In the Wuliangshou jing 無量寿経, we find the phrase yiwang er wuren 易往而無人 after the “Virtues of Bodhisattvas” section. Traditionally, this passage has been interpreted by various commentators （Huiyuan 慧遠, Jizang 吉蔵, Shinran 親鸞 and others） as meaning that although it is easy to go to the Pure Land, few people actually go there.

However, if such is the meaning, the discourse appears abruptly and the context flows poorly. Furthermore, the meaning of “few people going to the Pure Land” is mentioned only once in the sūtra. Therefore, I approach this passage as having some kind of difficulty, and I analyze it by focusing on the the expression yiwang wuyouren 易往無有人 in the Da Amituo jing 大阿弥陀経, the oldest translation of the Sukhāvatīvyūha.

Even though the text is transmitted with wuyouren 無有人 （wuren 無人）, I assume that there was a positive use of the term at the time the text was created. I propose the following translation: “The Bodhisattva goes freely, so no one else can compare.”

There are three reasons for this. First, this discourse is often surrounded by repetitions and summaries of the same content, and the passage in question is also preceded and surrounded by similar sentences praising the Bodhisattva. Second, 無有人 is thought to have both positive and negative meanings, just as wuyoulü 無有侶 and wudenglü 無等侶 have both positive and negative meanings in the ancient translations of sūtras. Third, Mahāyāna sutras frequently use rhetoric in praise of bodhisattvas, repeatedly using the expression 無○ for the highest expression.

In 1924, Hashikawa Tadasu positioned the Korean monk Wŏnhyo （617–686） as the progenitor of the Japanese dancing nenbutsu （odori nembutsu 踊念仏）. Since then, this point of view has been taken up by many scholars in both Korea and Japan, and it has become the prevailing view.

However, this view is grounded only in the Koryŏ monk Iryŏn’s 一然 （1206–1289） Samguk yusa 三国遺事 （Forgotten Legacies of the Three Kingdoms）, compiled six centuries after the death of Wŏnhyo. That document simply states that Wŏnhyo would praise the nembutsu while singing and dancing in order to educate the people.

Was Wŏnhyo actually the progenitor of the dancing nenbutsu? This paper explores the meaning of the singing and dancing used by Wŏnhyo in his teaching.

It has been pointed out that in Jízang’s doctrine, all doctrines and disputes can be accepted in the name of the Four Siddhanta 四悉檀, and he emphasizes such a state of affairs as “No Dispute 無諍.” Jízang’s doctrine of “No dispute” also seems to have been recognized in the Argumentation 諍論 and Doctrinal Debate 論義 of the Japanese Sanron School.

In this paper, I point out the existence of descriptions applying Jízang’s doctrine of “No dispute” in active Argumentation and Doctrinal Debate in Japanese Sanron. Even in these contexts, there seems to have been an awareness that the ultimate truth could not be expressed by words and that doctrines expressed by words could only play the role of a ‘finger pointing to the moon,’ which was a characteristic of this tradition in Sanron.

This paper explores the debate surrounding the position of the Prajñāpāramitā teaching in the three periods teaching classification.

First, it examines the understanding of Prajñāpāramitā teaching in the Faxiang 法相 school during the Tang dynasty. Subsequently, it analyses the exegesis of the Dasheng Yilinzhang 大乗義林章, as quoted by Saichō 最澄, along with his critique of the three periods teaching classification. Critiques of the three periods teaching classification by Sanron Sect 三論宗 monks such as Chikō 智光 and Gen’ei 玄叡 are also analyzed. Finally, we examine the reaction of the medieval Hossō Sect 法相宗 to the aforementioned criticisms of the three periods teaching classification.

The discussion of this issue in Japanese Buddhism was prompted by the close doctrinal negotiations between the Sanron, Tendai 天台, and Hossō sects. The negotiations were based on the understanding of the Prajñāpāramitā teaching in the Tang dynasty’s Faxiang school.

There are only a few surviving examples of Tendai sermons from the medieval period, making their study difficult. However, recent surveys of sacred texts at temples have led to the discovery of medieval sacred texts, which are now being studied more closely.

The first to be examined here are the Tendai-related materials in the Minobu bunko 身延文庫 of the Kuonji 久遠寺. Nichiren monks studied at Kantō Tendai seminaries （dangisho 談義所）, and their writings were preserved in the Minobu bunko. From the Tendai-related books in Minobu, we can learn about aspects of medieval discussions.

Second is the appearance of medieval materials at the Onjōji 園城寺. The Onjōji was destroyed by fire several times, and consequently there are few materials available through which to study the temple’s medieval academic situation. However, Minobu monks studied at the Onjōji as well, and materials that provide insight into the medieval period at the Onjōji have been discovered in the Minobu Bunko collection. In recent years, medieval materials have also emerged from the Onjōji, and research into the medieval period from the Onjōji collection is now underway.

We would like to elucidate the reality of medieval Tendai scholarship through careful investigation of sacred texts that were transported elsewhere from the locations where they were written by monks in the past.

The Secret Key to the Heart Sūtra 般若心経秘鍵 （T. 2203A）, a work in which Kūkai （774–835） interpreted the Heart Sūtra 般若心経 in his own way, is considered an important work in the Shingon sect. Since the Heian period, numerous lecture records and commentaries on the Secret Key to the Heart Sūtra have been created, and discussions about various issues related to the text have been offered by Shingon scholars. In this paper, we address the question whether the Heart Sūtra can be considered an esoteric sūtra, investigated how medieval Shingon scholars interpreted it, as a partial consideration of the formation of religious studies in the Shingon sect. We found that not all Shingon scholars positioned the Heart Sūtra in the same way. For example, Raiyu 頼瑜 （1226–1304） took it as an exoteric sūtra, while Yūkai 宥快 （1345–1416） considered it just as other esoteric sūtras.

Extant copies of Hōnen’s main work, Senjaku Hongan Nembutsushū （選択本願念仏集）, are broadly classified into two types: extended texts （kōhon 広本）, and abbreviated texts （ryakuhon 略本）. There is a theory that the extended version was compiled by Hōnen’s disciples. Ryochū 良忠 introduced this theory, and then took the stand that the abbreviated version should be given greater significance. However, it is also known that he actively quoted from the expanded text in his writings. In order to understand Ryōchū’s somewhat contradictory attitude to the two versions of the Senjakushu, I focus on the lives of Benchō 弁長 and Chōsai 長西, who had a great influence on Ryochū’s works.

