MYSTERIES OF SPEECH AND BREATH

MYSTERIES OF SPEECH AND BREATH: DŌHAN’S 道範 (1179-1252) HIMITSU NENBUTSU SHŌ 祕密念佛抄 AND ESOTERIC PURE LAND BUDDHISM

by Aaron P. Proffitt

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Asian Languages and Cultures) in the University of Michigan 2015

Doctoral Committee:

Assistant Professor Micah L. Auerback, Chair Assistant Professor Benjamin Brose Associate Professor Kevin G. Carr Professor Richard K. Payne, Institute of Buddhist Studies

DEDICATION

To Claire and Maya, my beautiful Bodhisattvas ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Through various causes and conditions, sometime in high school, I decided that I wanted to pursue a career in the academic study of religion. This was particularly odd at the time because I did not know at first that that was actually a thing. While talking to my high school college advisor, I heard that there was such a thing as “religious studies” and that the people who had entered into that field learned multiple languages, lived and studied in fascinating places, and spent their lives teaching others how to expand their horizons and thing deeply about matters of greatest concern. As I write this in the winter of 2015, in the cold mountain temple town of Kōyasan, I think back to the version of myself fifteen years ago who set out upon this course of study, and it is truly a humbling experience to have accomplished this goal, as it reminds me clearly just how much I have depended upon and benefitted from the encouragement and kindness of others. My teachers, friends, and family have guided me in innumerable ways, and as I now turn to the next stage of my career, I think about the many challenges I have faced over the last fifteen years, the many opportunities life provided me that could have derailed this journey, and all of those who helped me stay the course. To all of you, those mentioned here, and those not mentioned, I want to express my sincere thanks.

In 2001, I entered the Department of Religious Studies at the University of ColoradoBoulder. Professors Terry Kleeman and George Keyworth were especially encouraging, and even at that early stage, always pushed me to thinker deeper and work harder. As well, Professors Rodney Taylor, Lorelai Biernacki, Lynn Ross-Bryant, and Sam Gill from Religious Studies, and Kyoko Saegusa and Faye Kleeman from Asian Language and Cultures, provided their time and attention on various projects during my time there. Having studied in both departments for four very formative years has led me to maintain multiple academic identities at once, stuck somewhere between philology and theory, between history of religions and area studies. For this I am grateful.

After spending summer 2004 travelling around China and Japan with the Kleemans, thanks to a scholarship from the Freeman Foundation, I decided that I wanted to work in Japan as an English teacher. After a year living in rural Kumamoto Prefecture, learning how to speak pretty good “old-man Japanese,” I returned to Colorado to pursue a Master’s degree in Religious Studies in 2006. I would like to thank Professors Greg Johnson, Holly Gayley, Ruth Mas, and Rodney Taylor in the Religious Studies Department, and Terry Kleeman, Faye Kleeman, Laurel Rodd, and R. Keller Kimbrough (who taught me everything I know about Japanese dictionaries) in Asian Languages and Cultures for their encouragement and guidance as I applied to PhD programs and finished my MA thesis. I would also like to thank Professor Terry Kleeman in particular for his help applying to the FLAS summer and academic year fellowships for the study of Chinese and Japanese.

In 2008 I entered the PhD program in the Department of Asian Language and Cultures at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. My graduate school advisor, and chair of my dissertation committee, Professor Micah Auerback has been an endless source of inspiration and encouragement. His care for his students and infectious enthusiasm truly held me together through the long, cold, and dark Michigan winters, and the even longer, colder, and darker process of dissertation writing. I hope that I will someday have the opportunity to inspire future students the way he inspired me.

Also at the University of Michigan, I would like to thank Professors William Baxter and David Rolston who guided me in the study of Classical Chinese, and Professors Juhn Ahn and Benjamin Brose, who helped me begin the (ongoing) process of learning how to read Buddhist Chinese. Professor Esperanza Ramirez-Christensen instructed me in Japanese waka and renga translation practices. Professor Ken Ito and Dr. Ann Takata from the Center for Japanese Studies, assisted me in procuring the funds necessary to pursue advanced Japanese language training at the Inter-University Center in Yokohama, 2009-2010. I would also like to thank Professor Kevin Carr from Art History who showed me how to use images effectively in teaching about Japanese Buddhism, and Professors Hitomi Tonomura and Tomoko Masuzawa from the History Department who encouraged me to use Japanese language resources in my final papers for their classes, and provided me extremely valuable guidance during my time at the University of Michigan.

I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ignacio Villagran, Harjeet Grewal, Martino Dibeltulo, Hyoung Seok Ham, Randeep Hothi, Saul Allen, Jeremy Saul, Joseph Leach, Kevin Mulholland, Irhe Sohn, Kendra Strand, Molly Des Jardin, Brian Dowdle, Nathaniel Gallant, and many others far too numerous to include. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Donald S. Lopez, Jr., as it was perhaps my first reading of Curators of the Buddha and Prisoners of Shangri La that truly inspired me to want to become a scholar in the first place. I am grateful for the many opportunities I had to study and teach under his direction, and appreciate the countless hours of rambling he patiently listened to while I was formulating my dissertation project.

Professor Richard K. Payne, Dean of the Institute for Buddhist Studies, who was kind enough to join my dissertation committee as an outside reader, has been a source of inspiration as well. Ever since I began thinking seriously about pursuing advanced degrees in Buddhist studies, formulating papers and projects, and cultivating new areas of interest and inquiry, I would almost inevitably discover that Professor Payne had already published something on that topic. From Pure Land and Tantra, to ritual theory and Kamakura Buddhism, I found myself following a track already laid out by Professor Payne. As one of the few people to recognize the immense potential for “Esoteric Pure Land” studies, I am truly grateful that he joined my dissertation committee. Also at the Institute for Buddhist Studies, I would like to thank Professors Scott Mitchell, Kameyama Takahiko, and Courtney Bruntz.

Thanks to the Fulbright Program, I was able to spend the last year of my dissertation research in Kyoto, Japan. I especially appreciated the help of Matthew Sussman and Keiko Toyama at the Tokyo office. I also very much enjoyed meeting and hanging out with the Fulbright Chairman of the Board, Tom Healy.

Though primarily affiliated with Ōtani University, I also acquired research affiliations with Ryūkoku University and Kōyasan University. I am deeply indebted to the professors and graduate students at all three universities for their time and attention. At Ōtani University, I benefitted greatly from the guidance of Professors Robert Rhodes and Michael Conway, who helped me prepare the translation of Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō that appears in this dissertation. I also enjoyed many conversations with Professors Inoue Takami and Michael Pye. Fortuitously, Professor James Dobbins of Oberlin University was conducting research at Ōtani the year I was there, and was very generous with his time and advice as I finished writing this dissertation. In the Ōtani Academic Services Office I would also like to thank Ishii Miho and Takigami Yōko who helped me immensely throughout my time there. Also at Ōtani, Azuma Shingyō helped me polish up my Japanese for my research presentations at Ōtani and Kōyasan.

At Kōyasan University I studied under Professors Nakamura Honnen, the director of The Institute of Esoteric Culture, and Thomas Eijō Dreitlein, who were not only giving of time and attention, but also helped me establish a strong connection with one of the most interesting places I have ever had the pleasure of visiting. I also benefitted from the encouragement and advice of Professors Fujita Kōtatsu, Kōyasan University president and head of Daien-in temple, Doi Natsuki, and Kitakawa Masahiro. I would also like to thank Eric Swanson for helping me make lasting contacts on Kōyasan.

At Ryūkoku University I would often drop by to chat with Professor Nasu Eishō, who helped me become acquainted with the many resources available at Ryūkoku. Uchimoto Kazune of the Ryūkoku University Research Center for Buddhist Cultures in Asia (BARC) was also extremely helpful. I would also like to thank Professor Galen Amstutz who not only helped me make initial inquiries into research affiliations at Ōtani and Ryūkoku, but also gave me a great deal of advice as I formulated my research topic.

Professor Brian Ruppert became a partner in dialogue in the later stages of this project. Long before we ever met in person, I had already benefitted greatly from the numerous articles, and lines from texts dug out of boxes at ancient temples that he sent me.

Other friends and partners in dialogue throughout the long journey to finish this dissertation include: Dylan Luers, Orion Klautau, Matthew Mitchell, Pamela Runestad, Caleb Carter, Ngo Ti, and Hillary Pedersen, Matthew McMullen, Mikael Bauer, Xiao Yue, Satō Mona, and many others too numerous to name.

Finally, none of this would have been possible without my lovely wife Claire and our meccha genki daughter Maya Jane. I dedicate this dissertation to you two.

CONVENTIONS

The Buddha is said to have encouraged his disciples to teach in the languages of their intended audience. As a result “Buddhist Studies” has been a multi-lingual discipline since long before its modern incarnation. For better or worse, the academic discipline we know today as Buddhist Studies has historically employed Sanskrit, or “Buddhist-Hybrid English,” as the lingua franca in the discipline. While this dissertation is focused on the Buddhist traditions of East Asia, however, in order to render it more accessible to scholars in other areas, the Sanskrit versions of names, schools of thought, and titles of texts are retained wherever possible. In addition, due to the length accrued through inclusion of Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean or Japanese equivalents for the titles of texts, deities, and persons, in principle, these have been moved to the footnotes. Equivalents of technical terms and place names have been left inline for ease of reading. For example:

Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量壽經 (T. 360)

Sukhāvatī 極樂 (C. Jile, J. Gokuraku) Upon first mention in a chapter of a technical term, text, or name, I have included the Hanzi/Kanji 漢 , which have been rendered in their traditional forms 繁體 (C. fantizi, J. hantaiji), as this way of rendering characters is closer to those used in premodern East Asia. Modern Japanese personal names and works published after the modern character standardization, however, retain they simplified form.

Finally, throughout this dissertation, a number of mantras, dhāraṇī, and spells will be examined. While I will provide the Chinese characters and Sanskrit pronunciation (or approximation), because these “technologies of the mystery of speech” were often left untranslated in the original context, and because their literal meaning is either irretrievable or irrelevant, I will leave them untranslated throughout.

ABSTRACT MYSTERIES OF SPEECH AND BREATH: DŌHAN’S 道範 (1179-1252) HIMITSU NENBUTSU SHŌ 祕密念佛抄 AND ESOTERIC PURE LAND BUDDHISM

by Aaron P. Proffitt

Through my analysis and translation of Dōhan’s (1179-1252) Himitsu nenbutsu shō (Compendium on the Secret Contemplation of Buddha), I have investigated the broader Japanese and East Asian Buddhist context for “Esoteric” (aka, Tantra, Vajrayāna, etc.) approaches to rebirth in the “Pure Land” paradise of the Buddha Amitābha, and opened up new avenues for academic inquiry into ritualized speech acts as technologies for negotiating the perceived gulf between enlightened Buddhas and ordinary beings, as well as Buddhist theories of religious diversity, death, and rebirth.

In Part I (Chapters I-III), I synthesize traditional and contemporary Chinese, Japanese, and English language scholarship on the history of Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism, and read across a diverse range of premodern Chinese and Japanese ritual and doctrinal texts in order to demonstrate that throughout East Asian Buddhist history, Pure Land Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism functioned not simply as two discrete or exclusive “kinds” of Buddhism, but rather as mutually informative dimensions of a diverse Mahāyāna ritual and devotional environment.

In Part II (Chapters IV-VI), I investigate Dōhan’s contemporary and local context, focusing in particular upon the Kōyasan mountain monastic complex where Dōhan became one of the most significant scholar-monks of the medieval Shingon tradition, and demonstrate that the nenbutsu (the ritual chanting of the name of the Buddha Amitābha, “Namu Amida Butsu”) was fundamental to the religious lives of the elite monastics and peripatetic ascetics that made up the heterogeneous groups on Kōyasan.

In Part III, I present my annotated translation of the first fascicle of Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō. In the first fascicle of this text, Dōhan lays out his vision of the diversity of Pure Land practice, wherein exoteric “dualist” (this world and the Pure Land are separate) and esoteric “non-dualist” (this world and the Pure Land are one) conceptions of the nature of salvation are allowed to stand together in an exo/esoteric dialogic tension, without necessarily being resolved.

INTRODUCTION

How have Buddhists understood the apparent gulf between the ultimate reality of enlightened Buddhas and the provisional reality of ordinary beings? Endeavoring to understand the nature of these two seemingly irreconcilable realities, approaching the ultimate from the position of the provisional, Buddhists have developed a variety of strategies for engaging the relationship between Buddhas and other beings. In particular, the perennial issue of the relationship between Buddhist practice and the attainment of awakening has driven much of Buddhist debate. Is awakening something that happens through individual effort, is it a willed act, or is it something that arises naturally, an unwilled act? Buddhism as a whole (if we can imagine such a thing) has maintained an open canon, and therefore, religious diversity (ritual, doctrinal, etc.) has increased over time, and so, along with efforts to understand and achieve awakening, Buddhist systems have continually established new ways of dealing with the proliferation of “Buddhisms.”

As European and American scholars began to study Buddhism, they too found intractable the diversity of the Buddhist tradition. Establishing a variety of categories, taxonomies, and phylogenies, these scholars organized and defined the Buddhist world.2 It is not the argument of

2 Regarding the history of the early Western study of Buddhism see: Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Curators of the Buddha:

The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); “Burnouf and the Birth of

Buddhist Studies,” The Eastern Buddhist 43.1 (2012): 25-34; From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013); Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, or, How

this dissertation that categorization, as such, is a pointless endeavor, nor will it be argued that early scholars of Buddhism simply got it all wrong (though they often did), but rather, I will argue that many of the categories scholars have used in the field, the “kinds” of Buddhism around which scholars orient their study, are in need of serious redefinition and reevaluation. Furthermore, by looking to the strategies Buddhists have used to engage the diversity of the Buddhist tradition itself, contemporary scholars (Buddhist or otherwise) might develop a more dynamic approach to traditions and practices that, upon initial inspection, do not seem to fit the standard models of analysis.

In order to accomplish this aim, I will bring to light the life and work of Dōhan 道範 (1179-1252),3 an early medieval Mount Kōya 高野山 (hereafter Kōyasan) scholar-monk, contextualize his thought and ritual activities in the broader medieval Japanese and East Asian contexts, and present my translation of the first fascicle of his Himitsu nenbutsu shō 祕密念佛抄

(Compendium on the Secret Contemplation of Buddha, hereafter “Compendium”). In this text, Dōhan presents his vision of the shingon gyōnin 眞言行人, the practitioner of mantra, and engages in a synthetic dialogue with the diverse range of beliefs and practices concerning the

European Universalism was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Eugene Burnouf, Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism, trans. Katia Buffetrille and Donald S. Lopez Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). 3 MD, 549a, MBD, 4612b. Regarding Dōhan’s biography, see: Nakamura Honnen’s 中村本然 discussion of Dōhan’s life and death dates, “Dōhan no seibotsunen nitsuite 道範の生没年について,” on the blog for the Kōyasan daigaku Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo 高野山大学密教文化研究所, from December 15th, 2011, accessed, May 17th,

2012, http://www.koyasan-u.ac.jp/mikkyobunka/blog/diary.cgi?field=9; Satō Mona 佐藤 もな, “Dōhan ni kansuru kisoteki kenkyū denki shiryō wo chūshin toshite 道範に関する基礎的研究 伝記史料を中心として,” Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronshū 仏教文化研究論集 7 (2003): 85-95 (L); Yamaguchi Shikyo 山口史恭, “Dōhan cho Himitsu nenbutsu shō no hihan taishō nitsuite 道範 『秘密念仏鈔』の批判対象について,” Buzankyōgaku taikaikiyō 豊山教学大会紀要 30 (2002): 81-122, especially 81-82, and footnote 1, 115-116; and Matsuzaki Keisui 松崎惠水,

Heian mikkyō no kenkyū: Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban wo chūshin toshite 平安密教の研究 : 興教大師覚鑁を中心として (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 2002), 739-752, 785-790. See also Chapter IV of this dissertation. Buddha Amitābha 阿彌陀如來, the practice of the nenbutsu 念佛, and the nature of rebirth in the “Pure Land” paradise, Sukhāvatī 極樂淨土 (C. jile jingtu, J. gokuraku jōdo).

Through investigating the diverse range of sources employed in Dōhan’s Compendium I argue that the secret nenbutsu 秘密念佛 (C. mimi nianfo, J. himitsu nenbutsu) is not simply an example of “syncretism” between “Esoteric Buddhism” 密教 (C. mijiao J. mikkyō; aka, Vajrayāna, Tantra, etc.) and “Pure Land Buddhism” 淨土教 (C. jingtujiao, J. jōdokyō), often regarded as two mutually exclusive “kinds” of Buddhism, but in fact is built upon precedent that stretches throughout the history of East Asian Buddhism. Moreover, I demonstrate that Dōhan’s “Esoteric” approach to the nenbutsu is not simply an orthodox Shingon School 眞言宗 (C.

Zhenyan-zong, J. Shingon-shū) stance on Pure Land, because the concept of “orthodoxy”—and perhaps the Shingon School itself—had, in the sense of a homogenous institutional identity, yet to be established. Furthermore, Dōhan uses the nenbutsu to encompass a wide range of Buddhist practices and concepts, thus demonstrating a “dialogic” engagement with esoteric 密教 (J. mikkyō) and exoteric 顯教 (J. kengyō) perspectives on Buddhist practice and attainment common across early-medieval Japanese religious traditions. In other words, Dōhan’s “Esoteric Pure Land” 密教淨土教 (J. mikkyō jōdokyō) perspective on the nenbutsu may be better understood as an

“exo/esoteric,” or kenmitsu nenbutsu 顯密念佛.8 The “secret nenbutsu” to which the title alludes is argued by Dōhan to be not only the ritual recitation of the name of Amitābha, but to be none other than the very in- and out-breath of sentient beings, the breath of life 命息 (J. myōsoku), or “vital breath,” that not only serves as the life-force of the universe, but also ultimately leads all beings to awakening.9 According to Dōhan, the nenbutsu (commonly divided between contemplation of the Buddha’s aspects and the chanting of the Buddha’s name) encompasses, or, perhaps, undergirds, all Buddhist practice, whether shallow or deep, superficial or profound. Therefore, even the simple act of chanting the name, associated with the initial aspiration for awakening, is itself the attainment of Buddhahood. While it may appear to the modern reader that this kind of inversion constitutes a contradiction— the deep revealing the shallow to be, in fact, deep—in Dōhan’s medieval context,10 this mode of thought was rather pervasive.

inner and outer, provisional and ultimate may shift position, suspending simple resolution. Regarding the concept of the “dialogic,” see: M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas, 1981). 8 The concept of “Esoteric Pure Land,” and the place of nenbutsu practice in Japanese Esoteric Buddhist culture is explored in: Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一, Heianki shingonmikkyō no kenkyū: Heianki no shingonmikkyō to

mikkyōjōdokyō 平安期真言密教の研究: 平安期の真言教学と密教浄土教, vol. 2. Tokyo: Nonburu sha, 2008. See also Kuroda’s discussion of Pure Land in the kenmitsu “exo-esoteric” culture of early-medieval Japan: Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄, Nihon chūsei no kokka to shūkyō 日本中世の国家と宗教 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shōten, 1975 [repr. 2007]), 436-441, 482, see also, 280-299. Regarding the term kenmitsu nenbutsu, see the colophon to the SAZ edition of the Compendium: SAZ 266. 9 On the concept of “vital breath,” see: Kameyama Takahiko 亀山隆彦, “Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru myōsoku shisō no tenkai— Shūkotsushō wo chūshin ni 中世真言宗における命息思想の展開--『宗骨抄』を中心に,”

Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 59 (2011): 651-654; and James Sanford, “Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu,” in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. Richard Payne (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 161-190.

10 Jacqueline Stone, Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), 153-167, discusses the hermeneutical strategies employed by medieval Tendai

Dōhan’s Compendium pursues dialogue across a catholic range of Buddhist doctrinal and ritual texts to argue that one of the most common forms of lay and monastic devotional practice, the chanting of the name of the Buddha Amitābha, reveals the highest attainment. According to Dōhan, the body, speech, and mind of ordinary sentient beings is unified with the body, speech, and mind of Buddha(s). Therefore, because the reality of the physical body is itself contiguous with ultimate reality, the body serves as the site for awakening. The initial aspiration for the attainment of Buddhahood and the inherent “always-already” present attainment of that goal, the defiled realm beings inhabit and the blissful realm of the Buddhas, “this-world” and the “nextworld,” are fundamentally non-dual and interpenetrating, and yet they are recognized to abide in a creative tension with one another. Therefore, even the simple act of reciting the name of the Buddha possesses within it the highest truth. This is Dōhan’s secret (or “esoteric”) reading of the nenbutsu.

Dōhan’s “secret nenbutsu” and “Esoteric” approaches to the Pure Land more broadly, have generally been studied from two basic perspectives. First, scholars favoring the “syncretism” model, such as Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田良洪11 and James Sanford,12 and most other scholars writing on the topic, tend to see “Esoteric” approaches to the Pure Land as an example of “syncretism” between two separate and coherent entities called “The Pure Land School” and “The Esoteric School.” This perspective basically regards Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism as mutually exclusive “schools” or “kinds” of Buddhism, with set doctrines and practices that people like Dōhan “syncretized.” Drawing upon Robert Sharf’s critical evaluation of the

scholars, including conflation, association, and inspired mystical readings of texts. As she notes, however, this way of reading was not limited to “Tendai” as such, but was rather pervasive throughout the early-medieval scholastic environment.

11 Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田 良洪, “Himitsu nenbutsu shisō no bokkō 秘密念仏思想の勃興,” Taishō daigaku kenkyū kiyō tsūgō 大正大学研究紀要 通号 48 (1963): 43-80, which is an earlier draft of Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 真言密敎成立過程の研究 (Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房佛書林, 1965), 181-232

12 Sanford, “Breath of Life.” modernist construction of Shingon “exo/esoteric” discourse, the purported “syncretism” of Chan and Pure Land, and the problems that arise from misapplication of anachronistic heuristics to complex premodern phenomena, I demonstrate that whatever else the East Asian “Esoteric” tradition may entail, it always-already included elements and practices now commonly associated with “Pure Land.”

Second, scholars favoring the “orthodox Shingon perspective” model, such as H. van der Veere, Satō Mona 佐藤もな, and others, tend to portray the secret nenbutsu as arising from orthodox “Shingon School” perspectives on the nenbutsu, perhaps arising from a reaction to (or against) the emergence of the so-called Pure Land movement. This perspective moves beyond the syncretic model by recognizing that throughout the history of the East Asian “Esoteric” corpus, Pure Land-oriented spells and mantras proliferated. Moreover, within the Japanese Shingon tradition, Pure Land oriented practices were not uncommon. However, this

second perspective, while recognizing the diversity of approaches to the Pure Land, overestimates the institutional and doctrinal independence of the premodern Shingon tradition. Premodern Japanese religion was not in fact broken up into discrete schools, and the “Shingon School,” in particular, appears to have been particularly fluid. All major temples trained monks in a wide range of Buddhist practice and doctrine, and the Kōyasan environment where Dōhan trained was perhaps even more fluid, with peripatetic ascetics, monastics and non-monastics, from institutions based in Nara 奈良, Kamakura 鎌倉, Heian-kyō 平安京 (present day Kyoto 京都), and Mount Hiei 比叡山 (hereafter, Hieizan). In other words, further inquiry into the contours of the “Shingon School” and its relationship to so-called “Esoteric Buddhism” is required.

The position proposed by this dissertation is indebted to and builds upon the many important insights of the above mentioned scholars, as well as Nakamura Honnen 中村本然, the leading scholars of Dōhan’s thought, as well as Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一, Abe Ryūichi 阿部龍一, Richard K. Payne, George Tanabe, Jacqueline Stone, and others who have laid the foundation upon which I am able to pursue the study of “Esoteric Pure Land” Buddhism. In this dissertation, I will demonstrate that in premodern East Asia, and perhaps even today as well,

“Pure Land Buddhism” and “Esoteric Buddhism” function as mutually informative spheres of Buddhist activity, and not as two discrete kinds of Buddhism that may be “syncretized.” Certainly, so-called “Esoteric” approaches to Pure Land rebirth have been understudied not because of their purported secrecy, but rather, because “Esoteric Pure Land” dimensions of Mahāyāna Buddhist culture have gone largely unnoticed because Buddhist and Japanese Studies continues to rely upon contemporary nationalist and sectarian frameworks for the evaluation of premodern traditions.

Pure Land Buddhism, it has been assumed, is primarily oriented toward post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land paradise of a Buddha, whereas Esoteric Buddhism, we are told, is fundamentally concerned with the attainment of Buddhahood in this very body 卽身成佛 (J. sokushin jōbutsu). Because scholars have relied on such narrow definitions, assuming that Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism must “logically” be mutually exclusive nonoverlapping spheres of activity, the areas where they do “overlap” have been practically invisible (or are in many cases simply explained away…), and have thus generated very little interest.

Many of the ideas and practices that scholars have typically labeled as characteristic of “Pure Land Buddhism” should be recognized as pan-Mahāyāna soteriological orientations and cosmological presuppositions. As Schopen has argued, since at least the first century CE, Sukhāvatī, a paradise now associated with the Buddha Amitābha, has functioned as a generic post-mortem Buddhist paradise, sought after regardless of sectarian or doctrinal affiliation. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that devotion to Amitābha Buddha and aspiration for rebirth in

Sukhāvatī pre-date the emergence of “Mahāyāna” as a distinctive “kind” of Buddhism. The term “Pure Land Buddhism” is quite difficult to define. Both intentionally and unintentionally, most scholarship concerned with Pure Lands tend to employ the lives and legacies of the medieval Japanese monks Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212) or Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1263), the respective founders of the Jōdoshū 淨土宗 and Jōdo Shinshū 淨土眞宗 traditions, as a point of reference, or telos: points upon which all things converge, in their evaluation of “buddhafields” (S. buddha-kṣetra) in Buddhist literature, translated into East Asia as “Pure Lands” 淨土

(C. jingtu, J. jōdo). For the purposes of this dissertation, in order to better understand the place of Pure Land in the “Esoteric” corpus of East Asia, I have largely bracketed Hōnen, Shinran, and the Japanese Pure Land Schools, from the conversation (until Chapters V and VI). Instead, the term Pure Land here refers to a basic cosmological assumption and ubiquitous soteriological orientation (post-mortem or otherwise) across the greater sphere of “Mahā/Vajrayāna” traditions. Esoteric Buddhism, and cognate terms Vajrayāna and Tantra, are notoriously difficult to define, in part, because modern scholars of the

Buddhist tradition and “Esoteric” Buddhist theorists themselves are not univocal as to what exactly the term ought to refer. This vexing heuristic problem will be explored in detail in Part I, Chapters I-III, of this dissertation. Here I employ the term “Esoteric Buddhism” not to refer to a Japanese or East Asian version of a transhistorical Buddhist “Tantrism,” nor to denote a particular “kind” of Buddhism distinct from the broader Mahāyāna network of texts and practices (a connotation mistakenly attributed to “Vajrayāna” discourse). Rather, I use the term “Esoteric Buddhism” as a broad heuristic tool, an artificial construct, or “second order term,” to be used to investigate the overlap between:

1) the pervasive tendency within Buddhist literature to divide the whole of the Buddhist tradition into provisional and ultimate teachings, or exoteric and esoteric 顯密 (C. xian/mi, J. ken/mitsu) levels of revelation

2) “spell craft” 呪術 (C. zhoushu, J. jujutsu), broadly conceived, including verbal or talismanic evocation of mantra 眞言 (C. zhenyan, J. shingon), dhāraṇī 陀羅尼 (C. tuoluoni, J. darani), and spells 呪 (C. zhou, J. ju) (which, in context, are often undifferentiated), employed for this-worldly and other-worldly apotropaic and soteriological outcomes

3) discourse and material culture associated with the ritual genre known as tantra (vidhya, kalpa, and so on) As will be explored below, many of the practices often subsumed under the label “Esoteric Buddhism,” when read in contexts, can be more accurately understood simply as Mahāyāna ritual theory—the concrete ritual enactment (and immediate attainment) of the grand Mahāyāna cosmic vision of reality.

