INSTITUT FUR TIBETOLOGIt UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

UNIVERSITATSCAMPUS AAKH, HOF 2

SPITALGASSE 2-4, A-1090 WIEN AUSTRIA, EUROPE _ _

Journal of the International Association of

Buddhist Studies Volume 21 • Number 1 • 1998

JOHANNES BRONKHORST Did the Buddha Believe in Karma and Rebirth? 1

JINHUACHEN The Construction of Early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism: The Japanese Provenance of Saicho's Transmission Documents and Three Esoteric Buddhist Apocrypha Attributed to Subhakarasirhha 21

MIRIAM LEVERING Dogen's Raihaitokuzui and Women Teaching in Sung Ch'an 77

TOM TILLEMANS A Note on Pramanavarttika, Pramdnasamuccaya and Nyayamukha. What is the svadharmin in Buddhist Logic? 111

CHIKAFUMIWATANABE A Translation of the Madhyamakahrdayakdrika with the Tarkajvala III. 137-146 125

YANG JIDONG Replacing hu with fan: A Change in the Chinese Perception of Buddhism during the Medieval Period 157

JINHUA CHEN

The Construction of Early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism: The Japanese Provenance of Saicho's Transmission Documents and Three Esoteric Buddhist Apocrypha Attributed to ubhakarasirhha*

The principal founder of the Japanese Tendai school, Saicho M¥$t (767-822), is remembered not only for having brought Chinese Tiantai ^ n Buddhism to Japan but also for his alleged role in importing an Esoteric Buddhist tradition from China. This esoteric aspect of Tendai ^ n Bud­dhism, known as Taimitsu &$%, assumed such importance that some Tendai followers held that the esoteric aspect of their school embodied a higher form of Buddhism than the exoteric, i.e. the traditional Tiantai doctrines that had been brought by their patriarch from China.

The legitimacy of Saicho's esoteric tradition has been maintained by two "dharma-transmission certificates" (fuhomon ft&'X) reputedly con-fered on Saicho by his chief Chinese esoteric mentor - Shunxiao Hd^ (n.d.). Two manuscripts, one preserved at the Bishamondo H&J>f*!l£ temple in Kyoto1 (the "Bishamondo MS") and the other at the Shitennqji

* This article is based on research done for my Ph.D dissertation. For a full discus­sion of the issues raised, see my dissertation (Jinhua CHEN, "The Formation of Early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in Japan: A Study of Three Japanese Esoteric Apocrypha", unpublished Ph.D dissertation, McMaster University 1997; referred to as "CHEN's dissertation" in this article). I am very grateful to my McMaster teachers, Profs. Koichi SHINOHARA, Robert SHARF and Phyllis GRANOFF, as well as my Japanese supervisor Prof. Noritoshi ARAMAKI at Kyoto University, for their guidance as I wrote my dissertation and this article in particular. Dr. John KlESCHNICK of Academia Sinica in Taiwan and Elizabeth MORRISON from Stanford University read the draft at different stages. I want to thank them for useful suggestions about the arguments of this article and its style as well. Finally, I am grateful to Kazuma SUZUKI at the Italian School of Eastern Studies in KySto for the technical assistance he kindly provided.

1. The Bishamondo MS is reprinted on one front page of the 1912 edition of the Dengyo Daishi zenshQ y&fckB^^. (Hereafter DZ; A complete collection of the works by Master Dengy5 [Saichd]); ed. Tendai shuden kankokai, five vols. In this article the 1927-28 DZ version is used (ed. Hieizan senshuin-nai Eizan gakuin, five vols. [Hieizan: Tosho kankokai, 1927-28; reprinted Tokyo: Nihon bussho kankSkai, 1975]).

JIABS21.1 22

IZS ZE F temple in Osaka2 (the "Shitennqji MS"), are widely regarded as the originals of these two fuhomons. For their general historical and cultural value and in particular, for their unusual importance to the Japanese Buddhist tradition, these two manuscripts have been designated by the government of Japan as a "National Treasure" (kokuho SSf) and an "Important Cultural Property" (juyo bunkazai MM~$ti\lM) respec­tively.

The Shitennqji MS, dated the eighteenth day of the fourth month, Zhenyuan M.JC 21 (805) in the Tang Dynasty, centres on the esoteric teachings Saicho is said to have received from Shunxiao. According to this fuhomon, Shunxiao had initiated Saicho into some peculiar forms of esoteric teachings, the core of which consisted in correlating three groups of five-syllable dharanis (A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham, A-Vi-Ra-Hum-Kham, A-Ra-Ba-Ca-Na) with three ranks of siddhi ("attainment"): higher, intermediate and lower. The Bishamondo MS was supposedly written by Shunxiao one day after he wrote the first fuhomon. It depicts an esoteric lineage in which Saicho is counted as the fourth successor. Further, it traces the esoteric lineage through Shunxiao (the third dharma-successor in the lineage) and his Korea-born but Chinese-edu­cated master Yilin H # (n.d., the second successor), back to the presti­gious Subhakarasimha (637-735) (the first patriarch in this lineage).

The core of the Shitennoji MS is the unusual practice of correlating the three ranks of siddhi (attainment) with the three groups of five-syllable dharanis. The threefold classification of the category siddhi is

2. On December 6, 1965, a major national newspaper in Japan, Asahi Shimbun I? Biffin, reported the discovery of a manuscript at the ShitennOji temple in Osaka. This manuscript claims to be a fuhomon written for Saicho by his Esoteric teacher in China, Shunxiao. The experts who investigated the ShitennOji MS agreed on the authenticity of this fuhdmon. Regarded as important written evidence for the cultural communication between ancient China and Japan, this manuscript was designated as an "Important Cultural Property" shortly after it was made known to the public. Japanese calligraphy scholars are generally of the opinion that this manuscript was written in the typical Tang calligraphical style and must be regarded as Chinese in provenance (KIUCHI Gy5o\ Tendai mikkyo no keisei [The formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism], Tokyo: Keisuisha 1984: 43-50; OYAMA Ninkai, "Saicho denju Jungyo Ajari fuhoinshin [The dharma-transmission certificate from/Colrya Jungyo fflgRft (Ch. Shunxiao), as transmitted by Master Dengyo"]", Bukkyd geijutsu 96 [1974]: 80-95). To my knowledge, no one has ever expressed doubt about the authenticity of this manuscript and all Tendai scholars use it as a primary source for studying the appearance of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in Japan and its relationship to Chinese Esoteric Buddhism.

CHEN 23

«i # $i *

' w%wi & '?j "m i s r ^ # ^-fc ^ * K 6 ^ i vising .-j

v* bit *$£%**** ^-r^ aft

The BishamondS MS

*4» 4 I *w ^fc jrst

$ S <i

St.

& 4 *£

rttif*

• / •

T<"T

The Shitennoji MS

JIABS21.1 24

by no means a new notion. It can be found in numerous esoteric texts translated into Chinese, for example, the Susiddhikdra-sutra (Ch. Suxidi jieluojing Mf&MffiMffl.)-3 In addition, the three five-syllable dhdranis canbe traced back to the Mahdvairocana-sutra (Ch. Darijing j \ 0 M) and Vajra&ekhara-sutra (Ch. Jin'gangding jing ^W!f]M^).4 Nonethe­less, the three groups of five-syllable dhdranis were rarely listed to­gether side by side; their correlation with the three ranks of attainment is even more unusual. As a matter of fact, the threefold d/iaram-attainment correlation gets no scriptural support except in the three siddhi texts which, currently preserved in the Taisho Tripitaka under the numbers 905, 906 and 907, are attributed to Subhakarasirhha.5 Therefore, these three siddhi texts are generally taken to be the fundamental texts on the basis of which Shunxiao initiated Saicho into his esoteric lineage.

To recapitulate, the following account has been given of Saicho's effort to transmit an esoteric tradition to Japan: during his seven-month stay in China, Saicho was initiated into an illustrious lineage starting with Subhakarasirhha and culminating in Saicho's celebrated mentor Shunxiao, who, on the basis of three siddhi texts translated by 3ubha-karasirhha, transmitted to Saicho some esoteric teachings, the core of which is preserved in one of the two fuhomons written by Shunxiao himself. This conventional view regarding the formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in Japan is still accepted uncritically by almost all Tendai scholars.

In this article, I will argue that the two fuhomons, the Shitenndji MS and Bishamondo MS, were both forged in Japan by Saicho's followers in order to reinterpret and legitimize the esoteric transmissions Saicho allegedly received in China. The three siddhi texts were, moreover, written by Tendai monks to authenticate these two fuhomons.

3. See my discussion in section I.C. 4. Ibid. 5. These three texts are (i) the Sanshushicchi hajigoku tengossho shutsusangai

himitsu darani hd =nmmmMMmU&^nW®®MJ&&i (T.905.18. 909b-912b, hereafter T.905); (ii) the Buccho sonshoshin hajigoku tengossho shutsusangai himitsu sanjim bukka sanshushicchi shingon giki #)sjft3£jj#'[>$ti!til

after T.906); (iii) the Bucchd sonshoshin hajigoku tengosshd shutsusangai himitsu darani mmm>bmmmmm&E.n®®W.mfe (T.907.18.914c-915c;hereafter T.907). Since all of these three texts focus on the Esoteric notion of siddhi (Ch. xidi; Jp. shicchi; "perfection" or "attainment"), I refer to them as the "three siddhi texts" in the following discussion.

CHEN 25

Part I. Saicho 's Esoteric Transmission Documents (Fuhomons): Their Origin and Evolution

I will use three sorts of sources in the discussion of the two fuhomons attributed to Saicho. First, I will consult two works left by Saicho him­self, the Esshuroku ^]>H$%. and the Kenkairon H#cfli. There is no evi­dence that later editors significantly tampered with these works. The Esshuroku (The bibliography [of the Buddhist texts collected in] the pre­fecture of Esshu ISM [Ch. Yuezhou jjgjHi]) is one of two bibliographies attributed to Saicho.6 It contains a record of the Esoteric Buddhist texts and assorted paraphernalia that Saicho obtained during his brief sojourn in Yuezhou. The Esshuroku is dated the thirteenth day of the fifth month of 805.

The Kenkairon (On promoting the [Mahayana] precepts) was written by Saicho in his later years, when he came under attack from conserva­tive Nara monks who charged that Saicho's Buddhist transmissions were of dubious value since they were obtained in the provinces of China, instead of in the capital.7 Nara monks advanced these vehement criti­cisms in order to frustrate Saicho's effort to establish a Mahayana precept platform on Mount Hiei JttKliJ, which, they feared, would enable him to ordain his followers more easily. In the second month of Konin 3Atl 11 (820), Saicho submitted the Kenkairon to the court in order to counter the criticisms that his dharma transmissions from China were inauthentic.

Second, I will draw on two other works, the Naisho buppo sojo kechi-myakufu fttn^&fSfciMMtf and Kenkairon engi H $ t i H £ E , which, though originally composed by Saicho, were seriously altered and

6. The other bibliography attributed to SaichS is the Taishuroku n'H-\$k (The bibliography [of the Buddhist texts collected in] the Prefecture of Taishu [Ch. Taizhou]). Both bibliographies can be found in the Taisho shinshu daizokyo AlEff fd JtMM. (The Buddhist Tripitaka newly edited in the period of Taisho AIE; hereafter abbreviated as T.; eds. f AKAKUSU Junjiro, et al. 85 vols., Tokyo: Taisho IssaikyS KankSkai, 1924-32; see T#2159, T#2160) and the Dengyo Daishi zenshu (vol. 5).

7. These criticisms were reflected in Saicho's own works; cf. the Kenkairon (DZ1: 106; T.74.2376. 590c) and the J6 Kenkairon hyd ± K I $ i i l ^ (A memorial on submitting the Kenkairon', DZ5: 36-38). See also Paul GRONER, Saicho: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School, Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 7, 1984; herefter "GRONER's Saicho"), p. 154 (particularly note <163>).

JIABS 21.1 26

extensively expanded by Saicho's immediate disciples and/or later Tendai editors. The Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu (A diagrammatic description of the secretly certified blood-lineages of the Buddha-dharma; in one fascicle; DZ1: 199-248) is generally regarded as the text Saicho refers to in his 819/d Kenkairon hyo JiWil$Lmi& as Buppo kechi-myaku #&}£lf[lM (The blood-lineage of the Buddha-dharma), which he submitted to the court with the Kenkairon in 820. In the extant version, the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu is primarily concerned with proving the orthodoxy of the various transmissions Saicho received in China. It has, therefore, been highly prized within the Tendai tradition. However, the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu, particularly the sections concerning Saicho's Northern Chan and esoteric lineages, has been subjected to serious criticism by modern scholars. Increasingly, scholars are concluding that the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu cannot simply be equated with the Buppo kechimyaku originally written by Saicho. Rather, it is either a different work entirely or, more likely, an emended, expanded, and altered version of the Buppo kechimyaku*

The Kenkairon engi (Materials concerning the Kenkairon; in two fascicles; DZ1: 263-98) is a collection edited by Saicho into a single work in the third month of 821. Probably as a result of the criticism of the monks in Nara who questioned the orthodoxy of Saicho's teachings, much of the Kenkairon engi is devoted to proving that Saicho had studied under qualified teachers in China. Although it is almost certain that Saicho did compile a work called the Kenkairon engi, the Kenkairon engi that has come down to us cannot be regarded as a compilation by Saicho himself. Rather, I am of the opinion that the currently available version of the Kenkairon engi is the result of repeated alteration and expansion by later Tendai editors of an original text left by Saicho him­self. Documents forged after Saicho's death were added to Saicho's Kenkairon engi in order to support claims for the legitimacy of Saicho's dharma-transmissions, the esoteric transmissions in particular.9 Further­more, in comparison to primary Tendai sources like the Denjutsu isshin-kaimon &$£-—falRX, Eizan Daishiden tRUl^cfflrPI, and Naisho buppo

8. See SASAKI Kentoku, Sange gakushoshiki shinshaku (A new study of the Sange gakushoshiki) (Yamazaki: Hobundo 1938); FUKUI Kojun, "Naisho buppS sojo kechimyakufu shingi [A new understanding of the Naishd buppo sojo kechi­myakufu)", Tendai gakuhd 29 (1986): 1-9; 30 (1987): 1-6.

9. CHEN's dissertation: 92-94.

CHEN 27

sojo kechimyakufu, the Kenkairon engi achieved its present form at a relatively late date.10

Finally, a biography of Saicho (the Eizan Daishiden) and a collection of documents related to Saicho and the early Hieizan order (the Denjutsu isshinkaimon) constitute the third group of primary sources for the following discussion. Both of these works were written and/or compiled by Saicho's immediate students. The Denjutsu isshinkaimon fl|j&£—>[>$c "X (Articles related to the transmission of the "one-mind precepts", in three fascicles; DZ1: 523-648; T.2379.74.634b-659a) was compiled by K q j o ^ ^ (779-851) around 833-34. The majority of this collection is composed of documents related to the Hieizan community before or

10. Suffice it here to quote one piece of evidence for the relative lateness of the Kenkairon engi in the present form. As I will show in section I. A, a so-called "court certificate" proving SaichS's religious expertise is found in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon and the Eizan Daishiden. As quoted in both works, the "court certificate" represents Shunxiao as the third generation disciple of Subhakarasirhha ([Zen]mui sanzo daisan deshi [^]M^=MW>=.^:f). Yet, when quoted in the Kenkairon engi, the same "court certificate" describes Shunxiao as Fuku sanzd daisandeshi ^ ^ H j K H H ^ ^ (cf. KlUCHi Gyoo, "Kenkairon engi ni okeru ichi mondai [A problem related to the Kenkairon engi]", Tendai gakuho 14 (1972): 157-64), which can mean (i) the "third disciple of Tripitaka Bukong" or the "third-generation disciple of Tripitaka Bukong". Apparently, the Kenkairon engi editor did not understand this phrase as the "third-generation disciple of Tripitaka Bukong", since this would imply that Saicho's teacher Shunxiao was one generation junior to Kukai's ?§.% (774-835) teacher Huiguo, who was one of Bukong's disciples. Therefore, the editor understood the phrase to mean the "third disciple of Tripitaka Bukong", which makes Shunxiao a fellow student of and therefore comparable to Huiguo. However, the editor forgot that the phrase "daisandeshi" H H ^ ^ P in this context could only be understood as the "third generation disciple", since in the same document Saicho's Tiantai teacher Daosui was referred to as the Chishadaishi daishichi deshi ^^JtM^-fc^lr, which can only be understood as the "seventh generation (rather than the 'seventh') disciple of Zhiyi Ugl (538-597)". Daosui lived almost two centuries after Zhiyi and his discipleship under Zhiyi is out of the question. Therefore, in this context, the phrase "daisandeshi or "daishichideshi" must be understood as the "third/seventh generation disciple", rather than the "third/seventh disciple". In other words, the Kenkairon engi editor, in including the "court certificate" in the Kenkairon engi, substituted "Fuku" (Ch. Bukong ^ ^ [706-774]) for "[Zenjmui" (Subhakarasimha) and was unaware of or oblivious to the problem caused by this change. This change was obviously made for the purpose of associating Saichd with Bukong and redefining SaichS's esoteric tradition as of the kongOkai as well as taizokai lineages.

JIABS 21.1 28

shortly after Saicho's death. As such, it is an invaluable source for understanding the formation of the early Tendai order on Mount Hiei.