The story of Hōnen’s 法然 （1133–1212） meeting with Shandao 善導 （613–681） in a dream is very well known, and often cited in the biographies of Hōnen. The Rinnabon 琳阿本 version of the Hōnen shōnin den’e kotoba 法然上人伝絵詞 refers a certain separate biography （betsuden 別傳） as the source of their meeting in a dream. Many researchers believe this to be either the Mukan shōsō-ki 夢感聖相記 or the Daigohon Ichigo monogatari 醍醐本一期物語.

The Ichigo monogatari has a description reading 従光中百寶色鳥飛散充満, while the Shinikki 私日記 says 自光中百寶色鳥飛散充満. In the Rinnabon, we read 白光の中に百寶色の鳥とびちりて. On this basis, the Rinnabon must have miscopied this part of the Shinikki, taking 自光 （parallel to 従光） wrongly as 白光. Therefore, we may conclude that the “separate biography” mentioned in the Rinnabon refers to the Shinikki.

This paper examines differences in conceptions of “realization” among four of Hōnen’s disciples, Ryūkan 隆寛, Shōkū 証空, Kōsai 幸西, and Shinran 親鸞. These four all emphasize the significance of faith in Other Power, and understand that the attainment of “realization” （shō 証） means either that practitioners reach the bodhisattva stage beyond the first abode （shojū 初住, eleventh stage）, as in the perfect teaching （engyō 円教）, or the first ground （shoji 初地, forty-first stage）, as in the distinct teaching （bekkyō 別教）, following the Tendai school’s doctrinal classification of the fifty-two stages of bodhisattva practice. Among these four masters, Ryūkan, Shōkū, and Shinran use the word ōjō 往生, which means “birth in the Pure Land,” also in the context of practitioners’ attainment of the stage of “realization” in the present life to demonstrate that practitioners can attain the state of “realization” in their present lives. All four teach that nembutsu practitioners who attain faith in Other Power are equally able to attain the stage of “realization” instantly at their birth in the Pure Land. However, only Shinran maintains that practitioners will reach the stage of wondrous awakening （myōgaku 妙覚）, the stage of the attainment of buddhahood upon birth in the Pure Land. In contrast, Ryūkan, Shōkū, and Kōsai understand that those who attain birth in the Pure Land must continue to progress in practice to reach the stage of wonderous awakening. In conclusion, based on this analysis, this paper points out that in studying Shinran’s conception of realization, it is problematic to raise such questions as “Is birth attained in this present life or after one’s death?” or “Did Shinran teach birth in this present life?” based on an inaccurate assumption that the terms “realization,” “birth in the Pure Land,” and “buddhahood” simply refer to the same state.

This paper examines Ryochū’s 良忠 view of Amida Buddha’s Pure Land, especially his interpretation of the kemangai 懈慢界 （the land of indolence）, in order to better understand the variety of Pure Land beliefs in the Kanto area during the Kamakura Era.

Among Hōnen’s followers, Ryōchū had a unique understanding of the “land of indolence,” established as a realm within Amida’s Pure Land. However, little research has been conducted to explain why Ryochū developed his interest in this topic. Some studies have pointed out that Ryōchū’s unique understanding of Hōnen’s teaching was developed through his doctrinal disputes with other Buddhist schools.

This paper compares Ryōchū’s ideas about kemangai with those found in other schools in order to clarify his relationship with other lineages and to understand the uniqueness of his interpretation.

This paper examines Shinran’s use of the siliu pianliti 四六駢儷体, four and six character line prose style of Chinese literature, to demonstrate the significance and background of his adoption of this style of writing, thereby challenging previous scholarly assumptions about its origins and influences. Compared to the writings of his contemporaries who also used this literary style, such as Seikaku 聖覚 and Shinzui 信瑞, Shinran’s usage shows some commonalities but also shows his unique adaptation of this literary style. Shinran’s use of the siliu pianliti in the Kyōgyōshinshō also provides a clue for understanding who his intended readers were, and the purpose of his writings.

Shinran and Nichiren, as contemporaries, seem to have shared a common awareness of the question of what it means to be a true Buddhist disciple, and both look for the answer in the example of Ajātaśatru, whose salvation is discussed in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Shinran presents Ajātaśatru as the subject of the working of Amida’s Vow of salvation, equating Ajātaśatru with himself as the ordinary person who has become aware of the depth of karmic evil. Shinran’s viewpoint is distinctive in that, while he admonishes his followers to distance themselves from people who have committed the five grave offences and slander of the right dharma, he also affirms that such lamentable deeds are embraced by Amida’s compassionate Vow. Meanwhile, Nichiren superimposes Ajātaśatru, who transgressed against Śākyamuni, on contemporary people who slander the right dharma in the last dharma age. Nichiren’s characteristic stance is that the salvation of sentient beings, including himself, is achieved by accepting the Lotus Sūtra with sincere faith and upholding its teachings.

Shinran Seikaku’s 聖覚 Yuishinshō 唯信鈔, and Ryūkan’s 隆寛 Jirikitariki no koto 自力他力事, Ichinentanen funbetsu no koto 一念多念分別事, and Gosemonogatari no kikigaki 後世物語聞書, sharing them with his followers to promote Hōnen’s Pure Land teachings. Ryūkan’s three writings discuss doctrinal topics such as “self-power and Other Power” （jiriki tariki 自力他力）, “once-calling and many-callings” （ichinen tanen 一念多念）, “the path of sages and the Pure Land path” （shōjō nimon 聖浄二門）, and the “three minds” （sansin 三心）, which are all also discussed in the Yuishinshō. In the Yuishinshō’s interpretation of the mind of aspiration and directing of virtue （ekō hotsuganshin 回向発願心）, there are passages that seem to admit the efficacy of self-power in the process of the act of merit transference. However, in the Gosemonogatari no kikigaki, Ryūkan interprets the mind of aspiration and directing of virtue as the working of the Other Power of Amida’s Primal Vow. This interpretation in the Gosemonogatari no kikigaki is identical with Shinran’s understanding of the directing of virtue, which rejects efficacy in the acts of sentient beings and recognizes the truth of virtuous deeds only on Amida’s side. Shinran thought highly of Ryūkan’s Gosemonogatari no kikigaki because it further advanced the teaching of Other Power and clarified Seikaku’s understanding of the mind of aspiration and the directing of virtue from the perspective of the working of Other Power.

