There are various genres of Tibetan literature, including rnam thar （biography）, lo rgyus （history）, chos ’byung （history of Buddhism）, rgyal rabs （royal chronicles）, and grub mtha’ （tenet classification systems）, but few studies have examined the details of each individual genre. In particular, there is no detailed study of gdan rabs （monastic chronicles）, the genre of literature that describes the history of monasteries and the genealogy of successive abbots, except for a short commentary by Vostrikov （1970）. In my previous study （2016）, I dealt with the Rwa sgreng gi bshad ba nyi ma’i ’od zer, published in 2010, which was discovered in the secret private library of the Fifth Dalai Lama （1617-1682） and seems to be one of the earliest works of this style of monastic chronicles literature. This study, therefore, aims to clarify the full picture of monastic chronicles by comparing the composition of the Rwa sgreng gi bshad ba nyi ma’i ’od zer with other representative monastic chronicles.

The Cakrasaṃvaratantra, the oldest tantra of the Saṃvara scriptural cycle, is the first to teach the yoga of the donkey-shaped [deities] （gardabhākārayoga）, which is also called the donkey yoga （gardabhayoga）. A practitioner devotes himself to the yoga of the ḍākinīs （particularly Lāmā, Rūpiṇī, Ḍākinī, and Khaṇḍarohā）, who each have the face of a donkey in order to stop a rush of thought that occurs in himself. By this yoga, he can know whether his target dies soon; what the target’s previous lives are; and whether the target is a seven-birther （saptajanman）, i.e., a man reborn as a human seven times in a row. Some texts composed after the Cakrasaṃvara present developed forms of this practice as follows: （1） effects of this practice are diversified; （2） the number of deities is increased （from ḍākinīs to the fivefold maṇḍala of Heruka that includes those ḍākinīs） and not only faces of donkeys but faces of other animals are visualized; and （3） this practice is internalized in the form of the psychosomatic yoga centered on the cakra and the channels （nāḍī） in the body.

What kind of yoga practice did Xuanzang 玄奘 introduce to China? The clue to solving this question can be found in Chapter V “Discrimination of Yoga” 分別瑜伽品 of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密經 translated by Xuanzang. This is because it describes the specific details of the “yoga practice based on Yogācāra thought” developed by the Indian Yogācāra. Its characteristics are as follows.

1. Chapter V says: The bodhisattva practices śamatha 止 and vipaśyanā 観 based on the Dharma （the teaching of Buddha expressed in words）, and understands that the image is a manifestation of his own mind, and then realizes the true nature （tathatā） of consciousness only.

2. It is said the object of vipaśyanā is the image （the teaching of Buddha expressed in words） and the object of śamatha is the mind that recognizes the image. By practicing śamatha and vipaśyanā together, the bodhisattva realizes the true nature （tathatā） of consciousness-only.

3. The “yogic experience” that the image （the teaching of Buddha expressed in words） will disappear but the teaching of Buddha will not disappear is explained by the “three natures 三性” ―that parikalpita will disappear but paratantra and pariniṣpanna will not disappear.

Thus, Chapter V of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra implies that this new practice of śamatha and vipaśyanā is associated with Yogācāra thought. It is quite possible that this “yoga practice based on Yogācāra thought,” which was transmitted by Xuanzang, might have been practiced by the Chinese Yogācāra school.

In the Nianfo jing 念仏鏡 （jointly compiled by Daojing 道鏡 and Shandao 善道）, a collection of writings on the Pure Land from the middle period of the Tang Dynasty, there is a compilation consisting of six topics called the “shizhong yihuo-men 釈衆疑惑門,” in which criticisms against other sects and schools are discussed.

However, among these six topics, in （4） “nianfo dui jiangshuo-men 念仏対講説門,” （5） “nianfo dui jielu-men 念仏対戒律門,” （6） “nianfo dui liudu-men 念仏対六度門,” among others, the subject of the argument is unclear. In particular, regarding the “nianfo dui liudu-men,” which integrates the liudu （Six Perfections） into the nianfo, the argument does not target a particular school or sect, and it is said that it reflects the subjectivity of the compiler. For these reasons, it is important to elucidate the background of the composition of the work.