The Eizan Daishiden WL\\\JZM& (A biography of the great teacher of Mount Hiei [Saicho], one fascicle; DZ5: 1-48) has traditionally been at­tributed to Ichijo Chu — ffefa, who has generally been thought to be Saicho's prized disciple NinchuCJS (?-824). However, compelling evi­dence has emerged to disprove this conventional identification of Ichijo Chu. Most likely, the actual biographer was Shinchu M& (n.d.), another disciple of Saicho.n

LA. A "Court-certificate" in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon: The Glorifi­cation of Saicho's Chinese Esoteric Mentor Shunxiao

The Denjutsu isshinkaimon does not include any document that can be identified as either of the two fuhomons attributed to Shunxiao. How­ever, it does contain an official certificate (kancho iTlBfc) which is of great relevance to this analysis since it represents Saicho's chief Chinese Esoteric mentor Shunxiao as a distinguished Buddhist priest. This refer­ence to Shunxiao is reminiscent of the two fuhomons attributed to Shun­xiao, in which Shunxiao is also described as an extraordinarily eminent monk. This certificate claims to have been issued by the Kammu fI5£ (737-809, r.781-806) court to certify Saicho's religious achievements. The content of the certificate implies that it was issued in 806,'2 shortly

11. FUKUI Kojun, "Eizan Daishiden no seikaku [The character of the Eizan Daishiden]", Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 36 (1970): 13-22; "Eizan Daishiden wo meguru ni san no mondai [Two and three problems related to the Eizan Daishiden]", Tendaigakuho 15 (1973): 1-10; "Eizan Daishiden ni tsuite no kento [An examination of the Eizan Daishiden]", Tendai gakuho 31 (1988): 1-6. For the most recent study of this biography, see SAEKI Arikiyo, Dengyd Daishiden no kenkyu [A study of the Eizan Daishiden], Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan 1992).

12. Kojo failed to date this "court certificate". It is noted in his collection that this certificate was issued to SaichS on the insistence of Emperor Kammu (T.2379.74.643cl2). Furthermore, this certificate indicates that Saicho was then forty years old. According to the Denjutsu isshinkaimon, Saicho died in 822 at the age of 56, which implies that he was born in 767 (cf. GRONER's Saicho: 19). Therefore, Saicho reached the age of forty in 806. In other words, this certificate, if authentic, must have been issued in 806 (Enryaku $£J§g 25). Furthermore, Emperor Kammu died in early 806. This also implies that this "court certificate", if indeed granted to Saicho with Kammu's consent as the Denjutsu isshinkaimon claims, must have been written no later than 806.

CHEN 29

after Saicho returned from China.13 The main body of this "court-certificate" reads as follows:

Dwelling on Mount Hiei, the Eastern Mountain in the city of Heian ¥•'•£ [Saicb.6] has been assiduously practising for fifteen years. He has searched for the mysterious methods of recitation, and admired the exalted traces of Mount TiantaiJ4 In the fourth month of Enryaku M.WL 23 (804), commissioned by imperial order, he crossed the sea to seek the Way. Arriving at the abode of Master Daosui II Jg, who is the seventh generation disciple after Master Zhizhe (i.e. Zhiyi § f g [538-5971) (Chisha Daishi daishichideshi g ^ g ^ - f c ^ ) at the Guoqingsi |gjjt # temple in Taizhou i$)M, he secured [from there] over two hundred fascicles of texts regarding the Tiantai teachings. Moreover, at the Longxingsi HP*Tf temple in Yuezhou Prefecture he encountered Master Shunxiao who, as the third-generation disciple after Tripitaka Subhakarasimha from India, was the "Great Virtuous One" (daitoku JK'M', Skt. bhadanta) of a "State-protecting Temple" (chinkoku dojo $1113 Jt^l), a "monk serving at the court chapel' (naigubu ftf&^). Entering into the abhiseka altar, he received the "Procedures of Attainment (siddhi) for the "Three Divisions' (sanbu H«I3)."15

In addition, he obtained more than thirty fascicles of texts about the teachings [for reciting the] dhdrams, over ten pictures and samples of mandates, some imple­ments for recitations, and so forth. Having obtained official certificates from the Administrative Assistant of Taizhou Prefecture Lu Chun (§£$£ and the Prefect of the Mingzhou S 'JH Prefecture, in the sixth month of Enryaku 24 (805), he returned [to Japan] to report on his mission (DZ1: 573; T.2379.74.643c 15-25, emphasis mine).

First and foremost, this "court certificate" is noteworthy for representing Saicho's chief Chinese Esoteric mentor Shunxiao as an extremely pres­tigious master. According to the certificate, Shunxiao is (i) the third generation disciple of Subhakarasirhha, generally regarded as the first patriarch of the Matrix-realm (taizokai ftnM^-) tradition of Esoteric Buddhism; (ii) a "Great Virtuous One" at a government-sponsored

13. Saicho returned to Japan in 805, very likely at the end of the sixth month of the year (cf. GRONER's Saicho: 65).

14. Here, the "court certificate" describes Saicho's practices in Esoteric Buddhism before his training in the Tendai doctrines. By doing that, the "court-certificate" seems to have given priority to SaichS's esoteric study rather than to his training in Tendai teachings. This is remarkable because both before and after his study in China SaichS was primarily respected as a Tendai master.

15. Here, the "court certificate" certifies that Saicho received from Shunxiao the "Procedure for the Attainment of Three Divisions" (sanbushicchi hd £$15^Jfe ?£), which calls to mind the sanshushicchi ho (the "procedure for the three kinds of attainment"). As we will see below, the sanshushicchi ho is a key notion in a later version of SaichS'sfuhomon (fuhdmonl; i.e. the Shitennoji MS ), which was also forged in Japan in the name of Shunxiao (see section I. C).

JIABS 21.1 30

temple which was established for the protection of the country (the so-called chinkoku dojo $^MW%)\ and (iii) a "monk serving at the court chapel" (naigubu foi£^p), or a "court chaplain", a status reserved for only a few monks who were highly respected for both virtue and learning.

By representing Shunxiao as a prestigious monk, this "court certifi­cate" differs strikingly from Saicho's own Esshuroku bibliography. The Esshuroku describes Saicho's encounter with Shunxiao and the esoteric initiation he received from him as follows:

[Then we] headed for the Longxingsi temple in Yuezhou, and visited the abode of Master Shunxiao [there]. Gishin HJ$ and I followed the master to the Fengshan l^(l| temple east of Lake Jing.16 The Master [Shunxiao] guided us to repair the temple and then led us into the "mandala altar of the five divisions abhiseka (gobu kanjo mandara danjO Sp |5?Sl i5P6^^t^) . " On the spot, he transmitted to us the methods of dharanTs and sprinkled our heads with the water of dharanl Then, we copied the [texts about] the dharma-gates of recitation and the pictures regarding offering [ceremonies] as listed above. [Finally,] we had the texts collated (DZ4: 381).

In this Esshuroku passage Saicho represented his Chinese guru Shunxiao as an ordinary monk; that is, as a monk dwelling at the Longxingsi temple in Yuezhou. Except for this simple comment concerning Shun­xiao of the Longxingsi, Saicho says nothing about the monk, making no mention of his tides, background or even the religious lineage to which he belonged.17 How should we understand the different ways in which the Esshuroku passage and the "court certificate" describe Shunxiao?

We know that Saicho presented his Taishuroku & jis\$jz and Esshuroku bibliographies to the court in order to convince the emperor of the reli­gious value of his study in China. Therefore, it was important that he establish the stature and eminence of his teachers. The more respectable his teachers in China were, the more easily he would succeed in impress­ing the emperor. Had Saicho really had a teacher as eminent as the

16. The original text reads as kokyd (ko $j - lake, kyd $t = mirror). Here the correct reading may have been kydko &M (the Lake of Jing), as testified by the Kenkai-ron passage in which Saichd related, for the second time as far as we know, his encounter with and initiation by Shunxiao (cf. T.74.2376.590cl2).

17. Another point must be noted in this Esshuroku passage. The five division mandala mentioned in this passage seems to refer to the five divisions of a kongdkai mandala, i.e. the divisions of Buddha, Lotus, Vajra, Jewel, and Dharma. Therefore, as originally depicted in Saicho's own Esshuroku, the initiation by Shunxiao was likely of kongdkai origin.

CHEN 31

Shunxiao represented in the "court certificate", surely the Esshuroku would have described Shunxiao as such. In fact, Saicho merely refers to Shunxiao in the Esshuroku as an ordinary monk. This suggests that at the time Saicho compiled the Esshuroku, he did not regard Shunxiao as the eminent master described in the "court certificate".18

Hence, the "court certificate", at least the part glorifying Shunxiao, can be regarded as authentic only if the following two assumptions can be shown to be true: not only must it be supposed that during the several months between the submission of his bibliographies and the alleged issuance of this "court certificate" Saicho had decided to glorify Shunxiao to the degree described in the "court certificate"; it must also be supposed that this glorification was accepted by the court. However, evidence shows that at least as late as 820, when Saicho wrote the Kenkairon (fourteen years after this "court certificate" is said to have been issued), his understanding of Shunxiao's status was essentially the same as it was when he composed the Esshuroku. In the Kenkairon, Saicho described his esoteric initiation from Shunxiao as follows:

18. The simple terms in which Saicho describes his guru Shunxiao in the Esshuroku also present an interesting and telling contrast to the way Kukai described his master Huiguo. In his bibliography sent to the court, Kukai describes the background of his guru Huiguo with great pride:

By chance, I fortunately encountered the master at the Dongtayuan Igigl^ monastery in the Qinglongsi WflNf temple, whose name is Acarya Huiguo. The bhadanta ("Great Virtue") is the dharma-transmission disciple (denbodeshi) of [Master] Daguangzhi (the "Master who possesses great and broad wisdom", i.e. Bukong) of the Daxingshansi ^ H # T F temple. In virtue, he was respected by his con­temporaries; by his way, he was esteemed as the "Teacher of the Emperor" (teishi ^Sffi). The three successive Tang emperors respected him and received abhiseka from him; four kinds of Buddhist devotees relied on him and learnt from him the Esoteric Treasures (T.55.2161. 1065al7-21).

Here, both Saicho and KQkai were in the same situation: touting their spiritual lineages to the court. Saicho's silence on the identity and background of Shunxiao is remarkable in comparison to the enthusiasm with which Kukai talks about his Esoteric mentor in China. It is difficult to explain this striking distinction as merely a difference in their personalities. Instead, the difference strongly suggests that Saicho, until the compilation of his Esshuroku in the fifth month of 805, did not yet consider Shunxiao to be an extraordinarily eminent monk associated with a celebrated lineage and highly respected within the Buddhist order in his time.

JIABS21.1 32

Moreover, the governor of Mingzhou Prefecture, Zheng Shenze 8P#jlJ (n.d.), had us escorted to Yuezhou to receive the abhiseka. Fortunately, we met Master Shunxiaofrom the Lingyansi fijJGtTf Temple on Mount Taiyue ^-£5 {i.e. Tai-shan ^ l i l ) . At a temple on Mount Fengshan which is a mountain east of Lake Jing, Master [Shunxiao] conferred [upon us] the abhiseka of a dual transmis­sion. Various instruments were also given in the initiation. After receiving the initiation, we immediately returned to the place where the ships for [our] return [to Japan] waited (T.74.2376.590c7-15; my emphasis).

While the Esshuroku passage merely observes that Shunxiao was a Longxingsi monk, the Kenkairon passage gives some further information about Shunxiao's background by indicating that he originally came from a temple called Lingyansi MN&^F on Mount Taishan f^Uj (in present-day Taian City, Shandong |l|j^[ Province). Beyond that, Saicho says nothing more about his primary esoteric mentor in China.19

As mentioned earlier, the Kenkairon was written to prove that Saicho had studied in China with qualified teachers and that the transmissions he received were orthodox. Consequently, if Shunxiao had been recog­nized - whether by Saicho himself or by others - as the prestigious monk portrayed in the "court certificate", Saicho would not have failed to describe Shunxiao as such in a polemic work like the Kenkairon. Saicho's failure to do so indicates that, up to that point, he did not believe that Shunxiao had such a prestigious background. Without assur­ances by Saicho that his Chinese teacher was an eminent monk, the court would not have issued a certificate to the effect. Given Saicho's descrip­tions of Shunxiao in the Esshuroku and Kenkairon, it is unlikely that he would have made such assurances. Thus, the representation of Shunxiao in the "court certificate" in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon would seem to be inauthentic.

In addition to representing Shunxiao, Saicho's main Esoteric teacher in China, as an extremely respectable Buddhist priest, the "court certifi­cate" describes Daosui as Zhiyi's seventh-generation disciple, suggesting that Daosui was the seventh Tendai patriarch after Zhiyi. This is con­trary to the usual way Saicho refers to Daosui in, for example, the Tai-

19. It should also be noted here mat the Kenkairon passage defines the initiation from Shunxiao differently. The Esshuroku passage describes this initiation as an abhiseka conducted on a five-division mandala, suggesting to the reader that the initiation may have been of kongdkai origin. By contrast, the Kenkairon passage refrains from associating the Shunxiao initiation exclusively with a sort of kongdkai abhiseka. Rather, SaichO claims in the Kenkairon that the initiation he received from Shunxiao belongs to a dual esoteric transmission {ryobu).

CHEN 33

shuroku bibliography or in the Kenkairon. In the Taishuroku, Saicho merely refers to Daosui as "Master Daosui of the Western Capital [i.e. Chang'an], the Proctor of the Perfect Teachings on Mount Tiantai in the Great Tang" {Daito Tendaisan enshu zasu seikyd Osho Dozui Hf^c cT Uj H^J^iff iMfni^l iJf; T.55.2159. 1058a3-4). In the Kenkairon, Dao­sui is simply called "Master Daosui on Mount Tiantai" (Tendai Dozui Osho ^-^MM^Ufni, T.74.2376.590c8). Needless to say, having had the Tendai seventh patriarch as a teacher would have greatly strength­ened the legitimacy of Saicho's dharma transmissions from China. Therefore, Saicho would surely have called Daosui the Tendai seventh patriarch in his 805 Taishuroku and 820 Kenkairon had he really regarded Daosui as such.

Moreover, evidence suggests that Saicho may have regarded a Tiantai monk other than Daosui as the seventh Tendai patriarch. Saicho's Taishuroku includes a biography of the "Tendai seventh patriarch Master Zhidu H?^" (the Tiantai diqizhu Zhidu heshang luezhuan ^ a ^ i : i ^J£#If«jB&te [A brief biography of Master Zhidu, the seventh Tiantai patriarch]; T.55.2160.1059a5). Thus, at least in some sources, a monk called Zhidu (n.d.), rather than Daosui, is honoured as the seventh Tiantai patriarch. Had Saicho objected to accepting Zhidu as the seventh Tiantai patriarch, he would likely have excluded this biography from his bibliography. Consequently, it is hard to imagine that Saicho, shortly after submitting his bibliographies to the court, could recognize Daosui as the seventh Tiantai patriarch, for such a claim directly contradicts information given in one of his own bibliographies.

On the basis of these points, I conclude that the "court certificate" in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon should not be accepted as authentic. At the very least, sections of the "court certificate" glorifying Saicho's teach­ers, Shunxiao and Daosui, were forged in Japan (probably by Kojo, the compiler of the Denjutsu isshinkaimon).

As evidenced by this fabricated "court certificate", Saicho's followers made every effort to glorify Saicho's Chinese Esoteric guru Shunxiao, who appears to be a rather obscure monk in Saicho's own descriptions in the Esshuroku and Kenkairon. Glorified in this way, Shunxiao became comparable to Kukai's principal guru Huiguo MM (746-805), who had been Bukong's prized disciple and was respected, according to Kukai, by three successive Tang emperors.20 Tendai Esoteric Buddhism was thus

20. T.55.2161.1065al7-21 (cf. note<18>).

JIABS21.1 34

represented as a credible rival of the Shingon Us" school, at least in the sense that it had a Chinese patriarch as respectable as that of Shingon.

LB. Saicho's Fuhomon in the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho Buppo Sojo Kechimyakufu: on the Authenticity of the Bishamondo MS

Both the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu contain a fuhomon allegedly written by Shunxiao for Saicho after Shun-xiao initiated him into Esoteric Buddhism. Comparing two versions of the fuhomon in the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu and the Eizan Dai­shiden, we find that they are identical except for some slight differ­ences.21 Therefore, either one of them was based on the other, or they were both derived from the same source. In either case, the two versions of the fuhomon can be regarded as a single source for the purpose of this investigation. In the following discussion, I will refer to this document as "fuhomonl". The following is a full translation of this important document:

During the Kaiyuan period of the Great Tang, there was a great Tripitaka who wasa prince of an Indian Kingdom. His dharma-name was Zenmui ^M& (Ch. Shanwuwei; Skt. Subhakarasimha). He turned the great "dharma-wheel" from the Great Nalanda Temple to the Great Tang. He transmitted the dharma to his "dharma-transmitting disciple" (denbd deshi M&%?) Yilin, who was also "Na­tional Teacher" {kokushi SSI) and a great acarya. One hundred and three years old, [Yilin] is now in the Kingdom of Silla, transmitting the dharma and turning the great dharma-wheel. He transmitted the dharma to his disciple the monk Shunxiao of the Great Tang, who was a "Great Virtue" and acarya in a "State-protecting Temple". [Shunxiao] transmitted the dharma to his disciple the monk Saicho from Japan, a "Great Virtue" who "serves at the court chapel", and asked [SaichS] to turn the great dharma-wheel [in Japan]. The monk Saicho is the fourth [generation disciple] entrusted with the dharma and its transmission. [This certificate has been] written and recorded on the nineteenth day of the fourth month of Zhenyuan MT& 21 (805). [Efforts must be made] to keep the Buddha-dharma from dying. [I, the] Acarya and Sramana Shunxiao write this [certificate] and entrust it to SaichO (DZ5: 19).