So-called Tantric/Esoteric/Vajrayāna Buddhism has often been studied as if “it” originated and functioned apart from the broader range of Mahāyāna traditions. Furthermore, the study of Esoteric Buddhism in East Asia has often been oriented around the life and thought of Kūkai 空海 (774-835), who is regarded as the founder of the Shingon School, and/or the transmitter of Esoteric/Tantric/Vajrayāna Buddhism to Japan. Dōhan was a major medieval scholar of the ritual and doctrinal works of Kūkai, as well as the works of Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-

1143), who is often looked upon as a revitalizer of Kūkai’s teachings and a second founder in the Shingon tradition. However, Kūkai, the 9th century monk; Kūkai, the object of devotion around which Kakuban or Dōhan oriented his scholastic and ritual identities; and Kūkai, the center of gravity within the contemporary Shingon School, are not necessarily the same entity. Therefore, while investigation into the legacy of Kūkai’s vision of “Esoteric Buddhism” will be central to this dissertation, I will employ a contextual reading across a diverse range of so-called “Esoteric” traditions in East Asia, evaluating the various criteria used by Anglophone, Chinese, and Japanese scholars in their construction of “Esoteric Buddhism” as an object of academic inquiry, so as to better understand Dōhan’s contribution without anachronistically projecting onto his work a homogenized founder-centric vision of medieval Japanese religion.

Therefore, in order to establish a framework within which to evaluate Dōhan’s “Esoteric” approach to the Pure Land, it will be instructive to draw upon recent scholarship on Indian and

Tibetan Buddhism which has suggested a “Mahā/Vajrayāna” perspective, wherein, “Mahāyāna” (sūtra literature) and “Vajrayāna” (ritual praxis and discourse derived from tantras) may be understood as part of a broader cultural dialogue. Similarly, in the Sino-Japanese sphere, “Esoteric” systems—ranging from early mantra, dhāraṇī, and spell texts, to the comprehensive tantric ritual systems—functioned within a broader Mahāyāna cultural and polemical framework wherein

specialists in different doctrinal and textual lineages argued for the superiority of their own “Esoteric” interpretation over the superficial, literalist, or “exoteric” perspectives of their opponents. In other words, Esoteric Buddhism functioned not as a “kind” of Buddhism apart from Mahāyāna Buddhism, nor as a “kind” of Mahāyāna Buddhism, but as a discourse internal to, and in some sense, fundamental to, Mahāyāna Buddhism more broadly, articulated through different ritual lineages and traditions. I will argue that with this basic framework in mind, scholars will be better able to understand how Dōhan’s approach to Pure Land works both in the broader historical context of East Asia, as well as the specific particular context of medieval Japan.

Sectarianism and the History of Japanese Buddhism

Before the early 17th century, Japanese Buddhist monks often specialized in multiple areas of study simultaneously. This was referred to as shoshū kengaku 諸宗兼學, and included the study of Madhyamaka 三論 (C. Sanlun, J. Sanron), Yogācāra 法相 (C. Faxiang, J. Hossō), Vinaya 律 (C. Lü, J. Ritsu), the ritual chanting of dhāraṇī and mantra, the study of “Esoteric” rituals, as well as mastery of the commentarial literature associated with particular texts, such as the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra 妙法蓮華經 (T. 262), Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T. 278, 279),27 Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T. 848), Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 佛說無量壽經 (T. 360), and so on.

This catholic engagement with Buddhist diversity developed in a highly competitive environment, as lineages associated with major temple complexes endeavored to procure patronage and economic influence. Mastery of multiple areas of study, thus, was essential “spiritually,” economically, and politically. However, after the early 17th century, with the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate and the beginning of the Edo period 江戶時代 (16031868), all Buddhist temples were required to affiliate with a particular “head temple” 本山 (J. honzan) and sectarian institution 宗派 (J. shūha), and to refrain from debating with one another.

These head temples were responsible for establishing (and in some sense, creating for the first time) orthodoxies, and for codifying transmission lineages. The training of monks came to focus on the teachings of founders and representatives of these newly established orthodox positions. As a result, the institutions that became Shingon temples, for example, promoted the study of Kūkai, and those that became Pure Land temples promoted the study

of Shinran or Hōnen. The resultant emergence of sectarian studies 宗學 (J. shūgaku), the exclusive study of a single body of doctrinal literature, led to the early-modern compartmentalization of Buddhist knowledge. In the late-19th and early-20th centuries with the establishment of Western style universities, traditional Buddhist seminaries developed academic fields based in part on the Tokugawa sectarian institutional model. Our current tendency to study Buddhism as if it were composed of several discrete “schools” emerged from complex machinations originating in both Japanese and Western academic environments.29

As a result, the founder/sect-centric view of Japanese Buddhist history continues to dominate both the establishment of academic fields of inquiry and the public image of all schools of Japanese Buddhism, including the Shingon and Tendai 天台 schools, founded by Kūkai and Saichō 最澄 (767-822), respectively. Blockbuster fine art exhibitions staged at national museums since the turn of the millennium alone have featured Nichiren 日蓮 (1212-1282) (Tokyo National Museum, 2003; Kyoto National Museum, 2009), Kūkai (Tokyo National Museum,

2004, 2011), Saichō (Kyoto National Museum, 2005; Tokyo National Museum, 2006), and Hōnen (Kyoto National Museum, 2011; combined with a separate exhibition focusing on Shinran, also travelled to the Tokyo National Museum [2011]).30 Needless to say, such foundercentered histories tend to portray certain elements to enrich their core narratives, and to ignore elements that do not. In recent years, scholars have significantly destabilized this hegemonic

29 Jimmy Yu, “Revisiting the Notion of Zong: Contextualizing the Dharma Drum Lineage of Modern Chan Buddhism,” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 113-151; Carl Bielefeldt, “Filling the Zen-shū: Notes on the ‘Jisshū yōdō ki,’” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 7 (1993-4): 221–48; William Bodiford, “When Secrecy Ends: The Tokugawa Reformation of Tendai Buddhism and Its Implications,” in The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion. Ed. Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen (London: Routledge, 2006), 309–30; Duncan Williams, The Other Side of

Zen: A Social History of Sōtō Zen Buddhism in Tokugawa Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); Ryūichi Abe, Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 399-415.

30 I would like to thank Professor Auerback for his help in locating the above mentioned references. master narrative. However, the specter of the sectarian taxonomy hovers even over academic articles published recently, and remains embedded in the very grammar of the field. The persistence of this narrative can be seen in the lengths to which some scholars go towards critiquing sectarian categories, while nevertheless relying on these categories to formulate their research agendas and interests. In other words, this hegemonic discourse is versatile enough to absorb its own critique. Even as a new post-sectarian master-narrative has emerged as a perfunctory requirement in the introductions of dissertations and monographs published over the last two to three decades, the field nonetheless adheres to a framework based in the categorization of discrete “kinds” of Buddhism.

Dōhan is known as an important systematizer of the thought and practice of Kūkai and Kakuban. As a scholar of the two major “founders” of the Shingon tradition, Dōhan has commonly been engaged simply from the perspective of contemporary sectarian founder studies. While I hope to destabilize this way of presenting Dōhan, and while “sectarian” perspectives and narratives might lead to an over reliance on fixed categories, scholars should not dismiss out of hand the contributions made to the field by scholars affiliated with the “theological” wings of Japanese and other Buddhist universities and institutions. It has

become fashionable to criticize sectarianism in contemporary studies of Japanese Buddhism, and to disregard its depth of engagement with a single textual tradition in favor of a generalized knowledge across many different fields. While the sectarian framework of Buddhist studies is one the primary objects of critique in this dissertation, it should be noted that without the careful study of the major texts of the various traditional areas of study currently being carried out at the major sectarian universities, scholars seeking to imagine new areas of study (Esoteric Pure Land, for example) would be at a great disadvantage. It is therefore with great humility that I endeavor to establish a “post-sectarian” framework for the study of Buddhism, not as a “criticism” of shūha scholars, as such, but as an orientation towards a deep engagement with established areas of study that seeks to move beyond traditional regimes of knowledge.

Mysteries of Speech and Breath: Dissertation Chapter Summary Part I (Chapters I-III) Chapter I: “Esoteric Pure Land” Buddhism, an Heuristic Approach

In this section I will present a brief summary of the chapters that comprise this dissertation. In Chapter I, I propose a critical heuristic approach to the study of Mahāyāna Buddhism, turning the critical lens upon both the history of scholarship on Buddhism and the discourses internal to the Buddhist tradition. In particular, in this chapter my aim is to reconsider key constructs within the field, such as sectarian, national, or school affiliations, which continue to

shape the contours of academic discourse on Buddhism. In order to achieve this goal, I inquire into both the history behind this division of labor, and establish the potential for considering “Esoteric Pure” as a useful heuristic device for allowing Dōhan’s “long silenced voice into the conversation.” I do not proposed here that “Esoteric Pure Land” is a kind of Buddhism that has been unexamined, but rather, that Esoteric Pure Land is a useful academic distinction for examining features of the Mahayana world that have until now remained unexamined. Drawing upon Georgios Halkias, Richard K. Payne,34 and J.Z. Smith,35 the overall intent of this chapter is to consider the nature of “second order” terms in the study of Buddhism that seem to take on a life of their own, and re-embed them in their historical and polemical contexts.

In Chapter I, Part I, I examine the early Western conceptualization of the three phases of Buddhist history (as Early, Mahayana, and “Tantric”) in the work of Eugene Burnouf. Drawing upon recent scholarship that has fundamentally undermined many of the premises upon which the “Burnoufian” stratification of Buddhism was first established,36 I synthesize recent scholarship that has demonstrated that many of the purportedly distinctive features of “Mahāyāna” and “Vajrayāna”

Buddhism, such as expansive cosmologies, multiple Buddhas, mantic apotropaic rituals for “this worldly benefit,” and so on, likely have their origins in an “Early” Buddhist environment to which scholars actually have very little (if any) historical access. Therefore, I suggest that if the “Early” Buddhist world is something to which we have little access, the historicist endeavor of establishing clearly defined strata and the progressive development of distinct “kinds” of Buddhism is problematic at best.

In Chapter I, Part II, I inquire into the concept of “Pure Lands,” or the buddha-kṣetra, as a basic feature of the complex Indian Buddhist environment out of which a distinctive “Mahāyāna” institutional and intellectual identity would eventually emerge. In particular, I seek

34 Richard K. Payne, “Introduction,” in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. Richard K. Payne (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 3. 35 Smith, Relating Religion, 193-194.

36 Christian K. Wedemeyer, “Tropes, Typologies, and Turnarounds: A Brief Genealogy of the Historiography of Tantric Buddhism,” History of Religions 40.3 (2001): 223-259; Jonathan Silk, “What, If Anything, Is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications,” Numen 49.4 (2002): 355-405; Gregory Schopen, “Kuṣān Image of Amitābha and the Character of the Early Mahāyāna in India,” in Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, More Collected Papers (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005), 267-268; Paul Mus, Barabuḍur: Sketch of a History of Buddhism Based on Archaeological Criticism of the Texts, trans. Alexander W. Macdonald (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts: Sterling Publishers, 1998), 46; Peter Skilling, Jason A. Carbine, Claudio Cicuzza, Santi Pakdeekham, eds., How Theravada is Theravada?: Exploring Buddhit Identities (Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 2012); Peter Skilling, “Theravada in History,” Pacific World

Journal 3.11 (2009): 61-93; John C. Huntington, “Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10.2 (1987): 88-98; Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism, 72, 225 (note 20). to establish that the Pure Land is not simply the result of “syncretism” between Buddhism and Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, etc.; nor is it a feature of the Sinicization of Buddhism, nor is it even a fundamentally “Mahāyāna” concept. Rather, by pursuing Schopen’s argument that Pure Lands are a “generalized goal,” a generic cosmological assumption and soteriological goal that predates the Buddha Amitābha and the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra tradition, I try to determine why, despite their ubiquity in Buddhist literature (Mahāyāna, and otherwise), Pure Lands have been so little studied by Anglophone scholars.

In Chapter I, Part III, I survey recent scholarship on the construction of Tantra as an object of academic inquiry. Drawing upon Lopez’s argument that the category “Tantra” has been constructed to resolve contradictions inherent within the academic study of Buddhism that are not present in the sources themselves, and Wedemeyer’s argument that the supposed distinction between Mahāyāna and Esoteric Buddhism may be reflective of “ideology, not sociology,” I argue that, rather than view “Tantra” as a free-floating noun, or as a distinct “kind” of Buddhism (“Mahāyāna,” “non-Mahāyāna,” or otherwise), scholars should consider carefully the “Mahā/Vajrayāna” context wherein so-called “Tantric” ritual and “Mahāyāna” discourses are able to abide in the same space.

In Chapter I, Part IV, having established the heuristic limitations and potential for thinking with and beyond categories like Mahāyāna, Pure Land, and Tantra, I propose a basic working definition for “Esoteric Pure Land” as an approach to the bodhisattva path via the discursive and ritual discourses associated with the tantras. By drawing upon scholarship that has already laid the groundwork for such an approach (noted above), I suggest that “Esoteric Pure Land,” as an area of academic inquiry, may not only provide a platform from which to approach neglected dimensions of the greater Mahāyāna tradition, but may also serve as a channel for establishing dialogue on topics of common concern and interest across the East Asian and Indo-Tibetan divide in the field.

Chapter II: Pure Lands in the East Asian “Secret Piṭaka”

In Chapter II, I critically examine various contemporary Anglophone, Japanese, and Chinese academic approaches to the study of “Esoteric Buddhism” in East Asia, and provide a survey of the place of Pure Lands within the East Asian “Secret Piṭaka” 秘密藏 (C. mimizang, J. himitsuzō). In Chapter II, Part I, I consider the way Esoteric/Tantric/Vajrayāna Buddhism has been conceived by such scholars of East Asian Buddhism, such as Michel Strickmann, Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, Charles Orzech, Robert Sharf and Richard McBride (noted above), Ōtsuka Nobuo 大塚伸夫, Richard Payne, and Yan Yaozhong 严耀中, among

others. Following my examination of the current debates over recent definitions for what is or is not “Esoteric” Buddhism in China and East Asia, I suggest that because Pure Land rebirth (pre- and post-mortem) functioned as a generalized and popular goal, it may thus provide a useful lens through which to engage the diversity of Buddhist practices and texts subsumed under the label “Esoteric Buddhism.” Furthermore, by looking to Pure Land thought within the Esoteric corpus, I argue that scholars may redirect the ongoing debate toward the analysis of Esoteric ritual and discourse in context, and away from essentialist heuristic constructs.

In Chapter II, Part II, I survey spell and dhāraṇī literature from early Chinese Buddhist history said to bring about rebirth in the Pure Land. Drawing upon Paul Copp, I begin by focusing in particular upon the Buddhist claim that “powerful words,” in the form of mantra, dhāraṇī, and spells, may serve as potent technologies for bridging the gap between ordinary beings and enlightened Buddhas. Building upon Misaki Ryōshū 三崎良周, I survey recent scholarship that has called into question the utility of concepts like “proto-“ and true-tantra as well as “miscellaneous” esotericism 雜密 (C. zami, J. zōmitsu) and “pure” esotericism 純密 (C. chunmi, J. junmitsu). According to Misaki, these categories are largely the creation of Edo period Japanese shūgaku scholars, and are thus of limited utility when thinking broadly about the socalled “Esoteric” traditions of premodern East Asia.

In Chapter II, Part III, I seek to further problematize the distinction between pure and miscellaneous Tantra/Esoteric Buddhism by focusing on diverse approaches to the Pure Land in the early importation of the ritual texts known as tantras into East Asia, and the development of East Asian “tantric” systems. In particular, I argue that Atikūṭa’s 阿地瞿多 (mid. 6th cent.) translation of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra 陀羅尼集經 (T. 901), may be understood as a middle phase, what I call the “compendium” phase, between the more focused spell and dhāraṇī texts (those texts intended for a single specific purpose), and those

traditions that purport to present a systematic and comprehensive engagement with the Dharma as a whole, such as those promoted by ritual masters like Amoghavajra 不空金剛 (705-774) , and the other so-called Great Tang Ācāryas 阿闍梨 (C. asheli, J. ajari), Vajrabodhi 金剛智 (671-741) and Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637-735). Here, drawing upon Sharf and McBride, I argue that the “systematicity” (shisutemusei システム性) of the tantras was built upon a well-established Mahāyāna polemical foundation and does not clearly distinguish “Esoteric Buddhism” as a distinct kind of Buddhism, and the study of Tang Esoteric Pure Land traditions in purportedly Esoteric and “proto-Esoteric” contexts may provide new strategies for thinking about similar traditions in other parts of East Asia.

In Chapter II, Part IV, I consider briefly the place of Pure Land aspiration within the broader post-Tang “esotericization” of the Chinese Buddhist world. Here, following Copp, I suggest that Zanning’s 贊寧 (919-1001) concept of the “Transmission of the Secret Store” 傳密藏 (Chuan mizang), or Secret Piṭaka may provide a useful way of thinking with and beyond the contemporary and traditional strategies for conceptualizing Esoteric Buddhism in East Asia, thus bridging the early transmission of dhāraṇi literature and the Tang period systematization of “Esoteric” Buddhist culture.

Chapter III: Early Japanese “Esoteric Pure Land”

In Chapter III, I turn to the early history of Buddhism in Japan (6th -12th century) to examine the goal of Pure Land rebirth across “Esoteric” and “proto-Esoteric” traditions, focusing in particular upon the career and later legacy of Kūkai, the monk who is commonly credited as having founded, or transmitted, Esoteric Buddhism. With this chapter, I establish the historical context for the examination of medieval Esoteric Pure Land culture and Dōhan’s life and thought in Part II of this dissertation (Chapters IV to VI). Building upon Chapters I and II, in Chapter III I demonstrate that Dōhan could not have syncretized Esoteric and Pure Land Buddhist traditions because long before he was born, and long before the purported origins of these traditions in their Japanese manifestation, “Esoteric Pure Land” practices and concepts had flourished in Japanese Buddhist culture as it participated in and developed alongside East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The growth of something called Pure Land Buddhism is commonly regarded as a populist reaction against the ecclesiastical elitism of the “Esoteric” culture of early Japan. Scholars who hold this view have been influenced by Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞 and others. This grand triumphalist narrative has been critiqued by Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄, Hayami Tasuku 速水侑, and Kakehashi Nobuaki 梯信暁, and Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一,60 all of whom have looked to the broader dialogical context for the co-emergence of “Esoteric” and “Pure Land” (and what I have identified as “Esoteric Pure Land”) discourses and practices, suggesting that whatever else Pure Land Buddhism may have entailed, it was most certainly embedded within and drew upon the dominant Esoteric Buddhist culture of the time.

In Chapter III, Part I, I examine the 6th to 9th century importation of a variety of doctrinal and ritual texts from the continent by kingdoms on the archipelago we now call Japan. Rather than viewing the water surrounding Japan as a barrier, this chapter looks to it as a highway carrying continental culture, material and intellectual, into the developing Yamato 大和 state. Of particular interest here is the proliferation of spells, images, dhāraṇī, and texts purported to bring this-worldly and otherworldly benefits, and the various ritual professionals (orthodox and otherwise) employed by the ruling elites. In this section I consider the place of the Pure Land in relation to the founding of Tōdaiji 東大寺 and the Daibutsu 大佛, dhāraṇī stupas, and the nature of Pure Land in relation to the technologies recently referred to as komikkyō 古密教, or “old Esoteric Buddhism.”

In Chapter III, Part II, I investigate the life and career of Kūkai and the establishment of “Esoteric” Buddhist discourse. Here I argue that, on the one hand, Kūkai’s novel approach to ritual speech theory and the incorporation of giki 儀軌 (Skt. kalpa, tantra, vidhi) may distinguish his system in some ways from earlier practices on the archipelago, but, when placed in the earlier komikkyō context, scholars may better be able to appreciate Kūkai’s position: less as a “founder,” than as a participant within the broader cosmopolitan “Esoteric” Mahāyāna Sinitic culture as practiced in Nara and Heian-kyō capitals.

Building upon Ryūichi Abe’s argument that it would perhaps be more accurate to imagine Kūkai as establishing a new Esoteric discourse regarding kingship and ritual speech than as founding a new “school” or transmitting a new kind of Buddhism to Japan,62 I suggest that Kūkai may be productively re-read within the context of the East Asian proliferation of jiaoxiang panjiao 教相判釋 (J. kyōsō hanjaku), commonly abbreviated as panjiao, whereby particular texts or technologies common to the broader Mahayana culture are employed as a framing device for engaging the whole of the Buddhist tradition. In other words, rather than viewing Kūkai as a “founder,” I would like to suggest that Kūkai established a new way of thinking about Buddhism as a whole. In order to move beyond the founder-centric sectarian framework for the evaluation of Kūkai’s thought and legacy, in this section I consider the place of Pure Lands and Pure Land aspiration in the literature written by and attributed to Kūkai. Furthermore, I argue for increased

Koshi Shoin 高志書院, 2011); Komikkyō: Nihon Mikkyō No Taidō: Tokubetsuten 古密教: 日本密教の胎動: 特別展 (Nara 奈良: Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館, 2005); Nakano Satoshi 中野聡, Nara jidai no Amida nyoraizō to jōdo shinkō 奈良時代の阿弥陀如来像と浄土信仰 (Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版, 2013). 62 Abe, The Weaving of Mantra, 386-388, and 424-426. attention to the question of Kūkai’s own purported Pure Land aspiration atop Kōyasan, the mountain monastery associated with his mausoleum.63

In Chapter III, Part III, I draw upon recent scholarship that has demonstrated that following Kūkai’s career, the “Esoteric” Buddhist tradition in Japan was largely dominated by Saichō’s Hieizan “Taimitsu 台密” (Tendai mikkyō 天台密教) tradition. Following a survey of the “Esoteric” systems articulated by Ennin 圓仁 (794-864), Enchin 圓珍 (814-891), and Annen 安然 (841-902?), as well as the successful politico-ritual career of Ryōgen 良源 (912-985), I consider the co-emergence of Pure Land Buddhism and hongaku 本覺 original enlightenment discourse from an “Esotericized” Hieizan Buddhist culture, through an examination of the works of Senkan 千觀 (918-983), Zenyu 禪瑜 (913?-990), Genshin 源信 (942-1017), and Ryōnin 良忍 (1073-1132).64

In Chapter III, Part IV, I synthesize recent scholarship on the simultaneous rise of “Kūkai studies”65 空海學 and the revival of Kōyasan as a major pilgrimage center in the 11th and 12th

63 Shirai Yūko 白井優子, Kūkai densetsu no keisei to Kōyasan: nyūjō densetsu no keisei to Kōyasan nōkotsu no hassei 空海伝説の形成と高野山: 入定伝説の形成と高野山納骨の発生 (Tokyo: Dōseisha 同成社, 1986), and Inseiki Kōyasan to Kūkai nyūjō densetsu 院政期高野山と空海入定伝説 (Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2002); Hyōtani Kazuko 俵谷和子, Kōyasan shinkō to kenmon shinshi: Kōbō daishi nyūjō densetsu wo chūshin ni 高野山信仰と権門貴紳 : 弘法大師入定伝説を中心に (Tokyo: Iwata Shoin , 2010); 村上弘子, 高野山信仰の成立と展開 (Tokyo: Yūzankaku 雄山閣, 2009).

64 Paul Groner, Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2000), and Ryōgen and Mount Hiei: Japanese Tendai in the Tenth Century (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2002); Jinhua Chen, Legend and Legitimation: The Formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism In Japan (Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 2009). On the development of mikkyō in the Hieizan lineages, I relied

upon: Mizukami Fumiyoshi 水上文義, Taimitsu shisō keisei no kenkyū 台密思想形成の研究 (Tokyo: Shunjūsha 春秋社, 2008); Misaki Ryōshū 三崎良周, Taimitsu no Kenkyū 台密の硏究 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha 創文社, 1988); Ōkubo Ryōshun 大久保良峻, Taimitsu kyōgaku no kenkyū 台密教学の研究 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2004). For the development of hongaku thought and Pure Land, I focused on Ōkubo Ryōshun, Tendai kyōgaku to hongaku shisō 天台教学と本覚思想 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1998); Jacqueline I. Stone, Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1999); Satō, Tetsuei 佐藤哲英, Eizan Jōdokyō no kenkyū 叡山浄土教の硏究 (Kyōto-shi: Hyakkaen 百華苑, 1979); Nara Hiromoto 奈良弘元, Shoki Eizan Jōdokyō no kenkyū 初期叡山浄土敎の硏究 (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2002).