Previous studies have pointed out that Shinran advocated bodhicitta of Other Power to counter Myōe’s criticism of Hōnen’s Pure Land teaching. In this study, I examine Shinran’s interpretation of the six-character Name （rokuji shaku 六字釈） in light of Myōe’s criticism. Myōe maintained that the direct cause for birth in the Pure Land （ōjō 往生） is based on the arising of bodhicitta, applying the idea of unity of practice and aspiration （gyō-gan wagō 行願和合） found in the Yūshin anrakudō 遊心安楽道. The idea of the unity of practice and aspiration means that people who aspire for birth in the Pure Land must have a mind of aspiration and practice for birth, as explained in Shandao’s teaching of the fulfillment of aspiration and practice （gan-gyō gusoku 願行具足）. In the Kyōgyōshinshō, Shinran cites Shandao’s interpretation of the six-character Name, which demonstrates the idea of the fulfillment of aspiration and practice, and then presents his own interpretation of the six-character Name. I argue that Shinran introduced his interpretation of the six-character Name in the Kyōgyōshinshō to respond to Myōe’s criticism of Hōnen’s Pure Land teaching based on the Yūshin anrakudō’s idea of the unity of practice and aspiration.

The theory of Ichinen Kakuchi 一念覚知 （knowledge of when the one thought-moment [of shinjin 信心, faith] was awakened） was advocated by the Sangō 三業 （or Shingi 新義） faction, and was judged to be heterodox when the Sangō Disturbance 三業惑乱1797–1806 broke out in the Nishi Honganji during the Edo period. This theory emphasized that one must remember the date and time when faith was obtained. Perhaps because the ruling was given by the shogunate at the time, it seems that there was a tendency for the Honganji sect to be especially cautious afterwards. In recent years, a strange phenomenon seems to be occurring, in which talking about one’s religious experience is itself claimed to be the mistaken doctrine of Ichinen Kakuchi, and the religious experience （the experience of obtaining faith） itself is denied. I would like to consider this problem.

While Dōgen 道元 （1200–1253） authored a large number of surviving works, such as the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 and Eihei-Kōroku 永平広録, this study focuses on his phrase shōden no buppō 正伝の仏法 （The true transmission of Buddha Dharma） to consider what form of Buddhism Dōgen was actually aiming toward. The phrase shōden no buppō appears in the “Kesa-Kudoku” 袈裟功徳 volume of his 12-volume Shōbōgenzō, and to clarify the distinctive aspects of Dōgen’s Buddhist teachings, this study divides his ministry into six stages, including his return to Japan from China, his moving to Echizen, and the donation of the Daizōkyō 大蔵経. Furthermore, this study’s empirical comparison to determine whether quotations of canonical texts changed after the arrival of Bodhidharma in China found that over the nine years following Dōgen’s return to Japan, there were 2 quotations of Buddhist texts from “before” Bodhidharma, while there were 138 quotations of Zen texts from “after” Bodhidharma. By contrast, the study found that in the three years following Hatano Yoshishige’s 波多野義重 （?–1258） donation to Dōgen of the Daizōkyō, there was an increase to 17 quotations of Buddhist texts （81 Zen texts）. It can be conjectured that if Dōgen had lived longer after writing the 12-volume Shōbōgenzō, his inclination toward the Buddha would have become stronger.

Dōgen’s 道元 main work, the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵, contains many descriptions of the mind. Previous research on the mind as discussed by Dōgen has argued for a distinction between a delusional mind 妄心 and a true mind 真心. However, the word ‘delusion’ does not appear in Dōgen’s writings, and the word ‘true’ does not appear in any appropriate context. Therefore, this paper rejects the distinction made in previous studies between true and delusional mind. Furthermore, based on the definition of ‘true’ in previous research, we confirm that ‘true bringing forth of the mind of Bodhi’ 真発心 is what previous research refers to as ‘true’. We suggest that the mind of thinking 慮知心, which in previous research was considered delusional, is the true mind, and the distinction between this and the mind of discrimination 分別心, which previous research calls delusional, is not clear-cut.

We argue that the mind of thinking is basically denied with a negative modifier and that Dōgen considered the mind to be true, that is, true bringing forth of the mind of bodhi. It is not clear whether the mind of discrimination is a true mind or not. This further emphasizes that the definition of the mind that Dōgen uses positively is a bringing forth of the mind of Bodhi.

Dōgen’s 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） is centered on entries about Dōgen 道元 receiving the Bodhisattva precepts and lineage from Nyojō 如浄. Only a few monks appear alongside the master and disciple.

Furthermore, after returning to Japan, Dōgen not only used the Sōtō lineage but also the lineage he received from Myōzen 明全 of the Rinzai school. Meanwhile, there is an entry in the Goyuigon kiroku 御遺言記録 （Record of Dōgen’s Will and Other Instructions） suggesting that Dōgen stopped using the Rinzai lineage during his lifetime. While the Goyuigon kiroku recognizes the lineages of Gikai 義介 and Keizan 瑩山 as legitimate successors permitted to receive these teachings secretly, it seems that it also attempted to position other monks, including Gien 義演, at a lower level. The ceremony of passing down the precepts mentioned in the Goyuigon kiroku was conducted in secret, being completed with only the master and the disciple present. The shift to this style of succession would later resemble the secret initiations of the late medieval period.

Kanro Eisen 甘露英泉, a Sōtō monk of the Edo period, promoted the Sixteen Article Precepts of the Sōtō school 十六条戒 in his Shirako zuishō 尸羅敲随章, criticizing the Chinese style of precept ceremony popular in the Ming Dynasty.

Chan monks who came to Japan from Ming China during the Edo period introduced the Sandankai precepts 三壇戒 （Three platforms precept ceremony） to Japan, which caused confusion with the conventional concept of precepts of the Japanese Zen schools, Sōtō and Rinzai.

The Japanese Sōtō school prescribes only the sixteen article precepts as authentic Mahāyāna precepts. On the other hand, the Sandankai precepts of the Ming dynasty prescribes both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna precepts.