21. These slight differences between the two versions of SaichQ1 sfuhdmon include the following: first, in the Eizan Daishiden the certificate is referred to as the Jungyo ajarifuhosho JH^HBG^tt&fci while it is indicated in the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu as the Jungyo ajari fuhdmon HEWRIflII!£'M,&3fc; second, whereas in the Eizan Daishiden version SaichD is addressed as "[My] disciple Monk Saicho, who is the 'monk serving at the court chapel' and a 'Great Virtue' from Japan" (Nihonkoku gubu daitoku deshi sd Saichd 0 # ® $ ^ ^ f § ^^fifllJS.Saicho was simply called "[My] disciple Monk Saicho from Japan" Nihonkoku deshi so Saichd 0 ^ B ^ f l J S S ) in the Naisho buppd sojo kechi­myakufu version.

CHEN 35

Fuhomon 1 represents Saicho's esoteric lineage as orthodox and re­spectable in origin. In particular, it depicts Saicho's esoteric transmis­sion as coming from an extremely prestigious monk Shunxiao, a "Great Virtuous One" and dcarya at a "State-protecting Temple". If this docu­ment is authentic, the orthodoxy of Saicho's esoteric dharma transmis­sions would be firmly established. The question is, can it be accepted as authentic?

Before discussing fuhomon 1 proper, let us discuss the Bishamondo MS mentioned at the beginning of this article. This manuscript is regarded by Tendai scholars as the original of fuhomon 1. The Bisha­mondo MS differs from the Eizan Daishiden version of fuhomon 1 on one important point. In the Eizan Daishiden version, Shunxiao calls Saicho "[My] disciple the monk SaichO, who is a 'Great Virtue,' a 'monk serving at the court chapel' in Japan {nihonkoku B^HS)" (nihonkoku [nai]gubu daitoku deshi so Saicho B^Mi&^Jt'i&illM^ emphasis added). In the Bishamondo MS, Saicho is addressed as "[my] disciple the monk Saicho of this country (honkoku #M, i.e. China)" (honkoku deshi so Saicho #§§31^ft l i i t emphasis added). Thus, this sentence in the Bishamondo MS implies that Shunxiao regarded Saicho as a Chinese monk. Is this possible? This turns out to be very unlikely, since it conflicts with other passages of this manuscript.

First of all, in the Bishamondo MS, Shunxiao refers to China three times.22 Each time he uses the word DaitoXM (the Great Tang) or Dai-tokoku JHH (Country of the Great Tang). He never uses the term hon­koku.

Secondly, in the Bishamondo MS, Silla (a part of Korea) is called the "Kingdom of Silla", rather than (a part of) "this country" (i.e., China). This indicates that at least in this document Shunxiao, its alleged author, considered Silla an independent country rather than a part of China. However, for geographical and cultural reasons, Korea was much more likely than Japan to be regarded as a part of China in Tang and Song China. It is reasonable to expect that, had Shunxiao indeed regarded Japan as belonging to "this country (China)", he would also have seen Silla as a part of China and therefore would not have referred to it as the

22. The Bishamondo MS refers twice to China as Daitdkoku (the Great Tang): (i) in the Kaiyuan Hf 7U period of the "country of the Great Tang"; (ii) [Subhakara-simha] transmitted the dharma-wheel to the "country of the Great Tang", it refers once to China as Daito (the Great Tang): "Disciple the monk Shunxiao of the 'Great Tang."'

JIABS 21.1 36

"Kingdom of Silla". Thus, the reference in the Bishamondo MS to Saicho as a Chinese monk appears to conflict with the author's under­standing that neither Japan nor Silla was a part of China.

Finally, the Bishamondo MS seems to relate the story of a country-to-country dharma transmission: having turned the dharma-wheel in (i) the country of the Buddha (bukkoku $if@, i.e. India), Subhakarasirhha brought the dharma to (ii) Tang China, where he transmitted it to Yilin who took it to (iii) his homeland Silla after transmitting it to the Tang monk Shunxiao, who, in turn, transmitted the dharma to Saicho of (iv) China or Japan (depending on whether the text here gives honkoku ["this country" i.e. China] as in the Bishamondo MS, or nihonkoku [Japan] as in the Eizan Daishiden version of fuhomonl). In accordance with the logic implied in the Bishamondo MS, here Shunxiao, were he the author of this document, should have used the word nihonkoku (Japan) rather than honkoku (China) to indicate Saicho's place of origin. Only with the word nihonkoku does the document present a complete country-to-country dharma-transmission.

So, the Bishamondo MS can be taken as having been written by Shunxiao himself only on the assumption that he mistakenly wrote the term nihonkoku as honkoku in the text; that is, on the assumption that Shunxiao left the character ni out of the original manuscript. This pos­sibility cannot be categorically denied, but is extremely unlikely. In the eyes of Shunxiao and Saicho, the mistake would have been rather obvious, and given the document's importance, would likely have been noted and corrected.23

A more likely interpretation is that the true author of the Bishamondo MS was not Shunxiao but a Japanese monk, from whose perspective Saicho was, of course, a monk of "this country" (Japan). Thus, the Bishamondo MS was either forged as a fuhomon in the name of Shun­xiao or copied from an original text (identical with the Eizan Daishiden

23. We must bear in mind that SaichS is credited with the invention of the "national title" (kokugd ISM) of Japan, Dainihon ^ 0 # (The Great Nippon) (cf. SAKA­MOTO Tairo\ "DengyC Daishi to Dainihon no kokugS [Master Dengyo and the national title "Dainihon"]", in Dengyo Daishi kenkyu [A Study of Dengyo Daishi], ed. Tendai Gakkai; Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Shuppansha 1975, pp.485-500). He must have felt strongly that Japan was an independent country. The phrase honkoku sd Saicho, which means the "monk Saich6 of this country (China)", would have been too objectionable to SaichS to have been ignored or overlooked.

CHEN 37

version of fuhomon 1 which addresses Saicho as "my disciple from Japan") by a Japanese scribe who had inadvertently mis-copied the term nihonkoku as honkoku. To a Japanese, the mistake would not have been as obvious as it would have been to Shunxiao. Given that the author of the Bishamondo MS deliberately attempted to create the impression that it was an original document left by Shunxiao,24 I am inclined to believe that it was forged as, rather than copied from, one of Saicho's fuho-mons>

Even if there did exist a fuhomon as presented in the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu, in which Saicho is addressed appropriately as a monk from Japan, it would still be hard to accept such a document as authentic; that is, as written by Shunxiao.

First, as argued in Section I. A, at least as late as 820 it is unlikely that Saicho regarded Shunxiao as a prestigious monk or identified him as the third-generation disciple of Subhakarasirhha, a "Great virtue" at a "state-protecting Temple", and a "court chaplain", etc. Thus, the appearance of these terms in fuhomon 1 casts a shadow on the authenticity of this document, which claims itself to be written by Shunxiao in 805, fifteen years earlier than the year 820.

Second, it warrants our attention that the Denjutsu isshinkaimon does not include any document that can be identified as fuhomon 1. Given the value fuhomon 1 would have had for authenticating Saicho's esoteric transmission, it is reasonable to expect that Kojo would not have ex­cluded it from his collection had he known of it. Therefore, the absence of fuhomon 1 in his collection suggests that Kojo knew nothing of this document when he was compiling the Denjutsu isshinkaimon between 833-34. Either the document did not exist at that time and was written at a later time, or Kojo overlooked one of the key manuscripts in his tradition. Since Kojo is unlikely to have overlooked something so significant, it would appear that Saicho never received fuhomon 1 from Shunxiao. Had Saicho possessed such a document, he would not have hidden it from Kojo, whom Saicho trusted implicitly.25

24. The efforts the author of the Bishamondo MS made to make the manuscript appear to be an original can be seen in the following facts. The text was stamped at the top, middle and bottom; no acknowledgement was made to the effect that the document was copied from an original text, etc.

25. K5j6 was highly trusted by SaichQ, as evidenced by the fact that he acted as Saicho's liaison to the court when Saicho, in his later years, negotiated with the

JIABS 21.1 38

Third, the strongest evidence against the authenticity of fuhomon 1 is the simple fact that fuhomon 1 does not appear in Saicho's two bibli­ographies. This is particularly striking in the case of the Esshuroku, the bibliography of Buddhist texts and Esoteric implements Saicho secured in Yuezhou where the Shunxiao initiation is said to have taken place. As we know, Saicho submitted the two bibliographies to the court precisely to show the significance of his travels in China. The inclusion of fuho­mon 1 in his bibliographies would, without doubt, have enormously strengthened his implicit claim that his study in China was of great value. Thus, it is remarkable that fuhomon 1 is not so much as mentioned in his bibliographies. Instead, Saicho's bibliographies contain two cer­tificates signed by the governors of Taizhou and Mingzhou Prefecture, which certify that Saicho had sought Buddhist teachings there.26 Saicho also mentions in the Esshuroku an esoteric instrument (a trifurcate vajra) which was given to him by his Esoteric master (presumably Shunxiao) as a "proof of dharma transmission" {shingon osho fuhoinjin sanko baza-ra khiko Mmmfttt&m=&mijfm--nv T.55.2160.1059C8). Thus, in Saicho's two bibliographies, the inclusion of two official docu-

court to establish a Mahayana precept platform on Hieizan (GRONER's Saicho: 292). This plan was so crucial to the development of Saicho's school that he would have allowed only his most trusted student to represent him in these negotiations.

26. The two governors who signed the certificates for Saicho were Lu Chun and Zheng Shenze, who governed Taizhou and Mingzhou when Saicho visited the two prefectures. The two certificates are included in the Taishuroku and Esshuroku respectively (T.55.2159.1058a5-11; T.55.2160.I060a2-12).

27. This phrase literally reads: "one trifurcate vajra [given by] the Shingon master as a proof of dharma-transmission." It is worth stressing that the fuhoinjin ft&£PfE? mentioned here does not refer to any written certificate but only to an Esoteric instrument: a trifurcate vajra. The term injinZfiici does not necessarily mean a written certificate. In some cases, it means a certification article instead. Another example is found in a passage from Kukai's bibliography, in which Kukai, after listing eight kinds of Buddhist articles and esoteric instruments, like five-treasure, samayavajra, etc., makes the following remarks:

The eight articles as listed on the right were originally brought from Southern India by Acarya Vajrabodhi. He transmitted them to Acarya Daguangzhi ;*:ISI? (i.e. Bukong), who, in turn, transmitted them to Acarya Qinglong W8I (i.e. Huiguo). Master Qinglong transmitted them to me Ku[kai]. These are the "certification articles for dharma transmis­sion" (denboinjin), and are what the myriad sentient beings rely on and take refuge in (T.55.2161.1064c20-1065a4).

CHEN 39

ments issued by secular authorities contrasts strikingly with the absence of any mention of a certificate from any religious authority.

Furthermore, fuhomon 1 claims to have been written by Shunxiao on the nineteenth day of the fourth month of 805; that is, almost one month before the compilation of the Esshuroku, which was dated the thirteenth day of the fifth month of 805. Therefore, if fuhomon 1 were authentic, Saicho would have certainly been in possession of this document when he compiled the Esshuroku and he would have included it in the bibliog­raphy. For the purpose of supporting the orthodoxy of his esoteric transmission, this fuhomon would have been as important as, if not more important than, the certificate issued by secular authorities in Mingzhou and the vajra given by his Esoteric master. Thus, the absence of fuho­mon 1 in the Esshuroku strongly suggests that Saicho did not secure such a document in China. In other words, fuhomon 1, like the "court certifi­cate", was forged in Japan either by Saicho himself or by some later Tendai monk. It appears much more likely that fuhomon 1 was not forged by the Tendai founder himself, but by one of his students.28

As we have seen, the "court certificate" attributed to Saicho connects him with Subhakarasimha by stating that his teacher Shunxiao was a third-generation disciple of the great Esoteric master. Yet the same "court certificate" says nothing about the details of this relationship. Fuhomon 1 goes one step further by connecting Shunxiao to Subhakara-sirhha through a Silla monk called Yilin, whom fuhomon 1 represents as Shunxiao's teacher. By incorporating Saicho into such a distinguished Esoteric tradition initiated by Subhakarasirhha, fuhomon 1 seeks on the one hand to prove the orthodoxy of Saicho's Esoteric tradition, and on the other, to affirm that Saicho's esoteric tradition is of taizokai origin.

28. This view is supported by the following two points. As noted above, fuhomon 1 is not included in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon, which was collected approximately one decade after Saicho's death. On the other hand, if Saicho were the author of fuhomon 1, he would have composed it after the submission of the Kenkairon in 820 and before his death in 822 (since the Kenkairon demonstrates no trace of an attempt to glorify Shunxiao or to connect Saich6 himself with Subhakarasimha). During this period, the most likely occasion for him to forge a document like fuhdmon 1 would have been when he collected the documents for the Kenkairon engi, which was completed in the third month of 821. However, the tremendous risk accompanying the presentation of a false document like fuhomon 1 to the court may have been sufficient to deter Saicho from doing so.

JIABS 21.1 40

I.C. Another Version of Saicho's Fuhomon in the Kenkairon Engi: on the Authenticity of the Bishamondo MS

In the Kenkairon engi, we find another version of the fuhomon attributed to Shunxiao (DZ1: 279-280). After comparing the Kenkairon engi version of the fuhomon with fuhomon 1, we find that the former is com­posed of two parts, one identical with fuhomon 1, the other reading as follows:

In a room of a mandala comprised of 'Thirty-seven Deities" (sanjushichison H~-f-"bS£) headed by Vairocana-Tathagata,

A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Khum - the higher rank of attainment; A-Vi-Ra-Hum-Kham - the intermediate rank of attainment; A-Ra-Pa-Ca-Na - the lower rank of attainment.

Through the abhiseka {kanjd MM), the samayas for the "three divisions" (sanbu) were conferred [by] Acdrya Sramana Shunxiao. The methods for drawing pictures, samples and mudras [were also transmitted]. On the eighteenth day of the fourth month of Zhenyuan 21 (805), [I, the] Sramana Shunxiao of the Lingyansi temple on Mount Taishan, who am the "Great Virtue" at a "State-protecting Temple" and a "monk serving at the court chapel", transmitted the samayas for the "three divisions" and [issued] this certificate to my disciple Saicho (DZ1: 279).

This part is entirely identical with the Shitennqji MS, which also claims to be a fuhomon transmitted from Shunxiao. However, for the same reasons that led me to reject the authenticity of fuhomon 1, I find it difficult to accept the fuhomon stored in the Shitennqji temple (hereafter fuhomon!) as authentic. These reasons include (i) the absence of this document in Saicho's two bibliographies and (ii) the appearance in the manuscript of the terms glorifying Shunxiao {chinkokudojo daitoku [a "'Great Virtue' at a 'State-protecting' Temple"], naigubu [a "court chaplain"]). As I argued in section I. A, as late as 820, Saicho did not, as far as we know, associate these terms with Shunxiao. In addition, one remarkable point in both fuhomon 1 and fuhomon! also casts doubt on the authenticity of both documents. In these two fuhomons, Shunxiao refers to himself as a daitoku at a chinkoku dojo, Acdrya Sramana, naigubu, and so on. It is highly unusual for a monk to be so presumptu­ous as to list all of his titles in a document written for a student.

Futhermore, I find it unlikely that Saicho, during his several-day stay with Shunxiao,29 would receive two separate fuhomons from the same

29. On the twenty-fifth day of the third month of 805, Saicho arrived at the port of Mingzhou to await the ship that would carry him back to Japan. However, upon

CHEN 41

teacher. As a rule, a fuhdmon is meant, on the one hand, to establish officially the discipleship of its holder under the master who signed and issued it; and, on the other, to confirm that such and such an esoteric transmission did indeed occurred between the master and disciple as specified therein. Given the enormous value the esoteric tradition attached to face-to-face oral transmission (menju W$t) from master to disciple, esoteric masters must have written and issued fuhomons with great care. In Saicho's case, if the two fuhomons are authentic, then he would have received a second fuhomon from Shunxiao only day after obtaining the first. This would lead us to conclude that Shunxiao casu­ally issued fuhomons and/or that he wrote fuhomons so carelessly (if not recklessly) that barely one day after the issuance of a fuhomon to a newly initiated student, it suddenly occurred to him that he had to write a new fuhomon for the same foreign student. Either conclusion directly contradicts the fact that, in Esoteric Buddhism, the composition and issuance of fuhomons was a matter of great importance. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that Saicho received two fuhomons from Shunxiao in the space of two days. Ironically, the co-existence in Japan of two fuho­mons attributed to Shunxiao does not reinforce the authenticity of each of them, but, on the contrary, betrays the dubious source of, at least, one of them, presumably the one which appeared later (i.e. fuhomon 2).3°

his arrival at the port he was told that their previously scheduled return trip would be delayed for about one and a half months. Saicho thus decided to visit Longxingsi and Fahuasi &f^F , two local temples in Yuezhou, where Saicho had heard that a large quantity of Buddhist texts were stored (Stanley WEINSTEIN, "The Beginnings of Esoteric Buddhism in Japan", Journal of Asian Studies 34.1 (1974): 184). SaichS succeeded in securing a permit from the Mingzhou Prefect to continue his travels, which was issued on the sixth day of the fourth month (this permit is now preserved in the Kenkairon engi\ DZ 1: 277-78). On the basis of this date, we assume that Saicho did not leave Mingzhou for Yuezhou before the sixth day of the fourth month. Furthermore, taking into account the time Saicho spent on the trip from Mingzhou to Yuezhou, it would appear that, prior to the eighteenth or ninteenth day of the fourth month of 805, to which fuhomon 1 and fuhdmon 2 are dated respectively, Saicho had stayed with Shunxiao for no more than several days.