Abe Ryūichi, “From Kūkai to Kakuban: A Study of Shingon Buddhist Dharma Transmission” (PhD, diss., Columbia University, 1991). centuries, and argue that these were in some sense established upon what might be imagined as an “Esoteric Pure Land” foundation. In this section, I outline the 11th and 12th century Esoteric Pure Land thought of monks based in Nara, such as Eikan 永觀 (1033-111), Chingai 珍海 (1091-1152), and Jippan/Jitsuhan 實範 (?-1144). Next, I consider the activities of monks like

Jōyo 定譽 (958 - 1047) and Ninkai 仁海 (951-1046), major fundraisers who promoted Pure Land aspiration and attainment atop Kōyasan as one way of revitalizing the dilapidated mountain monastic center. Then I briefly consider Ninnaji-based Heian-kyō thinkers, like Saisen 濟暹

(1025-1115), who revitalized the study of Kūkai’s writings. Having established this foundation, I consider the career of Kakuban from a post-sectarian perspective that situates his Taimitsu 台密 and Tōmitsu 東密 lineages, and his turbulent career atop Kōyasan, in the broader “Esoteric Pure Land” context of the 11th and 12th centuries. Furthermore, in preparation for the examination of Dōhan’s life and thought, this section concludes by considering Kakuban’s articulation of the “himitsu nenbutsu,” establishing that while Dōhan and Kakuban may differ in some respects (Kakuban seems to emphasize assimilation and non-duality between the Pure Land and this realm, while Dōhan foregrounds difference and duality, producing a kind of productive tension), they both promoted a perspective on Pure Land thought that is indeed not without precedent in the broader Japanese or East Asian Esoteric Buddhist environment.

Part II

Chapter IV: Dōhan and Medieval Kōyasan Pure Land Culture

Having established a broad foundation for the study of Dōhan as an “Esoteric Pure Land” thinker, a participant in a much larger and on ongoing conversation across the East Asian

Buddhist tradition, in Chapter IV I present what might be termed a contextual ritual biography of Dōhan, emphasizing in particular his early education and material environment, demonstrating that whatever else “Shingon” or “Esoteric Buddhism” might have entailed for Dōhan, by the late-12th and early-13th centuries, Pure Land thought and practice were always-already ubiquitous features of that environment. This chapter argues that inquiry into Dōhan’s thought will provide insight into the early-medieval development of Kōyasan as a heterogeneous “center of gravity” in Japanese religion, the emergence of Kūkai devotion as a major feature of the Shingon School, and the vitality of the “Esoteric Pure Land” culture of Kōyasan.

In Chapter IV, Part I, I examine the institutional and ritual context for Dōhan’s early Shingon training. First looking at the Kōyasan temple Shōchi-in 正智院, where Dōhan studied under Myōnin 明任 (1148–1229), I begin to make the case that Dōhan’s interest in Pure Land and the Buddha Amitābha originated not from the “influence” of the early-medieval Pure Land movement, but that his entire Shingon education seems to have been permeated by engagement with the Pure Land. At Shōchi-in, Dōhan entered the Buddhist path and was trained in the introductory and advanced ritual traditions of the Chū-in-ryū 中院流 lineage—all before an image of the Buddha Amitābha, the primary object of devotion, or honzon 本尊, at Shōchin-in. At Hōkō-in 寶光院, which also revered Amitābha as honzon, Dōhan studied under the tutelage of Kenchō 兼澄 (? – 1202), a close associate of Myōnin, who is known to have emphasized the purification of the karmas for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. From Jikken/Jitsugen 實賢 (1176–1249) of Kongōō-in 金剛王院 at Daigoji 醍醐寺, who would later become the abbot 座

主 (J. zasu), Dōhan received initiation into the mysteries of the Daigoji lineage, and as Kameyama has suggested, may have there encountered the notion that the Buddha Amitābha is the “vital breath” of beings. Jikken’s teacher Seiken 勝賢 (1138-1196), then the zasu of Daigoji, appears to have emphasized Pure Land practice later in life. From Shukaku Hōshinnō 守覺法親王 (1150-1202) of Ninnaji 仁和寺, Dōhan received initiation into the Hirosawa Dharma lineage 廣澤法流. Like Hōkō-in and Shōchi-in, Ninnaji also takes Amitābha as its honzon, and like Dōhan himself, it promoted a dual-devotion to Kūkai and Amitābha. Later in life, Dōhan would often collaborate with Dharma Prince Dōjo 道助法親王 (1196-1249), also of Ninnaji.

This relationship will be explored in greater detail in Chapter V.

Two of Dōhan’s most influential teachers, Kakkai/Kakukai 覺海 (Nanshōbō 勝房) (1142–1223) of the Keōin 華王院 and Jōhen 靜遍 (1165–1223) of Zenrinji 禪林寺, were also important early “Esoteric Pure Land” thinkers. While Kakkai emphasized the non-duality of this world and the Pure Land, Jōhen seems to have emphasized the perspective of the Pure Land aspirant, who may conceive of this world and the Pure Land from a dualist perspective. Moreover, in contrast to Kakkai, who appears to have fostered a rather unsympathetic view of the for post-mortem aspiration rebirth in the Pure Land, Jōhen, in addition to being an influential

“Esoteric” theorist, was at least peripherally involved in the Pure Land community associated with the monk Hōnen, and thus took a more sympathetic view. In 1218, having acquired a copy of Hōnen’s Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū 選擇本願念佛集 (T. 2608), possibly from Hōnen’s disciple Ryūkan 隆寛 (1148-1227), Jōhen wrote a “continuation” 續 (J. zoku) of the text, entitled Zoku senchaku mongi yōshō 續選擇文義要鈔. In this section, I note that these divergent views on the Pure Land seem to have greatly influenced Dōhan, and that because the deaths of Dōhan’s great “Esoteric Pure Land” teachers seems to coincide with his completion of the Compendium, I speculate that Dōhan may have composed this text as a tribute, as a way of placing his teachers in dialogue with one another.

In Chapter IV, Part II, I investigate the development of Pure Land hijiri culture of earlymedieval Kōyasan, further demonstrating the centrality of Pure Land aspiration to the vitality of early-medieval Kōyasan. Drawing upon Gorai Shigeru’s examination of the diverse communities of semi-settled and peripatetic ascetics atop Kōyasan, I note that he identifies the 15th and 17th centuries a key turning points when the centralized administration began a crackdown on the highly fluid, and largely Pure Land oriented, early-medieval Kōyasan environment, instead promoting a more homogeneous, exclusivistic Kūkai-centric “Esoteric” Kōyasan culture.75 During Dōhan’s time, in addition to training students in Esoteric rituals and meditative practices, and promoting the cult of Kūkai, Kōyasan also hosted flourishing Zen and Pure Land communities. Dōhan personally taught two important early-medieval Zen masters: Gyōyū 行勇 (1163-1241), a disciple of Eisai 榮西 (1141-1215), the founder of Rinzai-shū 臨濟宗, and

Shinji Kakushin 心地覺心 (aka, Muhon Kakushin 無本覺心, or Hottō Kokushi 法燈國師) (1207-1298), a student of Dōgen 道元 (1200-1253), the founder of Sōtō-shū 曹洞宗. Kakushin is also known as a teacher of Ippen 一遍 (1239-1289), the founder of the Ji-shū 時宗 school of Pure Land Buddhism. This section notes that there is much work to be done exploring the links between the Zen Schools, Ji-shū, and early-medieval Kōyasan Shingon traditions, and suggests that in some cases there may have been no clear dividing line between these groups.

In Chapter IV, Part III, I examine Dōhan’s exile to Sanuki 讚岐, on the island of Shikoku 四國. In 1243, as a result of a conflagration between Kongōbuji 金剛峰寺 and Daidenbō-in 大傳法院 factions atop Kōyasan, Dōhan and some thirty other mountain administrators were exiled. While in Sanuki, Dōhan resided at Zentsūji 善通寺, the temple said to stand at the birthplace of

Kūkai. There Dōhan continued to teach and train many students, but he often traveled to sites associated with Kūkai’s own time travelling around Sanuki, performing austerities. Dōhan recorded all of this in a travel diary entitled Nankai rurōki 海流浪記, which also contains Japanese and Chinese poetry, waka 和歌 and kanshi 漢詩, respectively, and recounts as well the many rituals he performed while there. These included a fifty-day long Amitābha fire ritual, Amida goma 阿彌陀護摩, which he performed on behalf of his recently deceased friend Hōshō 法性 (d. 1245), a fellow exile and another former student of Kakkai. I argue that, having been cast down from Kōyasan, the place of Kūkai’s death, Dōhan endeavored to reclaim his “Shingon” identity by drawing closer to the place of Kūkai’s birth. Also of interest is Dōhan’s dual-devotion and ritual engagement with both Kūkai and the Buddha Amitābha. Here, as elsewhere, I argue that this feature of medieval Shingon—dual Kūkai-Amitābha devotion—may be a productive area of study for future research.

In Chapter IV, Part IV, I recount Dōhan’s triumphant return to Kōyasan after seven years in exile. Here I emphasize Dōhan’s ritual and scholastic engagement, ranging from training and initiating students into various ritual traditions, to the study of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, and so on. This chapter concludes by considering the nature of religious biography, and argues for an approach to person and place that intentionally destabilizes the essentialist approach to identity, favoring instead a decentralized account that views person and place as the confluence of various “causes and conditions.”

Chapter V: Dōhan and “Kamakura Buddhism”

Having established a biographical framework for investigating Dōhan’s life, Chapter V seeks to investigate Dōhan’s thought in the broader early-medieval context, and make the argument that “Dōhan studies” has the potential to become a significant sub-discipline in medieval Japanese Buddhist studies, just as Dōgen or Shinran studies are recognized today. Chapter V is divided into two parts. In Part I, I examine the concept “Kamakura Buddhism,” and draw upon recent scholarship on this topic that has fundamentally recast the field to open up new areas of inquiry. The present dissertation, it should go without saying, is built upon the foundation established by these scholars. Thus, rather than rehash the debates that have been ongoing for the last forty years, I draw upon the scholarship of Jacqueline Stone, Tanaka Hisao 田中久夫, James Dobbins, Kuroda Toshio, and others to argue for “Dōhan studies” as an important new area of inquiry.

As is widely known by now that before the 1970s (and to some extent today as well), the study of Japanese Buddhism was largely centered around the founders of the Kamakura reform movements: the Pure Land Schools, including Hōnen’s Jōdo-shū, Shinran’s Jōdo Shinshū, and Ippen’s Ji-shū; the Zen Schools, including Eisai’s Rinzai-shū and Dōgen’s Sōtō-shū; and the

Lotus School of Nichiren, known as Hokke-shū 法華宗 or Nichiren-shū 日蓮宗. These “New Buddhist” 新佛教 (J. shin-bukkyō) schools were regarded as the prime movers of the earlymedieval period, towering above their decadent and elitist contemporaries, derided by some scholars as “Old Buddhism” 舊佛教 (J. kyū-bukkyō). According to the modernist interpretation of Buddhist history, which developed during Japan’s own period of rapid modernization, defined by both competition with the West and a drive to dominate other Asian nations, the “Old” schools were associated with “Esoteric” magical thinking and superstition, drawn from premodern Indian and Chinese culture, but the “New” schools were understood as protomodernist, rationalist, and democratically reformist, as well as more compatible with “Japanese” culture.

From the 1970s, scholars like Kuroda Toshio began to reorient this picture by demonstrating that whatever else “Kamakura Buddhism” was, it was necessarily defined by the large “Old” school temple complexes and institutions that, far from being moribund and out of touch, were in fact vital to the development of medieval culture. Kuroda noted that medieval religious institutions interacted with one another through an integrated vision of “exoteric” and “esoteric,” or kenmitsu, ritual and doctrinal culture. In this way, temples competed with one another in the simultaneous mastery of multiple fields of knowledge. Meanwhile, the thinkers of the so-called “New” schools were regarded as marginal and heretical during that time. Having emerged as a dominant perspective in the field, Kuroda’s theories have been subject to numerous critiques,80 however, due to the utility of Kuroda’s approach, these scholars have also worked to nuance certain aspects of his theories.

For example, many scholars have begun to work on the lives of “Old” school thinkers who actively contributed to Kamakura culture, such as Chōgen 重源 (1121-1206),81 Gyōnen 凝然 (1240-1321),82 Jōkei 貞慶 (1155–1213),83 and Myōe 明惠 (1173–1232).84 Each of these monastics were both deeply concerned both with the mastery of “Esoteric” rituals and with the aspiration for, and nature, of Pure Land rebirth. Meanwhile, other scholars have worked to refine key aspects of the institutional basis for the kenmitsu system. These include Mikael Bauer and David Quinter, Janet Goodwin, Alan Grapard, Lori Meeks, Mikael Adolphson, and others.85

80 Ryūichi Abe, “Post-script,” The Weaving of Mantra; James C. Dobbins, “Envisioning Kamakura Buddhism,” Supplement to the May 1991 Issue of the Japanese Religions Bulletin: New Perspectives on Kamakura Buddhism: 111; James H. Foard, “In Search of a Lost Reformation: A Reconsideration of Kamakura Buddhism,” JJRS 7.4

(1980): 261-91; Neil McMullin, “Historical and Historiographical Issues in the Study of Pre-Modem Japanese Religions,” JJRS 16.1 (1989): 3-40; Richard K. Payne, ed., Re-Visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998), and so on.

81 John M. Rosenfield, Portraits of Chōgen: The Transformation of Buddhist Art In Early Medieval Japan (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

82 Gyōnen, and Gishin, The Essentials of the Vinaya Tradition (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995); Gyōnen, and Saichō, The Essentials of the Eight Traditions (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1994); Mark L. Blum, The Origins and Development of Pure Land Buddhism: A Study and Translation of Gyōnen's Jōdo Hōmon Genrushō (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 83 James L. Ford, “Competing With Amida: A Study and Translation of Jōkei’s Miroku kōshiki,” Monumenta Nipponica 60.1 (2005): 43-79; Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006a); “Buddhist Ceremonials (kōshiki) and the Ideological Discourse of Established Buddhism in Early Medieval Japan,” in Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japanese Buddhism, eds., Richard K. Payne and Taigen Daniel Leighton (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2006b), 97-125; “Jōkei and Kannon: Defending Buddhist Pluralism in Medieval Japan,” The Eastern Buddhist 39.1 (2008): 11-28; “Exploring the Esoteric in Nara Buddhism,” EBTEA, 776-793.

84 Hayao Kawai, and Mark Unno, The Buddhist Priest Myōe: A Life of Dreams (Venice: Lapis Press, 1992); George J. Tanabe, Myōe the Dreamkeeper: Fantasy and Knowledge in Early Kamakura Buddhism (Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1992); Unno, Mark “As Appropriate: Myōe Kōben and the Problem of the Vinaya In Early Kamakura Buddhism,” (PhD, diss., Stanford University, 1994), and Shingon Refractions: Myōe and the Mantra of Light (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2004).

85 David Quinter, “The Shingon Ritsu School and the Mañjuśrī cult in the Kamakura Period: From Eison to Monkan” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 2006); Mikael Bauer, “The Power of Ritual: An Integrated History of Medieval Kōfukuji” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2011); Janet Goodwin, Alms and Vagabonds: Buddhist Temples and Popular Pilgrimage in Medieval Japan (Honolulu; University of Hawai’I Press, 1994); Allan Grapard, The Protocol of the Gods A Study of the Kasuga Cult in Japanese History (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992); Lori

Meeks, Hokkeji and the Reemergence of Female Monastic Orders in Premodern Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawa’i Press, 2010); Mikael Adolphson, The Gates of Power: Monks, Coourtiers, and Warriors in Premodern Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2000). However, as Ford, Stone, and Quinter have noted, the corrective shift away from charismatic individuals to institutions may leave unexamined the implicit assumption that the “Old” schools were out of touch and bound solely to elitist institutions and interests.

Scholars like Tanaka Hisao, Brian Ruppert, and James Dobbins have proposed a focus on “cultic centers” as one solution to this problem. By looking to place as a strategy for moving beyond the focus on either institutions or charismatic individuals, they have emphasized the need to think beyond simplistic divisions between “Old” and “New,” focusing instead up the heterogeneous engagement and contestation of tradition at sites where institutions and individuals actively participated in developing new approaches to Buddhist practice. For this dissertation I propose early-medieval Kōyasan as just such a site, following George Tanabe who has noted that medieval Kōyasan was an active and popular site in the Japanese religious landscape, inhabited by diverse groups of people that resist overly rigid classification.

Other strategies for breaking down the divide between Old and New school have been developed by Jaqueline Stone, David Quinter, and James Ford, who have noted that as a new consensus emerges in the field, it too will require further adjustment. Quinter, for example, examines the work of Eison/Eizon 叡尊 (1201-1290) and his Shingon-risshū lineage 眞言律宗, including Nishō Ryōkan 忍性良觀 (1217-1303), Shinkū 信空 (1229-1316), and Monkan 文觀

(1278-1357), whom we might think of as Old School reformers active in social outreach. Jacqueline Stone has examined the relationship between Hieizan Tendai and the New School reformers who trained there, demonstrating that a “shared paradigm” for enlightenment seems to have unified these traditions. James Ford has developed that idea by suggesting that this shared paradigm was not limited to Hieizan Tendai, and the various traditions that developed out from it, but also may have included Nara and Shingon lineages. Stone’s notion of a shared paradigm is defined by a pervasive emphasis on the immediate attainment of awakening is a single moment, through a singular focus on a simple practice, that ultimately encompasses the whole of the Buddhist path.

While Stone and others have emphasized that the hongaku discourse that evolved out of Hieizan is not synonymous with Esoteric Buddhism, work remains to be done in exploring the complex relationship between the medieval development of mikkyō and hongaku as complimentary facets of constituting what we might term a “unifying” paradigm for Buddhist practice and doctrine. In Chapter V more generally, therefore, I examine Dōhan’s doctrinal works, and the social context within which these works were composed to reveal that Dōhan’s Kōyasan Shingon tradition clearly fits into Stone’s shared paradigm, and may also help scholars better understand the interconnection of mikkyō and hongaku.

In Chapter V, Part II, having established a framework for the study of Dōhan as a major “Kamakura Buddhist” thinker, I examine Dōhan’s major extant works, and demonstrate that his scholarship on Pure Land, Kūkai-studies, and Esoteric Buddhism more broadly, indeed fits within what Jacqueline Stone has described as a “shared paradigm” for medieval Japanese religion. In addition, as many of Dōhan’s works were composed in dialogue with other teachers, such as Dōjo Hōshinnō, I suggest that following in the Ninnaji tradition of Saisen and Kakuban, where Dōhan also trained under Shukaku, Dōjo appears to have been very interested in the study of Kūkai’s doctrinal works, and often employed Dōhan on several occasions to lecture on or compose works on Kūkai’s doctrinal works, the many of the classics of the East Asian Esoteric tradition, as well as Shingon meditation and ritual practice, or “yoga.” Therefore, Dōhan’s works from this period reveal the state of early-medieval Kūkai studies and the contours of one corner of the Shingon tradition at the time.

Texts composed by Dōhan for Dōjo or his students include the Jōōshō 貞応抄 (T. 2447) and the Yugikyō kuketsu 瑜祇経口決. In addition, Dōhan also composed for Dōjo the Dainichi kyōsho joanshō 大日經疏除暗鈔 and Dainichi kyōsho henmyō shō 大日經疏遍明鈔, two sub-commentaries on Yixing’s 一行 (638-727) Darijing shu 大日經疏 (T. 1796), itself a famous commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T. 848). The Bodaishinron dangiki 菩提心論談義記 is Dōhan’s commentary on Amoghavajra’s Jin’gangding yujia zhong fa anouduoluosanmiaosanputi xin lun 金剛頂瑜伽中發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心論 (T. 1665), commonly known in Japan as the Bodaishinron 菩提心論. The Rishushaku hidenshō 理趣釈秘伝鈔 is Dōhan’s sub-commentary on the Dale jin’gang bukong zhenshi sanmeiye jing banruo boluomiduo liqushi 大樂金剛不空眞實三昧耶經般若波羅蜜多理趣釋 (T. 1003) (J. abbr. Rishushaku), itself a commentary on the Dalejin’gangbukong zhenshisanmoye jing 大樂金剛不空眞實三摩耶經 (T. 243) (J. abbr. Rishukyō 理趣經).

Dōhan also wrote commentaries and sub-commentaries on Kūkai’s works. For example, the Shakumakaenron ōkyōshō 釋摩訶衍論應教鈔 (T. 2288) is a “sub-sub-commentary” on Kūkai’s sub-commentary on the Shimoheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (T. 1668),99 itself an important commentary on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna 大乘起信論 (T. 1666). The

Hizōhōyaku mondanshō 秘蔵宝鑰問談鈔 is a compilation of Dōhan’s lectures on Kūkai’s Hizōhōyaku 祕藏寶鑰 (T. 2426). The Sokushin jōbutsugi kikigaki 卽身成佛義聞書 is the record of a dialogue between Dōhan, Hōshō, and several other medieval Shingon thinkers as they discuss Kūkai’s Sokushin jōbutsu gi 卽身成佛義 (T. 2428). The Shōji jissōgi shō 聲 實相義抄 is a commentary on Kūkai’s Shōjijissōgi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429). The Hannya shingyō hiken kaihō shō 般若心経秘鍵開宝鈔 is a commentary on Kūkai’s Esoteric explication of the Heart Sūtra, Hannya shingyō hiken ryakuchū 般若心經祕鍵略註 (T. 2203B). The Kongōchōgyō kaidai kanchū 金剛頂經開題勘註, is Dōhan’s commentary on Kūkai’s Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂經開題 (T. 2221).

As part of Dōhan’s Kōbō Daishi scholarship, Dōhan also cultivated a deep devotion to the life of Kūkai and Kōyasan. Dōhan composed a commentary on the Kōbō Daishi ryaku joshō 弘法大師略頌鈔, a poetic recounting of the major events in Kūkai’s life, composed in 18 verses by Enmyō 圓明 (d. 851), one of Kūkai’s major disciples. Also, Dōhan’s Nanzan hiku 山秘口 presents Kōyasan as an auspicious site for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. Dōhan also recorded the works of his teachers Kakkai and Jōhen. The Benkenmitsu nikyōron shukyō (tekagami) shō 弁顕密二教論手鏡抄 is a record of Jōhen’s lectures on Kūkai’s Benkenmitsu nikyō ron 辯顯密二教論 (T. 2427), and the Chō kaishō 聴海抄, records the teachings of Kakkai.

In addition to his Kūkai scholarship, and his teaching on Esoteric ritual and doctrine, Dōhan also taught introductory practices that seem to fit perfectly the “shared paradigm” described by Stone. The Dōhan shōsoku 道範消息, 9 and the Aun gōkan 阿吽合観, present the contemplation of the syllable A 阿 觀, (J. ajikan). The Shoshin tongaku shō 初心頓覺鈔 presents Shingon practices for the beginner, emphasizes the non-obstruction of evil karma, and argues that the initial stage of awakening is itself the highest attainment. The Kōmyō shingon shijū shaku 光明真言四重釈 contains Dōhan’s secret teachings on the Mantra of Light. The scholarship of Mark Unno and David Quinter, noted above, also address the popularity of this practice in early medieval Japan. Finally, Dōhan’s commentary and exegesis on Unjigi shakukanchū shō 吽 義釋勘註抄,113 a commentary on Kūkai’s Unjigi 吽 義 (T. 2430), serves as an introduction to the practice of Shingon. Dōhan also commented on deathbed practices for Pure Land rebirth in Dōhan nikka rinjū higi 道範日課臨終秘儀, and Rinjū yōshin ji 臨終用心事.

In this chapter, by outlining key features of Dōhan’s thought, I present but one corner of the state of Kūkai studies in medieval Japan, an important and largely missing key to understanding the relationship between Kūkai and medieval Esoteric culture, often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous. Ultimately, this chapter argues that Dōhan studies, as an area of study comparable to Dōgen or Shinran studies, may open up important windows into medieval Japanese religion, including, but not limited to, the nature of medieval “Kūkai studies,” the complex relationship between hongaku doctrinal thought and Esoteric ritual practice, and as well, Pure Land thought and practice in medieval “Esoteric Buddhism.”

Chapter VI: Mysteries of Speech and Breath

In Chapter VI, which is divided into four parts, I examine in detail key issues arising in Dōhan’s Compendium, a synthetic composition bringing together many voices from the Esoteric and Pure Land traditions. This chapter serves as both an introduction to the text as a whole, and an analysis of key passages from the translation that follows in Part III of this dissertation. The Compendium was composed in 1223 in three fascicles. In addition to serving as a philosophical and doctrinal introduction to Dōhan’s perspective on Pure Land thought more broadly, I argue that this text presents a perspective on the nenbutsu that ultimately resists simple characterization as “Esoteric,” and rather encompasses what I argue is a kenmitsu nenbutsu perspective wherein multiple visions of reality are able to stand together in a productive tension that is not necessarily resolved.

In this way, I suggest that Dōhan’s perspective opens up a space for dialogue that may move beyond the struggle between exclusivistic and universalistic Buddhist truth claims, while also establishing a philosophical foundation for the need to debate and engage critically religious others. For example, in addition to articulating his own vision of Kūkai’s Esoteric Buddhist system, Dōhan also draws upon Chinese Tiantai and Japanese Tendai thinkers such as Zhiyi 智

(538-597) and Annen 安然 (841-915?), as well as the famous Pure Land thinker Shandao 善導 (613-681), among many others, not simply as polemical fodder, but as partners in dialogue and debate.

In Part I, of this chapter, I begin my analysis of the text by examining the words of the title: Himitsu (or Himitsu-shū), nenbutsu, and shō. By using a conventional Buddhist exegetical approach (using the title of a given text to explicate its meaning) in an unconventional way, I speculate that it is possible that Dōhan may have intended for the title alone to convey to the reader what he was ultimately trying to say: that the easiest, most common, and to some, “lowest,” form of practice (the nenbutsu) is in fact itself (sono mama) the highest attainment. Following this, I present a brief description of all of the many sections and sub-sections that comprise the work, addressing each of the topics considered under these sub-sections.

In Part II, I examine in close detail several key passages that support my argument that Dōhan’s nenbutsu moves beyond both an “Esoteric” critique of “exoteric” Pure Land thought (exclusivist), as well as the proposition that all practices are ultimately the same (universalist), and ultimately arrives at a kenmitsu perspective that allows the tension between competing systems to stand without necessarily being resolved. Here I argue that throughout the Compendium, Dōhan employs a variety of strategies, including selective quotation of sources, conflation, assimilation, comparison, inversion, and what the modern reader might label as logical contradiction, all in an effort to front load tension and difference as conceptual strategies for thinking about the practice of the nenbutsu.

Building upon this section, I consider some of the philosophical and ethical implications of Dōhan’s vision of Pure Land practice. First, I engage with Dōhan’s metaphorical use of the relationship between speech and breath. Speech, it would seem, is a willed act that “I,” the agent of my actions, perform. The nenbutsu, therefore, is a willed act. Breath, on the other hand, is a natural, spontaneous, or unwilled act. Breath arises naturally within “me” of its own accord. While “I” might concentrate on the breath as an act of meditation, for the most part, breath is an unwilled act. And yet, this “unwilled” act fundamentally establishes the basis for which the “willed” act of speech may be performed. Because, for Dōhan, the “secret” of the nenbutsu (which literally means just “contemplation of buddha”) is that it is the very breath that animates beings, and all speech is to be understood as “mantra,” nenbutsu-breath/life-mantra therefore provides a basis upon which all Buddhist practice, high and low, esoteric and exoteric, and so on, may be efficacious. In other words, the thing that makes Buddhist practice work is life itself, something that no one controls.

