearly stated in the Expanded version that “correct teachings are revealed.” It thus becomes clear that Nichiren’s faith in the Lotus Sūtra became even stronger.

Ichinyoin Nichijū 一如院日重 （1549–1623） was a Buddhist priest active mainly in Kyoto between the Azuchi-Momoyama and the early Edo periods. One of the characteristics of Nichijū’s academic studies is that he devoted himself to a wide-range of studies of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist scriptures. His attitude toward various studies is at odds with the school of thought that focuses narrowly on the study of Nichiren’s writings and relics. This paper therefore examines Nichijū’s motivation for devoting himself to various studies through his book, the Kenmon guanki 見聞愚案記.

This paper concludes that Nichijū took the position of allowing such studies and presented the Lotus Sūtra’s Teacher of the Law chapter 法師品 （the 10th） and the Sange gakushōshiki 山家学生式 written by Saichō as proofs of his attitude, while recognizing the opposing concept of whether or not to allow non-Buddhist studies based on Buddhist teachings. This paper also confirms that Nichijū considered himself to be “a master of the lowest of the lowliest of vulgarities” and thus proclaimed that he had to study both Buddhist and non-Buddhist scriptures extensively in order to propagate Buddhism as a disciple of the Buddha and a follower of Nichiren.

Missionary activities overseas by the Nichiren-shu Order of Buddhism during the Meiji Period began in 1881 in Busan, South Korea. Since then, the mission has spread through Asian countries and regions all the way to Hawaii, North and South America, and beyond. Behind the missionary activities, especially those developed in Asian countries and regions, there was a hardline approach involving Japanese overseas expansion. Meanwhile, the missionary activities playing out in regions outside Asia started in 1899 in Hawaii. They particularly targeted Japanese immigrants who had crossed the ocean in search of work. Since 1914, the missionary route further expanded, centering around the West Coast of the United States.

Previous studies on the overseas missionary activities of the Nichiren-shu Order have focused on developments in Asia, Hawaii, and North America. With regard to Hawaii, to which the Japanese government sent settlers as a national commitment, the focus of the studies has been activities conducted after 1911, when the base was moved to Oahu, but the support operations in Japan and the events and circumstances that led up to building a temple in the Hawaii Islands has been little considered.

In this article, I examine the previously unknown roots of Takagi Gyōun 髙木行運, who set foot in Hawaii as the first Buddhist missionary for the Nichiren-shu Order. I will also review the support operations carried out in Japan in the early stage of missionary activities, and some specific practices the missionaries engaged in the Hawaii Islands, however fragmented they may have been, so as to learn more about the missionary activities of the Nichiren-shu Order of Buddhism in Hawaii.

The purpose of this contribution is to clarify “Nichirenism within Nishiren-shū.” Specifically, we focus on Mochizuki Nichiken 望月日謙 （1865–1943）, who served in important roles such as Chief Abbot of the Nichiren-shū, 83rd Archbishop of Minobu-san Kuon-ji 身延山久遠寺 and President of Risshō University. Nichiken interacted with Tanaka Chigaku 田中智学 （1861–1939）, who was the first evangelist of Nichirenism, and Chigaku’s disciple, Yamakawa Chiou 山川智応 （1879–1956）. This had a profound influence on Nichiken, particularly in terms of his theory of national identity. On the other hand, we can see that Nichiken’s viewpoint differed from that of Chigaku about honzon 本尊, the main object of worship, as witnessed in Nichiken’s letter to the Okajima family, lay believers of the Minobu-san Kuon-ji. In addition, Nichiken’s explanation about Nichirenism was slightly different from Chigaku’s beliefs, which leads us to think that they had differing opinions about Nichirenism.

This study examines the source of the words used in the story of Kūkai’s 空海 visit to Enoshima 江の島 in the Manabon 真名本 version of the Enoshima-Engi 江島縁起, and clarifies the significance of this story.