30. The argument that fuhdmon 2 appeared later than fuhdmon 1 is based on the following considerations. Fuhdmon 1 was included in the Eizan Daishiden and the Naishd buppo sdjd kechimyakufu, neither of which contains fuhdmon 2. Fuhdmon 2 is only found in the Kenkairon engi. The absence offuhdmon 2 in the Eizan Daishiden and the Naishd buppo sdjd kechimyakufu implies that fuhomon 2 may have appeared later than fuhdmon 1. In other words, fuhdmon 2 appeared at such a late date that the author or editor of the Eizan Daishiden and

JIABS21.1 42

In addition to these four pieces of evidence arguing against the authenticity of fuhdmon 2, one peculiar aspect of its content also suggests that it was written at a late date. Fuhomon 2 seems to try to depict the Shunxiao initiation in terms of "three divisions" (sanbu), the three eso­teric traditions represented by the three fundamental Esoteric Buddhist scriptures (the Darijing, Jin'ganding y'mgand Suxidi [jieluo]jing). Fuhomon 2 represents the core of the Shunxiao initiation as a threefold correlation between the three five-syllable dharanis and the three ranks of attainment (higher, intermediate and lower). The first two dharanis, which are correlated with the higher and intermediate ranks of attain­ment respectively, are found in the Darijing (T.848.18.20al9; 52bl2-28), while the third, correlated with the lower rank of attainment, is traceable to a text closely related to the Jin'gangding jing (T.l 173.20. 710b).31 Therefore the author of fuhomon! seems to have used the three five-syllable dharanis to represent the Darijing and the Jin 'gangding jing, two basic texts for the dual esoteric transmission. Furthermore, fuhomon 2 correlates the three dharanis to the three ranks of attainment. The locus classicus of this threefold classification of the Indian notion siddhi (attainment) is found in the Suxidi jing*2 the text representing the

the editor of Saiche's Buppo kechimyaku (i.e. the author of the Naisho buppo sdjo kechimyakufu) had no chance to see fuhomon 2 and were therefore unable to include it in the works under their redaction (it is assumed here that, given the value fuhomon 2 would have had for certifying Saich5's esoteric tradition, the authors/editors of the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho buppo sojd kechimyakufu would have included it in their works had they known of it). Moreover, the relative lateness offuhdmon 2 is also corroborated by the fact that the Kenkairon engi, in which fuhdmon 2 is included, achieved its final form later than both the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho buppd sdjo kechimyakufu (see note <10>).

31. This identification of the sources for the three groups of five-syllable dharanl is made by the celebrated third-generation Tendai leader Enchin fflflJ£ (814-891) in his Ketsuji sanshushicchi ho ^ ^ H H ^ i f e ^ (Hereafter K.SSH; A decisive ex­planation of the procedure related to the "three kinds of attainments") (Dainihon bukkyo zensho ^ Q ^^>^L^M [A complete collection of the Buddhist texts of the Great Japan; hereafter BZ.], eds. TAKAKUSU Junijiro et al, 100 vols. Tokyo: YuseidS, 1913-22; reprinted Tokyo: Kodansha, 1970-73; ed. Suzuki gakujutsu zaidan27:985al3-18).

32. Though the notion of "the three ranks of attainment" (sanhon shicchi Hpq^ife) is also mentioned in other esoteric texts (e.g. the Darijing), the most extensive and authoritative discussion of this notion is found in the Suxidi jing, which devotes a whole chapter (Chapter Sixteen) to the notion (T. 18.891.614a21-cl3; see also the relevant passages in 603c3-7).

CHEN 43

third Esoteric tradition in the sanbu system, the Soshicchi-bu H3£:fcfenfl. Thus, fuhomonl appears to advocate, albeit implicitly, a form of the sanbu goju HoBSJfc idea (the notion that the three Esoteric traditions are complementary and inter-penetrating).

According to MATSUNAGA, in Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, the Suxidi jing was placed on a par with the Darijing and the Jin 'gangding jing sometime during the 830s.33 The Suxidi jing was not included in the Hieizan shanago MMM curriculum until Ennin HCl (794-864) returned from China in 847. Ennin may have learned of the importance of the Suxidi jing during his study in Chang'an ^ £ between 840 and 847, which was exactly the time when the Suxidi jing was steadily gaining popularity within Chinese Esoteric Buddhist circles. Given the timing, the sanbu goju implication in fuhomonl makes it difficult to regard it as having been written by Shunxiao since in 805 the Suxidi jing had not yet been accepted as one of the three fundamental texts in Chinese Esoteric Buddhism.

On the other hand, the fact that the author of fuhomonl seems to have had knowledge of the sanbu goju idea makes it possible to approximate the period in which fuhomonl was written. Since Ennin is the person responsible for introducing the Japanese Tendai sect to the sanbu idea, it seems safe to date the appearance of fuhomonl to sometime after 847, the year Ennin returned to Japan. Moreover, Enchin mentions fuhomon 1 in his KSSH (BZ.27.985al-8), which was completed circa 873.34 There­fore the appearance of fuhomonl can be tentatively dated between 847

and 873. The late date of fuhomonl presents a new problem. Why, after the

appearance of fuhomonl, was the forgery of fuhomonl necessary? Indeed, the agenda underlying the forgery of the fuhomon 1 appears to have been very complicated. Here I can only make some brief com-

33. MATSUNAGA Yukei, Mikkyo no rekishi [A history of Esoterism], Sara sosho, no. 19, Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten 1969, pp. 147-48. The date is based on a passage in a famous record of the two esoteric transmissions (taizdkai and kongdkai) (T.2081.51.786cl0-14). Though the full name is Liangbu dafa xiangcheng shizi fufaji MSB*&ff l#Mt f&3B (ip.rydbudaihdsojdshishifuhdki; The record of master-to-disciple transmissions of the two-division great dharma; T#2087), this record is better known as "Haiyun xuemai" $*HifoM Up. "Kaiun kechimyaku") in East Asian Esoteric Buddhism. It was completed in 834 by a Chinese monk called Haiyun i^H (n.d.).

34. For the dating of this essay by Enchin, see CHEN's dissertation: 161-62.

JIABS 21.1 44

ments. First, I have shown that the Bishamondo MS was flawed by a serious mistake (Saicho was wrongly addressed as a monk coming from "this" [i.e. Chinese] country), a mistake that may have been noticed by later Tendai editors, who corrected it by changing "this country" to "Japan". In view of this, we might assume that the author of fuhomon! may have forged the document because he was not satisfied with fuho­mon 1 and wanted to provide a better version of Saicho' s fuhomon.

I would also suggest that fuhomon 2 may have been forged as a part of a complicated polemical agenda. As we know, fuhomonl is significantly different from fuhomon 1 insofar as it equates the core of the Shunxiao initiation with the threefold dfcaranf-attainment correlation. This new description of the Shunxiao initiation seems to have been aimed at re-depicting the Shunxiao initiation as one in the "three traditions" (sanbu). As shown in his 820 Kenkairon, Saicho, in his later years, tended to reinterpret the Shunxiao initiation as a dual transmission (see note <19>). It is very likely that this new interpretation of Saicho's initiation was stimulated by his association with and study under Kukai, who may have made Saicho aware of the importance of the Diamond-realm tradi­tion and the ryobu goju MSB5& idea.35 Since Shingon followers prized Kukai's tradition as the sole orthodox esoteric lineage incorpo­rating the dual transmission, Tendai monks after Saicho tried to outshine Shingon by redefining Saicho's esoteric initiation as belonging to the three traditions (the two plus a third represented by the Suxidi jing I Soshicchi kyo M&M) •

If, as I have argued, fuhomon 2 was not written by Shunxiao, then is it possible to identify its actual Japanese author? The most obvious suspect is Enchin U ^ , whose KSSH represents, as far as I can tell, the earliest known textual source referring to fuhomon2. Furthermore, this treatise by Enchin was exclusively dedicated to the scriptural source of the "procedure of three ranks of attainment", the core of fuhomon2. Enchin's close connection with fuhomonl suggests the possibility that he was the real author of this document. However, one fact renders the possibility of Enchin's authorship unlikely. In 882, Enchin prepared some questions for his former teachers in Chang'an. Among these

35. See KlUCHI GyoS, "Dengyo Daishi no taikon ry5bu ni tsuite (Concerning Master Dengyo's [notion of] the two divisions of taizokai and kongokai)", Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 26 (1965): 164-65; ABE Ryuichi, "Saich6 and Kukai: A Conflict of Interpretations", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 22/1-2 (1995): 103-37; CHEN's dissertation: 35-42.

CHEN 45

questions is one regarding the threefold d/iaranf-attainment correlation that is found in fuhomon2.36 This suggests that fuhomonl was, very likely, not written by Enchin himself. The author of fuhomonl would have had a greater knowledge of the threefold df/raranf-attainment corre­lation than that indicated in Enchin's questions to his Chinese teachers.

With Enchin excluded as the likely author of fuhomon 2, Ennin (or possibly a Tendai monk in his line) immediately emerges as the most likely person to have composed fuhomon 2 in the name of Shunxiao. We know thatfuhomon2 implicitly advocated the sanbu goju idea and that it was Ennin who first introduced this idea into the early Tendai school. The two decades between 847 and 873, to which I have dated the formation of fuhomon2, were exactly when Ennin, as the chief Tendai representative, was actively struggling with the Shingon school over the orthodoxy of their respective Esoteric traditions. Without a doubt, the Tendai sect would have benefited greatly from a "dharma-transmission certificate", like fuhomon 2, that not only supports the orthodoxy of the Esoteric tradition Saicho was said to have secured from China but also suggests that Saicho's Esoteric tradition was inherently superior to Kukai's, since Saicho's tradition was of "three divisions" (sanbu) while Kukai's was merely of two.

In the preceding discussion, I analysed several documents included in four major Tendai works, the (i) Denjutsu isshinkaimon, (ii) Eizan Daishiden, (iii) Naisho buppo sojo kechimyakufu and (iv) Kenkairon engi. These documents are either identified as, or appear closely con­nected to, Saicho's fuhomons; yet, as I have shown, these documents represent the effort of Saicho's followers to reinterpret and legitimate the Esoteric transmissions ascribed to Saicho.

The Denjutsu isshinkaimon contains a so-called "court certificate" which claims to be an official document issued by the Kammu court to certify Saicho's religious attainment. However, on close inspection, this "certificate" turns out to be of dubious provenance and is noteworthy for its attempt to elevate SaichO's main Esoteric mentor Shunxiao, by claiming that he was an extremely prestigious monk who was a third generation disciple of the great Indian Esoteric master Subhakarasirhha.

36. This question is found in BZ.27.1033a5-8. For a full discussion of the implica­tions of this question, see CHEN's dissertation: 162-64.

JIABS 21.1 46

We find in the Eizan Daishiden and the Naisho buppo sojo kechi-myakufu afuhomon allegedly written by Shunxiao for Saicho. This fuhomon was also forged in Japan in order to incorporate Saicho into a celebrated lineage supposedly initiated by Subhakarasirhha and con­tinued by (i) Yilin, a Korean monk who, this fuhomon says, had trans­mitted esoteric teachings to Shunxiao, (ii) Shunxiao himself and (iii) Saicho. The appearance of this fuhomon marked the formal formulation of the Tendai idea of its Esoteric lineage, which, according to this fuho­mon, could be traced back to China and eventually India.

Finally, we find a second version of Shunxiao*s fuhomon in the Ken-Icairon engi. This version of the fuhomon proved to be essential for the formation of some central ideologies supporting early Tendai Buddhism. It reinterprets the esoteric transmission Saicho received from Shunxiao as a threefold d/iaranf-attainment correlation, implying the sanbu goju idea. The esoteric tradition Saicho received from Shunxiao was thus characterized as an integration of three esoteric transmissions (the kon-gokai & m # , taizokai ft&MR and soshicchi 8fS*fe). This claim was advanced for the purpose of outshining the Shingon tradition, which represented itself as the combination of two esoteric transmissions known as kongokai and taizokai.

As a result of the sustained efforts made by Saicho's immediate students (particularly Kojo and Shinchu) and his second generation disciples (with Ennin as their brilliant representative), Saicho's esoteric tradition was firmly established by the middle of the ninth century. However, despite the enormous help the Tendai monks could have drawn from such fabricated documents as fuhomon! when they com­peted with the Shingon school for domination of the Japanese esoteric tradition, they may have been always embarrassed that the threefold rffcaranf-attainment correlation stipulated therein had no scriptural support. The Tendai school felt the urgent need to provide some scrip­tural support for the threefold correlation. It is precisely this sectarian agenda that prompted yet another forgery, this time of three siddhi scriptures (Taisho nos. 905, 906, and 907), composed in Japan by Tendai monks to resemble Chinese transitions from Sanskrit. It is to these three texts that we turn in the next part.

CHEN 47

Part II. Legitimation and Scriptures: The Japanese Provenance of Three Esoteric Buddhist Texts Attributed to Subhdkarasimha

The three siddhi texts bear similar titles and appear to be closely related in content. In fact, T.907, which is the shortest of the three texts, is wholly reproduced in both T.905 and T.906. T.907 begins with a detailed description of the various worldly benefits that the author believes the five Sanskrit syllables (A,Vam, Ram, Hum, Kham) will produce if properly recited. Next, the five syllables are correlated with "five viscera", five kinds of natural and social phenomena, five direc­tional buddhas, and five divisions of a mandala associated with five elements (earth, water, fire, wind, and space). This is followed by the division of the Esoteric category siddhi into three ranks (lower, inter­mediate and higher) and the correlation of three five-syllable dharanls (A-Ra-Ba-Ca-Na; A-Vi-Ra-Ha-Kha; A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham) with three kinds of attainment ("emerging", "entering", and "mystery"). Finally, T.907 ends with a twenty-two line verse or gatha. A major part of T.905 consists of correlating more Buddhist and Esoteric fivefold categories with a number of indigenous Chinese fivefold categories grouped together through the wuxing Hf f ("five-phases") pattern in traditional Chinese thought. T.906, except for the parts which can also be found in T.907, takes the idea of hajigoku Wfaik ("destroying hell") as its key theme.

As a result of their importance to the entire Tendai tradition, the three siddhi texts have attracted sustained and intense scholarly attention, and have been subjected to extensive critical examinations. A number of Japanese scholars who have made important contributions to our under­standing of these three basic Tendai texts,37 have rejected the conven-

37. OMURA Seigai, Mikkyo hattatsushi [A history of the development of Esoterism], 5 vols. pp. 432-36, Tokyo 1918; MATSUNAGA Yuken, "Sanshushicchi hajigoku giki no kenkyQ [A study of the Sanshushicchi hajigoku giki]", in Mikkyo kenkyu 35 (1929): 1-18; KANBAYASHI Ryujo, "Hajigoku sanshushicchi h5 hyakutei [A brief explanation of the Hajigoku sanshushicchi hd]", in Kokuyaku issaikyo (Mikkyo bu, vol.3; Tokyo: DaitS 1931: 80-94; NASU Zenryu, "Sanshushicchi hajigoku giki no kenkyQ (A study of the Sanshushicchi hajigoku giki)'\ in Miyamoto kyoju kinen Indogaku bukkyogaku ronshu (1954): 431-44; YOSHIOKA Yoshitoyo, "Korin kuji hishaku to dfikyo gozSkan [The Korin kuji hishaku and Taoist gozokan (the contemplation of 'five viscera')]", in Mikkyd bunka 69-70 (1964): 77-97; OSABE Kazuo, TOdai mikkyoshi zatsuko [A study of the Esoteric history in the Tang], Kobe: Kobe shoka daigaku gakujutsu kenkyukai 1971: 209-52; MATSUNAGA Yukei, "Sanshushicchi to hajigoku [The sanshushicchi ("three

JIABS21.1 48

tional view that the three siddhi texts were translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by Subhakarasirhha. This consensus is based on the following three considerations. First, the three siddhi texts are absent from two major Tang Buddhist bibliographies in which most, if not all, of £ubha-karasirhha's translations have been included.38 Second, the three siddhi texts appear too Chinese in style to have had corresponding Sanskrit originals. What is particularly remarkable is the appearance in the three siddhi texts of such peculiarly indigenous Chinese ideas as wuzang HWk (Jp. gozo; "five viscera"). Third, the three siddhi texts are too syncretic in content and therefore too late in time to have been translated by Subhakarasirhha, who apparently had no knowledge of the syncretic ideas contained in them.39

In their examination of the three siddhi texts, Japanese scholars have made important observations. However, when they assumed, from the

kinds of attainment") and hajigoku ("destroying hell")]", in Mikkyo bunka 121 (1976): 1-13; KlUCHl Gyoo, Tendai mikkyo no keisei [The formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism], Tokyo: Keisuisha 1984; MlSAKI Ryoshu, Taimitsu no kenkyu [A study of Taimitsu Esoteric Buddhism], Tokyo: Sobunsha 1988: 499-508; and MIZUKAMI Fumiyoshi, "sanshushicchi ho to sanshin shingon [The sanshushicchi ho (procedure of the threefold attainment) and the dharam for the three [buddha-]bodies]", Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyQ 73 (1988): 253-57.