In this section, I note that while Dōhan recognizes a basis for dialogue across differences of approach, he was not saying that difference does not matter, but rather continued to approach the practice of Buddhism from his own Kūkai-centered perspective. In this way, I suggest that he is therefore presenting us with the medieval Japanese vision for how to deal with religious difference while still advocating for one’s own perspective. All truth claims are situated claims; there is no unmediated access, because mediation itself is fundamental to the enterprise of being a sentient being. However, for Dōhan, that positionality is itself none other than “Buddha,” not a position removed from Buddha. Dōhan’s perspective maintains a certain harmony with “postmodern” Buddhist thinkers like Jin Park who draws upon Zen and Huayan thought to consider deeply the nature of ethics and religious diversity and difference. Twenty years after composing this work, Dōhan became embroiled in a violent dispute over patronage. This may demonstrate that these ideas were formulated in a turbulent context where contestation was a daily reality, and not simply the philosophical musings of an out-of-touch elitist.

In Part IV, I conclude this chapter on Dōhan’s Pure Land thought by proposing a few possible avenues for future inquiry, such as an “esoteric” reading of Shinran. As recent scholarship has demonstrated,116 there is considerable utility in approaching Shinran as a participant in the kenmitsu culture of his time. As Kuroda Toshio and James Dobbins have noted, Shinshū historiography has largely divorced Shinran from his early-medieval environment. In

116 Takeda Kazuma 武田一真, Shinran jōdokyō no tokuisei—Kūkai mikkyō tono taihi wo tōshite 親鸞浄土教の特異性―空海密教との対比を通して (Kyoto: Nagata bunshōdō, 2013); Koyama Satoko 小山聡子, Shinran no shinkō to jujutsu: byōki chiryō to rinjū gyōgi 親鸞の信仰と呪術病気治療と臨終行儀 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2013).

this section I suggest that by placing Dōhan and Shinran in artificial dialogue with one another, we may reach a more contextually based understanding of the importance of Esoteric Buddhism in early Shinshū, as well as a more nuanced understanding of the place of Pure Land thought in medieval Shingon. Building upon this section, I then speculate on the potential for employing the Avataṃsaka-sūtra as a tool for the analysis of “Esoteric Pure Land,” drawing upon a text that exerted a significant influence upon both Shinran and Kūkai, in order to establish a more substantial dialogue across two of the most important traditions in Japanese Buddhist history.

Part III

Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō (Fascicle I), Annotated Translation

In Part III of this dissertation, I provide a fully annotated translation of the first fascicle of the Compendium. In this way, I hope to introduce an important piece of Dōhan’s writings on Pure Land to the Anglophone world, and promote the further study of Dōhan’s other works as well.

Conclusion

Toward a “Middle Way” Buddhist Studies Methodology

In this dissertation, I have drawn in particular upon Lopez’s “tripartite procedure” in the pursuit of a creative and conscientious approach to Buddhist Studies scholarship. Lopez suggests that first, scholars must think as broadly as possible about the historical context of any text we study. How does it connect to other texts in the Buddhist world, and what are the historical and social “causes and conditions” that led to its authorship? This is not done in order to locate the meaning of a text reductively in political or economic machinations. Rather, this approach provides us with a more rigorous engagement with the environment and ideas within which an author produced a given work and the world of meaning to which that author was responding. Recently, scholarship on medieval Japanese Buddhism has shifted away from doctrine and the history of ideas, refocusing instead on institutions and empirical data. This dissertation will work to contextualize Dōhan’s thought in the activities of Kōyasan monks and Pure Land aspirants in order to “humanize” the activities of these “Old School” monks, and show their relevance to the evolving devotional environment of the medieval Japanese and premodern East Asian world.

Second, Lopez suggest that scholars must think critically about how a given text has been studied in both traditional and modern contexts. That texts like Dōhan’s Compendium seem to have fallen through the cracks is no surprise. The modern and contemporary sectarian perspectives guiding the evolution of Buddhist Studies as an academic discipline have led to fairly rigid textual taxonomies that often fail to account for pre- and trans-sectarian practices and communities. Scholars must think critically about the causes and conditions that allowed us moderns to study texts the way we do. This means that scholars must take the long view, looking to past commentators and their often conflicting perspectives on what a text means. A text does not simply present a single perspective. Rather, each text’s meaning changes depending on how it is being used, and by whom. Dōhan’s Compendium presents many passages from a vast array of classic sūtras and commentaries from China and Japan, to which are appended his own personal comments. Therefore, in analyzing his presentation, it will be instructive to see how other monks created meaning from the same texts, and consider how they were used in different context. Moreover, it will also be useful to think about how contemporary traditions understand these texts so that we can see how meaning-making changes over time.

Third, Lopez argues that scholars of Buddhism must critically reflect upon their own positionality, how we have come to construct our position in relation to the text, and what our “scholarly agency” means. Lopez notes that this rigorous self-reflexivity must reach a middle path between radical contextualism—the notion that meaning is as irretrievable as we are removed from the text’s context—and the simplistic reductionism of comparative philosophy, which seeks to compare universal features that transcend context. That we direct the hermeneutics of suspicion to our own intellectual genealogy, and that of another context and time, will reveal that we do not write in worlds “separate” from our object of study. Rather, the historiography we construct around our object of study,

no matter how strongly/deeply rooted in evidence, is always-already a creative (and even literary) endeavor. We construct the world of our object of study as we study it. That there is no unmediated access to the past does not mean we have no access. We must remember that the act of academic writing strives for the goal of objectivity while placing our sources in conversation with our own disciplinary and intellectual genealogy. No one can have the final word because as our times change, so too does our reception of the past. This is why there are so many biographies of great figures: Each new historical context produces renewed impetus for inquiry. That this dissertation may at times seek to place texts from the Kamakura period (many of which we know of only through subsequent redactions in the Edo period), in dialogue with the contemporary “(post-?) post-modern” American academy of the twenty first century places a variety of voices in productive dialogue, and enables us to have a new conversation with our sources.

Finally, Lopez notes that it may be useful and intellectually stimulating to place a text or thinker in dialogue with a diverse range of philosophical works in order to render specific case studies more approachable to scholars more familiar with other areas of study. In other words, “… to say that Derrida may help us interpret Buddhist texts is something very different from saying that Nāgārjuna does what Derrida does.” The theoretical approach employed by this dissertation will seek to conscientiously construct an artificial environment in which the “antiessentialist” thinkers of the Western canon may occasionally enter into the conversation in an effort to further interpret elucidate key Buddhist concepts derived from the writings of Dōhan and other Buddhist thinkers, making their voices intelligible to those outside Japanese Buddhist studies or in cognate fields of Religious Studies or Buddhist Studies.

On the one hand, through this dissertation, my aim is to present a revisionist history of the “secret nenbutsu” in medieval Japan and “Esoteric Pure Land” as a major feature of East Asian Buddhism more broadly. By tracing the various threads woven together by Dōhan’s Compendium to other past, contemporary, and future context, this text may serve as a window into the whole of the Buddhist tradition. On the other hand, this dissertation will situate this thematic investigation in the life and thought of Dōhan by using his spheres of activity and literary output to help establish the boundaries of this study. The “secret nenbutsu” did not exist in a vacuum, nor did Dōhan: They both represent nodes in a vast web of causes and conditions. Emphasis on interconnection is all the more relevant when we consider that Dōhan’s Compendium contains excerpts from various sources outlining the utility of the nenbutsu as an effective ritual technology. Because this work is a synthetic amalgamation of various other texts, the “horizon of the text” extends into various genres and styles of Buddhist writing. I therefore suggest that scholars situate ideas in time and place, not in order to achieve some historical “truth,” but rather, so that we may engage more creatively the “constellation” within which a text emerges. This style of composition may provide a creative model of sorts for listening to the many voices in chorus, both from Dōhan’s time and ours.

CHAPTER I

“ESOTERIC PURE LAND” BUDDHISM, A HEURISTIC APPROACH

Introduction

In the introduction I noted that previous scholars has examined Dōhan’s 道範 (1179-1252) Himitsu nenbutsu shō 祕密念佛抄 (Compendium on the Secret Contemplation of Buddha) in particular, and “Esoteric Pure Land” 密教淨土教 (J. mikkyō jōdokyō) in general, as the syncretism of “Pure Land Buddhism” 淨土教 (C. jingtujiao, J. jōdokyō) and “Esoteric Buddhism” 密教 (C. mijiao J. mikkyō; a.k.a. “Vajrayāna,” “Tantra,” etc.), or, as the orthodox Shingon School 眞言宗 (C. Zhenyan-zong, J. Shingon-shū) position on the nature of rebirth in the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī 極樂往生 (C. jile wangsheng, J. gokuraku ōjō). Through this dissertation, I will demonstrate, however, that neither “Pure Land” nor “Esoteric” Buddhism should be viewed as an inherently distinct entity, and that whatever else the medieval Japanese Shingon tradition may have entailed, and whatever else the East Asian “Esoteric” Buddhist tradition may have entailed, aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitābha 阿彌陀如來 was a prominent goal. Moreover, Dōhan’s view of the nenbutsu 念佛 represents not an example of “syncretism,” nor merely an essentially Shingon perspective, but rather, when viewed in the particular and broader historical and intellectual context, represents an effort towards a comprehensive “Mahā/Vajrayāna” vision of Buddhist practice designed to encompass the diverse range of ritual and doctrinal approaches to mediating the gap between enlightened Buddhas and ordinary beings. The study of Dōhan’s work requires of the scholar a willingness to think broadly and critically about the various heuristic and polemical constructs employed both in pre-modern

Buddhist sources, as well as contemporary Buddhist Studies scholarship. The academic study of Buddhism is often broken up into discrete areas of inquiry, usually corresponding to particular linguistic or nation-state boundaries, or to the contemporary Buddhist sectarian landscape. As a result, before a student has even acquired the language skills necessary to delve deeply into Buddhist texts or conduct fieldwork, the perimeters of their academic identity and future scholarship are in some sense pre-determined. Adhering too closely to these divisions may not only inhibit one’s ability to discover new areas of inquiry, but may even lead students and young scholars to cultivate a practiced disinterest towards traditions outside of their “area.” There are, in other words, many potential avenues open for investigation and dialogue that have yet to be explored simply because scholars are unaware that they exist. This chapter will present a number of important recent developments across a range of Buddhist Studies sub-fields that may aid scholars of East Asian Buddhism in challenging the ahistorical reification of “Esoteric Buddhism” and “Pure Land Buddhism” as fundamentally discrete areas of study, so as to allow Dōhan’s “…long silenced voice into the conversation.”

This chapter will propose “Esoteric Pure Land” as a useful heuristic device for addressing a major feature of East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhist literature and material culture that has until now gone unnoticed and unexamined. I am here proposing the term “Esoteric Pure Land” not as the name of a previously unexamined “school” of Buddhism, nor even as a “kind” of Buddhism, but rather as a heuristic device to be employed to open a new area of dialogue and exchange among scholars interested in the ritual technologies employed to render concrete the Mahāyāna Buddhist soteriological vision of the universe. All heuristic devices “are merely designations that derive their sense and meaning in comparative and historically embedded contexts.” Therefore, this artificially constructed heuristic will function as a strategy for opening dialogue across disciplinary and regional divisions about features of the Buddhist world that have remained invisible (or inexplicable) because our current taxonomic approach to Buddhism does not allow for it.

Richard K. Payne notes that in the study of Buddhism “the terms and categories employed are in large part our own creation, and [we must] avoid reifying them by turning them into objects existing independently of our use. As such, we are responsible for the terms we use and for using them with adequate reflection on the presuppositions they bring—often covertly— into the field.” In a similar vein, J.Z. Smith has argued: “‘Religion’ is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define. It is a second-order, generic concept that plays the same role in establishing a disciplinary horizon that a concept such as ‘language’ plays in linguistics or ‘culture’ plays in anthropology.” As will be explored below, “Esoteric Pure Land” will be used as a “second-order” term to be used to establish a new area of study. This chapter investigates the construction of “Pure Land Buddhism” and “Esoteric Buddhism” as discrete objects of study by drawing upon recent scholarship that has fundamentally recast our understanding of the relationship between Early Buddhism (often uncritically assumed to be represented by the Theravāda tradition), Mahāyāna Buddhism

(previously understood to be a lay movement reacting against clerical elitism), and Esoteric, or Tantric, Buddhism (long regarded as the last phase of Buddhism, a radical break, wherein Hindu Śaivism “syncretized” with Buddhism, and destroyed it). By recognizing the problematic assumptions that have led to the reification of these categories as distinct and substantialist entities, this chapter will engage critically and creatively the truth claims made in both Buddhist texts and the scholarship on those texts. This critical heuristic approach will highlight the ways in which Buddhists and contemporary scholars have established disciplinary divisions of their own making, and the complex ways in which modern “academic” and traditional “religious” categories have mutually created the contemporary Buddhist Studies taxonomic model of scholarship.

This chapter is divided into four parts. In Part I, I examine the work of Eugene Burnouf, who may be regarded as the father of contemporary Buddhist studies, and seek to undermine the assumption that Buddhist history may be broken into Early, Mahāyāna, and Tantric phases, each corresponding to a different “kind” of Buddhism. Building upon this examination of Burnouf, I synthesize recent scholarship that demonstrates that Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged not as a discrete kind of Buddhism, but as a discursive and polemical term applied within a broader Buddhist literary context, a broader polemical conversation, in which conservative monastics responded to the growing diversity of Buddhist traditions. Furthermore, it would seem, so-called early-Mahāyāna was likely not a radical break from early mainstream Buddhism at all, but a development drawing upon ideas and concepts germane to the early Buddhist environment. In this way, this section purports to destabilize “Mahāyāna” as a discrete entity unto itself.

Part II investigates the Buddhist aspiration for post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land paradise of a Buddha not as the defining goal of a particular “kind” (or species) of Mahāyāna Buddhism, but rather, as a ubiquitous cosmological and soteriological orientation found across many genres of Buddhist literature, including the tantras. This section demonstrates that, like the Bodhisattva path itself, Pure Lands were one of many contested features in the early Buddhist environment, and not a defining feature of a new kind of Buddhism. By noting the diversity of the early Buddhist environment, as well as the normative context for the proliferation of Mahāyāna Buddhist discourse, this section demonstrates that the attempt to account for the origins of Mahāyāna and Pure Land often presupposes a “pristine” Buddhism onto which other practices or cosmologies were grafted. This section also establishes that Buddhist cosmology and soteriological thought often served to “concretize” doctrine and ethical teachings in relation to ritual practice, and should not be dismissed as secondary in nature.

Part III presents recent scholarship on the construction of Tantric Buddhism as an object of study. This section builds upon Lopez’s observation that “Tantra” as a free-floating noun has been employed to resolve contradictions that have arisen in the academic study of Buddhism that do not derive from the sources themselves. The tantras were but one node in a broader

Mahāyāna net of narrative, doctrinal, and ritual genres of literature. Furthermore, as Christian Wedemeyer has suggested, rather than imagining Tantric Buddhism as a kind of Buddhism set apart from Mahāyāna Buddhism, it would be more appropriate to imagine the context for a “Mahā/Vajrayāna.” I would therefore suggest that we consider Esoteric Buddhist discourse to be a Mahāyāna polemical label based primarily in tantra ritual theory. In this way, the overessentialized hyper-literal reading of esoteric/exoteric rhetoric often associated with so-called Tantric literature may be recognized as a prescriptive distinction, not descriptive of religious activity. In other words, the distinction between Mahāyāna and Esoteric Buddhism may be seen as reflective of “ideology, not sociology.” This section establishes a foundation for the following chapter in which a close reading of early Chinese Buddhist sūtra and ritual texts across many genres further substantiates this re-visioning of Esoteric Buddhism in the East Asian context. Finally, Part IV of this chapter presents a basic definition for “Esoteric Pure Land” as a way to highlight the way Buddhists employed the tantras and tantric discourse to shorten the Bodhisattva path through rebirth in the Pure Land. This will be accomplished by synthesizing recent scholarship that has in some sense already pointed toward the need for such a category. In this way, I suggest that the study of “Esoteric Pure Land” will continue a conversation already underway in the field, while also directing this conversation into new areas of study.

Chapter I

Part I

Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Birth of Buddhist Studies

The modern academic study of Buddhism began in 1844 with the publication of Eugène Burnouf’s (1801-1852) Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien. By this time, European philologists and historians had already begun the work of piecing together a diverse range of iconographic and textual data from Asia. Eventually, they realized that the varieties of “idolatry” found in Siam, China, and Japan were connected. With the publication of his Introduction, Burnouf set the tone for the next century and a half of Buddhist Studies scholarship by providing a set of basic hypotheses about the chronology of Buddhism, and the nature of early Buddhism, that have only recently confronted questions. Burnouf believed that he had discovered the earliest layers of Buddhist literature, which conveyed the teachings of a moral philosopher, whose “science” had (unfortunately, yet inevitably) been turned into a religion. This image of a rational, “scientific,” Buddha proved

remarkably attractive to European intellectuals, and highly useful to Asian Buddhists seeking to fend off the critiques of Christian missionaries. Believing that the simpler Pāli suttas were closer chronologically to the original teaching of the human Buddha, Burnouf suggested, in the form of a hypothesis (which nonetheless became an orthodoxy shared by Buddhist believers and scholars alike), that Buddhist literary genres grew chronologically, from simple Pāli suttas, to

“developed” (vaipulya) Mahāyāna sūtras. It is quite clear that for Burnouf and other early Buddhologists such “development” had compromised the essence of the tradition. Moreover, in so-called “Lamaist” countries (where exegesis of the tantras was more prevalent), these early Buddhologists believed the teachings of the human Buddha had been fundamentally subverted by outside influences (Persian, Brahmanic, “popular,” etc.).

For Burnouf, the human Buddha was a philosopher and moralist who stood above his superstitious contemporaries, “to whom miracles cost so little.” Burnouf’s criticism of the “developed” sūtras and tantras was especially vitriolic, and especially influential. For Burnouf, well known for his anti-Catholic leanings, sacerdotalism naturally led to corruption. He therefore lamented “…the stupid respect [[[Buddhists]]] have for their lamas.” Perhaps even worse than the priests themselves were the ritual activities of these Buddhists, in which they prostrate themselves “…before the most disgusting relics that human superstition has invented.” Burnouf assumed that these manifestations of the tradition derived from the “developed” sūtras, which he dismissed as “a mass of words so empty.” These sūtras contained a “system of celestial buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which [are] quite difficult to regard as the primitive form of Buddhism.” He found the tantras to be so full of ritualistic practices that he could not accept them as part of the same religion as the simple sūtras.

Throughout the Introduction Burnouf’s tone is for the most part scholarly and detached, but when his discussion turns to the Mahāyāna sūtras and the tantras, he shifts into open criticism. Early Buddhism was moral, but Tantra was “the impure and coarse cult of the personifications of the female principle, as accepted among the Śaivaists [sic.]….so monstrous an alliance” of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions producing “terrible forms” meant to entertain and coerce “coarse and ignorant minds.” In these traditions, the very worst of human superstition dominates the text, and “nothing would remind one of Buddhism if one did not see the name of the Buddha appear at rare intervals.” Burnouf’s disdain for Buddhist ritual activity (often associated with the tantras) and cosmological and soteriological thought (often associated with Pure Lands and cosmic Buddhas of the Mahāyāna sūtras) led later generations of Buddhist Studies scholars to seek “true” Buddhism elsewhere.

Burnouf described the tantras as long and tiresome, strange and terrible, and as something “whose importance for the history of human superstitions does not compensate for its mediocrity and vapidity.” Burnouf distinguished the Buddhist traditions which contained fire rituals, prayers to gods like Mahākāla and Śiva, spells for discovering hidden treasures, attaining the monarchy, obtaining the woman one wishes to marry, or even powers of invisibility, from the philosophical tradition he saw in the “simple” sūtras. Burnouf would not suffer the idea of Śākyamuni as a ritual master.155 Indeed, for Burnouf and many other Buddhologists, Mahāyāna to some extent, and Tantra to a large extent, incorporated the most shameful part of popular Brāhmanism, and represented a “recent syncretism.”156

In order for Burnouf’s rational Buddha and his “science” to be fully understood, an account for the history of its development (or degeneration) was needed. This account, first proposed by Burnouf, quickly emerged as a kind of historicist “orthodoxy” within Buddhist Studies: Roughly five hundred years before Christ, a man who came to be known as “the Buddha” taught a simple moral philosophy, a “middle way” between the extravagant lifestyle of the householder and the self-denial of the ascetic, between the nihilism of the materialists, and the spiritualism of the theists. This approach to gnosis grew into a religion that eventually succumbed to the ritualistic habits and metaphysical speculation of its contemporary Asian environment. Though the earliest teachings had been preserved in the Pāli literature of the

Theravāda traditions of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, around the time of Christ a Sanskrit literary and lay-oriented sectarian movement, which called itself the “Mahāyāna,” emerged (possibly under Greek, Hindu, and/or Persian influence). This movement subsumed (or drowned) the simple philosophy of the historical Buddha within the worship of a vast panoply of gods and divine cosmic “buddhas” residing in heavenly “Pure Lands.” Eventually, the spread of this otherworldly kind of Buddhism mixed with Hindu Śaivism, and bore Tantric Buddhism, the illegitimate child of the Buddhist tradition, sometime in the 7th century. This form of Buddhism spread throughout Asia, particularly in Tibet, where it further devolved into “Lamaism.”

Eventually, Tantric Buddhism led not only to the destruction of Buddhism in its country of origin, but also caused Buddhism to devolve further into the various forms of superstition and idolatry found throughout the contemporary Asia of Burnouf’s own day.

Though modern Buddhology has obviously re-imagined this story in more positive terms—often (but not always) substituting or inverting the existing negative evaluations of certain developments—the basic structure of this version of Buddhist history, which first emerged as a working hypothesis in the writings of Burnouf, has nevertheless remained largely unchanged. But when read together, recent scholarship by Gregory Schopen, Steven Collins, David Drewes, Paul Harrison, Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Jan Nattier, Johnathan Silk, Peter Skilling, Christian Wedemeyer, and others, reveals that this inherited view is mistaken on nearly every point.

This scholarship argues that so-called “Mahāyāna” literature evolved within mainstream Buddhist monastic communities, and rather than functioning as a separate “kind” of Buddhism (the Mahāyāna), Mahāyāna literature was established on a dichotomous reading of Buddhist truth, wherein the “great” vehicle represented the full revelation (or “secret” teaching) of the Buddha. In other words, the word “Mahāyāna” was from the beginning a term of polemical discourse within mainstream Buddhism, long before it actually emerged as a separate “kind” of Buddhism.

Pace Burnouf and his assumptions, “the earliest Buddhist literature to which we have access” is not the same thing as “the earliest Buddhist literature,” nor is it the same thing as the “earliest Buddhism.” The emergence of “Mahāyāna” literature and discourse seems to have begun with the rise of writing in the Indian sub-continent, and in fact predates the Pāli literature that scholars often consult in their reconstruction of early Buddhism. Furthermore, in order for us to better grasp the diversity of Buddhist thought, we must read across various genres of Buddhist literature. Perhaps we ought even to give up on the quest for “origins” that are likely beyond our reach. In other words, in order to understand accurately the place of Esoteric discourse and Pure Land aspiration within Mahāyāna literature, and the place of Mahāyāna literature within early Buddhism, we must refrain from privileging a narrow view based on the search for a “historical” Buddha as somehow apart from the “miraculous” tales, soteriological aspirations, and ritual technologies associated with him and other Buddhas.

On the “Origin” of Mahāyāna

Burnouf’s hypothesis that Mahāyāna sūtras emerged later than the supposedly simple Pāli suttas, and that the tantras emerged later still, has become a dominant historicist orthodoxy in Buddhist Studies. However, Peter Skilling, Jonathan Walters, and others have recently argued that to regard Pāli literature and the Theravāda tradition as somehow equivalent to Early Buddhism is highly misleading and ahistorical. Moreover, to regard this diverse body of literature as patently more rational or philosophical than “later” Mahāyāna sūtra literature is also problematic, because the Buddha of the Pāli canon is no less fantastic than the Buddha of the vaipulya sūtras. Moreover, despite their many differences, there are in fact a great number of assumptions shared by both literary worlds. Additionally, such scholars as Christian Wedemeyer and John C. Huntington have argued for a fundamental reevaluation of the supposed “lateness” of tantric literary developments. One reason that even the basic chronology of Buddhism can be called into question is that various political and environmental factors in South Asia that make establishing fixed dates more than a little problematic. This condition has made the search for the origins of Mahāyāna extremely difficult; in fact, some scholars have come to regard the very idea of “early-Mahāyāna” to be an intellectually incoherent construct. Various features said to define Mahāyāna Buddhism, as such, have recently been reevaluated in relation to the broader South Asian Buddhist context within which they emerged.

First, the earliest evidence for what scholars have called “Mahāyāna Buddhism” is an inscription found in Govindnagar in Mathura, dating perhaps from the 2nd-3rd century that contains a reference to the Buddha Amitābha. Schopen writes that “the setting up of the earliest known image of a Mahāyāna Buddha was undertaken for a purpose that was specifically and explicitly associated with established non-Mahāyāna groups.” Second, the pioneering Madhyamaka thinker Nāgārjuna 龍樹 (ca. 150 CE -250 CE) is perhaps the most important early Buddhist thinker for self-identified Mahāyāna and Tantric Buddhists, but some scholars have suggested that Nāgārjuna may not have been a “Mahāyāna” thinker after all. Nāgārjuna’s major doctrinal contribution was the doctrine of the “middle,” or

Madhyamaka. Essentially, Nāgārjuna established a form of argumentation that, rather than positing a single position, essentially used a variety of techniques to confound the underlying logic of his opponents. This Madhyamaka philosophy is often regarded as a corner stone of later Mahāyāna philosophy. Some scholars have argued that, in addition to establishing a philosophical system designed to assault one’s perception of reality, his ultimate aim was to reestablish the correct interpretation of the Dharma. Gomez has noted a high degree of continuity between the Suttanipāta, Madhyamaka philosophy, and the “Perfection of Wisdom” (Prajñāpāramitā) literature. In particular, he has argued that Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā may have represented conservative rejections of what were perceived as innovations in Abhidharma literature, and a return to the doctrinal positions of previous eras. Perhaps Nāgārjuna should be understood as a conservative thinker, rather than a radical “Mahāyāna” innovator. Although a Mahāyāna

“essence” is anachronistically attributed to both the Buddha Amitābha and the scholar-monk Nāgārjuna, when viewed in context, it is rendered (at least) problematic. As will be demonstrated below, this critique is possible of many of the “elements” we deem to be essentially Mahāyāna in nature. In addition, many scholars have argued that Mahāyāna began as a way for priests to accommodate the ritualistic and soteriological desires of the laity. From this perspective held by many early Buddhologists, and even some contemporary commentators, this accommodation led to the inevitable downfall of a philosophical religion that had been ahead of its time. As superstition and foreign influence mingled with the original teachings of the Buddha, we are told, monks gave in to societal pressure and began performing “esoteric” rituals and fabricating stories about so-called “celestial buddhas” in faraway heavenly lands.