It is difficult to determine the priority between the sixteen article precepts of the Sōtō school and the Sandaikai precepts of Chinese Ming Chan. Therefore I would briefly conclude that Kanro Eisen’s claim is an exaggerated representation to protect the precept identity of the Sōtō school.

This paper studies the Buddha’s compassion （jihi 慈悲） in Nichiren’s teachings through examinations of Chapter 3 and 16 of the Lotus Sūtra that are the bases of the doctrines of the Three Virtues （santoku 三徳） and Three Bodies （sanshin 三身） in Nichiren’s view of the Buddha.

In Chapter 3, it is indicated that the Buddha possesses both karuṇā （hi 悲）,” understood as relieving the sufferings of beings by means of expedient means （hōben 方便）, and maitrī （ji 慈）,” understood as providing them happiness through wisdom.

In Chapter 16, the parable in which a father’s death is conveyed by messenger to his children, thereby saving them, is an expedient means which reveals the eternity of the original Buddha and His duty to enable beings to enter into the supreme wisdom with His various teachings as expedient means.

Following these examinations, Buddha’s compassion in Nichiren’s Kanjin honzon-shō is defined as saving beings who, in the Latter Days of the Teaching （mappō 末法）, cannot independently perceive the doctrine of “3000 existences contained in one thought” （ichinen sanzen 一念三千） or the five marvelous characters of myō, hō, ren, ge, and kyō 妙法蓮華経, the title of the Lotus Sūtra, this salvation carried out through the expedient means of the messenger on whom the five marvelous characters are bestowed.

Based on the above, “Honzon” 本尊 in Nichiren’s usage is the aspect visualizing the five marvelous characters as Buddha’s wisdom, and bestowal is expedient means representing the Buddha’s compassion.

Kōzōin Nisshin 広蔵院日辰 （1508–1576）, a leading scholar-monk of the Sengoku period, is famous as a great exponent of the doctrines of Nichizon Monryū 日尊門流, a sect of the Nikkō Monryū 日興門流 of Nichiren Buddhism based in Kyoto. Nisshin was in contact with scholars both within and outside the sect, and acquired a broad competence in scholarship, which had an essential influence on the formation of his thought. Particularly, the fact that he studied under Jōfukyōin Nichishin 常不軽院日真 （1444–1528） as a young student during the period 1521–1528 has been highlighted in the history of previous studies as a decisive influence on Nisshin’s thought in his later years. However, although it is clear that Nisshin’s contact with Nichishin occupies a vital position in the formation of Nisshin’s thought, it is difficult to say that there is enough material available to verify the extent of that influence specifically. In order to advance the situation, this paper focuses on a never-published volume, Sōshaku 惣釈 （owned by the Kyōto-Yōbōji 要法寺）, which was transcribed by Nisshin in January of the 11th year of Tenbun （天文, 1542）, presumably as a commentary on Nichishin’s Hokke mongu 法華文句, to examine a new aspect of the relationship between the two masters, Nisshin and Nichishin.

In this paper, I examine how Chinkai 珍海 （1091–1152） debated faith in Amida Buddha and in Maitreya. In his Annyō chisoku sōtai-shō 安養知足相対抄 （T. 2685, 1146）, Chinkai added seven new points of view and asserted that it is easier to be born in the Pure Land than in Tuṣita. In addition, Chinkai responded to the new problem that in the Pure Land, one must spend much time within a lotus calynx, and it is impossible to meet the Buddha immediately.

This paper discusses the origin of the divinity Matarajin 摩多羅神 in the Jogyōdō 常行堂 Hall through a composition of stored statues. It is thought that the statues in the original Jogyōdō were the statue of the jewel-crowned Amitābha and statues of the Four directional attendant Bodhisattvas associated with each of the five Buddhas in the Vajradhātu （Shishingon bosatsu 四親近菩薩）, which are extracted by the “Vajradhātu 81 image Maṇḍala （金剛界八十一尊曼荼羅）.” “The Figure of Hokkedō and Jogyōdō （法花堂常行堂之図）” probably shows the original composition of the statues. On this basis, the gate of Matarajin is located in the north outside the Jogyōdō. In the “Vajradhātu 81 image Maṇḍala,” this position is allocated to Vināyaka （毘那夜迦天） and to a subduing deity, which is a kind of Vināyaka. Matarajin and Vināyaka have similar characteristics, such as being a “god of obstacles （障礙神）.” In addition, they syncronize with each other directly and indirectly. Therefore, the origin of the Matarajin in the Jogyōdō might lie in Vināyaka.

The Kangakue 勧学会 ceremony, held in the mid-Heian period, was notable as a meeting of middle-class bureaucrats. Due to a decline in attendance and damage to the venue, the event ceased to exist. However, with the support of Fujiwara no Michinaga 藤原道長 （966–1027）, a powerful man of the time, the Kangakue was revived.

In a Chinese poem thanking him for his support, we read Michinaga’s words of warning. Michinaga says he passes on the old traditions of his predecessors. In a document in which Yoshishige Yasutane 慶滋保胤 （933–1002）, a leading figure in the Kangakue, calls on its members, importance is placed on the study of Buddhism and Confucianism on an equal footing. Michinaga took the same attitude and organised discussion meetings, and also praised the excellence of the debates. As a politician, Michinaga also actively engaged in debate.

Michinaga offered support for the Kangakue for the training of young politicians who could debate issues as he did.

Ban 幡 are Buddhist banners used for deathbed rites and funerals, and various rituals and customs have developed around them. However, in Japan, which has a humid environment, existing flags from before the Edo period are extremely rare, and aside from examples which are preserved in the Hōryuji, no other examples are known.

Nine newly discovered ancient banners, dating to 1369, are relics that connect the period from ancient to modern times. The words which can be read on these banners, shūfuku kuyō owari tatematsuru 奉修複供養畢 （“End of restoration memorial service”）, indicate the development of the process of remembrance through restoration, and the people involved in the earliest restoration.

This article discusses the experiences of Dokuryū Shōeki 独立性易, Ingen Ryūki 隠元隆琦, and Tōkō Shinetsu 東皐心越, three monks who came to Japan during the Ming-Qing transition. Their experiences of Japan, then still in isolation from the rest of the world, have been argued as having been a kind of retreat （閉関）, but actually they were placed under house arrest. In contrast to the traditional understanding that Dokuryū’s “retreat” was for the purpose of practice, the truth about the “retreat” of Ingen and Tōkō, who were actually under house arrest, has been argued by scholars.