This problem can be elucidated by examining the ideological link with the Jingtu cibei ji, a Pure Land anthology （compiled by Huiri 慧日） of the same period. Specifically, we first confirm the various views of Daxing 大行, a Pure Land teacher, who influenced the shaping of the Nianfo jing, and the views of Huiri. We also discuss the various views of the editors of the Nianfo jing and further elucidate the phase of ideological history of the “nianfo dui liudu-men.” It is anticipated that this work will clarify that the target of criticism of this section of the Nianfo jing is Huiri.

In East Asian commentaries on the Abhidharmakośa, the issue of the structure of the text has long been controversial. Commentators have discussed the issue, known in Japanese as sanbun-funbetsu 三分分別, in the context of the hermeneutics of Xuanzang’s translation of the Abhidharmakośa. However, Kaidō快道, a Japanese scholar-monk in the Edo period, declared a new theory on the textual history of the Abhidharmakośa in the sanbun-funbetsu controversy. In this paper, I clarify that, against the background of Kaidō’s theory, the value of the Xuanzang translation changed from that of an authoritative translation of the Abhidharmakośa to one of several sources to study the original text.

In the Huayan wushi yaowenda華厳五十要問答, Zhiyan智儼 （602-668） applies the consciousness theory to the Lesser Vehicle, the Three Vehicles and the Great Vehicle. The focus of his argument is the consciousness theory of the Three Vehicles. The Three Vehicles are further classified into the Initial Teaching初教 and the Final Teaching終教. The Initial Teaching is distinguished into the teaching for converts from the Lesser Vehicle迴心教 and the teaching for persons who advance directly to the Great Vehicle直進教.

Where and how was the consciousness theory seen in the translations by Xuanzang玄奘 （602-664） positioned in respect to those? The main points of Zhiyan’s interpretations are as follows;

1. Zhiyan places much of the consciousness theory of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論and the Cheng weishi lun成唯識論 translated by Xuanzang in the Initial Teaching for converts from the Lesser Vehicle, based on Asvabhāva’s Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya攝大乗論釋 translated by Xuanzang.

2. Zhiyan bifurcates the ālayavijñāna 阿頼耶識translated by Xuanzang into vipākavijñāna異熟頼耶 and dharmatāvijñāna法性頼耶. The former belongs to the Initial Teaching for converts. The latter is considered tathāgatagarbhavijñāna 如來藏識and belongs to the Initial Teaching for people who advance directly.

3. Zhiyan insists that manas末那識 does not arise subsequent to the darśanamārga見道 and the single manovijñāna意識 is transformed into four kinds of cognition （jñāna） 四智. He develops the theory of a single manovijñāna based on Paramārtha’s translation of Vasubandhu’s Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya.

In this way, Zhiyan avails himself of the consciousness theory translated by Xuanzang, using some parts directly, and criticizes other parts to build his original consciousness theory. It can be characterized as a process of rationalizing the old consciousness theory of the Dilun地論 and Shelun攝論 schools with the new consciousness theory in Xuangzang’s translations.

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

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

Kōzōin Nisshin 広蔵院日辰 （1508-1576）, who was active in Kyoto during the Sengoku Period, was a well-known scholar monk of the Nichizon monryū school 日尊門流 of the Nichiren sect, and he left many books for the education of the school. This article focuses on an unpublished volume called Ryakunirongi 略二論義 by Nisshin that is kept at the Yōbō-ji 要法寺 in Kyoto, the head temple of the Nichizon monryū school. The Ryakunirongi, a work of discussions on the Lotus Sūtra, is a simplified version of the six volumes of the Kaishakukenpon Hokke nirongi tokuishō 開迹顕本法華二論義得意抄 （also known as Nirongishō 二論義抄）, Nisshin’s representative work, which was completed in July 1560. While the Nirongishō explains the contents of the doctrine in detail, the Ryakunirongi was compiled on the assumption that it would be used in debates （rongi 論義） held in public. In such debates, which are ceremonies as well as training for younger monks, it is necessary to ask and answer questions on each chapter of the sūtra for a number of days, and attend lectures. In this article, I consider the formal features of the Ryakunirongi, which was compiled with consideration for the constraints accompanying the actual situation of the debates.