Other scholars, seeking to put a positive spin on this decidedly negative portrayal, have noted the appearance of proto-democratic and egalitarian concepts, such as that of the bodhisattva who works for the benefit of all. They have argued that the Mahāyāna certainly represented a kind of Buddhism that was more accessible to the laity, with rituals and narratives designed to render elitist and abstruse philosophy palatable to the masses. While this view is certainly less negative and condemnatory, the simple inversion of a negative portrayal does little to question the underlying assumptions of the narrative it seeks to critique. Akira Hirakawa argued that lay associations devoted to stūpa reliquaries or Mahāyāna sūtras formed the early social foundation for Mahāyāna Buddhist development. More recently, however, such scholars as Jan Nattier have demonstrated that, in all likelihood, Mahāyāna literature, and the concept of the bodhisattva so pervasive throughout it, actually first appeared within conservative mainstream Buddhist monastic contexts.166

The Bodhisattva Path as Buddhist Vocation

Nattier has noted the emergence of a new academic consensus in Mahāyāna studies, arguing that whatever Mahāyāna’s “origin” may be, it most certainly developed within early mainstream Buddhist monastic environments. The “soteriological vocation of bodhisattvas” has often been regarded as the key characteristic distinguishing the Mahāyāna path from its mainstream environment. However Nattier’s close reading of the available evidence demonstrates that the “bodhisattva-yāna” (vehicle of the bodhisattva) functioned as but one of many “vocations” within mainstream Buddhism, and that the “origin” of the bodhisattva path took place largely “off camera.”169 In other words, while the bodhisattva path eventually became synonymous with Mahāyāna, we cannot assume that the “bodhisattva” is necessarily a “Mahāyāna” concept. Those who followed the bodhisattva-yāna did not participate in a different “kind” of Buddhism, but rather pursued an approved, though perhaps distinct, vocation within the broader mainstream Buddhist path. Moreover, we cannot assume that the beliefs and/or practices of the monks who pursued this vocation were fundamentally different from those pursing other vocations. Bodhisattva-piṭaka specialists would have memorized sūtras that promoted the bodhisattva path, but by and large would have participated in the same monastic culture and institutional environment.

Nattier notes that one way of nuancing our understanding of so-called early Mahāyāna would be to recognize the various strains of continuity and discontinuity between the elements that would come to characterize “the Mahāyāna,” and their role in the history of “early Buddhism.” One way of accomplishing this is to insist on the construction of a more precise vocabulary. Rather than discussing “Mahāyāna sūtras,” as such, we could refer to “bodhisattva sūtras,” and instead of referring to the early Mahāyāna path, we could refer to the path of the Bodhisattva, the bodhisattva-yāna, as these terms actually appear more frequently in the earliest known sources. In other words, one way of dealing with a problematic heuristic device like “Mahāyāna,” which has proven so susceptible to reification and essentialization, is to begin analysis by “bracketing” or displacing the problematic term and employing terminology more relevant or specific to the given context. Once the problematic term has been sufficiently nuanced or re-imbued with meaning, Nattier suggests, then it can be redeployed.

Additionally, Schopen has cautioned scholars not to conflate Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist practice (the things monks actually did) with Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist literature (the things monks said they did). According to` Schopen, “the history of Mahāyāna literature and the history of the religious movement that bears the same name are not necessarily the same thing.”175 As evidenced by archeological remains, Mahāyāna as a separate and distinct Buddhist identity did not fully emerge until perhaps the 6th century, whereas the earliest layers of Mahāyāna literature (to which scholars have access) date perhaps as early as the 1st century BCE. Therefore, socalled “Mahāyāna” literature emerged and functioned within decidedly “non-Mahāyāna” institutional environments for centuries. It appears that the context that produced the intellectual currents that we as moderns look back upon and label “Mahāyāna” likely emerged over a long period of development. While we may acknowledge the “non-Mahāyāna” context of the development of various “Mahāyāna” elements, it should be noted that Mahāyāna did not develop out of a single Nikāya school, as some scholars have argued. Rather, Mahāyāna discourse developed across various traditions and locations. With such diverse origins, could the label Mahāyāna even make sense? As Jonathan Silk asks, to “what, if anything,” does the label Mahāyāna refer? Are we really talking about “Mahāyāna” as such in the early literature? Or are we anachronistically projecting back onto that early Buddhist environment a coherence that was not real at the time? Are we, in other words, mistaking a later prescriptivist polemical term for a sociologically identifiable division within the Buddhist tradition?

Seeking the Mahāyāna in Non-Mahāyāna Literature

While Buddhist Studies has historically regarded the Pāli canon as representing the earliest collection of Buddhist literature, so-called “Early Buddhism,” it should be noted that the Pāli canon was likely compiled (or written down) around the end of the 1st cent. BCE, around the same time as many of the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras to which we have access. Moreover, this canon as we receive it today was finally edited in the 5th century by Buddhaghoṣa. This raises the important question of how to understand the relationship between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna sources, and how to use them more productively. Previously, scholars of Mahāyāna literature presupposed the antiquity of Pāli sources and looked for “antecedents” to Mahāyāna ideas within this literature. Arguing against this practice,

Johnathan Silk notes:

[Li]terature commonly cited in discussions of Mahāyāna Buddhism as that of ‘Sectarian Buddhism,’ and surely not rarely implied to represent some pre-Mahāyāna ideas, in fact dates from a period after the rise of the Mahāyāna Buddhist movement… [Moreover]…the materials to which we are comparing our extant Mahāyāna Buddhist literature may well have been written or revised in light of that very Mahāyāna Buddhist material itself, and vice versa ad infinitum.

In other words, ideas that we have regarded as inherently “Mahāyāna” may have been present within a heterogeneous early Buddhist environment, and as Mahāyāna Buddhists began to differentiate themselves from others (this, after all, is the rhetorical impact of the term “Mahāyāna”), there formed some communities that identified as Mahāyāna, and others that identified as non-Mahāyāna. This gradual schism led different groups to define and redefine their texts and teachings against those they perceived as opponents, or heretics. It is therefore likely that some features of non-Mahāyāna literature, such as the exclusive focus on Śākyamuni, for example, may have arisen as a reaction against more inclusive and diverse Buddhologies, and that theories of the infinitude of Buddhas perhaps expanded in reaction to those espousing the singularity of Śākyamuni, which may have been perceived as a doctrinal innovation. Some scholars have even suggested that in the grand scheme of Buddhist history, exclusive focus on

Śākyamuni as the only Buddha may have been less common than is often assumed. Paul Mus (1902-1969), a French scholar who grew up in Vietnam, was one of the first to promote this critical revision: [T]he currents whence the Mahāyāna derived seem to have influenced from the start the whole of the church: the tradition began by developing entirely in this direction and it is only later, by a reaction against a categorical re-ordering of the new theories, already introduced stealthily, that a Hīnayānists Buddhism detached itself from the common movement, leaving the Mahāyāna to continue and accentuate the latter, and attempting to rejoin the initial orthodoxy; it partially succeeded and to this extent its claims to authenticity are justified; but perhaps it overshot the target, as did the Great Vehicle, in the previous interpretation.

In reevaluating the simplistic division between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna (and Tantric and non-Tantric), these scholars have suggested that reading across canons may well lead us to see a more diverse early Buddhist environment than previously imagined. Rather than reading the Pāli suttas as the great-grandparents of the Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras, and rather than reading the Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras as the reactionary children of the Buddhist world, we can read across these literatures to gain a broader understanding of Buddhist literature. In this way, the various feature of Mahāyāna literature may be seen as features of a broader Buddhist environment, rather than an as the canons of essentialized and distinct “kind” of Buddhism.

Chapter I

Part II

“Pure Land” “Buddhism?”

Early Buddhologists first coined the term “Pure Land” and combined it with “Buddhism” as a way to highlight developments in East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism. In the era after

Burnouf (late-19th – early-20th centuries), Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and East Asian Buddhism in particular, were viewed as spurious developments that compromised the early, rational Indian Buddhism. Early scholars of Mahāyāna literature focused on philosophy and meditation, constructing an object of study to appeal to their modernist audience. Their approach tended to exclude ritual and soteriological perspectives from consideration. Sectarian scholars in Japan, who both reacted against and built upon this model, further sought to justify each of their respective shūha 宗派 (sects) as the pinnacle of the Mahāyāna tradition. This philosophicalsectarian framework has served as the default basis for the construction of Pure Land Buddhism as an object of inquiry. There was never an autonomous Pure Land “School” in India, or China, but Amitābha and Sukhāvatī (as well as many other Buddhas and Pure Lands) are ubiquitous across the very earliest Mahāyāna literary phases to which scholars have access, believed to have been written ca. 1st cent. BCE. According to Fujita, references to the Buddha of Limitless Life and Light (Amitābha, or Amitāyus) may be found in over one-third of the texts in the Chinese canon, and Sukhāvatī eventually emerged as a standard literary trope representing perfect peace and enlightenment. In evaluating the origin of Pure Lands in Buddhist literature, scholars often begin by analyzing the three Pure Land sūtras. However, the idea that there are three “Pure Land” sūtras likely first emerged only in early-medieval Japan, in the writings of the

Hieizan 比叡山 monk Genkū 源空 (aka, Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212). Hōnen endeavored to establish a shū 宗 (sometimes translated as “sect,” but in the medieval Japanese context something closer to “disciplinary focus” or “orientation”) rooted in the soteriological efficacy of recitation of the name of Amitābha, “Namu Amida Butsu 無阿彌陀佛,” an act known as the shōmyō nenbutsu 稱名念佛, and the aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī. Hōnen believed that in the present decadent age 末法 (C. mofa, J. mappō, the age of the end of the dharma), it was only by way of the power of the vow of the Buddha Amitābha that beings could attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Hōnen’s disciple, Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1263) later came to be viewed as the inheritor of Hōnen’s teachings, and is regarded as the founder of Jōdo Shinshū 淨土眞宗, or the True Pure Land School.

Jōdo Shinshū eventually emerged as the largest school in Japanese Buddhism. As such, it constituted a major force in the reception of modern European Buddhology. Moreover, Jōdo Shinshū has since dominated the Japanese and East Asian view on the nature of Pure Land, as well as the overall history of Japanese Buddhism, presenting the era of Hōnen and Shinran as a time when Pure Land Buddhism opened Buddhism up to the common people. As a result, scholars who have been influenced by the sectarian Shinshū historiography (knowingly and unknowingly) have retroactively projected something called “Pure Land Buddhism” throughout Buddhist history. This has led to the decontextualization of Pure Lands and Pure Land aspiration from their broader Mahāyāna context. Sectarian scholarship defending Pure Land Buddhism endeavored to employ the tools of the aggressors (Western missionaries, Buddhologists, and Indologists) to justify their traditions on the basis of philosophy and rationality. However, it appears that the very premise upon which the Western critique of Mahāyāna was established remained largely unchallenged. In other words, by defending the legitimacy of one sectarian group, and using that identity as the final measure for all Mahāyāna literature, scholars of Pure Land have often constructed a rather narrow teleology to explain the development of Pure Land ideas, thus rendering “Pure Land Buddhism” as something significantly smaller than it actually is, a facet of the broader Mahāyāna tradition itself. For example, Hōnen based his shū in three Pure Land sūtras, especially the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量壽經. As a result, scholars have often used this text in particular as the litmus test against which Pure Land “elements” in other texts are judged. However, the cult of Amitābha and aspiration for rebirth in Sukhāvatī did not originate from the Sukhāvatīvyuhasūtra(s). Schopen has observed that rebirth in Sukhāvatī is but one of a list of goals and aspirations common across Mahāyāna literature, and was likely “fully established” as one of the most important features of this literature at least by the 2nd century. Moreover, aspiration for Sukhāvatī extends beyond the cult of Amitābha. Texts dedicated to Maitreya 彌勒菩薩, the Medicine Buddha 藥師如來, Avalokiteśvara 觀世音菩薩, and Akṣobhya 阿閦如來,

among many others, promise not only rebirth in the Pure Lands of those particular Buddhas and

Bodhisattvas, but also rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Early versions of the Sukhāvatīvyuha-sūtra, the

Ajitasena-vyākaraṇa-nirdeśana-mahāyāna-sūtra, and the Akṣobhyavyūha-sūtras 阿閦佛經 (T. 313) include arhats among the beings born in the Pure Land.201 This suggests that aspiration for rebirth in Sukhāvatī may have functioned independently of Amitābha/Amitāyus devotion and the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. Moreover, Amitābha jātaka tales are found in many Mahāyāna sutras.

These include the stories of Monk Āyuṣpariśuddha, Monk Samadarṣanālaṃbana, Prince Acintyaguṇaratnaśrī, King Candradatta, King Puṇyodgata, King Arciṣmat, and so on. Schopen notes that based on evidence from the Samādhirāja-sūtra 月燈三昧經 (T. 639-641), ca. 3rd cent., and the Aṣṭasāhasrika-Prajñāpāramitā 道行般若經 (T. 224), ca. 2nd cent., and other sūtras, we see a fairly developed form of Sukhāvatī aspiration, and he concludes that Sukhāvatī appears to have been a common soteriological goal for Buddhists in the environment in which

Mahāyāna sūtras were first written down.206

Pure Lands are one of the most prominent features of Mahāyāna Buddhist literature, and yet, have remained one of the least studied dimension of that literature. So-called Pure Land Buddhism is likely the most popular “form” of Buddhism in the world, and yet Western scholars have been highly reluctant to engage it seriously. As Halkias has noted:

…the obscure origins of Buddha fields and their insignificant presence in Śrāvakayāna Buddhism have led a number of scholars and proponents of a European construction of ‘pure and original Buddhism’ to adapt a condescending or dismissive attitude toward the soteriology of pure lands, which is often disparaged as the wishful thinking of simpletons grasping for a better life in heavenly realms after death.

Some scholars indeed view Pure Land Buddhism as fundamentally counter to the śrāvaka’s “self-reliance” and the bodhisattva’s “self-less” desire to stay in saṃsāra for all beings, ideas that scholars tend to view favorably. The construction of the historical human Buddha, “born from the brow of a European scholar who never set foot in Asia,” gave later generations of scholars a criterion against which to judge all “later” developments in the Buddhist tradition. If the Buddha was a rational, materialist, moral philosopher, then how did something as “irrational” as Pure Lands infiltrate the Buddhist tradition?

Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Pure Land Origins

Western and Japanese scholarship on Pure Land Buddhism is filled with attempts to account for the development of Amitābha/Amitāyus “devotionalism” and Pure Land oriented piety. Some scholars suggest a non-Indian external Persian or Zoroastrian influence. Others look to sources internal to India, but external to Buddhism, such as Hindu bhakti, as the source of devotional practices in Buddhism. Still other scholars, examine the Pāli canon, only to conclude that Pure Land ideas emerged gradually and organically from these “earlier” Buddhist texts. In this section I will briefly survey the scholarship seeking to account for the “origin” of Pure Land Buddhism, both within and outside the early Buddhist tradition. Then, I will conclude by suggesting that when scholars remove Burnouf’s Buddha from the equation, recognize their inability to access “early Buddhism,” establish that Pāli and Sanskrit (as well as Tibetan and Chinese) Buddhist texts depict a far more contiguous and dynamic perspectives on Buddhism than is often admitted, and read Buddhism within and across particular contexts, then we are able to see that the need to account for Pure Land as something foreign to Buddhism simply evaporates.

External (Non-Indian and Non-Buddhist) Origins?

Some scholars have argued that Eden or Elysium served as the inspiration for Sukhāvatī. These scholars have suggested that the rise of the Kuṣān Dynasty (30-375 CE) in northwestern India saw Greek, Central Asian, and Near Eastern cultural beliefs and practices infiltrate India and influence the Buddhist communities in that region. Other scholars have speculated about possible Central Asian influence, focusing in particular upon the Zoroastrian Paradises Ecbatana and Uttarāpatha. Proponents of the Zoroastrian theory have also noted linguistic similarities between the names Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian god of light and the name Amitābha, meaning “limitless light”; and similarities between Zrvanakarana (Universal Time), and Amitāyus, meaning “limitless life.” However, the generic nature of afterlife imagery and the ubiquity of light deities across cultures has rendered any simplistic theory of “influence” problematic at best.

Other scholars have questioned the need to look beyond India for the early concepts that informed the depiction of Pure Lands. Gomez has argued that the Indian tradition is sufficiently infused with “light” imagery and paradisiacal realms to provide inspiration to Buddhists. The Vedas also employ the word aṃṛta (a term meaning “ambrosia,” which serves as the root word for Amitābha/Amitāyus), a synonym with the mythic substance soma, which is said to enlighten one who drinks it. In this way, the association Aṃṛta = soma = light (= solar deity) has led some scholars to suggest that Amitābha/Amitayūs was a Mahāyāna Buddhist incorporation of a sun god into an expanding Buddhist pantheon. Others have viewed the solar imagery associated with this Buddhas as an example of Hindu “influence.” Still others have looked to such non-Buddhist Hindu concepts as the “Viṣṇu mythology, Amitaujas (‘immeasurable power’) of Brahmaloka Heaven and the deity Varuṇa of [the] western quarter.”

Similarly, Fujita notes that the compilers of the early Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, the text typically regarded as the source of Pure Land Buddhism, seem to have drawn upon the imagery associated with utopian and paradisiacal realms and god kings, for example: (1) the mythology of the universal monarch (cacravartin), especially the description of King Mahāsudarśana’s royal city Kuśāvatī, (2) the mythology of the Northern Kurus (Uttarakuru), (3) the mythology of the heavens of various deities, such as Brahmā, Paranirmitavaṣavartin, and others, and (4) the model of the ideals and glorified Buddhist stupa and its environs.220

Others have located certain similarities between Kṛṣṇa bhakti devotion and the invocation of Amitābha at the time of death. Within the Bhagavad-Gītā, Kṛṣṇa proclaims that “whoever at the time of death, when he casts aside his body, bears me in mind (smaran) and departs, comes to my mode of being: there is no doubt about this.” It should be noted, however that bhakti-style forms of devotion were in some sense “pan-Indian,” not exclusive to Kṛṣṇa worship. Still, this deathbed proclamation cannot help but remind a Pure Land scholar of the “Primal Vow” 本願 (C. benyuan, J. hongan) of Amitābha, in which he vows to save any being who calls upon him at the moment of death. However interesting these associations may be, there is no evidence for direct “influence,” and such coincidences may simply indicate that human beings are likely to call upon a higher being in a moment of need.

Finally, just as beings born in the Pure Land are born in a lotus blossom, the concept of being “lotus born” is well represented in Hindu literature concerning the gods Brahma and Lakṣmī, as well as the beings born in Indra’s Trāyastriṃśa heaven. Indeed, many of the features that scholars commonly associate with Pure Land Buddhism are not without precedent in the South Asian sub-continent. However, that human beings describe similar concepts with similar imagery does not necessarily prove that “influence” was involved. Furthermore, that Buddhist traditions share concepts and motifs common across cultures and traditions in India does not necessarily indicate “influence,” but may simply be one of many markers of Buddhism as an Indian religion.

Non-Mahāyāna Pure Land?

In contrast to the approaches described in the previous section, Halkias has noted that “the cult of Amitābha and his Pure Land can be adequately explained doctrinally as an endemic evolution of Indian Buddhism.” Many of the scholars who investigate the origins of Pure Land oriented soteriology often rely upon the Pāli canon for antecedents to the Mahāyāna vision of a

Buddhist Pure Land, assuming that these texts represent Early Buddhism. Other scholars have begun with contemporary sectarian Pure Land concepts and categories, and sought their origins in analogous concepts in the Pāli literature. Fujita has examined the occurrence of Pure Land concepts such as “faith” in the early Pāli literature, and argues that while there is compelling and interesting evidence for both “internal” and “external” genesis of the Pure Land doctrine, “…the most sensible approach is to regard Amida as the necessary consequence of the evolving concept of Buddhahood.”226 However, in seeking pre-Mahāyāna Buddhist origins for Pure Land concepts, scholars have tended to rely too heavily on contemporary Pure Land Buddhist perspectives on what a “Pure Land” might entail,227 and the differences between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna Buddhisms have been over emphasized. Typically, the Buddhism of the Pāli canon is understood to present a single and coherent cosmology in which only one Buddha may inhabit the world at a time, in contrast to the radically

Source,” Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (1992): 95-108; Fujita Kotatsu, “An Aspect of the Buddhas, Found in the Early Buddhist Scriptures, with Reference to the Present-Other Worlds Buddhas,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 6.2 (1958): 70; Rupert Gethin, “Cosmology and Meditation: From the Aggañña-Sutta to the Mahāyāna,” History of Religions 36.3 (1997): 183-217; and, “Mythology as Meditation: From the Mahāsudassana Sutta to the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra,” Journal of Pali Text Society (2006): 63-112; F.K. Lehman, “On the Vocabulary and Semantics of ‘Field’ in Theravāda Buddhist Society,” Contributions to Asian Studies 16 (1981): 101-111; Louis de La Vallee Poussin, “Cosmology and Cosmogony (Buddhist),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-1927), 2:129-138, esp. 137b; Randy Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology: From Single World System to Pure Land (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983); Donald K. Swearer,

Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 20, 40; Kenneth Roy Norman, Pali Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the Hinayana Schools of Buddhism, in A History of Indian Literature: Buddhist and Jaina Literature, Vol. 7, Part 2, ed. Jan Gonda (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983), 90-91; T. W. Rhys Davids, William B. Stede, eds. The Pali Texts Society’s Pali-English Dictionary (London: Luzac, 1925; reprint, 1966), 238; Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory, 2004 (citing the Chinese editions of the Dīrghāgama (Chang ahan jing 長阿含經 T. 1, 76c, 163b, 255b), Saṃyuktāgama (Za ahan jing 雜阿含經: T. 99, 2.131a, 322a, 410a) and the Ekottarāgama (Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經, T. 125, 2.708c-710a, 773a). Schopen, “Sukhāvatī,” 183, footnote 1, cites several important key texts on the concept of the buddhakṣetra. See for example: T. Rowell, “The Background and Early Use of the Buddha-kṣetra Concept,” Eastern Buddhist 6 (1932-1935): 199-246, 399-431; 7 (1936-1939): 130-176 (which will be examined in greater detail below); Paul Demiéville, “Butsudo,” Hōbōgirin, troisie’me fascicule (Paris: 1937): 198-203; D. Barua, “’Buddha-khetta’ in the Apadāna,” B.C. Law Volume (Poona: 1946) Pt. 2, 183-190; Et. Lamotte, L’enseignement de Vimalakīrti

(Bibliothe’que du muséon 51) (Louvain: 1962) 395-404 (Appendice, Note I); J. Eracle, La doctrine Bouddhique de la terre pure (Paris: 1973). See Also, Fujita, Genshi Jōdo, 356-360, cited in Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 15, 39 (note 24). 226 Fujita, “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” 13-14; Fujita, Genshi Jōdo, 261-286. 227 Morishita, “Jōdo shisō,” 4-7.

different vision of Buddhahood in Mahāyāna cosmology. More recently, some scholars have suggested that “the picture that has sometimes been painted of especially early Buddhism and Theravāda Buddhism is somewhat one-dimensional and flat.” In this section, I will briefly survey scholarship that presents a more nuanced picture of Buddhist cosmology, and the place of “Pure Lands” therein, to suggest that Pāli cosmological thinking is rather grander in vision and generally more contiguous with so-called Mahāyāna cosmological concepts.

One of the most important scholarly treatments of this issue is Teresina Rowell’s 1933 PhD dissertation, originally presented at Yale, and later published in the Eastern Buddhist Journal in installments, in 1934, 1935, and 1939. That scholars may still productively draw upon scholarship conducted in the 1920s and 1930s to sketch the English language scholarship on this topic is not only a testament to Rowell’s work, but also an indication of the general lack of interest with which Anglophone scholars have regarded the Pure Land as a concept. It appears that little has changed since Rowell’s time, of which she notes: “In view of the great importance of the concept for an understanding of Mahāyāna literature, it is strange how universally the

Buddha-kṣetra has been neglected by writers on the Mahāyāna.

Rowell remains one of the most important resources available in English for deeply considering the importance of buddha-khetta/buddha-kṣetra concepts in both non-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna texts. In Japanese, Fujita Kōtatsu’s Genshi Jōdo Shisō no kenkyū remains a highly useful comprehensive examination of the Pure Land ideal. While many scholars of Pure Land Buddhism cite both Rowell and Fujita, few pay more than lip service to their many insights. One does not receive the impression that they have been read deeply, as their scholarship actually challenges many of the commonly held assumptions about the history of Pure Lands and their place in Mahāyāna, and non-Mahāyāna literature.231 This section’s examination of Pure Land is indebted to these scholars in particular. Rowell and Fujita read across various Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna texts to grasp how the concept of a buddha-khetta/kṣetra functioned in Buddhist literature.232 In defining the early usage of the term, Rowell draws upon Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhi Magga, wherein three kinds of buddha-khetta are listed: jāti-khetta or “birth-field,” or the ten thousand cakravāḷas (worlds) that shake when a Buddha is born; āṇā-kheta or field of authority, including 100,000 kotis; and

(c) For early (*earliest texts to which we have access) Mahayana, Kathā Vatthu, Vasumitra’s Treatise on the Sects, Milinda-pañha. She also notes texts translated into Chinese and Tibetan, listing them in the order they were likely translated: Daśabhūmika, Saddharmapuṇdarīka, Sukhāvatīvyūha, Lalitavistara, Mahāyānsūtralaṃkāra, Śikṣāsamuccaya, Karuṇāpunṇḍarīka, Avataṁsakasūtra, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and others. 231 Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism, 72, 225 (note 19).