This article compares the “retreat” of these three figures, and through a comparison of their common points, investigates the fact of Dokuryū’s “retreat,” coming to the following conclusions. The punishment they received was mainly that of not being allowed to contact the outside. The reason was that they moved without the permission of the shogunal government, violating the foreigner management policy implemented in Japan at that time. The people they regarded as whistleblowers were actually acting according to their relevant duties.

This article reveals the situation in which the fate of the Chinese who came to Japan was tossed about by the changes of the times due to the turmoil of the overall East Asian situation, and the shogunate took a cautious attitude. It also supplements the situation of these three people being imprisoned, showing the actual situation of law enforcement at that time.

This paper reports on the Inmyōnaikeizu 因明内系圖, a one volume manuscript from the Edo period, author and year of publication unknown, held in the library of Tōhoku Fukushi University 東北福祉大学. The document begins with a geneology from Śākyamuni Buddha to Maitreya, and presents a succinct introduction to the lineage from Dignāga to Śaṅkarasvāmin.

It traces another lineage from Asaṅga to Vasubandhu, then includes Dharmapāla, Guṇamati, Sthiramati and eight others, and from Śīlabhadra to Xuanzang 玄奘, with subsequent successors including Cíēn dàshī 慈恩大師, Zhifeng 智鳳, Huizhao 慧沼, Zhizhou 智周, Genbō 玄昉, and Zenju 善珠. The lineage in Japan, starting from Dōshō 道昭, lists successors such as Gyōki 行基 and Gien 義淵. The total number of scholars mentioned is approximately 200. It focuses not only on the Logic 因明 tradition, but an emphasis on the lineage of the Hossō 法相 oriented Kōfuku-ji 興福寺 is also evident. On the inside cover, writings related to Myōkū’s 明空 Shōmankyō shogi shishō 勝鬘経疏義私鈔 and Zōshun’s 蔵俊 Inmyō daishoshō 因明大疏抄 about the Japanese monk Tokushō 徳清 are mentioned. At the end of the manuscript, biographies of Bhāviveka, Zhizhou 智周 （compiled by Hōtan 鳳潭）, Kōjō 空晴, and Tōjō 等定 are provided.

This study examines the social activities of Kujō Takeko 九條武子 （1887–1928）, a great personality in Buddhism, from the Great Kanto Earthquake to the publication of Muyūge 無憂華, and focuses on her literary works and writings. This study found that the timing of her submissions to women’s magazines coincided with the sect’s efforts to educate young women. Her articles after the Great Kanto Earthquake seemed to be particularly aimed at young women, and were written skillfully, addressing different aspects, from daily lives to religious perspectives. Furthermore, her activities were carried out in concrete ways, keeping young women in mind, such as the establishment of a women’s youth association within the sect in which she held a leadership position. Her articles and activities encourage young women of the modern era, and simultaneously, they revealed self-reflective humility and a way of life based on religious beliefs.

This paper discusses Kimura Ryūkan’s 木村龍観 views on the position of Mahāyāna Buddhism and examines the background and intentions behind them. Although his conclusions were not very groundbreaking, Kimura added a new focus on ethnicity to the study of Buddhism. Kimura attempted to combine theories already accepted in Japan with new findings in anthropology and archaeology, mainly from India, to make Japanese theories acceptable to scholars around the world. This article presents some of the intellectual exchanges that took place in Europe, South Asia, and Japan, where different agendas were intermingled.

The Lüelun Anle Jingdu yi 略論安楽浄土義 （T. 1957） of Tanluan 曇鸞 （476–542） consists of nine questions and answers. The ninth question and answer, located at the end of the work, raises a question on the meaning of shinian 十念. In the first half of this section, Tanluan introduces a parable to explain what shinian means. This parable is called the “Parable of crossing the river” （Jpn. toka no hiyu 渡河の譬喩） and, although various sūtras and treatises have been pointed to as the source of this parable, there has been no detailed examination, and the origin of the story has yet to be determined. In this paper, I compare the story with the “Parable of the four snakes in a box” （Jpn. ikkyō shida no hiyu 一篋四蛇の譬喩） found in the “Chapter of the Highly-virtuous King Bodhisattva （Dewang pusa pin 徳王菩薩品） of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra （Dabanniepan jing 大般涅槃経）, and argue that this story is the source of the “Parable of crossing the river.” I further suggest that in the latter part of the answer to the ninth question, the influence of the “Parable of the four snakes in a box” can be seen.

In Tanluan’s Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Pure Land （Wangsheng lunzhu 往生論註, T. 1819）, there is a passage demonstrating that ordinary people possessed of blind passions can attain birth in the Pure Land and realize nirvāṇa （niepanfen 涅槃分）. There are, however, several possible interpretations of the Chinese expression “niepanfen” used in the passage.

In the context of the text as a commentary in two fascicles, by examining the relationship between the first and second volumes we can interpret niepanfen as the realm of nirvāṇa itself.

In the Commentary, regarding the body of those who attained birth, Tanluan explains that not only bodhisattvas but also all sentient beings born in the Pure Land will obtain the uncreated dharma-body of purity and equality （qingjing pingdeng wuwei fashen 清浄平等無為法身）.

Tanluan’s Commentary teaches the path to attain birth in the Pure Land for all sentient beings. He further explains that the path continues after one’s birth and one returns to this world to save others. This cyclical process of birth as going forth and returning reflects Tanluan’s understanding of the Mahāyāna Buddhist idea of non-abiding nirvāṇa （wuzhuchu niepan 無住処涅槃）. Tanluan found this form of the Buddhist path in Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Pure Land （Jingtu lun 浄土論, T. 1963）, and he showed that the Pure Land path is the ultimate consummation of Mahāyāna Buddhist teaching, the Buddhist path of non-retrogression.