It is said that Dōshō 道昭, who introduced the Hossō idea to Japan, only stood up once every three or seven days when he entered meditation. This suggests that he may have practiced nirodha-samāpatti. His disciple, Gyōki 行基, is said to have had many spiritual experiences and mysterious intimations, which may have been related to the practice of śamatha. Tokuitsu 徳一 wrote the Shikan-ron 止観論 （“Treatise on Cessation and Observation”）, and critical comments on it by Saichō mention several texts that the Hossō sect may have used for meditation. In addition to the Chinese translations of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽師地論, the Sandhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密経, and the Abhidharmasamuccaya 雑集論, these texts include the translations by Yijing of the Zhiguanmen lunsong 止観門論頌, and Liumen jiaoshou lun 六門教授論. There is also a reference to the “18 Methods of Cessation and Observation” 十八門止観, which may have been a separate version of the one chapter of the Sandhinirmocana. Hossō’s view of cessation （śamatha） is that it is concentration on a single object, and his view of observation （vipaśyanā） is that it is detailed observation of the mind-action occurring in the same mind at that time. This is different from the Tendai understanding for cessation and observation. I posit that Tokuitsu’s treatise was written with this distinction in mind, in order to show the basic understanding of cessation and observation in the Hossō sect.

In the Sarvastivādin Abhidharma, it is explained that the rūpa dharma （one of the five skandhas） consists of the five sense faculties, five objects of perception and avijñapti-rūpa. Verse 9 of the first chapter （Dhātunirdeśa） of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains, “Those bases of consciousnesses are （the five sense faculties such as） the eyes; it is a transparent pure rūpa.” Citing Saṅghabhadra’s words, Sthiramati, in his commentary on the Abhidharmakośa, the Tattvārthā Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṭīkā, comments on, and provides his understanding of, rūpa dharma as a sense faculty.

Concerning the explanation that the sense faculties are transparent pure rūpa, in this paper I would like to present the results of my reading of the intention behind Sthiramati’s commentary on verse 9, paying attention to Saṅghabhadra’s *Nyāyānusāra. Although many studies on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya already exist, there is still a need to examine the reason why Vasubandhu composed the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. There is also a need to undertake further research in order to clarify the positions of Saṅghabhadra and Sthiramati in the development of Buddhist doctrine vis-à-vis the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Therefore, by analyzing and sorting out the context of Sthiramati’s commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, it is possible to provide further resources for understanding the place of Saṅghabhadra and Sthiramati in the development of doctrinal thought originating in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.

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

The commentaries of Hōnen (法然, 1133–1212) and Ryōe (了慧, 1243–1330) on the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra developed from Jingying Huiyuan’s 浄影慧遠 (523–592) philosophy and produced in Japanese Pure Land Buddhism a formula for interpreting Dharmākara bodhisattva (法蔵菩薩), who became Amitābha Buddha. However, considering that Hōnen followed Shandao’s (善導) ideas, one wonders why the Jōdo scholar Gizan (義山, 1648–1717) tried to create an interpretation by combining two systems originating from Huiyuan and Shandao.

This paper tries to investigate the way Gizan dealt with the controversy that emerged from the ‘twofold resolve’ (両重発心) which eventually led to doctrinal argument. Apart from his controversial argument, this paper deals with the characteristics of Gizan’s thought: 1. He adopted Huiyuan’s philosophy to elaborate Dharmākara’s ‘multifold resolve’, which would lead to the conclusion that the ‘multifold resolve’ would be impossible without the strength of the absolute other, especially from the viewpoint of manifestations. 2. With the idea of dependent origination in Mahāyāna, he not only explained that Dharmākara initiated his resolve long ago, but also elaborated by means of Kegon philosophy that Dharmākara did it together with sentient beings. Gizan’s interpretation of Dharmākara corresponded to the teaching of Hōnen, the follower of Shandao, and emphasized the spirit of the bodhisattva path full of great compassion.

Chapter I of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra 解深密經 is divided into four parts. In the first part, it seems that the relationship between paramārtha-satya and dharmas is interpreted by the two truths 二諦. However, it is better to interpret this relationship using the three natures 三性 of Chinese Yogācāra thought. Paramārtha-satya is replaced by pariniṣpanna, dharmas are replaced by parikalpita, and vastu 事 and saṃskāra 行 between the two imply paratantra.