232 Texts examined by Rowell include numerous Pali texts: Aṅguttara Nikāya, Anuruddha’s Compendium of Philosophy, Buddhaghosa Atthaṣālinī, Paramatthajotikā, Visuddhi Magga, Dhamapada, Dhammasañgaṇi, Dīgha Nikāya, Dīpavaṃsa, Itivuttaka, Jātaka, Kathā Vatthu, Khuḍdaka-pātha, Mahāvaṃsa, Majjhima Nikāya, Milindapañha, Paramatthadīpanī of Dhammapāla, Saṃyutta Nikāya, Sutta Nipāta, Vinaya; Sanskrit texts: Bodhicaryāvatāra, Buddhacarita, Daśabhūmikasūtra, Bodhisattvabhūmi, Divyāvadāna, Lalitavistara, Mahāvastu,

Mahāyānasūtralaṁkāra of Asaṅga, Prajñāpāramita-hṛdaya, Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Śikṣsamuccaya of Śāntideva, Sukhāvatīvyūha, Sūtralaṃkāra of Aśvaghosa, Vajracchadikāprajñāpāramitā. Tibetan texts include: Bodhisattvabhūmi, Karuṇāpunḍarīka, Life of Vasubandhu by Paramārtha, Madhyamakāvatāra of Candrakīrti, Udānavarga, Viṁśaka-kārikaprakaraṇa; Chinese texts: Avataṃsakasūtra, Buddhacarita of Aśvaghosa, Vijñaptimātratā Siddhi by Xuanzang, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, Sūtralaṁāra of Kanishka, Legend of Emperor Aśoka, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, and Vasumitra’s Origin and Doctrines of Early Buddhist Schools.

visaya-khetta or field of knowledge, which is infinite. Other scholars have noted that Buddhaghoṣa also described three different kinds of Buddha-fields: Pure, impure, and mixed. Buddhist literature of all genres describes the Buddha’s presence as possessing the ability to transform ordinary abodes, and even entire cities, into paradisiacal realms. Strong notes that Avadāna literature describes the preparations made for Buddha’s visits to cities and homes, which contains many similarities to descriptions of the Pure Lands and mandalas (which are themselves also “Pure Lands,” in a sense). According to one Theravādin text, the Kathāvatthu, the Mahāsaṃghikas believed that “Buddhas pervade all directions of the universe.” Similarly, the Mahāvastu of the Lokottaravādins discusses the existence of multiple Buddhas, and mentions that some world systems do not have Buddhas in them as Buddhas are rare indeed.238 On this issue, Wedemeyer notes that:

All the Buddhist communities of which we know allowed for the existence of a number of buddhas other than Gautama. In fact, in the view of many early Buddhist schools (with the notable exception of the Mahaviharavasin branch that came to dominate later Theravāda), buddhas were considered 'infinite in both space and time' [see ft. 29, p. 226]-- a view that became normative for the later Mahāyāna movements. However, even among contemporary Theravāda communities-who only admit to one buddha of the present--the following verse appears in widely recited liturgies: "The buddhas of the past, and those yet to come, Those [pl.] of the present, too--[to these] I pay homage always!" [see ft. 30, p. 226] All of which suggests that throughout the course of history, by far the majority of Buddhist communities considered themselves to inhabit a world in which there were multiple buddhas not only in the past and future, but also in the present. [Italics added for emphasis.]

Still, other early Buddhist schools held that “the basic realty of the universe is ever active to lead all beings to enlightenment. In other words, the universe is the domain of the Buddhas, and is, thus, fashioned and sustained by their work to lead beings to enlightenment.” This power not only undergirds the very nature of our world (ultimately leading beings beyond it), but also meant that other worlds had the potential to possess Buddhas. While it is the case that contemporary Theravāda orthodoxy, itself a rather recent concept, prohibits the notion of multiple Buddhas existing at a time, not all early Buddhist communities possessed the same “Buddhology.”

Therefore, we may view the Pure Land perspective presented in the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra and other so-called “Pure Land” sūtras as expressing but one corner of a broader pan-Buddhist conversation, and not simply as the vision of a particular “kind” of Buddhism. For example, while the bodhisattva path was clearly a priority, the path of the arhat was not excluded in this “Mahāyāna” sūtra. Warder notes that the qualities of the beings said to abide in the Pure Land embody virtues common to the paths of arhats and Bodhisattvas alike: They have no sense of possessing….They have no thought of pleasure or of non-pleasure. They have not thought of ‘all beings.’ They have no sense of ‘another’s’ or of ‘own’ or of ‘unequal.’ There is no quarrelling, dispute or opposition. Their thoughts are all impartial, benevolent, mild, affectionate, unobstructed, etc. and in accordance with the conduct of the perfection of understanding.

The Apadāna Buddhāpadāna is one of the most important texts for the examination of non-Mahāyāna ways of conceiving the Buddha-field idea and the existence of multiple Buddhas.

Kenneth Roy Norman has noted that in this text “the Buddha himself tells of the Buddhakhettas, ideal lands of beauty where the Buddhas live. A picture is painted of Buddhas questioning each other, and there is mention of disciples questioning the Buddhas and vice versa.”245 While some have argued that this text shows “clear” signs of Mahāyāna influence, Norman concludes that many sections of this text appear quite early, and further that “many ideas in Buddhism follow from the dynamics of early Buddhist thought, which lead to the existence of one and the same idea in two forms in two different traditions.”246 Dwijendralal Barau notes that in the Buddhāpadāna there are many interesting references to Buddhas of the present interacting with one another as well as practitioners in our realm: “In the Buddha-realm, as many as are there the numerous jewels, both in the heaven above and on the earth below.”247 Additionally, early forms of “mandalic” Buddha contemplation are presented: “The pre-eminent Buddhas that are now in the world, those of the past and present, I brought them all into the mansion.”248 This “non-Mahāyāna” text presents a vision of the universe populated by an infinity of Buddhas: “In this world, tenfold is the direction of which there is no end, and in that direction are the innumerable Buddha-realms.”249 In other words, ideas that we now classify as Mahāyāna or non-Mahāyāna were not so clearly distinguished in the heterogeneous environment of early Buddhism.

Nativity (jātikhettaṁ), Ministry (āṇākkhettaṁ) (Visuddhimagga, vol. II, p. 414). The buddhakhetta was also thought of as a perfect learning institution, which led to later imagery of the Pure Land as the ideal monastery. Dwijendralal Barau, “Buddha-khetta in the Apadana,” B.C. Law Volume 2 (1946): 183-190, esp. 184. 245 Barau Dwijendralal, “Buddha-khetta,” 183-190, cited in, Norman, Pali Literature, 90.

246 Norman, Pali Literature, 91.

247 Barau, “Buddha-khetta,” 186.

248 Barau, “Buddha-khetta,” 187.

249 Barau, “Buddha-khetta,” 190.

Two Realities: Mahāyāna Buddhism as Pure Land Buddhism

Rowell’s survey of early 20th century scholarship (which cites Kern, de la Vallee Poussin, Barnet, and others) notes that in virtually all cases, rarely has an attempt been made to seriously inquire into why buddha-kṣetra are so ubiquitous, nor had serious efforts been bent to examining the “far-reaching ethical and philosophical implications” of the Buddha-field concept. More recently, Rupert Gethin has considered the general reluctance to engage cosmology seriously: The overall paucity of scholarly materials dealing with Buddhist cosmology would seem to reflect a reluctance on the part of modern scholarship to treat this dimension of Buddhist thought as having any serious bearing on those fundamental Buddhist teachings with which we are so familiar: the four noble truths, the eightfold path, no-self, dependent arising, and so on. The effect of this is to divorce the bare doctrinal formulations of Buddhist thought from a traditional mythic context.

Gethin further suggests that Buddhologists have tended to essentialize bare doctrine at the expense of investigating how cosmology (which, in Mahāyāna texts, is dominated by Pure Lands) serves to “concretized” doctrine. Kloetzli has argued along similar lines in suggesting that “doctrine” and “cosmology” are inherently intertwined. Buddha-fields are therefore not simply value-neutral features of an inert Buddhist cosmology; rather, they signify that Buddhahood itself is not simply the attainment of a secret gnosis, but actually a cosmic event signaling the transformation of this world (and other worlds) into something else. Across Buddhist literature, the appearance of a Buddha in the world is inherently tied to the idea that that Buddha will benefit the beings in that world.

Often in introductory courses or texts book introductions to Mahāyāna, Pure Land is left for the end, either as a throwaway topic after the explanation of the “real” Mahāyāna (philosophy), or as a transition from India to China, an approach which implicitly or explicitly presents Pure Land as a feature of “Sinicization.” One notable exception is A. K. Warder, who, in his presentation of Mahāyāna thought, actually begins with Pure Land, and employs the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra as a vehicle for explaining Madhyamaka and other modes of Mahāyāna thought. The [Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra] may seem puzzling at first sight…. Is this whole sūtra at the ‘concealing’ level of knowledge, its meaning requiring to be ‘drawn out’? …The description of Sukhāvatī must be a kind of meditation at the concealing level, contrasting with the sordid experience of human society and in a way encouraging the cultivation of the roots of good and confidence in the doctrine, though empty.256

In other words, like other sūtras, the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra must be read on multiple levels, and in relation to other texts and genres.

Harrison has argued that we might productively look at the Sukhāvatīvyūha as a blueprint for something to be constructed, like in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhisūtra 般舟三昧經 (T. 416-419), not as a thing that is self-existent and separate from one’s consciousness, nor merely as a post-mortem destination (though these views are by no means separate).

Halkias has noted that, in the Tibetan tradition, “Buddha fields are devoid of any worldly or otherworldly corporeality outside a conceptual specificity that is etiologically nothing more than a purified construction in the spotless minds of those confronted with their own luminosity.” In other words, descriptions of the Pure Lands, and the beings and Buddhas therein, take place within a complex and intertwined Buddhist literary environment. Each jewel, each golden net of the paeans, is intended to evoke a reaction from the reader already familiar with the depth of Buddhist thought. In general, statements in Buddhist literature may be taken as either neyārtha (statements to be interpreted) or nītārtha (statements to be taken literally), and this dichotomy “forms the basis of Buddhist hermeneutics.” Of course, what is regarded as neyārtha or nītārtha may shift depend on time and context. That which may be regarded as a “surface level,” or “provisional” (exoteric) interpretation at one time, may be regarded as the true, ultimate, inner teaching (esoteric) of the Buddha in another. This should not imply that in Buddhist literature the Pure Land is merely a metaphor. Rather, it could be likened to a wedge designed to loosen beings’ grip on this ephemeral world, when they mistakenly assert it to be really real. At the highest level of realization, the subject (the reader) and the object (the sūtra and its Pure Land) distinction disappear into a “single flow.”

The concept of a Pure Land must, then, be read in its philosophical and literary context, not apart from it, and this context cannot be separated from its ritual context. The elaborate world created in the Mahāyāna sūtras’ descriptions of the Pure Lands may be thought of as a means to enliven, or render “concrete,” the Mahāyāna worldview. The next section will examine ways in which Mahāyāna Buddhists participated in the realization of this world via ritual texts known as

“tantras.”

Chapter I

Part III

Tantra: The Lightning Bolt between Warp and Weft

Tantric Buddhism (a.k.a., “Esoteric” or “Vajrayāna” Buddhism), like “Mahāyāna” and “Pure Land” Buddhism, is difficult to define in such a way that any one definition will cover all contexts. Moreover, just as Parts I and II of this chapter have demonstrated, just as there is no clear division between so-called Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna Buddhisms, nor between Mahāyāna and Pure Land, as will be demonstrated below, there is also no clearly defined line between so-called Tantric Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. This section endeavors to further destabilizes essentialist taxonomic presentations of Buddhist history, which rely on fixed and unchanging criteria for delineating (and maintaining) the boundaries between these objects of knowledge.

Just as Mahāyāna discourse emerged as a polemical construct, positing a Mahā- or “great” tradition in contrast to the accommodated or “lesser” tradition (Hīnayāna), Esoteric discourse developed within Mahāyāna as an extension of, or a way of replicating, the hierarchical orientation first presented in the articulation of Mahāyāna discourse. Because the texts around which this discourse developed are often grouped under the bibliographic label “tantra,” or possess the word tantra instead of sūtra in their titles, this path is often referred to as “Tantric Buddhism.” Esoteric Buddhism may, in other words, be understood as a Mahāyāna ritual theory in practice, a ritual discourse centered upon the tantras. Like the term Mahāyāna (vs. Hīnayāna), Esoteric (vs. exoteric) or Tantric Buddhism will be understood as a prescriptive and polemical term, not the name of a particular “kind” of Buddhism.

Polythetic and Monothetic Classification

Many scholars employ either a polythetic or monothetic approach to defining Tantric Buddhism. In some cases, scholars select a particular practice or idea as definitive for distinguishing Tantra, while others, eschewing essentialist definitions, establish parameters whereby one may assess the “…intersection …of a large number of family resemblances.” Common lists include such features as “mantras, mudrās, and maṇḍalas….guru, abhiṣekha (empowerment), vajra (diamond or thunderbolt), sukha (bliss), sahaja (“together-born” [or natural]), and siddhis (powers)….practice that is secret, easy and rapid in its effect, based upon the premise that reality resides in the mundane….highly ritualistic, antinomian, and nonspeculative, evincing nonduality…esoteric physiology of cakras and nāḍīs that give special importance to the genitals,” and so on.

Despite such efforts toward expansive and fluid definitions, not all Tantric systems may contain all elements, and virtually all of these elements may be found in purportedly “non-tantric” systems. Lopez notes that in these types of definitions, the term Tantra may be employed so widely that it becomes “…overdetermined toward the point of meaninglessness.”266 Payne similarly notes that not all tantric systems contain all elements, no one element exists on its own, and most, if not all, “tantric” elements may also be found in “non-tantric” systems and traditions. Moreover, the criteria presented in a particular text may be that of a single practitioner’s personal view of their own tradition and may not represent the tradition as a whole, and thus be open to conjecture (rather than evidence); finally, such lists are overly simplistic and reduce the complexity and diversity of tantric literature to a few basic criteria.267 For this reason, both polythetic and monothetic approaches are insufficient.

One basic definition for the term tantra is “system,”268 or put more precisely, “ritual system.” Tantras are a common genre of texts primarily concerned with ritual performance,269 rendering Mahāyāna sūtra literature concrete. Halkias has suggested that the tantras represent a systematization of normative Mahāyāna elements.270 Etymologically, “[[[sūtra]]] comes from the root siv, ‘to sew’ and means most basically a thread that runs through, providing continuity and connection. Tantra is the woof or crossing thread in a fabric, providing the texture.”271 The tantras concretely render the narrative content and cosmological imagination of the world of

resembles Teun Goudriaan, “Part One: Introduction, Hisotry and Philosophy,” in Sanjukta Gupta, Dirk Jan Hoens, and Teun Goudriaan, Hindu Tantrism, Handbuch der Orientalistik, 2.4.2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), 7-93., cited in Payne, Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, note 34, pp. 229. 266 Lopez, Elaborations on Emptiness, 88. For additional considerations of the polythetic approach, and potential pitfalls, see: Rodney Needham, “Polythetic Classicication,” Man 10.3 (1975): 349-69. Cited in, Lopez, Elaborations on Emptiness, 86 (note 13). 267 Payne, “Introduction,” 12. 268 Warder, Indian Buddhism, 461.

269 The use of the word “tantra” in English language sources dates to 1799. Herbert V. Guenther, The Tantric View of Life (Berkeley: Shambhala Publications, 1972), 1; cited in Payne, “Introduction,” 5, 228 (note 12), and Lopez, Elaborations, 103. The earliest text (to which we have access) to contain the term “tantra” is likely the Guhyasamāja-tantra, which may date from as late as the 3rd century CE. Hugh B. Urban, Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 2003), 29, cited in Payne, “Introduction” 4, 228 (note 14). Lopez has noted the danger inherent in allowing the term tantra (as bibliographic category) to float free as an “abstract noun” in the form of “tantra” as such or “tantric.” Lopez, Elaborations, 85, cited in Payne, “Introduction,” 5, 228 (note 15).

270 Halkias, Luminous Bliss, 139.

271 Lopez, Elaborations, 90-91.

sūtras. According to Warder, “doctrine is to be acted out in tangible form,” and it is perhaps through the ritual genre of the tantras that some Mahāyāna Buddhists were able to render their literature, often ethereal, bordering on psychedelic and cosmic, tangible. Lopez observes that Tibetan usage of the term tantra is defined “as the member (usually the second member) of a dyad.” This can be seen as deriving from the Vedic context, which depicted the functioning together of “the primary part of the sacrifice, the pradhāna, which was made up of the main offerings and which varied according to deity and oblational material, and the tantra, the auxiliary acts that remained largely interchangeable among different sacrifices.” In Tibetan contexts, Vajrayāna discourse always functioned in (polemic) relation to the Pāramitāyāna. Lopez therefore contends that “Tantra” should be understood “relationally,” not as “a free floating category.” Ultimately, whatever “Tantra” might be, it must always be defined in relation to a particular context.

Tantric Buddhism and Buddhist Studies

Burnouf’s extremely negative assessment of Tantric Buddhism has remained remarkably persistent in Buddhist Studies literature. Lopez has examined the consistently negative tropes employed in the early historiography of Tantric Buddhism, considering the work of such scholars as Rajendralala Mitra (1882), Benoytosh Bhattacharyya (1931),279 Waddell (1895, 1972),280 de la Vallee Poussin, and others. Additionally, Wedemeyer suggests that we inquire into “the very discourses used to represent Tantric Buddhism in order to demonstrate that the models taken for granted in modern academic research are themselves not only contingent and historical but reflect rather more of the constitutive imagination of the modern interpreter than the object they purport to explain.”281 Wedemeyer also identifies three dominant Western cultural metaphors used in the study of Tantra:

1) The Decadent Monk Theory: This theory suggests that Tantra was a release valve of sorts so that monks who could not keep their vows would be able to still call their misbehavior “Buddhism.” As Wedemeyer notes, this trope is easy to dismiss because it is based on nothing more than speculation, and in fact there are more textually and culturally appropriate methods for evaluating and analyzing the “transgressive” elements in tantric texts.282

2) Tribal Origin (Vedic, aboriginal, pre-Aryan) Theory: Other scholars have argued that tantric techniques (mantra, mandala, mudra, and magic) became “Buddhist” when monastics appropriated the practices of fringe movement on the periphery of the sangha who were in contact with tribal societies. In some cases, this “Tribal”

279 “If at any time in the history of India the mind of the nation as a whole has been diseased, it was in the Tāntric Age….Someone should therefore take up the study comprising the diagnosis, aetiology, pathology, and prognosis of the disease, so that more capable men may take up its treatment and eradication in the future.” Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, An Introduction to Buddhist Esotericism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980), vii; cited in, Lopez, Elaborations on Emptiness, 94 (note, 28). While many scholars have cited Benoytosh’s introductory diatribes against “Tantra,” when this introductory essay is read in dialogue with his conclusion, a very different picture emerges. Benoytosh was clearly trying to find an explanation for how it was possible for India to be so humiliated by the British, and how Indians might imagine a way forward. Benoytosh’s criticism of “tantra” basically served as a foil for his theorization of a purified tantra-yoga, the primordial and true esoteric religious contribution of Indian culture to the world. See: 165-174. 280 The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism: With its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism (London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1895; reprint, 1972).

281 Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism, 68. 282 Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism, 11, 23, 43-45; For an evaluation of the “semiology” of transgression in Tantric Buddhism see especially, 170-199. See also Payne, “Introduction,” 22.

origin may be described as embodying popular Vedic/Hindu practices, preAryan/Vedic autochthonous Indian cultural elements, especially “śakti” worship. Wedemeyer suggests that this theory simply arises from a hyper-literal reading of otherwise ambiguous or symbolic textual references, and like other theories in the study of tantra, has gained authority simply through repetition. In a similar vein, Payne notes that in some cases the “tribal” elements are given a positive value, wherein European “Protestant” discourses of reform are projected onto pre-modern Indian contexts. According to this view, the “decadent” monks are the mainstream monks, and the peripheral monks are the reformers.

3) Influence from Śaivism Theory: Some scholars locate the origin for Tantra in Hindu

Śaivism. This has been the most popular theory for some time in Western scholarship. Interaction is undeniable, but to say that something called “Buddhism,” somehow existing independent from other elements in its environment, experienced “influence” from something called “Śaivism” is now seen as embodying a kind of essentialism. Whatever we might mean by Buddhism or Śaivism in “medieval” India, we are talking about two things that emerged from a shared cultural environment. In other words, this theory inevitably defines “Buddhism” in ways inappropriate to its contexts. Payne suggests that the way influence is often used entails a “wrongheaded grammatical prejudice about who is the agent and who is the patient.”285 Tantra: Beginning/Middle/End of Buddhism

Early scholars of Buddhism endeavored to pinpoint a “tantric” phase in Buddhist history whereby we might distinguish (normative) Mahāyāna Buddhism from Tantric Buddhism, seeing it as either the sub-stratum—the primordial well upon which all Indian religion draws—the manifestation of “medieval” feudal society, or the final nail in the coffin of a once noble tradition. Lopez notes that some scholars “regard Tantra instead as the undifferentiated substratum of Indian culture, underlying all forms of Indian religiosity and manifesting itself overtly at certain key junctures in the development of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.” This theory of Tantra as sub-stratum is to be found in the scholarship of Tucci, Elders, and Conze, and others.

This primordium is often couched in terms of hierarchical binaries: deep/surface, preAryan/Aryan, maternal/paternal, female/male, lay/monastic, and magic/religion. Wedemeyer notes that even when the binary is inverted—for example, by scholars arguing for a femalepositive account—the basic structure remains the same. Wedemeyer identifies the theory of a primordial cult of the goddess in pre-Hellenic societies in 19th century scholarship as providing the “mythic” basis for the idea of the “sub-stratum”: the notion that there exists a primitive/primordial culture, ever existing, which occasionally rises to the “surface” in different forms. According to proponents of the substratum theory, “tantra is the substratum of authentic Indian religiosity, rendering the ‘great tradition’ epiphenomenal, the substratum that erupts into history at key moments, the corrective. It is the subversive origin that can only be temporarily repressed, the forever primitive.” The sub-stratum, serves as a blank slate to which the scholar may attribute virtually any feature of a tradition that seems difficult to account for. Based on the ahistorical nature of this theory alone, it easily dismissed.

One of the most prevalent theories for the origin of Tantra is to suggest that the tantras arose as a strategy for otherwise rational Buddhist monks in “medieval” India to cope with a violent and sexual environment. However, in this account, “the medieval” is never clearly defined. Wedemeyer notes that in 1885, Monier Williams considered Tantra as the worst part of medieval religion. In 1987, Snellgrove defended his use of “medieval” because of the striking similarities between the use of magic and violence in the Indian and European “medieval” periods. In 2002, Davidson argued that Tantra was essentially an extension of medieval feudal society. However, even though scholars have given dates for “the medieval” ranging from 0-600 CE to 100-1400 CE, the equation of “tantra” with “medieval” “sex and violence” has remained consistent. This exposes the workings of a peculiarly circular logic derived from Western historiographic biases, not necessarily from this history of India itself.292

Drawing upon the decadent monk theory, the medieval theory, or the Śaiva origin theory, many scholars (even today) have blamed “Tantra” for the decline and extinction of Buddhism in India. Whether they draw upon Hegelian theories of history, early Western theories of history (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron), or even Indian conceptions of time and cosmology (Kṛta, Duāpana, Tretā, Kali), Wedemeyer notes, scholars have essentially suggested that the “end” phase of all things may in some sense be blamed for that end.

Following Burnouf, scholars of Buddhism have often been taken for granted that the philosophical and moral teachings of the scientific Buddha eventually fell victim to the idolatry and magical thinking of Asian culture. Not only had “Tantra” polluted “Buddhism,” but it was also held responsible for its inevitable demise, “a graft gone wrong…. Whereas the Indian and Tibetan exegetes tended to portray tantra as the addition of what was essential to bring forth the fruit of enlightenment, Victorian scholars viewed tantra as a parasite that destroyed its host.” This view of Indian history has been strongly influenced by Hegelian thought, in which cultural systems are seen to emerge, flourish, and inevitably (decadent) decline. That European thinkers found the tantras to be “decadent” further reinforced the view that the tantric “phase” was in some sense responsible for Buddhism’s decline in India.

Mahā/Vajrayāna and the “Earliness” of Tantra

Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1869-1937), one of the most important early scholars of Buddhism in the West, suggested early in his career that so-called tantric “elements” were likely present in early Buddhism. Lopez finds in de la Vallée Poussin the most “anti-essentialist” of the early Buddhologists, who regarded Buddhism as a branch of contemporaneous Hindu yoga traditions that coalesced around the ideal of the Buddha, borrowing all ideas available. In other words, as early Buddhists endeavored to articulate a distinctively Buddhist identity, they employed a variety of strategies and ritual technologies, many of which would later be labelled as “tantric” by scholars. De la Vallée Poussin did not seem to believe in the existence of an “a priori” Buddhism distinct from its environment. Wedemeyer notes, however, that shortly after De La Vallee Poussin made the suggestion that “tantric” elements may be found in early Buddhism, functioning as a feature of the broader Indian, and thus Buddhist, environment, he was so thoroughly criticized by his colleagues that he never wrote again about Tantric Buddhism seriously again.298 As history has shown, De La Vallee Poussin was certainly ahead of his time, and has been vindicated by scholars of recent generations. While Burnouf’s chronology (Simple Sūtras, Mahāyāna Sūtras, Tantras) remains fairly influential in the field, a number of scholars have critiqued the supposition that Tantra is an inherently late phenomenon.

Huntington, for example, has noted important features in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra 金光明經 (T. 663),299 which many scholars define as both “early” and “tantric.” This text contains the mental construction of a palace/mandala, homage to the Buddhas of the four directions, and other “visualization” techniques, suggesting that various features commonly attributed to Tantric literature (just like the Bodhisattva path and buddha-fields for Mahāyāna) were part of the early Buddhist worldview.

Wayman’s examination of the Guhyasamāja-tantra 佛説一切如來金剛三業最上祕密大

教王經 (T. 0885) has led him to suggest that this Tantra dates from the 3rd century, if not earlier. More recently, Wedemeyer’s critique of Buddhist studies historiography suggests that there are indeed numerous features of tantric literature that may be found throughout the earliest Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna literary canons. This seems to suggest that whatever we might mean by Tantric Buddhism, Esoteric Buddhism, or Vajrayāna Buddhism, “it” seems to have always-already been part of the environment out of which Mahāyāna discourse emerged.