In the literature in Chinese Buddhism from the Eastern Jin dynasty until the Early Tang dynasty, it was an important issue why purity and impurity could co-exist in Buddha-Lands. In this paper, I consider this issue in Huaigan’s 懐感 Shi Jingtu Qunyi lun 釋淨土群疑論 （T. 1960）. As a result, it became clear that the theory of Huaigan was greatly influenced by Jizang’s 吉蔵 Huayan youyi 華厳遊意 （T. 1731） and Jingming xuanlun 浄名玄論 （T. 1780）. Furthermore, it is possible that even the point of view of the superiority of the theory of Consciousness-only, which is emphasized by Huaigan, originates from Jizang’s doctrine. It is thought that the purpose of Huaigan was not to provide a theoretical elucidation of the debate over why purity and impurity could co-exist in Buddha-lands, but rather to rank various doctrines, with the theory of Consciousness-only at the top.

How was “Yoga practice based on Yogācāra thought,” which was transmitted by Xuanzang, accepted into Chinese Yogācāra?

The best example to understand this is the five levels of consciousness-only contemplation provided in Kuiji’s 窺基 Banruo boluomiduo xin jing youzan 般若波羅蜜多心経幽賛 （T. 1710）. The outline of this text is as follows.

1st level: expelling the unreal （parikalpita） and retaining the real （paratantra and pariniṣpanna）

2nd level: expelling confusion （artha） and holding to true awareness （vijñapti）

3rd level: gathering the branches: objective aspect and cognizing aspect （nimitta and dṛṣṭi）, and turning to the roots: the self-witnessing aspect （vijñapti）

4th level: covering the inferior: the mental functions （caitasika）, and revealing the superior: the mind （citta）

5th level: dispelling manifestations （paratantra） and apprehending the true nature （pariniṣpanna）

According to Kuiji, these contemplations are practiced between the second and third of the five stages 五位 of the Yogācāra path.

The five levels of consciousness-only contemplation are based on theory of the three natures 三性 as a whole. In this respect, the idea inherits the basic yoga practice of Indian Yogācāra in Chapter V of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密経 and Chapter Ⅲ of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha 摂大乗論.

On the other hand, it is associated with the developing theories of three components 三分 of cognition and five stages of cultivating the Yogācāra path in the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論. Furthermore, Kuiji states that what is contemplated in it contains all Buddhist doctrines―not only śūnyatā and vijñaptimātratā but ekayāna and tathāgatagarbha as well.

From the above, it can be said that Kuiji’s five levels of consciousness-only contemplation developed independently in Chinese Yogācāra, while inheriting the basic yoga practice of Indian Yogācāra.

This paper discusses the formation of the Lushan ji 廬山集 （Lushan Anthology）, a collection of writings by Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠, and aims to clarify the process of the transmission of Huiyuan’s writings in the Song dynasty, and its problems.

As a result, I was able to clarify the unique content of the Lushan Anthology. Unlike Huiyuan’s works compiled before the Tang dynasty, the Lushan Anthology was compiled as a collection of writings, including biographies and writings of Huiyuan and his students. This manner of creating the anthology indicates that it was compiled against the background of the worship of Huiyuan that formed in the Tang and Song dynasties. Finally, this study finds that, since some of the materials are from people only later recognized as Huiyuan’s disciples, their inclusion in the anthology may be problematic.

In the wooden pagoda of Ying County 応県, Shanxi, China, a document titled Pinaiyezang jinshi youposai wujieben 毘奈耶蔵近事優婆塞五戒本 was discovered, authored by Sixiao 思孝, a renowned figure of Khitan Buddhism. In the preface of this document, Sixiao compares the five fundamental precepts of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Although he considers the three religions to coexist on an equal basis, he argues that Buddhism has the characteristic of being “supramundane.” Compared with Confucianism and Taoism, which are considered teachings of this world, Buddhism possesses its own superiority.

This paper undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the Shōyōroku 従容録 and its companion piece, the Shisshū kobutsu-juko shōtei 隰州古仏頌古称提, both authored by Menzan Zuihō 面山瑞方 （1683–1769） and Tensan Ebyō 天産慧苗 （? –1803）. In parallel, our investigation seeks to shed light on a specific facet of the historical reception and acceptance of the Shōyōroku by examining the Shisshū kobutsu-juko shōtei-monge 隰州古仏頌古称提聞解, which serves as an annotated commentary on the Shisshū kobutsu juko shōtei.

Within the Shisshū kobutsu-juko shōtei-monge, we find a wealth of references to the Shōyōroku. Nevertheless, the presence of multiple textual versions casts doubt on whether the original authors’ intentions are faithfully preserved. These variants can be classified into three distinct categories. Our study has successfully pinpointed statements expressing dissatisfaction with the Shōyōroku across all three versions, shedding light on the shared perspectives of Menzan Zuihō and his disciples. Furthermore, an in-depth comparison of the second chapter of both the Shōyōroku and the Shisshū kobutsu-juko shōtei reveals several additional disparities, encompassing the evaluations of figures such as Bodhidharma 達摩 and Emperor Wu 武帝, as well as the interpretation of the gāthā 偈頌.

Notably, our study extends its comparative inquiry to the second chapter, ultimately concluding that only partial distinctions exist among the various versions. However, to achieve a more comprehensive evaluation, further research is imperative, including an exploration of additional chapters.

I reconstructed Śubhakarasiṃha’s Kongokai maṇḍala 金剛界曼荼羅 on the basis of the Gobushinkan 五部心観 in the Onjō-ji 園城寺 collection. In doing so, I focused on the differences in direction and gender of the images of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The maṇḍala is circular, in orientation to be viewed from above, with the Buddha section in the center, the Treasure section on the left, the Vajra section below, the Karma section on the right and the Lotus flower section above.

In past study of Buddhist scriptures, meticulous examination of texts necessitated the painstaking process of comparing different versions character by character. However, the combination of highly accurate text data provided by the SAT project and advancements in OCR technology now allows researchers to bypass this character-by-character comparison and directly verify differences using digital imagery. This development has the potential to transform the way texts are handled in future research, and is expected to have a significant impact on subsequent studies. Moreover, if this can be appropriately structured, it would further facilitate more precise and constructive discussions.

At present, the Commentary on the Ten Bodhisattva Stages （十住毘婆沙論） is extant only in its Chinese translation by Kumārajīva. Studies have focused on the author, the development of the text, and the ways it has been understood by Pure Land masters. Recently, however, an English translation of the Chapter on the Easy Practice has appeared, and the research environment has changed. In this study, I use a new method based on the English version, and try to take another look at the results of past research from this new perspective.