A previous study by Kaneharu Fukushima 福島金治 pointed out the source of several passages. Based on this prior research, a more detailed examination was conducted in the present study. As Fukushima notes, part of Kūkai’s biographical account is largely made up of words from the Shoku-Nihon kōki 続日本後紀, Yuigō Nijūgokajō 遺告二十五箇条, Goshōrai Mokuroku 御請来目録, and so on. However, characteristic descriptions of the circumstances of Kūkai’s birth and the age of his ordination can also be found.

Quotations from the Konkōmyō Saishōōkyō 金光明最勝王経, in addition to the sentences pointed out by Fukushima, are seen in the section describing Kūkai’s visit to Enoshima. The stories of the appearance of the golden dragon, the burying of the wish-fulfilling gem Nyoihōju 如意宝珠, and the creation of a Benzaiten 弁才天 with a width of five fingers 五指量 indicate the author’s intention to link the legends about Kūkai to Enoshima.

We can conclude that the author included Kūkai in the Enoshima-Engi because his anecdotes and images are appropriate for Enoshima, where there is a belief in dragon caves.

The Kōbō-Daishi Eiden 弘法大師絵伝 （Illustrated Biography of Kōbō-Daishi）, owned by the Jōdo-ji, is a large work that depicts the life and works of Kōbō-Daishi Kūkai in eight hanging scrolls. In this study, I examine the fifth, revealing new results. This fifth scroll is based on the illustration of the Kōbō-Daishi Gyōjō Ekotoba 弘法大師行状絵詞 in the collection of the Tōji, but has been modified in various places and has added its own original illustrations. The purpose of this work was to strongly assert that the Tōji is a sacred place of peace of the state, and that its successive abbots are the legitimate successors of Kūkai.

In addition, this work has conventionally been said to have been made in the 15th century. However, after analyzing infrared photographs and comparing them with the Jigoku Gokuraku zu Byōbu 地獄極楽図屏風 （second quarter of the 14th century） in the collection of the Konkai Kōmyō-ji 金戒光明寺, I found that the work was created in the mid-14th century.

The remaining seven screens will be examined in the future.

This study re-examines the fragments of the Hokke-senbō gakyō 法華懺法瓦経片 in the Dainichiji gakyō 大日寺瓦経. The Hokke-senbō was an important ritual in Japan since the Heian period, but paper documents showing its contents have survived only from the middle of the Kamakura period. This study therefore focuses on the gakyō 瓦経 （scriptures inscribed on clay bricks） as a source separate from paper documents. Gakyō is a type of buried sūtra material, the oldest of which is the Dainichiji gakyō 大日寺瓦経 produced in 1071. This contains fragments of the Hokke-senbō gakōo, which have already been examined in previous studies. However, as there were problems, this study re-examines previous studies and attempts to reconstruct the original gakyō with the unexamined fragments of the Hokke-senbō gakyō. It was possible to reconstruct part of the Hokke-senbō gakyō, and confirm that there were contents consistent with the later Hokke-senbō at the time when the gakyō were produced.

This paper is devoted to the study of Fujishima Ryōon 藤島了穏 （1852–1918）, a member of the Japanese Buddhist denomination Jōdo Shinshū Honganji-ha, and his contribution to the movement for establishing Buddhism as a “recognized religion （kōninkyō 公認教）. As I earlier explained, Fujishima’s role and theories have been overlooked until now. Earlier I focused on Fujishima’s time in France from 1883 to 1889, trying to shed light on what he studied there and when he became interested in church-state relations. This paper examines events a decade later when, following the revision of the “Unequal Treaties” signed with the Western powers decades earlier, authorities decided to permit foreigners to reside in all of Japanese territory. To counteract this, an active opposition movement emerged within the Buddhist community. As part of this movement, efforts to establish Buddhism as a recognized religion were revived, and Fujishima actively participated in the renewed movement.

It was previously unknown that Fujishima published several papers on this topic in the Honganji-ha journal Kyōkai Ichiran 教海一瀾 （later Honganji Shinpō 本願寺新報）. While examining the microfilms of the Kyōkai Ichiran stored at Tokyo University, I discovered at least five papers by Fujishima published in that journal between 1897 and 1899 related to this Buddhist movement. After reviewing their contents, I realized that they laid the foundation for his book New Treatise on Religion and State （Seikyō Shinron 政教新論）, published in 1899. Due to space limitations here, I only analyze the first text he published in the Kyōkai Ichiran in 1897, and explain why his presentation of the four models of Church-State relations was heavily influenced by the French scholar Adolphe Franck （1809–1893）.