John S. Strong’s examination of the Gandhakuṭī (“Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha”) notes that in Avadāna literature, we see numerous examples of the Buddha’s presence described in ways reminiscent of Pure Land and Mandalic imagery. Strong cites the Avadānaśataka 17 and Divyāvadāna 12, and the Prātihārya-sūtra, in particular. Mandalas represent a rather abstract conception of sacred space. In some cases they may be images of the abode of a Buddha, or a depiction of a Pure Land, but in other cases they may represent the total sum of all Buddha-fields, a “Mahā-” Pure Land, if you will. But mandalas may also simply be sacred spaces prepared for a ritual or for greeting the Buddha. Strong notes that Sangharakṣita’s story, in Divyāvadāna 23, parallels developments commonly associated with Tantric literature. For example, the

“maṇḍalaka” must be swept clean for the Buddha to inhabit the space, just as we see in the Mahāvairocana-sūtra (/tantra) wherein before constructing the mandala/altar where a Buddha will appear, one must sweep the ground in a ritualized fashion. From his analysis of “early” Buddhist literature, Strong emphasizes the connection between the functioning of Pure Land Buddhism and Mandala imagery in Buddhism, both of which signify the power or the presence of a Buddha. The Buddha’s presence is analogous to his power. It is this power that allows beings to escape saṃsāra, and it is this power upon which Tantric ritual techniques seek to draw.

Nattier has suggested that the essence of tantric sādhana practice is to teach the practitioner to envision, encounter, and absorb a Buddha, thus transforming the practitioner’s world into a Pure Land, and helping others through the magical powers brought about by the transformation of reality. The “encounter” is brought about through intense contemplation, a

“bringing to mind” or buddhānusmṛti, a term which in East Asia is commonly translated as “buddha recollection” 念佛 (C. nianfo, J. nenbutsu). That we might understand Buddha recollection and tantric contemplation as expressions of a common desire to tap into the power of the Buddhas should not be surprising. As Nattier suggests, tantric “deity yoga” may after all represent a logical extension of buddhānusmṛti practices. Nattier suggests, “The practice of ‘deity yoga’ in tantric Buddhism, in which one identified fully with a visualized being, only to then dissolve the entire experience—including the meditational object—into nothingness…might best be viewed as a distinctive form of ‘meditative remembrance’ (anusmṛti).”

Defining that context, of course, is where the creative work of scholarship comes in. Wedemeyer employs the term “Mahā/Vajrayāna” Buddhism as a way of complicating the concept of a monolithic Tantrism. Drawing upon Skilling’s examination of Mahāyāna Buddhism (noted above), Wedemeyer provides five modes by which scholars working on the tantras more might conscientiously (and creatively) construct their object of study. This is my own elaboration on Wedemeyer’s five-point adaptation of Skilling’s ten-point list:

1) Tantra did not constitute a distinct kind of Buddhism, or a path separate from “Mahāyāna” Buddhism. Rather, all Buddhists employed powerful words (mantrapada) for this-worldly and otherworldly rites.

2) Practitioners were not degenerates who flaunted the rules of the monastic order, but were instead strict adherents of normative Buddhist values, who describe their participation in a variety of ceremonies and practice common to the monastic vocation. Tantric “rebellion” in fact may have reinforced normative Buddhist concerns and priorities, and was enacted within a Mahāyāna literary and ritual context.

3) Tantric texts and rituals take for granted the śrāvaka and bodhisattva literary tradition, as well as the broader Indian world. In other words, the doctrinal positions held in the tantras are clearly based in established Buddhist doctrine—for example, the indestructible vajra, which is essentially defined as Buddha-nature/mind, non-duality, and the union of saṃsāra/nirvana. Warder suggests, “If we accept Madhyamaka as Buddhism we may accept Atiyoga. Its basic position is the ancient Buddhist non-soul doctrine that there is nothing which is eternal.” For example, the Mahāyāna portrayed in the Lotus Sūtra seeks to subvert and encompass the so-called Hīnayāna by declaring that it represents “not only the completion of the Hīnayāna but is at once its necessary precursor and eventual substitute; that which is later is portrayed as actually prior.…The tantric path, the Vajrayāna, is similarly portrayed as providing what is essential to the completion of the bodhisattva path; the upāya set forth in sūtras like the Lotus are in themselves inadequate to provide the means to buddhahood.”312

4) Tantras were produced in the mainstream institutional context of the monastery, and portray highly literate authors and readers.

5) Tantric literature is highly diverse, and one must define this literature in relation to specific contexts.

This section has considered recent scholarship analyzing the various strategies employed by Buddhist Studies scholars for defining, and locating the origin of, Tantric/Esoteric/Vajrayāna Buddhism, suggesting that so-called Tantra, as a thing unto itself, may largely be a construct of the academic imagination. Drawing upon Wedemeyer, I propose Mahā/Vajrayāna as the implied meaning of the term Esoteric Buddhism, as the tantras (a genre of Mahāyāna rituals texts) and Mahāyāna discourse centered upon the tantras (Vajrayāna) function within a broader Mahāyāna cosmological and doctrinal tradition. The following section will establish basic parameters for “Esoteric Pure Land” (aka, Mahā/Vajrayāna Pure Land) as a way to complicate further the supposed distinctions between Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, by inquiring into the diverse range of approaches to Pure Land rebirth.

Chapter I

Part IV

Esoteric (Mahā/Vajrayāna) Pure Land

In Part I of this chapter, I examined the work of Eugene Burnouf and recent scholarship that has problematized his hypothetical division of Buddhism into Early, Mahāyāna, and Tantric phases. By locating ideas and concepts said to be definitive of Mahāyāna Buddhism in an early (presumably, pre-Mahāyāna) Buddhist context, I suggested that the Mahāyāna should rather be viewed as a Buddhist polemical construct, and that the various characteristics said to define the Mahāyāna rather emerged in a heterogeneous early Buddhist environment that resists simplistic taxonomic characterization. Part II focused on the concept of a “Pure Land” as a pan-Buddhist cosmological ideal, thus problematizing the idea that Pure Lands are necessarily a Mahāyāna Buddhist construct. Furthermore, Part III synthesized recent scholarship on

Vajrayāna/Tantric/Esoteric Buddhism to argue that “Tantra” may be productively reimagined as a Mahāyāna sub-discourse and a ritual theory based in the tantras. In this section, Part IV, I will inquire into “Esoteric Pure Land” as a productive future area of inquiry.

Payne, Schopen, Tanaka, and others have noted for some time that aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land of a Buddha, or in some cases, encountering with a Buddha in the present, was a widely-held, pan-Buddhist “generalized” goal. Similarly, some scholars now recognize that the utilization of “mantic” spells for the manipulation of the spiritual and material world has been a common feature of early Buddhist literature as far back as we are able to see. As the next chapter will demonstrate, the importance of the Pure Land in the most popular tantric texts in East Asia is hard to overestimate. There are indeed a great number of tantric ritual manuals (by this I simply mean ritual manuals associated with “the tantras,” and not that these manuals obtain some “tantric” essence) associated with the Buddha Amitābha/Amitāyus and rebirth in Sukhāvatī, or the Pure Land of other Buddhas. There are, for example, numerous dhāraṇī that we might fairly unambiguously categorize as “Esoteric Pure Land” texts—for example, the Aparamitāyus Dhāraṇī (T. 370, 936, 937),

Anantamukhanirhāra-dhāraṇī (T. 1011, 1009, 1012-1018),317 Wuliang rulai guanxing gongyang yigui 無量壽如來觀行供養儀軌 (T. 930). Many more examples, explored in the following chapters, demonstrate that one of the most common benefits claimed by “Esoteric” texts (variously defined) is the ability to attain rebirth in a Pure Land in order to study the dharma at the feet of a living Buddha, a claim common across various genres of Mahāyāna writing. Of the Tibetan context, Halkias notes that the practice of phowa (’pho-ba), or

“consciousness transference,” is perhaps the “most popular post mortem ritual” among Tibetan Buddhist traditions around the world. In phowa practice, one contemplates the Buddha in the Pure Land and imagines (practices) shooting one’s consciousness from one’s body into the body of the Buddha. This is practiced throughout one’s life as preparation for the moment of death. This practice may be productively compared to East Asian deathbed rituals, also addressed in the following chapters, as well.

While very little scholarship has been conducted on this issue (in Chinese, Japanese, or

English), Richard K. Payne’s examination of the Aparamitāyur-dhāraṇī-sūtra may serve as a preliminary guide for this initial sketch of Esoteric Pure Land Buddhist studies. Payne has suggested that while this text was widely disseminated early on, it has been neglected by scholars in favor of philosophical texts like the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras. Even though this ubiquitous spell text was likely more indicative of what Buddhists were actually doing, scholars have had little patience for soteriology or ritual, let alone highly ritualized “Esoteric” texts concerned primarily with soteriological aims.322

Upon his initial encounter with this text, Payne noted, it seemed to confound the very categories that undergird the academic study of Buddhism: Initially I was attracted to this text because it appeared to be simultaneously a Pure Land and a Vajrayāna text, offering longevity and birth in Sukhāvatī through the recitation of a dhāraṇī. This struck me, those many years ago, as delightfully transgressive—it confounded the neat categories so familiar in the Buddhist studies of the 1970s, categories whose boundaries are overly-sharp, ahistorical, and either sectarian or ethnically defined. Since these boundaries continue to plague the field, the text continues to be a useful means of confounding these categories.

Furthermore, Payne notes that “bibliographic classifications—including ‘Pure Land’ and ‘tantra’—are themselves historically conditioned. Such conditioning extends beyond bibliographic concerns to include the very formation of these two categories and the common presumption that they are somehow mutually exclusive.” So-called “Esoteric” strategies for attaining Pure Land rebirth have likely been understudied because it has been assumed that Pure Land is fundamentally dualist (this world vs. the Pure Land) and Esoteric Buddhism is fundamentally non-dualist (this world is the Pure Land). By contrast, this chapter has demonstrated that Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land are but provisional designations employed by Buddhists and Buddhologists alike to make sense of the vast array of Mahāyāna Buddhist writing.

It is often assumed that Mahāyāna literature has presented us with two alternative visions of the Pure Land, either as a mental construct (“metaphor” for enlightenment) or as a concrete post-mortem paradise. These two positions are certainly present in Mahāyāna literature, but rather than serving as two opposing views, they exist along a continuum. Moreover, to see these “two” views as fundamentally separate is to misunderstand how Pure Lands fits in the broader Mahā/Vajrayāna literary context. That the Pure Land is regarded as in some sense “provisional” does not necessarily mean that Buddhists did not believe that it existed, or that rebirth there is not regarded as a real event. Mahāyāna literature contains a variety of conceptions of the Pure Land, on the one hand, but

on the other hand, Mahāyāna hermeneutics often follow a common logic of enveloping and resolving difference, while, in some cases, also allowing “difference” to stand, unchanged. That this world and the Pure Land are perceived to be “two” does not mean that they are not also “one,” and vice versa. Mahāyāna literature might suggest to us that we always keep in mind the constant interplay between everyday language, or the “concealing” (saṃvṛti) level of reality, and the philosophical “ultimate” (paramārtha) level of reality. Self/not-self, real/unreal, good/bad, worldly/transcendent, synthesized/unsynthesized: These and other dichotomies are deployed “creatively” throughout Mahāyāna literature in such a way to allow for a “doctrinal widening” wherein no statement can be taken at face value. Inversions and “inspired” interpretations may lead a text to be read differently in different contexts. It may well be the case that this feature of Mahāyāna literature—the tendency to divide teachings into provisional and ultimate, surface and hidden—represents a broader? Buddhist strategy for dealing with diversity in Buddhist teachings, on the one hand, and the polemical context within which the various Buddhist texts were first composed, on the other.

Mahā/Vajrayāna Buddhists take for granted that “the entire fabric of reality is made of buddhas (buddhamaya), reality is only mind (cittamātra), and the minds of all beings are ultimately enlightened (possessed of tathāgatagarbha), the power of the enlightened ones need not be mediated through so-called ‘historical buddhas.’ It radiates from the very substance of a world that is mind and buddha.” And yet, Buddhas are conceived of as entities “provisionally” exterior to one’s own subjectivity. Negotiating this perceived divide, to “encounter” a Buddha, is one of the dominant concerns across variety of sūtras and tantras. Based on this, I would like to propose “Esoteric Pure Land” Buddhism as a new heuristic category for engaging this long neglected potential area of inquiry.

Chapter I

Conclusion

While the earliest layers of Buddhism’s development are beyond our reach as historians, we are nevertheless blessed with a great number of Buddhist literary genres from which to deduce the ways in which Buddhists have understood the world. As noted above, Pāli suttas and Sanskrit sūtras paint a rather complex picture of a number of areas of contestation and interaction, far more nuanced and inter-related than simplistic divisions between Mahāyāna/nonMahāyāna, and for that matter, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, will allow. “Mahāyāna” sūtras are not simply one genre of Buddhist texts. Rather, Mahāyāna is a prescriptive normative designation, a polemical term that Buddhists and scholars have affixed to a number of different, and often competing, genres and traditions. We might imagine that Mahāyāna discourse emerged in the face of growing Buddhist religious diversity and interaction, as a claim to unmediated access to the “great” vehicle (the big picture, the “secret” intention of the Buddha). The term Mahāyāna is an inherently polemical term, though it has often been used as a descriptive term to delineate a “kind” of Buddhism constituted by a set of defining characteristics. In the previous sections, I have shown that two basic features of Mahāyāna—the Bodhisattva’s vocation and the Pure Lands—are themselves not unambiguously “Mahāyāna,” and that the tantras did not emerge outside of the broader Mahāyāna literary world.

In this dissertation, the term Mahāyāna is employed not as a way to delimit a “kind” of Buddhism defined by Bodhisattvas and Pure Lands, but as a way of recognizing one of many rhetorical and literary strategies employed by Buddhists to establish dichotomous hierarchies in response to Buddhist diversity. The development of the genre of ritual literature known as tantras, and the “Esoteric,” Tantric, or Vajrayāna discourse that grew with them, were employed within this struggle for complete, superlative, and secret attainment and revelation. In recent years, several scholars have begun to investigate the nature of aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land paradise in the “Vajrayāna” context of Tibet. However, very little work has been done to address similar phenomena in East Asia. Part of the problem may be that many scholars regard Vajrayāna/Tantric Buddhism as an essentially Indo-Tibetan phenomenon, while Pure Land has been viewed as an essentially East Asian phenomenon. In fact, there is nothing essentially Tibetan about “Vajrayāna” (nor is Tibetan Buddhism essentially “Vajrayāna”), and aspiration for Pure Land rebirth is not exclusive to East Asia. In the following chapters, Chapters II-III, I will survey the history of early Chinese and Japanese Buddhism and demonstrate the utility of the term “Esoteric Pure Land” for examining the aspiration for Pure Land rebirth (variously defined) through the use of mantra, dhāraṇī, and spell texts, as well as the tantras.

CHAPTER II

PURE LANDS IN THE EAST ASIAN “SECRET PIṬAKA”

Introduction

Buddhism did not come to China as one thing, or at one time. In fact, “Buddhism” did not come to “China.” Rather, monks, missionaries, magicians, traders, and others, carried with them a variety of Buddhist texts and traditions originating in South and Central Asia, and while practicing their religion in the region we now call “China,” eventually worked to convey the Dharma to their newfound countrymen. In many cases, the establishment of monastic communities in non-Buddhist countries also entailed the transmission of literacy, medicine, and artistic technologies. This was certainly the case with Japan and Tibet. In China, however, Buddhists were faced with translating their traditions and doctrines into Literary Chinese, an ancient language that developed within a diverse philosophical environment. The worldview painted by Buddhist literature, filled with beings and realms beyond and active within this world, not only starkly contrasts with the world of suffering that beings inhabit, but also differed significantly from the worlds painted by early Chinese religious literature.

“Powerful words” in the form of mantras 眞言 (C. zhenyan, J. shingon), dhāraṇī 陀羅尼 (C. tuoluoni, J. darani), and spells 呪 (C. zhou, J. ju) were among the most important areas of interest shared for both foreign Buddhist masters, and newly converted Chinese Buddhists. Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏 has suggested that indigenous Chinese “spell craft” 呪術 (C. zhoushu, J. jujutsu) may have predisposed Chinese audiences to respond positively to South and Central Asian Buddhist spell literature in particular. In other words, in order for Buddhism to be “translated” into Chinese, early Buddhist immigrants and early Chinese converts had to draw upon cross-cultural perspectives on the “power of speech.” The potential for speech to mediate between worlds features prominently in the history of Chinese Buddhism. In much of the literature to be examined in this chapter, it is precisely the innate power of speech that is said to mediate the perceived gap between the infinite power of the Buddhas and the limited power of sentient beings. This chapter is divided into four parts, each intended to demonstrate that aspiration for

Pure Land rebirth was a significant goal throughout the various phases of the development of “Esoteric” literature in China. Part I surveys recent Chinese, Japanese, and English language scholarship that addresses the many problems in the historiography of the development of genres of Buddhist literature often referred to by such terms as Esoteric/Tantric/Vajrayāna. Part II examines references to Pure Land rebirth within the early introduction of sūtra, spell, and dhāraṇī literature, and reconsiders the coherence (or incoherence) of the term “proto-Tantra” in relation to more developed tantric systems. Part III, inquires into the Pure Land path within the early development, reception, systematization of the tantras (and other genres of ritual manuals and ritual systems) at the Tang court, focusing on Atikūṭa’s 阿地瞿多 (mid. 6th cent.) translation of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra 陀羅尼集經 (T. 901) and the career of the ritual master Amoghavajra 不空金剛 (705-774)337, and the other “Great Tang Ācāryas.” Part IV will consider briefly the late- and post-Tang period and inquire into the pervasive “esotericization” 密教化 (C. mijiaohua, J. mikkyōka) of the Chinese Buddhist world. Ultimately, this chapter will demonstrate the diversity of traditions and texts often subsumed under the label Esoteric Buddhism, the ubiquity and diversity of the concept of a “Pure Land” within these genres and traditions, and will inquire into the ongoing debate over the purported “systematicity” (shisutemusei システム性) of ritual systems as a defining criteria for delineating these different phases.

Building upon Chapter I, the term “Esoteric,” often used interchangeably and inconsistently with terms like Tantra, Yoga, and Vajrayāna, is here treated as a “second order term” used by scholars to denote a polemical discursive strategy found within certain genres of Mahāyāna texts, not as a descriptive objective term delimiting a “kind” of Buddhism. There are most certainly many genres of texts (especially those known as “tantras,” not that these represent a single unified “genre”) that promise an immediate path to awakening, regard the bodhi-mind as fundamental or indestructible (“Vajra” like), and emphasize the centrality of the Dharmakāya. However, this dualistic approach to the dharma—which distinguishes between fast and slow, easy and difficult, inner and outer, or superior and inferior—represents a common Buddhist polemical strategy especially prominent in the Mahāyāna corpus. In the case of “Esoteric Buddhism,” this superiority is articulated via purportedly comprehensive ritual systems (tantras) and vocal ritual technologies (dhāraṇī, mantra, spells, etc.). Esoteric discourse is therefore one example of a pan-Mahāyāna “hierarchical universalism,” a way of declaring not only the superiority of the Mahāyāna, but of the supposed highest vehicles 最上乘 (C. zuishang sheng, J.

saijōjō) within the Mahāyāna, wherein ritual discourse is often oriented around the power of speech acts. “Pure Land” is here used to refer to the cosmological vision of an infinite “multi-verse” filled with limitless Buddhas presiding over and purifying their own world-spheres. Moreover, “Pure Land” here refers to the soteriological (concerned with theories of salvation) path whereby the Bodhisattva aspires for an encounter with one of these Buddhas via visionary-contemplative activities, and/or post-mortem rebirth in the paradise of a Buddha, as a way of accelerating progress along the path to Buddhahood. Champions of rebirth in the Pure Land did so in a fashion similar to those who promoted particular Mahāyāna sūtras or ritual/exegetical systems as a superlative path. The Pure Land “way” to Buddhahood is fast, while others might be slow. It is easy, while others are difficult. In this way, we might see “Esoteric” and “Pure Land,” as often overlapping discursive positions or approaches emerging out of an “embarrassment of riches” among Mahāyāna thinkers who sought to develop strategies for traversing the great bodhisattva path more efficiently.

The texts to be examined were not chosen simply based on their “dual” Esoteric and Pure Land content. Rather, the texts and historical figures examined in this chapter have been chosen by “splicing” together the teleological founder/transmitter/“great man”-oriented histories that still dominate the works of the leading scholars of East Asian Esoteric and Pure Land Buddhism. This “splicing” will unravel these simplistic, “string of pearls” linear narratives to reveal that some of the most important figures in Pure Land Buddhist history also translated or studied Esoteric texts, and some of the most important Esoteric masters translated or otherwise engaged important Pure Land texts. The so-called “string of pearls,” then, will be revealed to be an Indra’s Net! That there are more than a few points of overlap should lead us to consider that there is indeed room for establishing “Esoteric Pure Land” as a new approach to the study of East Asian Buddhist traditions.

Of course, it is not the position of this chapter that there was an Esoteric Pure Land school that has gone unnoticed, nor will it be suggested that Esoteric Pure Land was even a “kind” of Buddhism. This chapter will not be excavating a line of patriarchs nor a lost canon. Rather, I will argue that the rigid fixation on “kinds” of Buddhism, and the resultant socialization of scholars into narrowly defined areas of specialization has significantly preconditioned how we read pre-modern Buddhist history. The point is not that a “thing” called Esoteric Pure Land exists “out there” and that scholars have missed it; rather, what I am here referring to as Esoteric Pure Land is merely an artificial construct (a heuristic “upāya”) designed to open up dialogue on the ubiquity of “Pure Land” ideas and practices throughout the East Asian “Secret Piṭaka 秘密蔵” (C. mimizang, J. himitsuzō).

Chapter II Part I

Redefining the “Secret Piṭaka” in China

As outlined by Davidson, Orzech, Payne, and Sørensen, there are four basic approaches to the study of Vajrayāna/Tantra/Esoteric Buddhism East Asia.

The first approach merely considers Esoteric Buddhism to be synonymous with Tantrism. By this approach, Esoteric Buddhism is merely a translation of the term mijiao/mikkyō 密教, the term used for “Tantra” in the East Asian linguistic context. This position might be identified with Michel Strickmann, who was one of the first, and most influential interpreters of the East Asian reception of the tantras, and the “esotericization” of East Asian religion.

The second position distinguishes between “Esoteric” Mahāyāna and Tantrism, which is said to have developed in the 8th century with the siddhas. This position contends that Esotericism emerged with the Mahāyāna, and in some sense preceded, or laid the groundwork for, developed Tantrism. This approach is most clearly outlined by Henrik Sørensen. A third position contends that Esoteric Buddhism is basically the same as Tantra, and dates from the 6th century with the systematization of Mahāyāna and Indian ritual technologies such as mantra, mandala, homa 護摩 (C. humo, J. goma), etc., around the secret abhiṣeka 灌頂 (C. guanding, J. kanjō) ritualization of divine kingship. This approach, which sees a clearly demarcated Esoteric Buddhist tradition arising within medieval Indian “warring states” political order, is most clearly articulated by Ronald Davidson, and has had a profound impact on the scholarship of both Sørensen and Orzech.

The fourth approach argues that the term “Tantra” as such is simply not pertinent to East Asia. Whereas Indo-Tibetan Buddhism developed complex systems for understanding the tantras, a truly “Tantric” approach to Buddhism, East Asia Buddhists largely regarded “tantric” technologies as but “…a new technological extension of the Mahāyāna.” This approach is most clearly outlined in the works of Robert Sharf and Richard McBride.

This dissertation aims to draw upon the insights and contributions of each of these approaches, while also drawing upon the work of Christian Wedemeyer, Richard K. Payne, and Donald S. Lopez, Jr., as outlined in the previous chapter. These scholars, I would argue, have balanced their critical examination of the Buddhist tradition with a critical approach to the heuristic constructs employed in Buddhist Studies scholarship, and may help us think broadly about the puzzle of “Tantra” in Buddhist Studies.

Proto-tantra and the Pure vs. Miscellaneous Distinction

There is an emerging general agreement among scholars of East Asia that it is unproductive to imagine an “Esoteric School,” as such, in Chinese Buddhism. In fact, the very idea of “school” has been severely critiqued in recent years, and more scholars have come to see that there was never a Pure Land “school” in China, either. In dealing with Esoteric Pure Land in China, several issues must be taken into account: First, dhāraṇī literature flourished in all periods of Chinese Buddhist history, and spell texts and mantras proliferated across traditions. Second, the idea that Buddhism (and the Mahāyāna) could be divided into “exoteric/esoteric” teachings is a ubiquitous feature of Chinese and Mahāyāna Buddhism, broadly speaking. Third, the tantras and tantric ritual commentaries flourished as part of an emerging “Esoteric” discourse during the Tang. However, how these elements should be defined and how they relate to one another have been rather contentious areas of debate and controversy.

One of the chief issues in interpreting Chinese Esoteric Buddhism is determining how best to understand the relationship between the early dhāraṇī literature and later tantric systems. This has typically been phrased as a divide between true tantra and “proto-tantra.” Michel Strickmann’s approach to the study of “proto-tantrism” in East Asia saw the development of Daoism and Chinese spell culture as especially tantric in nature. Strickmann employed a

“monothetic” definition of tantrism based on the idea of union with a patron deity. In response, McBride and others have offered severe criticism of Strickmann’s and other monothetic approaches. Payne, for example, has argued that the idea of a “proto-tantric” phase relies too heavily on an idealized teleology of tantric “development,” wherein earlier stages are evaluated based on an anachronistic later context (real or imagined). Others, such as Sørensen, have maintained a clear division between early Esoteric Buddhism, as “ritualism and magic” in Mahāyāna Buddhism, and the “mature” tantric Buddhism.