How were the three natures in this portion accepted by Chinese Yogācāra? In previous studies, it has been stated that Wŏnch’uk 圓測 (613–696) did not understand Yogācāra correctly. But when we read his commentary of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (解深密經疏) carefully, it is clear that he correctly understands that vastu and saṃskāra are paratantra, and that he properly describes the interpretations of this portion by Paramārtha 眞諦 and Xuanzang 玄奘.

Xuanzang’s interpretation of dharmas is the following: (1) saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta are parikalpita; (2) saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta are the object part 相分 of paratantra; (3) that saṃskṛta is paratantra and asaṃskṛta is pariniṣpanna are the paramārtha-satya. According to the third interpretation, the dharmas are not denied. On the other hand, Paramārtha’s interpretation is that the existence of all dharmas is denied as follows: (1) the discrimination by confused consciousness 乱識分別, (2) wrong thought as foundation 根本 (不正思惟), (3) niḥsvabhāva of parikalpita and paratantra 無相無生. This is the interpretation that was used in the Shelun 攝論 school. Wŏnch’uk criticizes this Shelun interpretation, insisting that Xuanzang’s interpretation should be applied to this portion.

In relation to the various religious doctrines which became diversified after the death of Nichiren (日蓮), the viewpoint of Honjaku theory (本迹論) is the most important index to examine the characteristics of the disciples. Kōzōin Nisshin (広蔵院日辰, mid-16th c.), who was based in Kyoto during the Sengoku Period, was a notable learned priest who established a major theoretical system of the Honjaku theory. Nisshin discriminated between Honmon (本門) and Shakumon (迹門). The distinctive feature of the theory is that it discusses the superiority of “Chapter 16, Nyorai Juryō-hon (如来寿量品第十六)” out of the 28 chapters of the Lotus Sūtra. In this paper, in order to clarify the characteristics of the Honjaku theory of Nisshin, I compare it with the theory of the Icchi school (一致派) priests who discussed the unity of the Honmon and Shakumon. I took up as my starting point the contention shared by the learned priests of the Shoretsu (勝劣) and Icchi schools, that is, the interpretation of “Myōhō 妙法” in the first introductory chapter. The teachings of the abovementioned priests strongly reflect the characteristics of the doctrines that they upheld. Here I point out that Nisshin interprets this “Myōhō” of the title of the introductory chapter based on the sixteenth chapter.

In founding the Jōdo-shū, Hōnen (1133–1212) selected the Wuliangshou jing, Guan Wuliangshou jing, and Amito jing as foundational scriptures, calling them the Three Pure Land Sūtras. His choice was modeled on the adoption of three fundamental sūtras by the Buddhist sects preceding the Jōdo-shū. However, Hōnen did not simply select any three sūtras; his selection rather indicates the depth of his contemplation of the Three Pure Land Sūtras.

Specifically, this paper extracts the portions which present Hōnen’s interpretation of the Three Pure Land Sūtras and examines his interpretational methodology. Through an examination of the process by which Hōnen explains the problems and contradictions that emerged in his reading of each of the Three Pure Land Sūtras by supplementing and interpreting them with the other Pure Land sūtras, it is possible to see in what ways he considered the three sūtras as one, as a “Triple Sūtra.” Further, Hōnen’s explanation is linked to the establishment of the Senchaku fuzoku 選択付属, the sixth of the eight kinds of selection (八種選択義) in the 16th chapter of the Senchakushū 選択集, and meaning Śākyamuni’s selection of the nenbutsu which he entrusted to Ānanda in order that it be passed to future beings.

Bṛhatkalpabhāṣya 6364 prescribes ten kinds of monastic rules for the monks. These rules are for those who are: (1) in the position of the monk who practices sāmāyika, and (2) in the position of the monk who must be newly initiated because he has been demoted from his position due to transgressions. In this article, I point out that while the enumeration of these rules is not found in any Śvetāmbara scriptures, Bṛhatkalpabhāṣya 6364 has parallel verses in other Śvetāmbara Bhāṣya commentaries, the works of Haribhadra Virahāṅka, and the Digambara pseudo-canon or the Bhagavatī Ārādhanā and the Mūlācāra. I also point out that the Śvetāmbaras and the Digambaras give different interpretations to the first rule on “nudity (accelakka, etc.).” While the Digambaras interpret “nudity” as a synomym of aparigraha or non-attachment, the Śvetāmbaras argue that a monk is regarded as “nude” only if he wears rag clothes.