38. These two major Buddhist bibliographies are (i) the Kaiyuan shijiaolu ISx^ffc $$: (The Buddhist bibliography [compiled! in the Kaiyuan period) completed in 730 by Zhisheng ^ " # and (ii) the Zhenyuan shijiao lu ^ 7 C # $ $ I (The Bud­dhist bibliography [compiled] in the Zhenyuan period) compiled in 799 by Yuanzhao IH88. Upon his arrival in China in 716, Subhakarasimha immediately attracted patronage from Emperor Xuanzong ~£TK of the Tang Dynasty. There­fore, his translations must have been officially sponsored and should have been included in the two officially sanctioned Buddhist bibliographies.

39. The three siddhi texts, for instance, define the gobu HgB (the "five-divisions of a Diamond-realm mandala") as divisions of (i) vajra, (ii) lotus, (iii) karma, (iv) treasure, and (v) emptiness. This kind of classification is akin to the notion of the five divisions that became prevalent with the further development of some new-style esoteric teachings which have been generally called the Diamond-realm (Ch. jin'gangjie sJrPflJI?-; Jp. kongokai; Skt. vajradhatu) line of Esoteric Buddhism. Some initial forms of this Esoteric Buddhist tradition had already been introduced to Tang China by Vajrabodhi. However, it was not until the time of Bukong that it began to appear in its full-fledged form; and Bukong did not become involved in religious activities until several decades after the death of Subhakarasimha. Consequently, it seems anachronistic to connect Subhakarasimha with any complete and mature version of the five-division idea. Thus it is difficult to credit Subhakarasimha with the translation of the three siddhi texts in which the five-division idea is so prominent.

CHEN 49

apocryphal status of the three siddhi texts, that they must have been composed in China, these scholars may have been misled by two tacit but unfounded assumptions: (i) that all apocryphal texts in Chinese were composed in China, and (ii) that a text strongly coloured by some ideas undoubtedly originating in China was necessarily written in China. It is well known that classical written Chinese was the lingua franca of much of East-Asia. A text written in Chinese was not necessarily written in China. In the same vein, the incorporation of some indigenous Chinese ideas (with wuxing as the example par excellence) into a text does not necessarily mean that it was composed in China, since some indigenous Chinese ideas, like wuxing, were also accepted and practised in other East Asian countries, including Korea and Japan. Thus, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the three siddhi texts were composed outside of China, but within the Chinese cultural sphere. Much of the textual evidence suggests that these texts are in fact of Japanese origin.

H. A. The Primacy of T.907 over T.905 and T.906 Before examining the hypothesis of the Japanese origin of the three siddhi texts, it is necessary to establish that of the three siddhi texts, T.907 is the oldest, and was wholly reproduced in T.905 and T.906. Below I compare the five gathas, or verses, in the three siddhi texts in order to ascertain whether the four gathas in T.905 and T.906 originated from the single gatha in T.907. If it can be shown that these four gathas were composed using the single gatha in T.907 as a source, it is also likely that the other parts of T.905 and T.906 which parallel T.907 are also derived from T.907.

The single gatha in T.907 (hereafter referred to as G.907), which comes at its conclusion, reads like a standard gatha used to end a surra:

(1) I prostrate myself before Vairocana-buddha (2) whose pure eyes open like lotus flowers. (3) Controlling the "three realms", he is the teacher of humans and celestial

beings as well. (4) With a great enlightened mind he is the saviour of this world. (5) The profound and wonderful dharams [constituting] the empowering

methods (6) flow into the "gate of syllable A" [representing] non-production. (7) The white curl which is formless possesses true and universal wisdom, (8) perfect and permanent like the sun and the moon. (9) Aksobhya and Ratnasambhava, as the saviour of the world,

(10) Amitabha, Amoghasiddhiraja, (11) all residing in the propitious wheel of attainment,

JIABS 21.1 50

(12) transmit this wonderful dharma and proselytise to all sentient beings. (13) The compassionate and self-existent Trailokya-vijaya-raja (14) and the Vajrasattva Aryacalanatha,40

(15) never breaking their vows, always come [to rescue sentient beings] on time.

(16) After accomplishing the vo/ra-like feats, they return to the vo/ra-fields. (17) I, relying on Vairocana-buddha, (18) open the "wi sdom-mwdra" of the mind and set up the goal. (19) Universally embellished by countless merits, (20) [let us] enter together into the dharanis [leading to] all the sugatas. (21) May those who have the opportunity to study and cultivate together [these

Esoteric teachings] (22) dwell peacefully in the supreme, pure sea! (T.907.18.915c 1 -11)

The first part of G.907 (lines 1-12, T.907.18.915cl-6) is devoted to the merits of the five buddhas (i.e. Vairocana, Aksobhya, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha and Amoghasiddhi) (with the first eight lines devoted to Vai­rocana-buddha and the last four to the other four buddhas); then, in the second part (lines 13-16, T.907.18.915c7-8), the two rajas (Trailokya-vijaya-raja and Aryacalanatha) are praised. Finally, in the third part (lines 17-22, T.905.18.915c9-ll), the author vows that he will follow Mahavairocana-buddha until he succeeds in obtaining enlightenment and is thereby reborn in the pure-land. The final wish is that all practitioners will reside peacefully in the paramount "Sea of Purity".

In T.905, the first gatha (hereafter G.905/1) is found near the begin­ning of the text (T.905.18.909b26-c6). Except for four lines,41 the lines of G.905/1 are identical with lines 1-16 of G.907 (T.907.18.915cl-8). The second gatha in T.905 (T.905.18.912a28-bl, hereafter G.905/2) is composed of six lines, which are precisely identical with lines 17-22 of G.907 (T.907.18.915c9-ll). Thus, the lines of the two gdthas in T.905, with the exception of four lines in G.905/1, are identical with the 22 lines of G.907.

40. Trailokya-vijaya-raja (the "Deity-descending-from-the-three-worlds") and Arya­calanatha (the "Immovable Deity") are the two renowned rajas that accompany and serve Mahavairocana-buddha.

41. These four lines are: "The body, mouth, and mind constitute the three mysteries / which form the transformation-body; / Five wheels and five kinds of wisdom are of five parts / which completely cover the wheel of the dharma-field" (T.905.18. 909c2-4). They were taken from a gatha at the beginning of an esoteric tract attributed to Subhakarasirhha, the Cishi Pusa luexiu yujia niansongfa t&RMM B&t£$)$S&tS& (The contemplation and recitation methods for a simplified form of yoga-practice, as preached by Bodhisattva Maitreya; T. 114) (see T. 1141. 20.590al6-18).

CHEN 51

While the high level of correspondence between G.907 and G.905/1, 2 suggests that these gathas are closely related, the nature of that relation is to be dtermined. Did G.905/1 originally existed as an independent, coherent gatha? The first eight lines of G.905/1 focus on Mahavairocana-buddha (the head of the "five buddhas"), and the last eight lines are devoted to the other four of the "five buddhas" and two rajas*2 As such, these two groups of lines appear to form a set. Between these two groups of lines lie four lines taken from an Esoteric tract attributed to Subhakarasirhha (T.1141). These lines comprise a discus­sion of the "three mysteries" and "five wheels", thus disrupting the rela­tionship defined by the other two groups of lines in G.905/1. Thus, in G.905/1, two thematically related parts are separated by a third which is unrelated to either of the other two. It is very unlikely that an author would write on one topic, shift to another unrelated subject with no transition, and then return, again without transition, to the fitst topic. Thus, it is very unlikely that G.905/1 was written by a single author. Rather, this gatha seems to have been constructed from two groups of eight lines removed from a second source, with the insertion between them of four additional lines. G.905/1 does not appear to be an indepen­dent, coherent gatha. G.907, on the other hand, is quite consistent. It is logical to conclude that T.907 is earlier than T.905.

By comparing G.907 to the two gathas in T.906, it is possible to show that T.907 also has primacy over T.906. One of the two gathas in T.906 appears in the middle of the text (T.906.18.913c4-6, hereafter G.906/1), while the other is attached to the text (T.906.18.914b 12-19, hereafter G.906/2). The six lines of G.906/1 parallel the first six lines of G.907 (T.907.18. 915cl-3), while the 16 lines of G.906/2 are identical with lines 7-22 of G.907 (T.907.18.915c4-ll).

In G.907, lines 1-8 form an inseparable whole, which is devoted to Vairocana-buddha. Turning to the two gathas in T.906, we find that the same eight lines have become separated: the first six lines form an inde­pendent gatha (G.906/1), whereas the last two were used to begin G.906/2. These two lines, in praise of one of the remarkable features attributed to Vairocana-buddha (i.e. his "white curl"), should have origi­nally followed the six lines in G.906/1, all of which are dedicated to

42. Mahavairocana-buddha plus the other four buddhas form the famous "five buddhas", while the two rajas, are usually represented as two companions of the five buddhas, especially of Vairocana-buddha.

JIABS 21.1 52

Vairocana-buddha. Therefore, the two gathas in T.906 seem not to have been originally written as separate parts of T.906, but were instead formed by breaking one internally consistent gatha (i.e. G.907) into two. This suggests that the two gathas in T.906, like other parts of the same text paralleling T.907, were borrowed from T.907.

II. B. The Provenance and Date of T.907

It would appear that of the three siddhi texts, T.907 is the earliest. It is included in its entirety in both T.905 and T.906. Given that the borrowed verses are most likely to have been borrowed from T.907 into T.905 and T.906,1 think it is safe to conclude that T.907 was similarly taken into T.905 and T.906, rather than grafted out of these texts to form an individual text. For this reason, the status of T.905 and T.906 will be better understood if the provenance and date of T.907 are estab­lished.

No evidence has emerged to show that any of the three siddhi texts is mentioned in any Chinese Buddhist bibliography or in any other Buddhist source circulating in China. Furthermore, it seems very un­likely that Saicho or Kukai had any knowledge of the three siddhi texts.43 In which source, then, was T.907 mentioned for the first time? Enchin's KSSH, which we discussed toward the end of part (1), appears to be the first textual source to refer to T.907 since it mentions the ideas of the "threefold attainment".

Is it possible that T.907 was known to Enchin and that he used this text when writing his KSSH? In fact, the existence of a text such as KSSH seems to suggest the opposite, that Enchin was unaware of T.907 when he wrote KSSH. Both the title and content of KSSH demonstrate that Enchin wrote this work in order to clarify scriptural support for the sanshushicchi ho ^W$M& procedure. At the time, there was mounting doubt both inside and outside Tendai circles as to whether the sanshushicchi ho procedure had a scriptural source.44 Had a text such as T.907 been available in Japan at the time, there would have been no

43. This is deduced from the absence of the three siddhi texts in the bibliographies of Kukai and Saicho (cf. MISAKI Ryoshu, "Taimitsu no soshicchi wo meguru sh5mondai [various problems involved in the Soshicchi issue in Taimitsu]", in Mikkyobunka 149 (1985): 79-95).

44. As is to be shown below, even the eminent Tendai leader Henjo (817-890), after receiving the sanshushicchi hd procedure from Enchin, continued to question the existence of canonical support for the procedure.

CHEN 53

doubt as to the existence of a scriptural source for the sanshushicchi ho procedure, and writing KSSH would have been unnecessary. T.907, containing as it does the three kinds of attainment correlated to the three five-syllable dharanis and traditionally regarded as a translation of an Indian text, would surely have provided scriptural legitimacy.45

In addition, a close reading of KSSH reveals no evidence that Enchin ever quoted from or even referred to T.907 in KSSH. On the contrary, a careful examination of KSSH corroborates the argument that Enchin knew nothing of T.907 while writing KSSH. As Enchin's only work devoted exclusively to the sanshushicchi ho procedure, KSSH, despite its brevity (it is composed of no more than 1,000 characters), not only contains a number of sentences and ideas that have parallels in T.907, but also seems to have referred (at least three times) to a text that must have looked like T.907. First, in reporting the instructions he received from Faquan £fe^, Enchin emphasizes six points, five of which echo sentences in T.907:

(i) two sentences describing Prabhutaratna's role in selecting from the Darijing m&Jin'gangding jing five Sanskrit syllables (A,Vam, Ram, Hum, Kham), which are said to bring about immeasurable, indescribable merits (BZ.27.985b2-5; T.907.18.915al7-20);

(ii) a sentences to the effect that reciting the five syllables once equals reciting the whole Tripitaka one million times (BZ.27.985b6-7; T.907.18.915b24);

(iii) a correlation between the five syllables and the five buddhas in five directions (BZ.27.985b7; T.907.915al2-15);

(iv) a correlation between the five syllables and five kinds of social or natural phenomena (BZ.27.985b7-10; T.907.18.915a8-12);

(v) the identification of the five syllables as the "dhdrani for the dharmakaya" (BZ.27.985M1; T.907.18.915c29-bl).

45. For the way T.907 correlates the three dharanis with three kinds of siddhis and three buddha-bodies, see T.907.18.915b9-c29, "The following three dharanis. [corresponding to] the three kinds of attainment... A-Ra-Pa-Ca-Na (this is the dhdranifor the lower rank of attainment) is called the 'attainment of emerging'... A-Vi-Ra-Hum-Kham (this is the dharani for the middle rank of attainment)... called the 'attainment of entering'... A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham (this is the higher rank of attainment) ... (is) also called the 'attainment of accomplishment'... Among these three kinds of attainment, the 'attainment of emerging' [corre­sponds to] the attainment of 'transformation-body' (nirmdnakaya)', the 'attain­ment of entering' [corresponds to] that of 'retribution-body' (sambhogakaya); the 'attainment of mystery' [corresponds to] that of dharmakaya".

JIABS 21.1 54

The fact that five of Faquan's instructions to Enchin have parallels in T.907 might at first seem to suggest that these points is based on T.907 itself or on some very similar textual source. However, if Faquan did have such a text in mind when offering Enchin these five points of instruction, we would expect him to refer Enchin to that text, just as he did when he spoke of the "two buddhas" and referred Enchin to the Esoteric texts belonging to the "two divisions" (ryobu Mpft).46 Further­more, Enchin attributes these points to Faquan, not to any textual source. Had Enchin known that these points were derived from a text, we may assume that he would have referred the readers directly to the textual source, instead of merely observing that these points were imparted to him by Faquan (see BZ.27.985M1-12).

Second, at first glance it may seem that Enchin refers to T.907 in KSSH in his description of a yosho Hfe!> collection possessed by Ninchu, one of Saicho's most trusted disciples (BZ.27.985M3-17). Ac­cording to Enchin's description, this collection not only contains several sentences that are virtually identical to those found in T.907, it also defines the Indian notion of siddhi, as does T.907, in terms of "emerg­ing", "entering" and "accomplishment". These parallels might suggest that this yosho collection may have been T.907 or one of the two texts derived from it. Nonetheless, the following three reasons make it diffi­cult, if not impossible, to identify the yosho with either T.907, T.905 or T.906. Firstly, according to Enchin, Ninchu's collection includes the dharanis corresponding to the "three-bodies". This comment probably refers to the threefold correlation between the "three buddha-bodies" and the three five-syllable dharanis, a threefold correlation of the kind Enchin found carved on a pillar at a temple in Luoyang (cf. BZ.27.985a 9-12). Yet T.907 and its two derivative texts do not include a correlation between the "three buddha-bodies" and the triple five-syllable dharanis. Secondly, in his brief description of that yosho, Enchin mentions the three kinds of siddhis and three dharanis for the three buddha-bodies

46. With regard to the "two buddhas", Faquan is said to have told Enchin: As for the two buddhas, they are completely discussed in the various sutras belonging to the "Two Divisions". For this reason, I say nothing about them. You can understand them by yourself (BZ.27.985bl 1-12).

Here, Faquan did not speak specifically about the "two buddhas" on the assumption that Enchin could consult the various sutras affiliated to the "Two Divisions" (referring to the Esoteric texts affiliated with the Darijing and the Jin 'gangdingjing), in which the topic of "two buddhas" is treated in detail.

CHEN 55

but, remarkably, says nothing about the sanshushicchi ho procedure of correlating the three siddhis with the three dhdranis. The most important element of a text like T.907 for Enchin, as the author of the KSSH, would have been the sanshushicchi ho procedure itself, which forms the central theme of his treatise. Therefore, had this yosho been T.907, Enchin, in referring to it, would not have left the sanshushicchi ho unmentioned. Thirdly, if Nichu, who died in 824, already knew T.907, how could Enchin have been ignorant of this important text six decades later (882) and been forced to ask his former teachers in China for the textual support of the sanshushicchi ho procedure (see below).

