The traditional view is that regarding the commentaries titled Dapiluzhena chengfo shenbian jiachi jing shu _??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??_ (T 1796, abbreviated as Darijing shu _??__??__??__??_) and Piluzhena chengfo shenbian jiachi jing yishi _??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??_ (abbreviated as Yishi) on the Chinese translation of the Mahavairocanabhisambodhi-sutra (T 848), Zhiyan _??__??_ (dates unknown) and Wengu _??__??_ (dates unknown) edited the Darijing shu to produce the Yishi. This view has been treated as accepted knowledge. However, in the preface to the Yishi written by Wengu and in Chinese and Japanese documents prior to Annen's _??__??_ (841-889) Bodaishingi sho _??__??__??__??__??_, there is no clear indication that they edited the text. Although Wengu notes in his preface that he was unable to examine the Sanskrit original, the Yishi contains passages that state the Sanskrit text was consulted. There are several reasons to doubt that Wengu himself was involved in the editing of the Yishi. Furthermore, Enchin _??__??_ (814-891) notes in his Gishaku mokuroku _??__??__??__??_ that Wengu's preface was transmitted as a discrete text. Therefore, the author believes that Wengu's preface was originally a separate text that existed before the formation of the Yishi, and that the evidence for Wengu's editing of the text is weak.
A study of pilgrimage in Japan cannot ignore the existence of nationwide local imitations of the Saikoku Thirty-three Temples Pilgrimage route and the Shikoku Eighty-eight Temples Pilgrimage route. In the late Showa era, several new pilgrimage routes concerning Fudo or Yakushi came into existence. I discovered that the periods when pilgrimage routes in Japan came into existence can be divided into four groupings: mid- to late-Edo period, after the late 1880s or 1890s (Meiji 20s), prewar Showa era, and the late 1960s (Showa 40s) to the present. All of these correspond to periods in which the Shikoku and Saikoku pilgrimage routes were successful. After considering the several Kawachi Saikoku routes in Osaka, I summarized the sequence of events in which the pilgrimage routes of Kitakawachi and Nakagawachi re-arose independently and without communication, so that there was duplication in names. I also confirmed that during and after the Edo period there were at least five groups with more than ten kinds of pilgrimage routes in imitation of the Saikoku pilgrimage in Kawachi. After studying the circumstances of newly created pilgrimage routes that are appearing in rapid succession today, I examined the existence of two shikakenin.
After the publication of my paper “Tibetan Buddhist Paintings bearing Newari Inscriptions” (The Mikkyo Bunka, vol. 213, 2004; the English summary: The Kathmandu Valley as a Water Pot: Abstracts of research papers on Newar Buddhism in Nepal, 2007, http://www.jn-net.com/yoshizaki/), I wondered if these paintings should be classified as thankas (Tibetan Buddhist paintings) or paubhas (Newar Buddhist paintings). I present more examples in this paper and decipher the inscriptions, but my doubts have not been dissolved. Working in Tibet, Newar merchants and artisans copied or sponsored the copying of many Newar Buddhist manuscripts in Lhasa, Shigatse, Kuti, and Kirong. In parallel with this religious activity they executed or sponsored the execution of these paintings in Tibet. For example, a tharika titled “Green Tara surrounded by twenty-seven deities” completed in Lhasa in 1862 was then introduced to Taisho University, Tokyo, by EKAI Kawaguchi. Kalidasa, one of the Newar donors of this painting, took part in the copying of a Buddhist manuscript, Visvantara rajakumaraya bakham (A Newari version of Visvantara-rajakumaravadana), seven years after in Shigatse. A Newar Buddhist manuscript, Karanda-vyuha in The British Library was copied in 1805 in Shigatse in the Newar atelier named Luptim. The manuscript has many colored illustrations in it. These are also good examples of the Buddhist paintings executed in Tibet for Newar patrons. I conjecture that these paintings were executed mostly by Newar artisans working in Tibet mainly for Tibetan patrons and sometimes working for Newar patrons, but possibly in some cases the Newar patrons ordered these paintings from Tibetan painters who were on close terms with them in their everyday life.