The oldest Chinese translation of a vinaya text is the Binaiye 鼻奈耶. Although many scholars having pointed out that there is a need to examine its content due to the time of its translation, almost no research has been carried out. One of the reasons for this is that the Chinese is difficult to understand. However, this is also because of its unique structure. The extant vinayas are basically comprised of a vibhaṅga section and skandhaka section (or section equivalent to the skandhaka). However, the Binaiye only consists of the former. While the structure of its vibhaṅga does present some issues, like other vinayas, it contains stories, rules, and explanations. Based on limited research findings it is thought that the Binaiye came into existence before the extant vinayas. One of the notable characteristics of the Chinese translation of this text is that it does not discuss “proper rules.” In my past research I have examined the content of the proper rules found in vinayas and made clear the process of the sangha’s transformation. However, when and from where the Chinese-language concept jing 淨 (Pāli kappa/kappiya; “proper”) appeared remains as a major issue to be addressed. In order to examine this problem, I turn to the Binaiye and discuss its relationship with “proper rules.” I conclude that one does not find any passages showing their existence therein, and present various possible reasons for this. The lack of “proper rules” in this text is a very important point when thinking about the placement of this vinaya text, how “proper rules” came into existence, and circumstances surrounding the Chinese translation of vinaya texts. It is an issue that requires further examination.

It goes without saying that dependent co-arising (pratītyasamutpāda) plays an important role in Buddhist thought. But this was not necessarily the case in the early Mahāyāna. Surprisingly, there are also few examples of the use of this term in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. In particular, little importance was attached to it in early Prajñāpāramitā sūtras such as the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and related texts. Furthermore, in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and related texts, from the first chapter of entrustment onwards, there began to appear some noteworthy discussions of dependent co-arising that have a bearing on the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā.

In expanded versions of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, however, this situation changes completely. In particular, there appear several discussions of dependent co-arising that are notable for their influence on later Buddhist thought.

The main uses of dependent co-arising in expanded versions of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras are the visualization of dependent co-arising as an antidote to ignorance and its use as a source for the verse of salutation in the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā, known as the eight negations. In this paper, I examine these and situate the verse of the eight negations in the context of the doctrines that developed as the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras grew in volume. Nāgārjuna brought together the negative expressions found in expanded versions of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras in the form of the eight negations and linked them to the idea of dependent co-arising, which was then transmitted in later versions of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras such as the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā. In addition, Asaṅga’s *Madhyamakānusāra (Shunzhong lun 順中論) played a role in strengthening the ties between the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and the eight negations.

This presentation concerns Sādhanamālā (SM) 134, a meditation on the Mārīcī of three faces and eight arms (an image seen on extant art objects). The traits of the sādhana of SM 134 are elucidated via an understanding of its structural components.

Among the Buddhist goddesses of the Pāla Empire (8th–12th century CE), works depicting Mārīcī are said to have been second in number only to those of the goddess Tārā, and Mārīcī worship was especially widespread in India. Sixteen types of Mārīcī sādhana are recorded in the SM, with Mārīcī displaying variously one face and two arms, three faces and eight arms, five faces and ten arms, six faces and twelve arms, or three faces and sixteen arms.

In SM 134, in the preparatory stage for meditation, the concrete description of the figure of the goddess is characteristic. The reason is not clear, but in SM 142, in the preparatory stage for meditation (similar to SM 134) is the phrase “depict images [paṭa], etc. of the figure of the holy mother [Mārīcī]” (paṭādigatamūrrtiṃ bhagavatīm avatārrya); therefore, it may be that the concrete figure of Mārīcī spoken of in the preparatory stage of SM 134 is suggesting not only a mediation, but also the creation of actual objects depicting the goddess. From the fact that numerous holy images of Mārīcī have been confirmed in India, we surmise that in addition to mediation, emphasis was also placed on the mechanism of gaining blessings by the pious act of creating actual art objects.