Finally, in KSSH Enchin refers to an one-fascicle tract, the Sanshu­shicchi ho, which, he says, was translated anonymously. Since the three siddhi texts (T.905 in particular) are sometimes known as Sanshu shicchi ho, one might argue that Enchin was referring to one of them. However, the translation of the three siddhi texts is attributed to Subhakarasirhha. If the Sanshushicchi ho was T.907 or one of its derivatives, the trans­lator of the Sanshushicchi ho would have been known. Moreover, as Enchin himself states in KSSH, the teachings contained in the Sanshu­shicchi ho do not agree with the ideas Enchin expounded in KSSH. Since a comparison of KSSH with T.905, T.906 and T.907 reveals a general agreement, the tract Sanshu shicchi ho does not correspond to any of the three siddhi texts. I would suggest that this text, the Sanshu­shicchi ho mentioned in KSSH, may be another text, the Qingjing fa-shen Biluzhe'na xindifamen chengjiu yiqie tuoluoni sanzhongxidi ffis&& %m&mm^m?Mm~®mmfe^.m%m a\899).*7

47. That the Sanshushicchi hd mentioned in KSSH might have referred to T.899 is based on the following considerations. As it is preserved in the Taisho Tripitaka, T.899 is in one fascicle and its translator is unidentified. Further, it is true that except for its threefold classification of the notion xidilsicchi, T.899 bears almost nothing in common with the three siddhi texts or KSSH. All these are consistent with Enchin's description of this text called "Sanshushicchi ho". More impor­tantly, an postscript attached to T.899 (T.899.18.781M5) identifies T.899 with a text, tided "Da Biluzhe'na sanzhongxidi fa" X&1&MW>~Mt&t&fe, which is included in the Buddhist bibliography compiled by J5gyo $TSl (?-866), one of the eight nittd hakke ABAM pilgrims (for the inclusion of the Da Biluzhe'na sanzhongxidi fa in Jogyo's bibliography, see T.2163.55.1070a3). If this identifi­cation is justifiable (as I believe), T.899 was also known by a title very close to "Sanzhongxidi fa" (Jp. "Sanshu sicchi ho"). Finally, JogyS submitted his bibliography to the court in Showa #*0 6 (839) (see T.2163.55.1069al 3). This means that T.899 had already found its way to Japan by 839, and therefore could easily have been accessible to Enchin when he wrote KSSH, which was written

JIABS 21.1 56

In summary, KSSH does contain several elements that are also found in T.907. However, a close examination reveals that two of these ele­ments were attributed by Enchin himself to (i) oral instruction imparted to him by one of his Chinese teachers or (ii) a yosho collection treasured by Ninchu, which cannot be identified as T.907. The text which Enchin mentions in KSSH by the title "Sanshu shicchi ho" also cannot be iden­tified as T.907 or either of its two derivative texts. None of these three apparent citations in fact refers to T.907 and therefore none of them can establish Enchin's knowledge of T.907.

On the contrary, a close examination of KSSH reveals that Enchin was not aware of T.907 when he wrote KSSH. In KSSH, Enchin tries to identify the canonical sources for the triple five-syllable dhdranis corre­sponding to the three ranks of attainment (BZ.27.985al3-18). He traces the first two sets of triple dhdranis (correlated with, respectively, higher and intermediate ranks of attainment) to two chapters in the Darijing, and traces the third set to a scroll in the Jin 'gangding jing, referred to as the Jin'ganddingjing Manshushili Pusa wuzi xintuoluoni pin skWlTMM &mmmm^mmfe& Cr.ll73) (BZ.27.985al3-18). Yet, in speaking of the canonical sources for the three dhdranis, Enchin remains remarkably silent on T.907, which would have been a much better canonical source for the three dhdranis than the two chapters in the Darijing and the one chapter in the Jin 'gangding jing (the Darijing and Jin 'gangding jing each contain only one or two of the three groups of five-syllable dhdranis, while all three dhdranis, as well as their corre­lations to the three kinds of attainment, are included in T.907). Thus, we may assume that Enchin, who did refer to the Darijing and Jin 'gangding jing as the scriptural sources for the sanshushicchi ho procedure, would have referred in KSSH to T.907 for the same purpose had he known of this text.

I have argued that the very existence of KSSH and Enchin's failure to refer to T.907 in this treatise establish Enchin's ignorance of T.907 during the period when KSSH was composed. This is confirmed not only by an analysis of the text of KSSH itself but also by evidence out­side the text. Most significantly, it is likely that KSSH was written sometime around 873 and yet evidence suggests that at least as late as 882 Enchin had not yet read any of the three siddhi texts.

no earlier than 871 (we know this for KSSH referring to an official document which was dated to Jogan MM 13 (871), see BZ.27.986a3).

CHEN 57

Since Enchin himself failed to date KSSH, the actual period of com­position is open to speculation. However, evidence indicates that it was probably written in, or slightly later than, the year 873. In that year, En-chin submitted a petition to the court on the fourteenth day of the second month, Jogan 15 (873), proposing that the title of ajari H # ^ i (Skt. acarya) be awarded to Henjo HBg (BZ.28.1326b4-1327a3). His petition was soon approved. Moreover, according to Enchin's chronicle, the Chisho daishi nenpu IFJSE^CSfti^lt (compiled in 1467),48 at the cer­emony of awarding the ajari title to Henjo, which was held on the ninth day of the ninth month in Jogan 15 (873), Enchin also transmitted to Henjo the sanshushicchi fcoprocedure(BZ.28.1291al3-14; cf. BZ.28. 1327c). In addition, Annen ;£;#$ reports that Henjo, after receiving the transmission, continually inquired about the existence of any scriptural source for the procedure.49 Some Japanese scholars have suggested that Henjo's request for a scriptural source may have prompted Enchin to write KSSH (BKD 3: 136). Since Henjo received his ajari title and was initiated into the sanshushicchi ho procedure in 873, it seems likely that KSSH was written circa 873.

That Enchin did not know of T.907 until 882 is deduced from the fact that as late as 882, Enchin was still searching for the scriptural source for the three dharanis and their correlation to the three ranks of attain­ment or the three buddha-bodies. According to Enchin's Chronicle and a letter entitled "Jo Chierin sanzo sho" ±1S'3B<foHJifR# (A letter to Tri-pitaka Chierin,50 BZ.28.1336-9), in the seventh month of Genkei jiBt 6 (882) Enchin wrote to Zhihuilun H'lllm to ask for instruction on ques­tions that he confessed had long perplexed him. With this letter, Enchin sent to Zhihuilun a list of questions, referred to as "Kishu" M%. (A collection of questions) in the letter. In this list, which is now preserved as Kimon $&f£\ (Questions) in the Chisho Daishi zenshu H'fiE^ClSlJ ifeJH, we find the following question:

48. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten (A complete dictionary of the Buddhist texts, hereafter BKD; ed. ONO Gemmyo, 12 vols., Tokyo: Daito shuppansha 1932-36) 8: 8.

49. For Annen's report of HenjC's attitude toward the threefold attainment, see my discussion in the next section.

50. Ch. Zhihuilun; Skt. Prajfiacakra, one of Enchin's previous Esoteric masters in China, whose brief biography is found in the Song gaosengzhuan ^it&fiH£ (Biographies of eminent monks [compiled in] the Song Dynasty; T.2061.50. 723a4-12).

JIABS 21.1 58

A Vi Ra Hum Kham (the body of dharma) A Vam Ram Hum Kham (the body of retribution) A Ra Pa Ca Na (the body of transformation) On the wall of the Tiangongsi 5^B"# temple in the Eastern Capital [of China] (i.e. Luoyang ifeffl) was carved [a statement to the effect that these three groups of five-syllable dhdranis] are the dhdranis for the [buddha's] "three bodies" (trikdya). On which scripture is this saying based? It is also said that [these three groups of] dhdranl correspond to the three ranks of attainment. Does this have any canonical support! If there is any unmistakable [scriptural] support, please show its source in detail and take the trouble to teach me (BZ.27.1033a5-8; emphasis added).

This question centres on the scriptural source for the threefold dharant-body (or dharani-siddhi) correlation. The existence of this question suggests that at least as late as 882 Enchin had not read T.907 or its derivatives, since T.907, which correlates the three dharanis to the three buddha-bodies (cf. note <45>), would have been just the sort of scrip­tural source for which Enchin was looking. Had Enchin known of T.907, it would not have been necessary to write to Zhihuilun on this matter. Therefore, we must conclude that Enchin was unaware of T.907 and thus unable to quote from it when he wrote KSSH around 873 (nine years prior to 882).

How, then, should the textual parallels between his KSSH and T.907 be interpreted? As a rule, textual parallels between two texts can be explained by one of these two hypotheses: either (i) both texts borrow from a third source, or (ii) one text borrows from the other. The first hypothesis is not applicable to the textual parallels in T.907 and KSSH. As noted above, a majority of the textual parallels in T.907 and KSSH are credited by Enchin to the oral instruction he received from Faquan. Since it is likely that Faquan himself did not consult scripture or any other source for these instructions, the textual parallels in T.907 and KSSH should properly be explained by the second hypothesis.

As argued above, Enchin was not aware of a text like T.907 when he wrote KSSH; therefore, T.907 could not have been Enchin's source for the sanshushicchi ho procedure. The sentences and ideas shared by KSSH and T.907 must have been taken from KSSH by the author of T.907. The ideas in T.907 that have parallels in KSSH must have been based on knowledge of KSSH. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Enchin's KSSH was ever transmitted to a country outside Japan where Chinese was also used, such as China or Korea. If T.907 used KSSH as a textual source, then T.907 must have been manufac­tured in Japan.

CHEN 59

The Japanese origin of T.907 is also suggested by its use of several lines from the Nenchi shingon rikan keibyakumon l&fifMHfBitlix' 1=1 Jt An explanation of the principle and contemplation of the dharanT-reciting) attributed to Kukai. This text contains the following eight lines:

AlloftheTathagatas [possess] wisdom-water like the sweet dew; All the Buddhas of the "three times" [possess] wonderful medicines like the finest cream. With one syllable entering into the [five] viscera, [the practitioners] become immune to every kind of illness. [they are able to] attain immediately the empty and tranquil buddha-body.51

A passage in T.907 closely resembles this eight-line section of Kukai's work:

The dharanh for the five-section as listed in the right are the pearl-liquid made of the sweet dew of "non-production" (anutpadatva) which comes from all the Tathdgatas, the wonderful medicines of the finest cream of the buddha-nature. With one syllable entering into the five viscera, [the practitioner] will become immune to any kind of illness. Even more for those who practice the contempla­tion of sun, that of moon. [They are able to] immediately attain the empty and tranquil buddha-body (T.907.18.915a26-29; emphasis added).

As has been suggested by MlSAKI, it is very unlikely that either Saicho or Kukai ever knew anything of T.907 (cf. note <43>). Therefore, the appearance of these sentences, which are so similar to the lines in Kukai's text, in T.907 strongly suggests that these sentences were written on the basis of Kukai's text. As far as we know, as with En-chin's KSSH, Kukai's Nenchi shingon rikan keibyakumon never found its way to any East-Asian country other than Japan (e.g. China or Korea) where Chinese was also used. This implies that T.907 was composed in Japan, either by Enchin or by someone else who had not only the incentive to create a text like T.907 but also the opportunity to read Enchin's KSSH and Kukai's text.

Is it possible that T.907 was composed by Enchin himself? Enchin was clearly in great need of a text like T.907 which could be used as a decisive rebuttal to the challenge that the sanshushicchi ho procedure, as depicted in one of Saicho's/ufcomons, was not grounded in the canon. However, the proposition that Enchin may have authored T.907 seems

51. Kdbd Daishi zenshu &&*ffli£aS (A complete collection of the works by KobO Daishi [Kukai]), 5 vols., HASE Hoshu et al. eds. (Ky6to: Yoshikawa Kobunkan 1910) 5: 95.

JIABS 21.1 60

irreconcilable with the existence of his KSSH. Had Enchin written T.907 before KSSH, KSSH would no longer have been necessary. T.907 would have already presented scriptural support for the threefold dharani-siddhi correlation. Had he created T.907 after the composition of KSSH, he would not have done so unless and until he had succeeded in keeping KSSH from circulation (the best way, of course, would have been to destroy it), since it would have been to his tremendous disadvan­tage to have left behind a work so close to and therefore so strongly reminiscent of a text which he had composed in the name of Subhakarasimha. Therefore, the similarities between T.907 and KSSH strongly suggest that Enchin had no role in the forgery of T.907. This further suggests that T.907 was written by a Tendai monk other than and most likely after Enchin (obviously it would be safer and more conve­nient to forge a scripture, based on a contemporary's work, after the person's death). Consequently, we can conclude that T.907 was in part based on Enchin's KSSH; but, that it was not written by Enchin but appeared in Japan after Enchin's death in 891.

If Enchin was not the author of T.907, then who was? One natural candidate is Annen (841-?), another great Tendai scholar-monk who was born approximately 30 years after Enchin. It is thanks to Annen that a text that can be identified as T.907 was "discovered" and made known to the world for the first time. In the sixth fascicle of his seven-fascicle work, the Taizokai daiho taijuki fln^H^^f^lE (A record of face-to-face transmissions of the great procedures belonging to the Matrix-realm [line of Esoteric Buddhism]; T.2390; hereafter TDT), Annen referred to a text called "Sonsho hajigoku ho" #8#$*&fi}£:

In addition, during the time Konpon Daishi fa&XM of Mount Hiei (i.e. Saicho) stayed in Tang China, Acdrya Shunxiao transmitted to him the sanshushicchi ho procedure, the seal and document of which are preserved in the Kenkairon engi. [The document] says, Am-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham (the higher rank of attain­ment), A-Vi-Ra-Hum-Kham (the intermediate rank of attainment), A-Ra-Pa-Sa-Na (the lower rank of attainment). The mudra for the cultivation [of the proce­dure] is not included [in the document]. Acdrya Chin (i.e. Enchin) said, "The great Master transmitted [the procedure] to Kochi JJSH\ who transmitted [it] to Tokuen fSHI; Tokuen transmitted [it] to [me], Enchin." Enchin transmitted it to the Great acdrya, i.e. the Gonsojo filflilE,52 who often doubted the existence of the methods [for securing the "three ranks of attainment"]. Recently, 1 discovered

52. The gonsojd, a high-ranking monastic post second only to the sojo fi IE (the highest monastic official supervising the Buddhist order), here refers to Henjo, who was promoted to that position in 868.

CHEN 61

a copy of the text called Sonsho hajigoku ho containing the three groups of dhSranl corresponding to the three kinds of attainment, which are close to those taught by Acarya Shunxiao. The text reads, "A-Ra-Pa-Ca-Na (which is called the "attainment of Emerging"), A-Vi-Ra-Hum-Kham (which is called the "attainment of Entering"), A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham (which is called the "attainment of Mystery", also called "the attainment of accomplishment" and "wonderful attain­ment" [Skt. susiddhi]). A-Vam-Ram-Hum-Kham, which are illustrated as the five sections, five buddhas, five wheels, the [five] contemplations of earth, lotus, sun, moon and space, are also called the "dharanT for the dharma-body" (T.2390.75.98bl-12; emphasis added).

Annen suggests that, as far as he knows, he is the first to discover the Sonsho hajigoku ho, which contains the peculiar form of estoteric teaching that Shunxiao had allegedly transmitted to Saicho. Although all three siddhi texts have been known as the Sonsho hajigoku ho, the spe­cific use of this tide by Annen and his quotations from this text establish that he is referring neither to T.905 nor to T.906, but to T.907.

First, of the three siddhi texts, T.905 is the only one whose title does not contain the term "Sonsho" M-B, one of the two core components of the title by which Annen refers to the text. Also, T.906 and T.907 are both known by the alternate title, "Buccho sonsho shin hajigoku ho" *H*ffi|'frflfc*fe$t& (T.906.18.914b20, T.907.18.915cl2), which is close to Annen's "Sonsho hajigoku ho". In contrast, the alternatejitle for T.905 is "Sanshushicchi himitsu shingon ho" =L%W^WSS% S &» which is totally different from "Sonsho hajigoku ho". Therefore, judging from the titles, the text Annen refers to as the Sonsho hajigoku ho in TDT could be T.906 or T.907, but is probably not T.905.

An analysis of the quotation Annen took from the Sonsho hajigoku ho reveals its source. According to the quotation, in this Sonsho hajigoku ho the five Sanskrit syllables are correlated with the "five sections", "five buddhas", "five wheels" and the five contemplations centring on the earth, lotus, sun, moon and space. Annen also identifies the "five syllables" as the "dharanis for the dharma-body". In T.907 the "five syllables" are first correlated to the "five buddhas" (915a 12-15), and then to the "five sections / wheels" and "five contemplations" (cf. 912a 23-26). This corresponds with Annen's quotation precisely. In T.906, the "five syllables" are correlated not only with the "five Buddhas" (912b21-24), "five sections", "five wheels", and "five contemplations" (912c 17-21), but also with "five shapes" (square, full-moon-like [i.e. round], triangular, half-moon-like [i.e. semi-circular], full-moon) and "five colours" (yellow, white, red, black, and colour of all colours [i.e.

JIABS 21.1 62

green]) (912c 17-21). T.905 goes farther. One of its major sections is devoted to the correlation of the "five syllables" to a series of fivefold categories (both Buddhist Esoteric and Taoist), in addition to "five Buddhas", "five sections", "five wheels", and "five contemplations" (see T.905.18.909c7-910b25). Furthermore, as reported by Annen, in the Sonsho hajigoku ho the five syllables were further identified as the "dhdranT for the dharma-body" after they had been correlated with the "five sections", "five wheels" and "five contemplations". This is com-Sv pletely consistent with T.907 but not T.906. In T.907, it is only after those fivefold correlations are made that the five syllables are further identified as the "dhdranT for dharma-body" (915a29-bl). In the case of T.906, the identification of the "five syllables" as the "dhdranT for dharma-body" is made, however, several lines before those correlations are introduced (912c7-8). Therefore, the Sonsho hajigoku ho as men­tioned in Annen's work is not T.906, but T.907.