The fourth scroll of the Zhu Daban niepan jing 注大般涅槃経, stored at the Shitennō-ji 四天王寺, is a Gogatsu tsuitachi-kyō 五月一日経 scroll that contains Empress Kōmyō’s ganmon 光明皇后御願文. Among the nine surviving scrolls, the fourth is the only one for which some traces of its history have been recorded. Its Tōdai-ji 東大寺 seal implies that it was originally owned by the temple. Further records indicate that this scroll came into the possession of the Daigo-ji 醍醐寺 in 1896. In 1940, the scroll was in the possession of the Japanese-style painter Hida Shūzan 飛田周山. Subsequently, it was owned by Ueno Seiichi 上野精一 of the Asahi Shimbun 朝日新聞, Sorimachi Shigeo 反町茂雄 of Kōbunsō 弘文荘, Muraguchi Shirō 村口四郎 of Muraguchi Shobō 村口書房, and finally by the Shitennō-ji 四天王寺. It is worth noting that two parts of the scroll are missing, accounting for half of the original. This article provides bibliographic data and information about features of this scroll.

This paper analyzes shūkyō 宗教 as a translational equivalent to “religion” and the Zongjing lu 宗鏡録 （T. 2016; Records as the mirror of the truth） to make the following three points:

（1） After the word shūkyō became an accepted translational equivalent to “religion,” the Zongjing lu was recollected to be the source of this word. This translational equivalence became widely established in the second decade of the Meiji era （1877–1886）, and originally the lexical item shūkyō as the semantic loan of “religion” was not linked to the Zongjing lu. However, in the third edition of the Tetsugaku jii 哲学辞彙 （Glossary of philosophy） published in 1912, the Zongjing lu is cited in the translation of “religion” as shūkyō.

（2） The two characters “shūkyō” appear together in the Zongjing lu, but rather than forming a compound with a unified meaning they are only the assemblage of the characters shū 宗 and kyō 教. Here shū is either a verb meaning “to follow” （as in to esteem and accept the authority of） or a noun meaning “truth” （as in a particular spiritual reality which is the underlying essence of a teaching; and by extension the position of holding such a truth and the school which holds it）, and kyō is a noun meaning “teachings.”

（3） The third edition of the Tetsugaku jii mentions the Zongjing lu because it is referring to the Yuanjian leihan 淵鑑類函 （An encyclopedia of categorized writings from the [Kangxi emperor’s] Library of Profound Discernment）. The Zongjing lu has been widely read since the Edo period and was an appropriate source for this translation. Today, some scholars say that the Zongjing lu had been forgotten in Japan from after the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and this perception needs to be corrected.

Kakunyo 覺如, the great-grandson of Shinran 親鸞, produced a biography of Shinran called Shinran denne 親鸞傳繪 that consists of the Kotobagaki 詞書 sentences and the Esō 繪相 paintings which describe the content of the Kotobagaki, of which the first edition was lost. Kakunyo revised the book many times, of which 5 revised editions are extant.

Among these 5 revised editions, the Gugan-bon 弘願本 has two characteristics that are not found in the early revised edition, namely the Rinna-bon 琳阿本 and the Takada-bon 高田本, but are found in the complete edition, namely the Kōei-bon 康永本 and the Shōganji-bon 照願寺本. One of these characteristics is that the word Honganji 本願寺 is found in the title of the Gugan-bon. The second characteristic is that the Gugan-bon has 15 scenes. At the same time, that the images of the Gugan-bon are located between the early revised edition and the complete edition allows us to say that the Gugan-bon’s contents come before those of the Kōei-bon. Since there is little evidence, in this paper I wish to point to those clues by which the content of the Gugan-bon is to be placed before that of the Kōei-bon.