Naka Kansuke 中勘助 （1885–1965）, a poet, is noted for his Buddhist poetry. He wrote, “I am strongly attracted by the deeds and teachings of the Buddha and his disciples, their legends and fables. From there, poems related to Buddhism are born” （1951, “Naruko Yuri wo Uete （鳴子百合をうゑて）,” “Koma （こま）,” and “Somebody Worship Me First （誰か第一に我を拝せし）,” his own commentary）.

In 2022, Okano Kiyoshi of Kyushu University revealed that a poem by Naka Kansuke, “The tree is cut down, but the lumberjack does not spare the cool shade （樹木は切り倒されつつも樵夫に涼しき蔭を惜しまぬにあらずや）,” is based on Mahābhārata 12,5528 and Hitopadeśa I.59, and is probably from an old Indian teaching. After confirming the meaning of the act of risking one’s life for others in the poem Suzushiki kage （涼しき蔭, 1937） and its further development in another poem, Yamagatsu to hashibami （山がつとはしばみ, 1948）, both of which contain Naka Kansuke’s commentary, the poem Hannya shingyō （般若心経, 1956）, which was first published in the magazine Shinri （真理）, edited by Tomomatsu Entai 友松円諦（1895–1973）, was inspired by the life of the nun Oishi Junkyō 大石順教. In this paper, I consider Naka Kansuke’s perspective on modern Buddhists and his attitude toward postwar creative writing.

In his Chūhen gikyō 中邊義鏡 （Mirror of the doctrines of the Middle and the Periphery） cited in Saichō’s 最澄 Shugo kokkai shō 守護國界章, Tokuichi 德一 called his disputant “Chikō” 智公 （a person named “Chi”）. According to the contemporary habit of this kind of naming, this “Chikō” denotes a monk, the latter half of whose ordained name is Chi 智. Tokuichi’s disputant is thought to have been a monks from Kantō. If this is correct, there is a high possibility that “Chikō” was Kōchi 廣智, who was a promotor of Tendai doctrines in Kantō. Tokuichi also called his disputant “Henshu” 邊主 （a person of the Periphery）. This “Henshu” is also mentioned in the last portion of Tokuichi’s Shingonshū miketsu mon 眞言宗未決文 （Unsolved Questions concerning Esoteric Buddhism）. According to Tokuichi’s description, this “Henshu” cited a sentence from Dajue’s 大覺 Sifenlu xingshichao pi 四分律行事鈔批 as a reason for his argument concerning the transmission of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論, which is a topic discussed in the Chūhen gikyō and Shugo kokkai shō. Such a citation is suitable for Kōchi, who belongs to the lineage of the Japanese Vinaya school founded by Jianzhen 鑒眞. As a conclusion, we can think that Tokuichi’s disputant in the Chūhen gikyō is Kōchi, and that Kōchi is also mentioned under the appelation “Henshu” in Tokuichi’s Shingonshū miketsu mon.

The temple history of the Yūsenji 祐泉寺 in Mishima City states that the Daikōji 大興寺 was built on the grounds of the Yūsenji during the Nara period as a private temple of Hasetsukabe Togama 丈部富賀満 to protect the nation. The original text is found in the Nippon Montoku Tennō Jitsuroku 日本文徳天皇実録 compiled in the Heian period （879）.

In this paper, I consider the available information about Hasetsukabe Togama （dates unknown）, who can be said to be a phantom. Hasetsukabe Togama lived in the southern part of the Izu 伊豆 Peninsula, and worked to establish clan temples in the Izu region under the direction of the government to protect the nation, among which was the Daikōji, which was a temple belonging to the Yakushiji 薬師寺 group.

Through historical materials and excavated relics, I clarify that the Daikōji was a temple of the Hossō 法相 sect and explore how zazen 坐禅 meditation practiced at the temple is different from today’s zazen.

The Lüyuan shigui 律苑事規 is a guide book consisting of ten volumes dealing with Vinaya, compiled in the 2nd year of Taiding 泰定 （1325） in the Yuan Dynasty. It is now included in the Zokuzōkyō 続蔵経. Many scholars have researched the Pure Rules for Chan Monasteries （Chanzong qinggui 禅宗清規）, but academic attention has seldom been devoted to the Lüyuan shigui. There is no research on the editions, structure and compilation of the text.

This paper elucidates three points: 1. the existing manuscripts of the Lüyuan shigui, 2. its structure, and 3. its compilation. As a guide book for the Vinaya school in the Yuan Dynasty, the Lüyuan shigui is of tremendous importance for study of the relationship between the Vinaya and Chan schools.

The Qi xin chao 起信抄 fragment held by the Haeinsa 海印寺 in South Korea comprises four fifth-volume sheets （sheets 11, 12, 21, 22） and two seventh-volume sheets （sheets 25, 26）, totaling six sheets and approximately 3,600 characters. Its author and date of production are unknown. Research has suggested that, based on its form, it might be a part of Yanjun’s 延俊 ten-volume Qi xin lun yanao chao 起信論演奥鈔 from the Song dynasty. It has also been pointed out that it could be a reprint of the Xuzangjing 続蔵経, which was originally published by Ŭich’ŏn 義天 during the Koryŏ 高麗 period. This paper examines the fragment’s content and introduces its characteristics, concluding that it （1） is a commentary on the Qi xin lun shu 起信論疏 by Zongmi 宗密, and （2） draws from the Shi moheyan lun 釈摩訶衍論.

Only the Fuzhou-zang 福州蔵, which belongs to the third category of Jiangnan canons, has a catalogue named Datang Zhenyuan xinding mulu 大唐貞元新定目録. The compiler and the date of this catalogue are still unknown, and there has been no research on its content and nature. Additionally, the relationship with previous catalogues is also unknown. This catalogue is not included in other known canons, so it is not clear whether it circulated after the Tang Dynasty. It is not clear whether this catalogue influenced the carving of the canon. However, copies have been kept in collections of ancient manuscripts in Japan, and it was printed in the Korean Koryŏ canon. The Japanese manuscripts faithful reflect the original form of the Zhenyuan Xinding Shijiao Mulu, while in the Korean print version it has been changed. This paper focuses on the Fuzhou edition of the catalogue, clarifies its contents, and explores its historical evolution and influence by comparing it with catalogues dating from the middle of the Tang Dynasty, especially the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu 貞元新定釈教目録.