Since TDT not only refers to but also quotes from T.907, it would seem to provide the terminus ante quern of T.907. Unfortunately, TDT is undated. It is necessary to examine other sources in order to date T.907. Another of Annen's works, a bibliography of Esoteric Buddhist works called "Shoajarishingonmikkyoburuisoroku" j ^ R fS IPJ | | lif §?3& pfl It %3$k (A complete bibliography of various dhdranT esoteric [works brought back from China by] the [Japanese] Acdryas', T.2176)53 proves useful in this matter. The Hakke hiroku A^Stfft records a one-fascicle text called "Sonsh6 hajigoku darani giki" *j#fig*fe!l$PEJl/g1£#i (The procedure of the utmost wonderful dhdranis for destroying hell). The

53. This biblography is better known as Hakke hiroku J\WM$k (A secret bibliogra­phy [based on the bibliographies by] the eight masters). It was initially compiled in 885 and revised in 902. One edition of the Hakke hiroku dates the revision to the seventh day of the fifth month, Engi j g g 2 [902] (T.2176.55. 114al6), while the other dates it to the third day of the third month, Ninna 1 [885] (footnote [1], T.2176. 55.1114), barely four months after the first version of the bibliography was finished. In view of the volume and importance of the bibliography, it is very unlikely that Annen had decided to redo the bibliography so soon after its initial completion. The latter dating is therefore less tenable (cf. CHEN's dissertation: 172-73). The "eight esoteric bibliographies" that Annen used in compiling his own bibliography refer to the eight Japanese Esoteric masters who, travelling to study in Tang China, were known as the nitto hakke: (i) Saicho (767-822), (ii) Kukai (774-835), (iii) JSgyo (?-864), (iv) Engyo fflfT (799-852), (v) Ennin (794-864), (vi) Eun MW (798-869), (vii) Enchin (814-891), and (viii) Shuei mWi (809-884).

CHEN 63

interlinear note appended to this entry indicates that this text is also alternately known as Sanshu shicchi ho (T.2176.55. 1117al7). It is also noteworthy that in the bibliography Annen follows this Sonsho hajigoku darani giki with another one-fascicle text entitled "Sanshushicchi fuho" ^LMffcyfa^lfe (The dharma-transmission of the threefold attainment; T.2176.55.1117al8), which the interlinear note corresponding to this entry identifies as Saicho's fuhomon included in the Kenkairon engi attributed to Saicho (T.2176.55. 1117al8).

Evidence shows that the Sonsho hajigoku ho quoted in Annen's TDT and the Sonsho hajigoku darani ho recorded in his bibliography are one and the same text, specifically, T.907.54 This affirms that T.907 was already recorded in the Hakke hiroku, either in its 885 edition or in the revised version finished in 902. As argued above, T.907 was most likely composed after 891. Therefore, T.907 was not recorded in the 885 draft of the Hakke hiroku but was added to the revision in 902. This means that T.907 appeared in Japan no later than 902. Consequently, I con­clude that T.907 was written in Japan between 891 and 902.

Although it is not possible to establish the authorship of T.907 irrefutably, it seems likely that the author of T.907 was Annen. Annen is the first to have reported the existence of T.907. As we know, Annen was the most prominent Taimitsu representative after Enchin and Henjo. Like Enchin, Annen may have been motivated to legitimize the san-shushicchi ho procedure with authoritative textual sources. As a result, he had a motive to forge a text such as T.907, thus providing scriptural support for the practice of correlating the triple five-syllable dhdrams to the three kinds/ranks of attainment. Finally, Annen apparently had access to Enchin's KSSH, which includes the oral instructions from Faquan to Enchin. It would have been quite easy for Annen to write a text containing the main points of Faquan's instructions and then to make public the "discovery" of the text.

Here, one or two words about the polemical agenda underlying the composition of T.907 seem appropriate. I think the above arguments establish that T.907 was manufactured in Japan to authenticate the Esoteric tradition attributed to Saicho in general and the sanshushicchi

54. First, the two titles are nearly identical. Second, both texts are closely connected to Ssichb'sfuhdmon. In TDT, Annen uses the Sonshd hajigoku ho as a scriptural source for the sanshushicchi ho procedure, exactly the core of Saicho' % fuhomon, while the Hakke hiroku places the Sonsho hajigoku darani hd side by side with SaicWs fuhomon.

JIABS 21.1 64

ho procedure depicted in one of his fuhomons in particular. This is clear not only because T.907, along with its two affiliated texts (T.905 and T.906), presents the only known textual support for the sanshushicchi ho procedure, but also because its "discovery" was proclaimed at an occa­sion when its "discoverer" (if not "inventor") Annen was pre-occupied with locating the scriptural source for that peculiar esoteric procedure. Finally, the strong polemical motives implied in KSSH,55 the most basic

55. Note, for example, the following statement in KSSH: "This [procedure] is recorded in the "official certificate" ikancho) [which authorized the conferment of the title of] acarya in the thirteenth year of the J5gan period (872). Those who, out of their ignorance, slander my master will be guilty of a crime punishable by death. Driven by a deep pity for them, I hereby offer the irrefutable evidence [for the authenticity of the sanshushicchi ho]. I hope my purpose [of writing this treatise] can be understood by those who have a sense of shame" (BZ.27.986a3-5).

This statement suggests that at the time Enchin Wrote KSSH Saicho was accused of having transmitted to Japan some esoteric teachings lacking scriptural support. As Enchin himself explains here, his motive in writing this treatise was precisely to convince those who slandered Saicho that SaichO's esoteric transmission has canonical support.

In addition, another short treatise by Enchin which is closely connected with KSSH, the Kyoji ryobu hiydgi tfe*j\ f®$5$B3Sl£ (An explanation of the esoteric, fundamental teachings related to the two divisions [of esoteric teachings]; hereafter KRHG; BZ.28.1087-8), also tries to justify the Taimitsu lineage as depicted in Saicho' sfuhomon:

Subhakarasirhha from India transmitted it, Master Yilin in China passed it on, and Dharma-master Shunxiao taught it to [Master] Eizan (i.e. Saicho). Thus, although the three countries (India, China and Japan) are geographically separated, the essence of the "One-vehicle" is nonetheless communicable. The sutras and teachings, transmitted from masters to disciples, become illustrious. [The transmission of teachings] is clearly recorded in the official certificates. But there are some persons who insisted that these syllables, not found in the Jin'gangdingjing, do not have scriptural support. They are exactly like those who, regarding themselves as infallible while always blaming others, end up by incurring losses to themselves. Why? The two sutras do contain some passages which unambiguously [support the authenticity of these dharants}. Unable to reach the truth, one has no right to blame others (BZ.28. 1087b3-8)

The lineage under discussion here is precisely identical with that described in SaichS's two fuhdmons. It is clear that the legitimacy of this Taimitsu lineage, along with the sanshushicchi hd procedure, had been severely attacked by some Japanese Buddhists.

CHEN 65

source for T.907, make explicit the sectarian purpose of such texts. T.907 was composed to pass as an esoteric scripture, which, since it contains the sanshushicchi ho procedure, the Tendai monk hoped could be used to counter the attack on this essential teaching transmitted within the Tendai school.

Thus, we arrive at the following conclusion with regard to the prove­nance and date of T.907: T.907 was written in Japan, probably by Annen, between 891 and 902 on the basis of several texts,56 including Enchin's KSSH, for the purpose of legitimizing the sanshushicchi ho procedure Saicho is said to have brought back to Japan from China.

II. C. The Provenance and Dates of T.905 and T.906

In the previous section I argued for the Japanese origin of T.907. If I am correct, T.905 and T.906, as two texts derived from T.907, must also have been composed in Japan. In this section, I will show that, even without resorting to my conclusion on the provenance of T.907, there is sufficient evidence to establish the Japanese origin of at least T.905 (if not of T.906 as well) independently.

As noted in section II. A, T.905 was enlarged on the basis of T.907. In addition to those passages that were taken directly from T.907, T.905 contains two substantial sections not found in T.907.57 The first section

56. The author of T.907 made much use of Darijing and its sole Chinese commentary by Yixing —fr (683-727) (Darijing shu ~k 0 H3IE, T.1796), which was held to be an authorative text by almost every Esoteric Buddhist tradition in East-Asia. One Darijing passage (T.848.18.20al7-19) was quoted in T.907 (T.907.l8.915bl4-16). Two lines from a gatha in the Darijing (T.848.18.45a8) were used to begin the single gatha in T.907 (T.907.18.915M8). A whole passage in T.907 (T.907.18. 915b7-8) is derived from Yixing's commentary (T.1796.39.609c8-9). Further, the title of T.907 is closely connected with that of the Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing $>lMMBW.Mf&k (T.967). Some ideas propounded in this sutra were also incorporated in T.907 (CHEN'S dissertation: 183). Finally, as noted above, several lines from the Nenchi shingon rikan keibyakumon by Kukai were included in T.907, though in a prose form.

57. Although mainly composed of these two major sections and T.907, T.905 contains a brief passage (T.905.18.91 la2-4) quoted from the Suxidi jieluo jing (cf. T.893.18.603c6-8) and a long passage (T.905.18.9lla5-ll), which was written on the basis of several passages from two esoteric sutras, the Jin 'gang-ding chaosheng sanjiejing shuo Wenshu wuzi zhenyan shengxiang 3zPS!)JJt£S))# H J ^ M J & X & S ^ J I sfJBMS (The excellent appearances of ManjuSn's five-syllable dharanT, as preached in the Jin'gangding chaosheng sanjiejing; T.l 172; cf. T.1172.20.709al8, 709al9-21, 709b27-28, 709b28-29, 709b29-cl) and the Jin'gangdingjing Manshushili Pusa wuzi xintuoluonipin (The chapter about

JIABS2L1 66

is found near the beginning of T.905 (T.905.18.909c7-910b25). Proba­bly written largely by the author himself, this section includes five sentences (T.905.18.909c7-9, 909c24-27, 18.910a8-9, 910al9-21, 910b5-6) with parallels in KRHG (cf. BZ.28.1087a8-9, 1087al0-ll, 1087a 12, 1087a 13-14, 1087al5-16).58The second section is found at the end of T.905 (T.905.18.91 Ia27-912a27). This long section, with the exception of one passage (in 91 lb4-6), can be divided into two groups: (i) fourteen passages copied from Yixing's Darijing commentary59 and

ManjuSn's five-syllable hcait-dhdranipreached in the Jin ' gangding jing; T.l 173; cf. T.1173.20.710al7-19).

58. In addition, it is remarkable that several passages in the famous Chinese Buddhist apocryphon, the Tiweipolijing S i M ^ O M (The book of Trapusa and Bhallika), were also used in this section of T.905 (cf. T.905.18.909cl5-16,910al5-16,910a29-b2; for their Tiweipoli jing parallels, see MAKITA Tairyo, Gikyo no kenkyu [A study of Buddhist apocrypha], Kyoto: Jimbun kagaku kenkyusho 1977, p.178).

59. As was noted above, the three siddhi texts contain a number of esoteric ideas which did not become popular for a long time after the death of Subhakarasirhha and Yixing. Therefore, I assume that the three siddhi texts were written after Subhakarasirhha and Yixing and that the 14 passages in T.905 which have parallels in Yixing's commentary must have been borrowed from Yixing's commentary. In accordance with the ways they are related to Yixing's commentary, these 14 passages can be divided into the following four groups:

(i) seven passages (found in [11 911M-4, [2] 911b6-10, [3] 911M4-18, [4] 911b20-22, [5] 911b22-23, [6] 911c5-6, [7] 912a8-18), which were directly taken from the following seven passages in Yixing's commentary: (1) T.1796.39.656al7-20, (2) 623a6-10, (3) 653bl-4, (4) 705c27-29, (5) 706bl3-15, (6) 706a7-l 1, and (7) 647b2-14;

(ii) two passages (911bl8-21, 91 lc24-26) which are almost directly quoted from Yixing's commentary with only some slight adaptations (cf. 750al5-18; 788al3-15);

(iii) four passages which resulted from the combination of two or more passages in Yixing's commentary: (1) the T.905 passage in 911bl0-13 was based on two passages in the commentary (cf. 746a4 and 666bl6-19); (2) the T.905 passage in 91 Ib23-c5 was based on the following three passages in the commentary: 666M9-25, 631b2-5 and 789a27-b3; (3) the T.905 passage in 91 lclO-24 was written on the basis of the following two long passages in Yixing's commentary: 788a25-bl4 and 788M4-23; (4) the T.905 passage in 912a5-7 was based on the following five sentences from the commentary: 586b21, 586c23, 587b7, 586cl8-19, and 586bl5-16.

(iv) one passage (91 lc6-10) which can be regarded as a summary of a long passage in Yixing's commentary (cf. 787c25-788al2).

CHEN 67

(ii) five passages60 parallelled in three of Enchin's works, specifically, KRHG, the Zashiki UfAfE (The miscellaneous, personal notes; hereafter ZSK; BZ.27.977-984), and the Daibirushanajodokyo shinmoku j\&rM. i i ^ i i ' ^ @ (The heart and eyes of the Mahdvairocana-sutra; here-hereafter DKSM; BZ.26.648-655). In addition, the author of T.905 also inserted two sentences (T.905.18.91 la2, 911a25-26), parallels to which are found in KRHG (cf. BZ.28.1087a4, 1087b2-3), into sections taken from T.907. Thus, T.905 shares a total of seven sentences and five passages with three of Enchin's works. How should we understand these textual parallels?

There are only two possible explanations for the textual parallels be­tween T.905 and Enchin's works: either both Enchin and the T.905 author owe these textual parallels to a third source, or one of them copied from the other. The first explanation being very unlikely,61 the textual parallels between T.905 and Enchin's works must be understood by means of the assumption that one text borrowed from the other.

We can determine the identity of the textual borrower if we can rule out the possibility that Enchin knew anything of T.905 when he wrote these three works. Since we know that as late as 882 Enchin knew nothing of the three siddhi texts (among which is T.905), to try to date

60. These five passages are found in (i) T.905.18.9lla27-bl (KRHG parallel in BZ.28.1087a 17-b2), (ii) 91 Ic26-912a3 (ZSK parallel in BZ.27.980al0-13), (iii) 912a3-5 (its three component sentences have their parallels in DKSM [BZ.26. 652b8, 653a4, 653a8]), (iv) 912a 18-22 (two sentences of which find their parallels in DKSM [BZ.26.652al5, 650a5-6]), and (v) 912a21-27 (KRHG parallel in BZ.28.1087b8-1088a4).

61. The author of T.905, in writing/compiling its concluding section, makes frequent reference to Yixing's commentary. Consequently, had these passages been quoted from a third source, it is likely that they would have quoted from Yixing's commentary. Yet these passages are not included in Yixing's commentary and cannot have been derived from this source. Furthermore, neither Enchin nor T.905 acknowledges that these passages were taken from a third source. How­ever, it is the following fact that makes the existence of a third source for these passages extremely unlikely: T.905 and KRHG share two identical passages and seven sentences. In view of the brevity of both T.905 and KRHG (T.905 is of no more than 4,400 characters, while the KRHG contains barely 800 characters), it is very unlikely that the two texts happened to agree in quoting so many virtually identical passages from a third source. The only reasonable explanation must be that one of them copied these passages from the other. Similarly, the remaining three passages shared by T.905 and Enchin's works can also be explained by this hypothesis.

JIABS21.1 68

these three works seems to be a good strategy to determine whether or not Enchin has quoted from T.905. If the three works (or even one of them) can be shown to have been composed before 882, then we can conclude that Enchin could not have used T.905 in writing these works.

The ZSK passage that is paralleled by one passage in T.905 is dated by Enchin himself to the twenty-fourth day of the twelfth month, Jogan 4 (872) (BZ.27.981a7). In other words, this ZSK passage was written precisely one decade before 882. According to the postscript at the end of DKSM, Enchin wrote DKSM while staying at the Monastery of Shitennoji on Mt. Jozan ±M in the Prefecture of Chinzai 0 1 ^ , follow­ing his visit to Mt. Tiantai (BZ.26.654bl7-655a2). This implies that DKSM was written shortly after Enchin returned from China in 858, almost a quarter of a century before 882. We have no reliable evidence with which to date KRHG, which Enchin himself failed to date. None­theless, this treatise is closely related to KSSH and seems to have been written around the same time, that is, around 873, almost one decade before 882 (cf. BKD 3: 136).

Thus, at least two (i.e. ZSK and DKSM) of Enchin's three works, which share textual parallels with T.905, were composed before 882. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the three passages in T.905 whose parallels were found in these two works by Enchin were either taken directly from, or re-written on the basis of, Enchin's works. As for KRHG, though its dating as proposed here is far from certain, we have evidence to show that Enchin's students ascribed one passage shared by T.905 and KRHG to Enchin, rather than to Subhakarasirhha, the alleged translator of T.905.62 This suggests that at the time of editing this posthumous work of Enchin, his disciples were still unfamiliar with T.905. Otherwise, they would certainly have hesitated to collect into their master's Zakki a passage which could also be found in a sutra puta-tively translated by Subhakarasirhha. At the very least, they would have noted that this passage is also found in T.905. This also supports the

62. The T.905 passage in 912a21-27, paralleling one KRHG passage in BZ.28. 1087b8-1088a4, was included in Enchin's Zakki SIlB (The miscellany, BZ.28. 1116a7-15), which was probably edited by Enchin's disciples after his death. Presumably, this Zakki includes Enchin's occasional remarks, lectures, and com­ments which seemed important to his disciples. In this short collection, the pas­sage is marked as Enchin's (who was called sanno UjjE, the "mountain-king" [Enchin once served as the abbot of the Sannoin ill i ^ monastery on Mount Hiei}).