The Esō in the scene Senjaku fuzoku 選擇付属 （上巻 第五段）: In the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, this scene is described by one depiction, but in the Kōei-bon the scene is described by two depictions. The Gugan-bon accords with the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, and not with the Kōei-bon.

The Esō in the scene Nyūsai kanzatsu 入西鑑察 （上巻 第八段）: While the Rinna-bon has this scene, the Takada-bon does not, leading to the suggestion that in the Rinna-bon this scene was added later. In the Rinna-bon, this scene is described by one depiction, but in the Kōei-bon it is described by two. The Gugan-bon accords with the Rinna-bon, and not with the Kōei-bon.

The Esō in the scene Kumano reikoku 熊野靈告 （下巻 第五段）: In the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, Kumano gongen 熊野権現 （the God of Kumano Shrine） and Shinran are seated opposite each other, but in the Kōei-bon, Kumano gongen is making obeisance to Shinran. The Gugan-bon accords with the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, and not with the Kōei-bon.

The Esō in the scene Byōdō sōryū 廟堂創立 （下巻 第七段）: In the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, many pilgrims are depicted paying homage to the grave of Shinran, but in the Kōei-bon, only a grave guardian, probably Kakunyo, is depicted. The Esō of the Gugan-bon accords with the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon, and not with the Kōei-bon.

The wording Ikkō senju 一向專修 in the Kotobagaki : In the Kotobagaki of the scenes Bennen saido 辯圓濟度 （下巻 第三段） and Kumano reikoku 熊野霊告, the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon use the wording of the Ikkō senju, but the Kōei-bon does not. The Gugan-bon agrees with the Rinna-bon and the Takada-bon. Since Kakunyo criticizes the idea of Ikkō senju in his Gaijashō 改邪鈔, the fact that the wording Ikkō senju was deleted in the Kōei-bon clearly follows his intention.

Based on the above evidence from the Esō and the Kotobagaki, it is clear that the content of the Gugan-bon is to be placed before that of the Kōei-bon.

The edition of the Dengyō Daishi shōrai mokuroku 伝教大師将来目録 by Saichō 最澄 （766–822）, which is included in the Taishō Canon, was based on a print from year 4 of Bunsei文政 （1821）. This catalog includes two separate lists, Taishū roku 台州録 （T. 2159） and Esshū roku 越州録 （T. 2160）. The extant Taishū roku, which is a true work of Saichō, was designated as a national treasure. However, the original edition of the Taishū roku is not extant, and the whereabouts of the manuscript upon which the print was based remain uncertain.

The present study examines a manuscript formerly kept in Ishiyamadera 石山寺, now held in the library of Waseda University, that has not been examined in past studies on the Taishū roku. It is noteworthy that there is a colophon in this manuscript written in 1171 （year 1 of Jōan 承安）, and there is no replacement of pages, something otherwise found in the printed Taishū roku. It is difficult to state that the manuscript is of good quality, since it contains examples of writting errors. However, without a doubt the manuscript is an important source that transmits the earlier form of the Taishū roku.

The Ming dynasty monk Zhuhong 袾宏 （1535–1615） authored several commentaries on the Smaller Sukhāvativyūha-sūtra, and these – the Amituojing shuchao 阿弥陀経疏鈔, Amituojing shuchao shiyi 阿彌陀經疏鈔事義, and the Amituojing shuchao wenbian 阿弥陀経疏鈔問弁 – are valuable sources to understand his Pure Land thought. However, the time of composition of the three works remains unclear. This paper addresses this issue.

The Da Ming lü 大明律 is a book containing the basic laws of the early Ming Dynasty, and the Da Ming lü jijie fuli 大明律集解附例 is a commentary that includes the “text,” “compilation notes （纂注）” and “supplementary examples （附例）” of the Da Ming lü. During the reign of Ming Taizu 明太祖 （1368–1398）, he imposed strict management on Buddhism. Not only were the numbers of monks and temples restricted, but regulations on the attire of monks were also imposed. These measures were all eventually incorporated into the articles of the Da Ming lü jijie fuli in the form of revisions. In this paper, I discuss the early Ming Dynasty’s Buddhist policies by examining the original text of the Da Ming lü and the Da Ming lü jijie fuli.