The Fozu tongji 仏祖統紀 （The Chronicles of Buddhas and Patriarchs）, in fifty-four volumes, was written by Zhipan 志磐 （1220–1275）, a Tiantai monk of the Southern Song, between 1258–1269. It was compiled on the basis of the Zongyuan lu 宗源錄 written by Jingqian 景遷 of the Southern Song and Shimen Zhengtong 釋門正統 written by Zongjian 宗鑒 and others, and imitating the style of the Shiji 史記 （Historical Records, 2nd–1st c. BCE） and Zizhi Tongjian 資治通鑑 （1084）. It is divided into five subjects: Benji （本紀）, Family （世家）, Biographies （列伝）, Tables （表）, and Chronicles （志）. It focuses on the Tiantai sect and touches on the deeds of other sects.

Zhipan recorded the deeds of seventeen Japanese monks who entered Tang and Song China, starting from Saichō’s 最澄 visit to the Tang and ending with Cheng Xun’s 成尋 to the Song. Why did Zhipan only record seventeen monks who entered Tang and Song China to seek the Dharma, when we know of at least 149 who did so? Are these selective or differential records? The 17 monks can be roughly divided into three categories.

The first are Japanese from the Tendai sect who came to Mt. Tiantai and have dharma-heir relationships with Tiantai monks, examples being as Saichō, Genshin 源信, Jakushō 寂照, Shōryō 紹良, Shunjō 俊芿 and others. Zhipan recorded in detail the Japanese monks who entered Tang and Song China, recording the time of their arrival, where they landed, whom they studied with after arriving at Mt. Tiantai, when they left China, the relationship between dharma-heirs, etc.

The second are monks from other sects who have no relationship with the Tiantai Sect. They mainly come to China to learn from representatives of other sects. Examples include Kūkai 空海, Dōshō 道昭, Chitsū 智通, Eiei 栄叡, Fushō 普照, Jōgyō 常暁 and others. Zhipan’s records of Dharma-seeking monks from other sects who entered Tang and Song China were relatively brief. He only recorded the name of the person, the time when he entered the China, and with whom he studied.

The third category is that of pilgrims and tribute monks. Examples include Egaku 慧萼, Chōnen 奝然, Kain 嘉因, Sokan 祈乾, Jōjin 成尋 and others. Zhipan’s treatment of such people is also brief. It only records when he entered China, and roughly where he went.

The Zhiguan ji zhong yiyi 止観記中異義 of Daosui 道邃, the seventh patriarch of Tiantai 天台 in China, is a collection of dissenting opinions on the Zhiguan fuxing chuanhong jue 止観輔行伝弘決 （T. 1912） of Zhanran 湛然, compiled by Qianshu 乾淑 in 805. It is also an important work for indicating the features of Tiantai thought after Zhanran’s time. The Zhiguan ji zhong yiyi was introduced to Japan by Saichō 最澄 after his visit to Tang China. It was then widely circulated and several versions are extant. The Zhi guan ji zhong yiyi was not included in Chinese canons, but is preserved in the Zokuzōkyō 続蔵経 supplement to the canon （vol. 55, X 918）. This paper discusses how the Zhi guan ji zhong yiyi in the Zokuzōkyō was established.

The notion of the five Tang Dynasty Huayan patriarchs is broadly accepted by historians. However, there remain important questions regarding the establishment and development of the patriarch lineage. The identity of Dushun 杜順 as the first patriarch of this lineage has been a subject of debate in the Japanese scholarly community. Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 suggested that the first patriarch was actually Zhizheng 智正, whereas Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定 maintained the view that it was Dushun. When discussing the development of the Huayan School during the early Tang Dynasty, it is essential to consider both the sectarian accounts from that period and the doctrinal disagreements between Huayan masters. When a Buddhist school is established, orthodoxy naturally forms in its wake. The heritage of the tradition as well as the patriarchal lineage is constructed subsequently on the basis of this orthodoxy.

Consequently, the figure of Dushun should be examined along two lines of inquire. On the one hand, it is necessary to investigate his doctrinal influence on later Huayan masters. Secondly, one must determine the period at which his influence and status as the first patriarch were established. While these two issues can be easily mixed up, they are actually two distinct topics, each requiring their own investigation.

Xuanzang （602–664） averred that the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra was regarded as a “treasure of national protection” 鎮国重宝 in the Western Regions. Previous studies have focused on the importance of prajñā thought as the reason why belief in this sūtra became popular. The popularity of prajñā thought can be traced back to Chinese translations of several versions of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra that preceded the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, but none of them were seen as national protection scriptures. This paper focuses on the relevant passages in the larger “Prajñāpāramitā Dhāraṇī” in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, and argues that the theme of “sentient beings of the land （国土有情）” as the subjects of benefit is a characteristic found only in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra among the Prajñāpāramitā corpus. This characteristic is also common to the other “national protection” scriptures. Therefore, it can be said that one of the reasons the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra came to be recognized as “a treasure of national protection” is because it was believed that “sentient beings of the land” were the primary beneficiaries of worldly benefits obtained through faith in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra.

The theories of the two truths are often associated with the interpretation made by the Sanlun 三論 （three treatises） School. As a matter of fact, however, during the Southern and Northern Dynasties, various theories on the two truths emerged within different Buddhist schools, including the Chengshi 成実 （centred on the Tattvasiddhi）, the Niepan 涅槃 （centered on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra）, the Shelun 摂論 （centered on the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha） and the Dilun 地論 （centered on the Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra） schools. Since the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also contains content related to the two truths, commentators on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra extensively discussed the nature of the two truths and their relationship, and formulated interpretations. For example, one theory argues that the conventional truth and the ultimate truth are equivalent, and both are mutually based on li 理 （principle）. Both “conventional truth” and the “ultimate truth” are seen as mere designatory names that are established to guide beings. Moreover, the conventional truth is considered the truth taught by people in the mundane world, while the ultimate truth is spoken by those in the transmundane world. Apart from commentaries on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, works such as Xiao Ziliang’s 萧子良 Zayiji 雑義記 and Xiao Tong’s 萧統 Lingzhi jie erdi yi 令旨解二諦義 also discuss the two truths based on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Examining these materials provides insight into one aspect of the theories of the two truths during the Southern and Northern Dynasties.