CHEN 69

view that Enchin never read T.905. Otherwise, given the importance of this text, it is extremely unlikely that Enchin would have failed to refer his students to it.

We are thereby able to conclude that when Enchin wrote the three works which share a number of textual parallels with T.905, he knew nothing of T.905 and therefore could not have quoted from T.905. All the passages in T.905 that appear in Enchin's works must have been taken from Enchin's works, and not vice versa. In other words, T.905, like T.907, was also composed in Japan, where a borrowing from Enchin's works could have occurred.

Now we turn to T.906. A close textual analysis of T.906 reveals that it is composed on the basis of the following seven sources: the first is, needless to say, T.907; the second is two passages in Yixing's commen­tary;63 the third is several passages that can be found in an Esoteric text translated by Bukong (T.1056) and a work by Annen as well (i.e. the Kongokai daiho taijuki ^ i J I ^ A ^ i f S f B [A record of face-to-face transmissions of the great procedures belonging to the Diamond-realm [line of Esoteric Buddhism]; T.2391; hereafter KDT);64 the fourth is one passage that is found exclusively in KDT;65 the fifth is a passage that is probably taken from another kongokai text - T.878;66 the sixth is several sentences from one of Zhiyi's commentaries on the Vimalakirti-sutra',61 and the seventh is several passages probably written by the author of T.906 himself.68

A key to unravelling the provenance of T.906 is provided by the textual parallels shared by T.906 and Annen's KDT. It is possible either

63. T.906.18.912c 17-24, for the parallel in Yixing's commentary, see T. 1796.39. 586bll-13;727c8-23.

64. T.906.18.912c25-913a2, its T.1056 parallels in T.1056.20.75al 1-19; T.906.913a 2-12, for its parallels in T.1056 and KDT, see T. 1056.20.75a 19-22, T.2391.75. 139c24-29.

65. T.906.18.913al2-18, its KDT parallel is found in T.2391.20.139c29-140a8. 66. T.906.18.913al8-b3, its parallel in T.878 is found in T.878.18.336a3-c 12. 67. T.906.18.913c27-29, for the original text in Zhiyi's work, see T. 1777.38.553a

20-21 68. These passages include (i) a large passage (T.906.18.912c23-913b25) describing

a mandala-WYjt picture, in which several syllables are transformed into a number of images characterizing a buddha-field peopled by Mahavairocana-buddha and his companions; (ii) T.906.18.913b4-8; (iii) T.906.18.914al-bll, in which the tri-chiliocosm is classified into three ranks and some characteristic ideas of hajigoku art propounded.

JIABS 21.1 70

that (i) KDT borrowed the passage from T.906, or (ii) T.906 took this passage from KDT. The second assumption is closer to the truth, be­cause Annen, as I will show below, had not read T.905 by the time he wrote KDT.69 If this is true, T.906 was not only based on T.907 but also drew from one of Annen's works, which attests to the Tendai origin of T.906.™

Having determined the Japanese origin of T.905 and T.906, let us attempt to determine how closely we can approximate their dates. It is remarkable that Annen mentioned neither T.905 nor T.906 in his Hakke hiroku and TDT, although he did mention in both of them a text that I have identified as T.907. As noted above, in referring to or quoting from T.907 in TDT or the Hakke hiroku, Annen was pre-occupied with canonical support for the sanshushicchi ho procedure in Saicho's/ufc<5-mon. Without doubt, the existence of two esoteric texts like T.905 and T.906 would have considerably strengthened his claim that the sanshu­shicchi ho procedure was supported by scripture. In view of this, had Annen known of T.905 or T.906, we may assume that he would have referred the reader to the two texts in his TDT and Hakke hiroku, as he did with T.907. Thus, Annen's failure to mention T.905 or T.906 in TDT or Hakke hiroku suggests that he did not know the two texts when he composed/compiled IDT I Hakke hiroku.

Considering Annen's rare erudition and the likelihood that he would have appreciated the significance of T.905 and T.906 had they come to his attention, Annen's ignorance of T.905 and T.906 in 902, the year he

69. As is to be discussed below, Annen did not know T.905 and T.906 when he wrote TDT. Given the similar form and nature of TDT and KDT, the two works must have been written at approximately the same time. Thus, there is little chance that Annen had read T.906 by the time of writing KDT, let alone used it in his KDT. Here, I confess to the speculative nature of this dating of KDT and Annen's connection with T.906. Fortunately, we have more reliable evidence to establish that T.905 and T.906 were composed by other people who lived after Annen. As noted in section II. A, the author of T.905 or T.906, in dividing G.907 into two gdthas, erroneously separated several lines of G.907 which are devoted to the same theme and therefore cannot be read separately. This would mean that the author of T.905 or T.906 is unlikely to have been the author of this gatha in T.907, who probably was Annen. In other words, T.905 or T.906 was very unlikely to have been written by Annen. Furthermore, T.905 or T.906 was prepared on the basis of T.907. Therefore, T.905 and T.906 were prepared in Japan after Annen.

70. Another piece of evidence for its Tendai origin is its use of one of Zhiyi's com­mentaries on the Vimalakirti-sutra.

CHEN 71

finished revising the Hakke hiroku, suggests that T.905 and T.906 did not exist at that time. Thus, the year 902 can be tentatively set as the terminus post quern for the composition of T.905 and T.906.

The terminus ante quern of T.905 and T.906 can be determined with reference to the Shijujo ketsu (Z3-hif&a£ (T.2408, Forty chapters of in­structions), compiled by a Tendai monk called Choen M^ (1016-1081). According to the Shijujo ketsu, Choen's teacher Kogei MM. (977-1049) remarked:

A different version of the Sonsho hajigoku says, "The 'dharmakaya-as-the-wisdom' is also called the body of retribution" (and so forth). This passage is consistent [with what I said here]. It calls the "dharmakaya-as-the-wisdom" the "principal [retribution]" (shd[ho] IE[&]), implying that the object and wisdom correspond with each other in a mysterious way (T.2408.75.871c29-872a2).

This remark, which Choen dates to the twenty-third day of the seventh month of Eisho *& 2 (1047) (T.2408.75.870cl9), provides an impor­tant clue for setting the terminus ante quern of T.905. Of the three siddhi texts, T.905 is the only text containing the phrase, "The 'dharmakaya-as-the-wisdom' is also called the body of retribution", quoted by Kogei in the Shijujo ketsu (T.905.18.909c27-28). Therefore, T.905 was known to Kogei in 1047. Hence, this year can be established as the terminus ante quern of T.905, and T.905 must have been composed in Japan some time between 902 and 1047.

The same Shijiijo ketsu also records a comment KOgei is alleged to have made in the fourth month of Chokyu MX 3 (i.e. 1042) on a text called "Sonshohajigoku ho" M-B$£ti&U&- The comment reads:

The master [KdgeiJ says: "The five wheels are exactly the five wisdoms and five buddhas, just as [it is discussed] in the Sonsho hajigoku ho" (and so forth). [This comment was] made in the fourth month of ChokyQ 3 (T.2408.75. 827al8-19).

Judging by the title alone, the Sonsho hajigoku ho may be any of our three siddhi texts. However, since of the three siddhi texts only T.906 correlates the five wheels with five wisdoms and five buddhas (T.906. 18.912cl7-21), this text called "Sonsho hajigoku ho" must have been T.906. T.906 was, then, known to a Tendai monk by 1042. Thus, the year 1042 can be given as the terminus ante quern for the composition of T.906, and T.906 must have been composed in Japan some time between 902 and 1042.

This part has examined the origins of three Esoteric Buddhist texts that are preserved in the Taisho Tripitaka under the numbers 905, 906 and 907. With regard to the provenance of these three siddhi texts, Japanese

JIABS21.1 72

scholars, rejecting the traditional view of ascribing all of them to Subha-karasirhha, have unanimously concluded that they were composed in China. Compelling textual evidence, however, shows that the three siddhi texts were all composed in Japan. I have in this part established the terminus post quern and terminus ante quern of the three siddhi texts as follows: (1) T.907: 891-902; (2) T.905: 902-1047; (3) T.906: 902-1042. On the basis of the textual evidence currently at our disposal, Annen is the most likely candidate for the authorship of T.907, the earliest of the three siddhi texts.

In this part I have also discussed the textual sources of these three siddhi texts. T.907 was based mainly on Enchin's KSSH, which was written to legitimize the esoteric teachings and lineage as described in a dharma-transmission certificate (fuhomon) attributed to Saicho. The author of T.907 availed himself of the Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing, Darijing, Yixing's commentary on the surra and most strikingly, a text attributed to Kukai (Nenchi shingon rikan keibyakumon). The formation of T.907 can be shown as follows:

Ketsu sanshushichi ho (Enchin) + Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing (T.967) + Darijing (T.848) + Darijing shu (Yixing)(T.1796) + Nenchi rikan Keibyakumon (Kukai) ==> T.907

In contrast to T.907, the formation of T.905 and T.906 prove to be rela­tively complicated. Apart from T.907, which was wholly reproduced in T.905, three treatises by Enchin, Yixing's Darijing commentary, several esoteric sutras (including the prestigious Suxidi jieluo jing), and finally, an early Chinese Buddhist apocryphon, the Tiweipoli jing, which exerted a sustained influence on Chinese Buddhism, were used in the composition of T.905. The formation of T.905 can be outlined as follows:

T.907 + Enchin (Kyoji ryobu hiyogi, Dai Birushana jodokyo shin-moku, Zashiki) + Yixing (Darijing shu) + T.l 141 (Cishi Pusa lue-xiu yujia niansongfa + T.l 172 Jin'gangding chaoshengsanjiejing shuo Wenshu wuzi zhenyan shengxiang) + T.l 173 (Jin'gangding jing Wenshushili Pusa wuzi xintuoluoni pin) + T.893 (Suxidi jieluo jing) + Tiweipoli jing ==> T.905

T.906 is strongly influenced by kongokai works. The author of T.906 used at least two passages from a work by Annen concerning the

CHEN 73

kongokai-line teachings and practices transmitted in the Tendai esoteric tradition. Incorporated into T.906 were also several passages from some kongokai-related sutras, such as T.878 and T.1056. Interestingly, the author of T.906 also included passages from one of Zhiyi's commen­taries on the Vimalakirti-sutra, the Weimojing xuanshu H^j^^CM. Thus, the formation of T.906 can be summarized as follows:

T.907 + Annen (Kongokai daiho taijuki) + T.878 {Jin 'gangding jingjin'gangjie dadaochang Biluzhe'na Rulai zishouyongshen nei-zhengzhi juanshu foshenyimingfo zuishangcheng mimi sanmodi lizanwen &mmM&mft*&*WL&Mfflm*&&ft£ft&'g gm$%m%ffiW[±m%%~&mmwx) + T.1056 (jm'gang-ding yujia qianshou qianyan Guanzizai Pusa xiuxing yigui jing

&wmmM^^mm&fe^mmifflfam+ T.1777 (weimo-jing xuanshu) ==> T.906

It is important to recognize the polemical context within which the three siddhi texts were composed. An "international" dharma-transmitting lin­eage, first proposed in afuhomon attributed to Saicho (i.e. the Bisha-mondo MS) and then maintained by the whole Tendai tradition, con­nects Saicho and other Tendai patriarchs with the celebrated Indian Eso­teric Buddhist master Subhakarasirhha. According to this fuhomon, Saicho was linked to Subhakarasirhha through a monk called Yilin (whom this fuhomon describes as a leading disciple of Subhalcarasimha) and his disciple - Shunxiao, Saicho*s putative Esoteric mentor in China. In the Post-Saicho Tendai school this "international" dharma-transmis-sion was promoted so enthusiastically that the legitimacy of the whole Tendai tradition became heavily dependent on it. This, however, pre­sented the Tendai school with a problem: the threefold dharanT-axtain-ment correlation (better known as sanshushicchi hd\ which occupied a central place in the Esoteric teachings attributed to Saicho, had no known scriptural support. Without scriptural support, the sanshushicchi ho procedure, the "international" dharma-transmission, and thus, the foundations of the Tendai esoteric tradition were open to question. The existence of the canonical source for the sanshushicchi ho procedure was even doubted by some eminent Tendai leaders themselves. Some non-Tendai monks openly accused Tendai of lacking any scriptural support for the fundamental Esoteric teachings attributed to Saicho, I have tried to show in this part that T.907, as well as two affiliated texts (T.905 and T.906), were written in Japan in order to rebut this allegation.

JIABS 21.1 74

Conclusions

This article consists of a critical study of the formation of early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism (also known as "Taimitsu") in early Heian Japan. It focuses on one aspect of the sectarian and polemical environment in which Taimitsu was created and developed into a significant presence in Japanese religious life. The polemic environment under discussion in this article was characterized by a fierce and protracted sectarian contro­versy between Tendai and Shingon over the orthodoxy of the esoteric tradition allegedly brought back to Japan from China by Saicho, the founding patriarch of the Tendai school.

I began with an investigation of how Saicho and his followers responded to the challenge which was mainly posed by their rivals, the Shingon monks. Shingon monks questioned the authenticity of the Tendai esoteric tradition. We find that at the outset Saicho suggested in his Esshuroku bibliography that the initiation he received from Shunxiao was close to a kongokai transmission. However, in his late years when he defended in the Kenkairon his Buddhist transmissions from China, Saicho reinterpreted his initiation from Shunxiao as composed of a dual transmission (i.e. taizokai and kongokai).

After Saicho died in 822, his immediate and/or second-generation disciples, who were eager to create a full-fledged Tendai form of Eso­teric Buddhism capable of competing with Shingon, attempted to legiti­mate and develop the esoteric tradition in the name of their master. Their effort in this regard is evidenced in a series of documents which were either left by SaichO himself and seriously altered by them, or pre­pared by them independently within the two to four decades after their master's demise.

A so-called "court edict" was first forged, or altered, in order to glo­rify Shunxiao, Saicho's chief Esoteric mentor in China. Then, a "dharma-transmission certificate" (fuhomon) was forged in order to establish formally the historical reality of the esoteric initiation Saicho received from Shunxiao on the one hand, and to incorporate Saicho into a prestigious lineage starting from Subhakarasirhha on the other. Subse­quently, probably immediately after Ennin returned from China, a docu­ment was deliberately prepared within the Tendai circle as a second fuhomon from Shunxiao. This new fuhomon is of great significance not merely for its reinterpretation of Saicho's initiation from Shunxiao, but also for its implicit claim that Saicho was initiated into an esoteric tradi­tion which was composed of a triple esoteric transmission (the soshicchi

CHEN 75

in addition to taizokai, kongokai) and therefore superior to the dual eso­teric transmission Kukai received from China. Finally, as the scriptural support for the peculiar Esoteric teachings in terms of which Saicho's initiation was reinterpreted in this new fuhomon, three siddhi texts were composed successively by Tendai monks. The great Tendai scholar-monk Annen was very likely the author of T.907, which I have proved to be the earliest of the three siddhi texts.

The conclusions at which this article arrives undercut the historical validity of the traditional view of the establishment of the Tendai form of Esoteric Buddhism in Japan. However, it is my hope that these nega­tive conclusions can be turned into a positive agenda for future research. Now that we know that most of the documents regarding Saicho's esoteric transmissions were composed sometime after Saicho's death and in the course of the evolution of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism, we can begin a more focused historical investigation of this process. Scholars can turn from a fruitless search for the roots of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in China to a closer look at Japan.

In addition, I hope that this article might draw more scholarly atten­tion to a host of Buddhist apocrypha which, with their Indian origin denied, have long been regarded as Chinese but which might have been produced in Japan or Korea.

As I show in part two, there exists ample evidence suggesting the Japanese origin of the three siddhi texts. Unfortunately, some unfounded assumptions have prevented scholars working on the three siddhi texts from carefully assessing the relevant evidence. They have accepted almost without hesitation that China is the sole possible source for any allegedly Buddhist scriptures whose Indian origin became, in one way or another, discredited. This practice has been recently challenged by Robert BUS WELL, who argues for the Korean origin of a Buddhist apocryphon, the Jin'gang sanmei jing 3£l§JHi£$£ (Kor. Kumgang sammae-kyong; Jp. Kongo sanmai kyo\ Skt. Vajrasamadhisutra), which, he argues, was written in Korea but also circulated in China, and exerted an enormous influence on Chinese Buddhism, particularly the formation of Chan ideology.71

71. Robert BUSWELL, The Formation of Ch'an Ideology in China and Korea: Vajrasamadhi Sutra, A Buddhist Apocryphon, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1989).

JIABS 21.1 76

BUSWELL's research underscores, on the one hand, the necessity of reevaluating the "international" role the Chinese language had played for a long period in the evolution of East Asian civilization. On the other, by re-identifying as Korean a Buddhist apocryphon which has been long accepted as Chinese, BUSWELL's work calls for a re-appraisal of the contributions non-Chinese East Asian people (who once used Chinese) have made to East Asian civilization. It reminds us that not all textual sources in Chinese were necessarily written by Chinese and in China. I hope that this article will contribute to this important reevaluation.