According to former studies, the etiquette of ghost feeding described in the Jinyuan ji 金園集 written by Zunshi is considered to be based on two esoteric sūtras from the Tang, the Jiu mianran egui tuoluoni shenzhou jing 救面然餓鬼陀羅尼神呪経 （T. 1314） and the Jiu bayankou egui tuoluoni jing 救拔焰口餓鬼陀羅尼経 （T. 1313） and to inherit the thoughts and beliefs of Tiantai. However, the present study reveals that the etiquette applied by Zunshi was in many ways consistent with the ghost feeding methods in the Shi zhuegui yinshi jishui fa 施諸餓鬼飲食及水法 （T. 1315）, reputed to have been translated by Bukong 不空, although this has been rarely mentioned. Therefore, it is believed that Zunshi was influenced by the etiquette of the ritual of feeding hungry ghosts in the Shi zhuegui yinshi jishui fa. In addition, although it is not catalogued in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the most popular version of the Shi zhuegui yinshi jishui fa during the Tang dynasty was introduced to Japan by Kūkai. This version, which bears Bukong’s name and is regarded as his translation, has been passed down since the Kamakura period as the fundamental source of ghost feeding rituals in Japan. On the other hand, Zunshi practiced and developed Esoteric rituals referred to in another translation of the Shi zhuegui yinshi jishui fa by an unknown translator through reconstruction of the etiquette, and it influenced the ghost feeding ritual and the later Chinese Liberation Rite of Water and Land.

This paper discusses the Buddhist thought of Foguo Weibai 仏国惟白 and his view of Buddhist history according to the appendix called Chanjiao wupai zongyuan shu 禅教五派宗源述 found at the end of Vol. VIII of the Dazangjing gangmu zhiyao lu 大蔵経綱目指要録. Weibai revealed the history and doctrine of the Wupai, i.e., Five Schools, through a summary of the zong 宗 and yuan 源 of Chanmen 禅門 and the other Sijiao 四教, i.e., four teachings （Xianshou-jiao 賢首教, Cien-jiao 慈恩教, Tiantai-jiao 天台教, and Nanshan-jiao 南山教）. Then, the thought of the “fusion of Chan and Jiao” 禅教融合 is pointed out according to an analysis of three aspects: what are the true Buddhist disciples 真仏子, the separation of Chan and Jiao, and the standpoint of Weibai himself. Finally, through the metaphor of creating Buddha statues, Weibai argued how Chan and other Sijiao jointly constructed Chinese Buddhism in history, and he indicated his view of Buddhist history: all of the Schools are indispensable.

Concerning the establishment of the Jingangjing jieyi 金剛經解義 （Z 459）, which has been said to have been written by Liuzu Huineng 六祖慧能, I once published my conclusion that it was compiled in the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century by the Heze School 荷澤宗, by comparing its terminology and ideas with various Heze School writings. The basis of the examination was my own theory of the gradual establishment of the Platform Sūtra 六祖壇經.

In recent years, however, I have abandoned this theory and expressed new views on the establishments of works of Heze Shenhui 荷澤神會 and the Heze school. In this article I reexamine this issue based on a new premise, and reconfirme the previous conclusion.

In the 6th century, those who practiced Chan were called “Chanzhong 禅衆 （Chan Practioners）,” but gradually they came to be referred to as “Chanzong 禅宗 （Chan School）.” Seizan Yanagida argued that “Chanzong” as the name of a school was established around the end of the 8th century. However, the term is also visible in earlier writings: several collections of exemplars for memorials written before the mid-8th century praise an excellent male and female practitioner of “Chan” saying he/she led “Chanzong.” This very period can be seen as the time when the so-called “Chanzong” was established.

The Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment （Dafangguang yuanjue xiuduoluo liaoyi jing 大方広円覚修多羅了義経, T. 842, SPE） is an important Buddhist apocryphon that was particularly valued by Zongmi. Zongmi not only inherited the doctrine from the Huayan school 華厳宗, but also from the Heze school of Chan Buddhism. In Zongmi’s commentary, the names of Weique 惟慤, Wushi 悟実, Daoquan 道詮, and Jianzhi 堅志 appear as commentators on the SPE, preceding Zongmi. Of these, several people close to Weique can be identified as associated with Shenhui 神会. Therefore, it is highly possible that there was some relationship between Weique and the Heze school. Wushi and Jianzhi were inheritors of the Heze school and were active in Liangjing 両京. Considering the fact that the Heze school recommends the studies of sūtras, and that the SPE contains theories similar to those of the Heze school, it is highly possible that the commentarial tradition of the SPE was related to the teachings of the Heze school.

This research delves into Li Tongxuan’s 李通玄 （636–730） comprehension and interpretation of the ideas of the figure Bhikṣu Haiyun 海雲 （Skt. Sāgaramegha, the second of the 52 Dharma friends visited by Sudhana） in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Li’s analytical delineation of the personas illustrated in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra encapsulates the distinctive attributes of his reflections on the text. Li Tongxuan advocated the cultivation methods of Buddha’s Light Contemplation 仏光観 and the contemplation of the Twelve Nidānas. In extant literature, significant emphasis has been accorded to Bhikṣu Deyun 徳雲 （Skt. Meghaśrī, the first visited） and his approach to Buddha’s Light Contemplation. However, discussions about Haiyun and his doctrinal methods remain few; thus the present study endeavours to explore Deyun’s teachings in depth. In the present study, through an in-depth examination of Deyun, it is elucidated that in Li Tongxuan’s conceptual framework, Deyun’s interpretations of the Twelve Nidānas and the Buddha’s Light Contemplation represent dual facets of a singular doctrinal methodology. Moreover, within the hierarchy of spiritual cultivation, Deyun’s position is analogously equated to that of Queen Māyā 摩耶.

This paper, based on previous studies, systematically analyzes Huiyuan’s 慧苑 interpretation of the concept of dharmadhātu, referred to as Beishi yiliu 背師異流 （betrayal of Fazang’s 法蔵 heresies）. First of all, it was Huiyuan, not Chengguan 澄観, who formulated the order and names of the Huayan 華厳 Sect’s theory of Four Realms of Reality 四法界, as he was the first to deploy the concepts of non-obstruction among phenomena 事事無碍 and the realm of non-obstruction among phenomena 事事無碍法界 as independent doctrinal terms. The earlier assertion that Chengguan established the order and names of the Four Realms of Reality requires reexamination. Secondly, in Huiyuan’s thought on the dharmadhātu, the realm of non-obstruction between principle and phenomena 理事無碍法界 and the realm of non-obstruction among phenomena occupy the same important position, and the understanding of the dharmadhātu within the framework of the expedient teaching and the true teaching 権実二教 can be regarded as an important characteristic of his view of the dharmadhātu. Therefore, there is no doubt that Huiyuan’s view of the dharmadhātu occupies an important position in the history of Huayan thought on the doctrine of dharmadhātu.

The Fanwang jing 梵網經 propounds the poṣadha requiring practitioners to chant the ten grave and forty-eight minor precepts every half-month. From Ŭijŏk’s 義寂 commentary on the Fanwang jing, it is assumed that both monks/nuns and lay people may attend the poṣadha of the bodhisattva precepts together. Mingkuang’s commentary, the Tiantai pusajie shu 天台菩薩戒疏 （T. 1812）, also explains the poṣadha by monks/nuns and lay people. Compared with Daoxuan’s 道宣 Sifenlu shanfan buque xingshi chao 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 （T. 1804）, the poṣadha in Mingkuang’s commentary changed the wording so that it was similar to the bodhisattva precepts. In addition, the poṣadha in Mingkuang’s commentary is apparently related to that of S.543V and the Tōdaiji jukai hōki 東大寺授戒方軌. Thus, this type of poṣadha was probably observed in China around the middle of the 8th century. Mingkuang’s commentary, which describes the poṣadha in more detail than the other extant commentaries written before it, is a valuable text showing the poṣadha based on the bodhisattva precepts at that time.