This two-tiered approach to the study of tantra is derived in part from Japanese Shingon sectarian-polemic distinctions between “miscellaneous” esotericism 雜密 (C. zami, J. zōmitsu) and “pure” esotericism 純密 (C. chunmi, J. junmitsu). Similar to Payne’s observation about the problematic category of “proto-tantra,” Sharf, Abe, and others, have drawn upon the arguments of Misaki Ryōshū 三崎良周, who addressed the many problems that arise from the anachronistic application of “zō” and “jun” categories to early East Asian Buddhist literature and practice.353 Misaki argued that the pure/miscellaneous dichotomy was invented as a polemical category in the early-modern Japanese sectarian context, and as such, is not useful in analyzing premodern East Asian Buddhism. In response to this

critique, however, Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一 has argued that while the zōmitu/junmitsu dichotomy is a product of the Edo 江戶 period (1603- 1868), that does not mean that some form of dichotomous evaluation did not emerge when monks wrote about the relationship between the heterogeneous dhāraṇī and spell genres and the elite tantric systems upon which Kūkai developed his kenmitsu ritual discourse and training regime. Drawing upon the writings of Kūkai and others, Tomabechi suggests that there is in fact some interpretive utility to acknowledging the different degrees of systematization found in the dhāraṇī texts (zōmitsu) and the comprehensive tantric systems (junmitsu) of the Tang ācārya.354 While I am largely in agreement with Sharf, Abe, and Payne on the problematic imposition of

353 The pervasive “pure vs. miscellaneous” distinction is not found in China, and not found in the works of Kūkai. Rather, this distinction originated in the Edo period among Shingon doctrinal scholars at a time when the heterogeneous medieval world had been recast into a more regimented and hierarchically oriented sectarian landscape that largely still exists today. On this issue, see: Robert H. Sharf, Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), 266-267, 339, ft. 16. Sharf cites, Ryūichi Abe, The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 152-154, 177 who cites Misaki Ryōshū 三崎良周, “Nara jidai no mikkyō ni okeru shomondai 奈良時代の密教における諸問題,” Nanto bukkyō 都仏教 22 (1968): 62-63. See also: “Junmitsu to zōmitsu ni tsuite 純密と雑密について,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學硏究 15 (1967): 535–40. 354 Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地 誠一, “Nara jidai no mikkyō kyōten 奈良時代の密教経典,” in Shoki mikkyō—shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密教――思想・信仰・文化, ed. Takahashi Hisao 高橋尚夫, et. al. (東京, Shunjusha 春秋社 2013), 293-296.

dichotomies of dubious historical value, I am somewhat sympathetic to Tomabechi’s argument, who, like Sørensen and Orzech, argues that it is important to establish connections and divisions in the interest of promoting scholarly dialogue.

Certainly, dhāraṇī texts were not essentially “proto-tantric/zōmitsu” (or “tantric” in any fundamental sense) just as the tantras were not the inevitable telos of “esoteric” Mahāyāna traditions. Nevertheless, the importance of dhāraṇī/mantra and spell literature in the compilation and spread of the tantras (and related comprehensive ritual systems) necessitates the recognition that while there was no clear demarcation between these two “phases,” we must recognize objective differences between genres of spell literature concerned with specific goals (curing toothaches) and focused on specific deities, on the one hand, and purportedly comprehensive doctrinal-ritual systems offering a wide-ranging and organized ritual program, on the other.

However, in order to destabilize the clear binary between “proto-tantra” and “mature tantra,” while also recognizing the need to categorize and “make sense” of data, this chapter will also investigate the compilation of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha as an intermediary “compendium” stage in the development of Esoteric literature, between the more specialized spell and dhāraṇī manuals, and the comprehensive ritual systems of the mid-Tang. In this way, we will be able to self-consciously examine the development of the “Secret Piṭaka” as a broader category throughout Chinese history, without falling into the trap of zōmitsu vs. junmitsu (or proto- vs. true tantra), nor will we reify this “Esoteric” literature as somehow distinct from Mahāyāna Buddhism as a whole. Ultimately, I would like to suggest that this approach or general orientation will better aid us in recognizing the place of Pure Land within these three (or more) basic phases of “Esoteric” literature.

Chinese Mahāyāna as “Esoteric” Buddhism

The Exo/Esoteric 顯密 (C. xianmi, J. kenmitsu) dichotomy, said to be so central to “Esoteric Buddhism,” is articulated in various ways across Mahāyāna Buddhist literature, which differentiates the apparent or accommodated teachings from the inherent or absolute teachings. Ultimately, following McBride, I would like to suggest that the exo/esoteric polemical dichotomy may not just be like the Mahā/Hīnayāna (greater and lesser) dichotomy, but these two ways of signaling difference across the world of Buddhist literature may in fact be the same thing. It should here be noted that Wedemeyer has recently made similar observations about the nature of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism, positing that we view Esoteric Buddhism not as a kind of Buddhism distinct from the Mahāyāna, but as a discourse internal to the Mahāyāna itself. That similar observations have been made about the Indian and Chinese Buddhist context may reveal something important about Mahāyāna Buddhism more broadly. Sharf and McBride have scrutinized the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra 大智度論 (T.

1509) (hereafter, Dazhidulun), perhaps the most important Mahāyāna compendium in early Chinese Buddhism, for its use of the exo/esoteric distinction. McBride notes that in the Dazhidulun, the term “exoteric” 現示/顯示 (C. xianshi, J. kenshi) refers simply to the śrāvaka 聲聞 (C. shengwen, J. shōmon) and pratyekabuddha 緣覺 (C. yuanxue, J. engaku) vehicle, while the term “esoteric” 祕密 (C. mimi, J. himitsu) refers to the Mahāyāna path of the bodhisattva 菩薩 (C. pusa, J. bosatsu), which is characterized by the attainment of “thaumaturgic powers putatively acquired as a by-product of the cultivation of meditative absorption.” According to McBride, before the supposed introduction of “Esoteric” Buddhism, “…for three hundred years the polemical heuristic device known as the esoteric teaching or esoteric dharma had been employed regularly by Buddhist

exegetes to promote the superiority of the advanced Mahāyāna teaching…..the Buddhāvataṃsaka, Lotus, and Nirvāṇa Sūtras were held to embody the esoteric teaching.” In other words, early Chinese Buddhists recognized particular sūtras, or the Mahāyāna as such, as presenting an “Esoteric” Buddhism. McBride’s conclusion regarding the existence and extent of an “Esoteric” Buddhism states: “Is there really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism? There are two possible answers: 1) Yes, it is the advanced teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and 2) No, it just means the advanced teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism.” McBride’s critique of the category of Esoteric Buddhism draws heavily upon Sharf’s observation that “the fundamental ingredients of Tantra—belief in the ritual efficacy of sacred

incantations and gesture, the ritual veneration or icons and the invocation of deities, the pursuit of siddhi, and the notion that buddhahood can be visited here and now—were the common heritage of virtually all traditions of Chinese Buddhist, whether elite or popular, monastic or lay.” Based on this, Sharf ultimately questions the utility of the term “Tantra” in reference to the Chinese context. In order to more clearly delineate what “Tantra” means, McBride draws upon Schopen’s definition of Tantra, and argues for a limitation of the term in China to the ritual orchestration of mudra, mantra and mandala “under the auspices of a master to produce enlightenment immediately. A broad definition…makes it hard to distinguish from mainstream Sinitic Mahāyāna.”

Dalton’s recent examination of Tibetan tantric doxography responds to this peculiar situation in Chinese Buddhist studies in a way that may be instructive here:

Sharf argues that tantra as a distinct class of teachings never existed in China, and that it is better understood as a product of Japanese and western imaginations. Sharf’s arguments should at least be considered by all scholars of Buddhist tantra. We must keep in mind, for example, the ubiquity of ritual practice, from healing rites and divination to oral recitation and visualization techniques, throughout ‘non-tantric’ Buddhism. That said however, it is clear that in India anyway, by the mid-eighth century at least, Buddhists were distinguishing the new tantric literary themes and ritual trends from those of the earlier sūtras The absence of such distinctions in China may be related to the fact that China, as has been noted by many other scholars, did not receive the Mahāyoga tantras until well after they emerged in India and Tibet…. Thus Chinese Buddhists seem to have experienced a break in their transmission of Indian tantric Buddhism around the early eighth century, just at the moment when tantric Buddhism was developing its own distinct identity in India.

Dalton’s comments are situated in the context of critiquing the prevalence of the “four-fold” tantric schemata assumed to be normative in the Tibetan context, which has often been read into the tantric literature of Indian and Tibet (and China and Japan, to some extent). While it is certainly the case that South Asian and Himalayan Buddhist cultures developed a more extensive commentarial literature on the tantras, I would argue that Dalton, Sharf, Schophen, McBride, and others, seem to rely on too clear a distinction between the “Indo-Tibetan” environment and the East Asian environment, on the one hand, and the conceptual integrity and autonomy of “Mahāyāna” and “Tantric Buddhism,” on the other hand. Moreover, their emphasis on critiquing the distorting effect that some (arguably outdated) Japanese scholarship has had on our knowledge about East Asian reception of the tantras and dhāraṇī literature has led to an implicit assumption that Indian, Tibet, and Japan experienced “Tantra” as a coherent category distinct from other Buddhist traditions. I would argue that this hinders our ability to appreciate the insights that the Chinese Buddhist canon might offer to the study of “Tantric Buddhism” more generally, and generally overestimates the coherence of the exo/esoteric dichotomy in the Japanese context.

Wedemeyer’s examination of the history of scholarship on Tantra, and the “early” emergence of Tantric Buddhist literature may be productively applied to critique this clear distinction between “earlier” Mahāyāna and “later” Tantric Buddhism. Tantra, as such, appears to be a rather amorphous category, both in the modern academy and pre-modern Buddhist polemical contexts. While it is certainly the case that we should study Chinese Buddhists on their own terms, over-emphasis on difference can lead to a reverse essentialism that over-corrects for a problem arising from the inherent ambiguity of a given context (however that “context” might be defined). The claim that China did not receive Tantra is problematic on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the evidence that our earliest available and datable “tantric” texts are preserved only in Chinese. By recognizing on the one hand, that “Tantra” as an objectively identifiable meta-category of analysis may not be particularly useful in most context, and on the other hand, by recognizing the situated-ness of “Vajrayāna/Esoteric” discursive practices as a dimension of Mahāyāna Buddhism in general (as outlined in the previous chapter), we might move the discussion forward.

Why “Esoteric?”

Scholars of East Asian Buddhism seem to prefer the term “Esoteric Buddhism” when discussing the reception of tantric texts and Vajrayāna discourse. Others employ terms like East Asian “Tantrism,” or in the case of Sharf, argue that there is no “Tantra” in China because Tantra functioned as an identifiable category only in India, Tibet, and Japan. Orzech and McBride have noted certain problems with the term “Esoteric Buddhism” as an analytical category, noting that the term has its origins in the writings of Sinnett and the Theosophists. Similarly, both have noted the prevalence of “esoteric” discourse across the Chinese Buddhist literary history. However, while McBride uses this evidence as reason to reject the term entirely, scholars such as Orzech and Sørensen have chosen it as the “perfect” term.

The use of the term Esoteric Buddhism has been complicated by the diversity of terms used in South and East Asian contexts, as well as the strategies scholars have used to cope with that diversity. Some scholars influenced by Japanese scholarship, have differentiated between Mantrayāna (ostensibly the “original” term for Shingon) and Vajrayāna, insisting that the

Mantrayāna is an earlier phase associated with the Mahāvairocana-sūtra and Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāmamahāyāna-sūtra, while the Vajrayāna is later and associated with “lefthand” sexual elements. This, however, is an anachronistic interpretation based on a creative rereading of Shingon School orthodoxy in the light of critiques of Tantra/Vajrayāna in Western scholarship. Orzech has noted that the term Mantra-yāna is quite rare in the East Asian corpus, while the term Vajrayāna is quite common in some Chinese context, especially in the works of Amoghavajra and Vajrabodhi, and other works associated with the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāmamahāyāna-sūtra. Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra describe their teachings “as the most advanced Buddhist teaching available and actually describe these teachings as Vajrayāna. But the evidence from their writings suggests that they saw the ‘Yoga’ not as an exclusive ‘sect’ or ‘school’ but as a special dispensation within the Mahāyāna [italics added for emphasis].” Similar observations have been made by Tibetologists, including Newman, Lopez, and Hopkins, who suggest that the term Vajrayāna in Tibetan Buddhism represents but one side of the dyad of sutras and tantras, or the pāramitā (path of the “perfections”) and mantra paths. In both contexts, the “Vajrayāna” is not fundamentally apart from normative Mahāyāna, nor is it simply a “supplement” or “extension”; it is rather the purportedly highest teaching of the Buddhas, attainable at the pinnacle of the bodhisattva path.

Regarding the proper terminology for the East Asian contexts, Orzech has argued for the importance of recognizing the diverse range of traditions typically subsumed under the label

“Esoteric Buddhism,” generally regarded as the appropriate term for “Tantra” in East Asia: • “Mantra-yāna” 眞言乘 (C. zhenyansheng, J. shingonjō), or mantra vehicle, actually appears very infrequently in the East Asian context. • Mantra-nāya 眞言藏 (C. zhenyanzang, J. shingonzō), in Sanskrit, mantra piṭaka, or mantra repository, is a term commonly used in the works of Śubhakasiṃha 善無畏 (637- 735) and Yixing 一行 (684-727). • Zhenyanzong 眞言宗 (J. Shingonshū), despite serving as the characters for the name of the contemporary Japanese Shingon School, is practically unheard of in Chinese sources, but the term Zenyanjiao 眞言教 (J. shingonkyō), meaning mantra teachings, is quite common across lineages and textual traditions (also often appearing alongside terms like gate 門 or dharma 法, which may also indicate ritual manuals). • Vajrayāna 金剛乘 (C. jingansheng, J. kongōjō), despite the erroneous assumption of its inherence to Tibetan Buddhism, is actually found in a number of texts, especially those associated with Vajrabodhi 金剛智 (671-741) and Amoghavajra, the Vajraśekharasūtra 金剛頂經, and Yixing’s commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, the

Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796). Later, the term was also employed by Dānapāla 施護 (fl. 970s)377 and Dharmabhadra 法賢 (d. 1001), and continued to be used in Japan up till the present. Moreover, while as a rule it may be difficult to distinguish “Esoteric Buddhism” from Mahāyāna Buddhism, the ubiquity of the Vajra as a ritual implement and metaphor for Buddhist awakening is certainly worthy of note.

• Yoga 瑜伽 (C. yuqie, J. yuga) is often found in conjunction with the term Vajrayāna, and the works of Amoghavajra and Vajrabodhi. While there remains considerable debate over which, if any, term is useful within and across the East Asian context, or across the East Asian and Indo-Tibetan divide, Astley-Kristensen has suggested that the “formal hair-splitting has some use: it draws our attention to the long process which is central to the foundation of Zhenyan in China, a process which is tied up with the broader framework of the progress of Buddhist civilization there, and which has consequences for how we view the role of the esoteric elements in the Buddhist tradition, as well as for how we regard this tradition as a religious reality in

history and in society.” Furthermore, after noting similar problems with terms like Tantra and Esoteric, he argues, “In some ways we might be better off using the internal term ‘Vajrayāna,’ but again this causes problems since it did not appear until well after many of the things that we call esoteric had already existed for some time as integral parts of the tradition.” While this point is clearly worth considering, Orzech and McRae have argued for the analytical utility of the “anachronistic” application of a particular moniker (Esoteric Buddhism and Chan, respectively) to phenomena chronologically preceding more clearly articulated discourses, traditions, and institutions. In this way, scholars may make sense of the complicated lineages of descent and the bricolage nature of the construction of historical identity. However, though we find explicit references to the “Vajrayāna” in the works of Amoghavajra in the mid-Tang, it is perhaps not the most useful term when applied to traditions that preceded his career, such as the “tantric” works of Atikūṭa, or the “proto-tantric” genres of dhāraṇī literature that eventually came to figure prominently in the “unambiguously tantric” traditions of later centuries. Ultimately, I have chosen to employ the term “Esoteric” because its semantic range appears to match the nebulous term “Secret Piṭaka” and the broader Mahāyāna exo/esoteric discourse.

Pure Land or Esoteric Buddhism? Why not both?

McBride has suggested that “all the popular buddhas and bodhisattvas, and many of the gods of the Mahāyāna pantheon, are potentially esoteric or possess esoteric attributes in some contexts…” It is therefore surprising that so very little attention has been given to the importance of “Esoteric” manifestations of the Buddha Amitābha, arguably the most popular

Buddha in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Sørensen notes:

[A] comparison between Esoteric Buddhism and the Jingtu is especially poignant, since both share similarities in their historical development, their largely non-institutional character, and the ways in which they both related to the canonical Mahāyāna literature. They were similarly integrated and absorbed into other forms of Chinese Buddhism while influencing each other.

One reason that scholars have not engaged Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhism together may originate from the overreliance on taxonomic approaches to the study of Buddhist traditions. Buddhist groups, texts, and people are categorized according to clearly delineated “kinds” of Buddhism, rather than on the diverse (and often contradictory) ways in which Buddhists have categorized themselves in both polemical and descriptive contexts. Another factor, noted in particular by Sharf and Payne, is the influence of Japanese founder-centric “teleological” writing on Buddhism. Pure Land history and Esoteric Buddhist history have often been written from the perspectives of Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212) and Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1262), and Kūkai 空海 (774- 835), respectively, and has tended to be built upon the architecture of their individual patriarchal lines. “Esoteric Pure Land” is here employed as a tool for creating a new approach to East Asian Buddhism that moves beyond such simplistic linear taxonomic models.

McBride has noted a few important texts that are useful for thinking about Mahāyāna Buddhist esoteric discourse functioned alongside the articulation of Pure Land concepts. He notes for example that Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617-686),384 distinguishes between exoteric and esoteric meanings of the “ten recollections” 十念 (C. shinian, K. simnyŏm, J. jūnen) of buddhānusmṛti 念佛 (C. nianfo, K. yŏmbul, J. nenbutsu) in his Yanggwŏn muryangsu-kyŏng chong’yo 兩卷無量壽經宗要 (T. 1747).385 Jiacai 迦才 (f. 645)386 also distinguishes between exoteric and esoteric 隱顯 (C. yinxian, J. inken) Pure Land in his Jingu lun 浄土論 (T. 1963, 47.90b).387 Additionally, numerous dhāraṇī texts refer to nenbutsu practice (vocal and contemplative), as well as aspiration for Pure Land rebirth. The Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī (T. nos. 1009-1018),388 for example, mentions the *buddhānusmṛti-samādhi 念佛三昧 as a central practice.389

384 C. Yuanxiao, J. Gangyō. 385 T. 1747, C. Liangjuan wuliangshou jing zongyao, J. Ryōkan Muryōju kyōshūyō; McBride, “Is there Really ‘Esoteric Buddhism,?’” 345-346. 386 J. Kazai. 387 J. Jōdoron; McBride, “Is there Really ‘Esoteric Buddhism,?’” 347, ft. 58. 388 These texts will be examined in greater detail below. Taishō 1009-1018 are as follows: • T. 1009, Chusheng wubianmen duoluonijing 出生無邊門陀羅尼經 (J. Shusse muhenmon daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Amoghavajra. • T. 1010, Foshuo chusheng wubianmen duoluoni yigui 佛說出生無邊門陀羅尼儀軌 (J. Bussetsu shusshō muhenmon daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Amoghavajra. • T. 1011, Foshuo wulianmen weimi chijing 佛說無量門微密持經 (J. Bussetsu muryōmon mimitsujikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Zhiqian.

McBride has even suggested that the Sinitic focus on dhāraṇī and mantra led to the popularity and ubiquity of nianfo.390 In this way, we might see nianfo as part of the general “esotericization” of Chinese Buddhist culture. It has been argued that in Sinology in general, there has been a neglect of the importance of spells and “magic” as a basic component of Chinese culture.391 Given that dhāraṇī and Esoteric genres are often associated with rituals for this-worldly benefits, previous scholarship tended to dismiss these texts, as well as nonphilosophical Buddhist and Daoist texts. Obviously, the supposed division between magic and religion, or between religion and philosophy, has been thoroughly deconstructed in recent years, but it has left an indelible mark upon Buddhist studies in the way scholars differentiate “Esoteric Buddhism” as a particular “kind” of Buddhism, rather than recognizing that many of the elements said to constitute this object of study are in fact germane to Mahāyāna Buddhism.

One way to approach “Esoteric Pure Land” would be to focus on contrarian examples of “this-worldly” Pure Land, and “other-worldly” Esoteric traditions. This approach, however, would do little to destabilize their reification into discrete “kinds” of Buddhism. Drawing upon

• T. 1012, Foshuo chusheng wulianmen chijing 佛說出生無量門持經 (J. Bussetsu shusshō muryōmon jikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅. • T. 1013, Anantuo muqunihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (J. Ananda mokukyanikarida kyō), 1 fasc., attr. Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. • T. 1014, Wuliangmen pomo tuoluonijing 無量門破魔陀羅尼經 (J. Muryōmon hama daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Gongdezhi 功德直 and Xuanchang 玄暢. • T. 1015, Foshuo anan tuomuquniheli tuolinnijing 佛說阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀鄰尼經 (J. Bussetsu ananda mokukyanikari darinnikyō), 1 fasc., attr., Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多.

• T. 1016, Shelifu tuoluonijing 舍利弗陀羅尼經 (J. Sharihotsu daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Saṃghavarman 僧伽婆羅. • T. 1017, Foshuo yixiang chusheng pusa jing 佛說一向出生菩薩經 (J. Bussetsu ikkō shusshō bosatsukyō), 1 fasc., attr. Jñānagupta 闍那崛多. • T. 1018, Chusheng wubianmen duoluoni jing 出生無邊門陀羅尼經 (J. Shusshō mhenmon daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Zhiyan 智嚴. 389 C. nianfo sanmei, J. nenbutsu sanmai; McBride, “Popular Esoteric Deities,” 216. 390 McBride, “Esoteric Scriptures,” 222. 391 Charles D. Orzech, “Seeing Chenyen Buddhism: Traditional Scholarship and the Vajrayāna in China,” History of Religions 29.2 (1989): 94-97; Terry Kleeman, “Chinese Religion: History of Study,” (1987, Re-written and updated) in Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, ed. Norman Girardot (Chicago: Macmillan Reference, 2005), 1629-40.

Orzech and Kloetzli’s observations regarding the interplay between multiple Buddhist cosmological “systems” within the same conceptual space, I suggest that “Esoteric” ritual systems are concerned not simply with the performance of magic, nor merely the attainment of Buddhahood in this world/body, but rather with collapsing the perceived gulf between Buddhas and ordinary beings. Orzech notes, “The realization of one’s basic divinity is the realization of one’s own enlightenment and the simultaneous purification of the world.” By realizing the fundamental unity of Being/Buddha, ordinary beings are able to access all facets of the Buddhist universe, including the abilities to perform miracles, up to and including the attainment of Pure Land rebirth, and ultimately, awakening.

Periodization and Genre

Before moving on to examine the earliest phases of Esoteric Pure Land literature within the early introduction of dhāraṇī literature, let us briefly turn to a few recently proposed schema for organizing the various “phases” of Esoteric Buddhist literature between “India” and “China.” Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, one of the leading scholars of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism in Japan, has provided a five-phase rubric for organizing its history. This rubric should be understood not to unfold sequentially, or hierarchically, but rather cumulatively:

1) Spells and dhāraṇī: As part of the early transmission of Buddhist writing into East Asia, compendia of spells, as well as individual dhāraṇī and spell texts, were disseminated widely. In general, these texts outline a single ritual or spell, or devotion to a single object of devotion. 2) Avalokiteśvara nirmāṇa 變化觀音 (avatars of the Bodhisattva of compassion): This period is largely coextensive with the previous and later phase, reaching a crescendo in the early-Tang. These constitute a rather formidable genre by themselves, and have proven quite popular throughout Chinese and East Asian Buddhist history.

3) Middle Period 中期 (Tang 唐, 618-906): Primarily associated with the great Tang “mijiao” founders, Vajrabodhi, Śubhakarasiṃha, Yixing, and Amoghavajra, this is the period that has received perhaps the bulk of attention from Japanese and Western scholars. This phase saw the promotion of abhiṣeka, systematic incorporation of the “three mysteries”三密 (Ch. sanmi; J. sanmitsu), and rituals centered upon ritual consecration and construction of mandalas. Yoritomi divides this phase into three subphases:

a. Seeking the Teachings: During this period pilgrims were dispatched to India to acquire Buddhist texts and knowledge of Sanskrit. b. Establishing the Teachings: During this period, foreign teachers began to establish teaching and ritual lineages at many major monastic centers. c. Sustaining the Teachings: Tang emperors gave direct support and patronage to specialists in the Buddhist tantras. As a result, “tantric” lineages and texts began to exert an even stronger influence on the Chinese Buddhist world. 4) Later Period 後期 (Song 宋, 960-1279): This period experienced the broad dissemination of the “esoteric arts” characteristic of tantric literature and ritual throughout much of Chinese culture. This “esotericization” is commonly regarded as a feature of Chinese Buddhism from the Tang, Song, and onward.

5) “Tibetan” Period: This period saw the introduction of Tibetan lamas into the courts of the Mongolian Yuan 元 dynasty (1271-1368), the Han Chinese Ming 明 dynasty (13681644), and the Manchurian Qing 淸 dynasty (1644-1911). By this time, it is has been suggested, Han Chinese Buddhism was already quite “esotericized,” and Tibetan Buddhism simply did not have a significant impact upon general Chinese Buddhism, beyond the court, until after the 1951 invasion of the PRC into Tibet. This rubric more or less represents the standard narrative of the dissemination and development of “Esoteric” literature in Chinese Buddhist history, and as such, it will be employed as a framing device for this examination of “Esoteric Pure Land” thought. It is the aim of this chapter to reveal the diversity and ubiquity of Pure Land thought within all five phases of the dominant narrative. In other words, we will be using the mold to break the mold, revealing the limitations of the master narrative in order to allow neglected perspectives and traditions to emerge, i.e. “Esoteric Pure Land.”

More recently, Ōtsuka Nobuo’s 大塚伸夫 groundbreaking work on the earliest available evidence for “Esoteric” literature (drawing extensively upon texts preserved in Classical Chinese, as well as Tibetan and Sanskrit) has nuanced this chronology greatly. Of the many contributions that this new research has to offer is the dismantling of the notion that “Tantra” is somehow inherently late (6th-8th century).

Whatever else Esoteric Buddhism may be (whether imagined as an anachronistic scholarly projection, or a confluences of discourses and practices constructed in relation to the tantras), “it” was instrumental to the transmission of Buddhism to China. Ōtsuka shows the wealth of resources for the study of Esoteric Buddhism available in Chinese, drawing parallels between the available Tibetan and Sanskrit literature as well. According to Ōtsuka, the development of “early tantric/esoteric literature” 初期密教 (J. shoki mikkyō) may be broken into three periods: 1

) 3rd cent. to mid-5th cent., corresponding roughly to period of the Kushana Dynasty to the early Gupta, this is the era when tantric texts were formulated and compiled. Ōtsuka suggests that this phase of the development of tantric texts may reveal to us a stage in the development of Buddhism that predates the development of Mahāyāna as a distinctive form of Buddhism, and demonstrates the general “esotericization” of early Buddhism.404 Furthermore, he detects “nenbutsu”-type practices in Parts iii and iv (see note below) that resemble the image construction and recollection so prevalent in meditation and Pure Land sutras. a. Dhāraṇī texts b. Protection Spells 2) 5th cent. to mid-6th cent., from the late-Gupta period, characterized by protection spells, dhāraṇī, and mudra-mantra-mandala based systems. This group contains texts centered upon rituals for Buddha images and “mandalic” representations of the primary object of devotion. We see here various categories of dhāraṇī and spells, mudras, abhiṣeka, and homa fire rituals, and rituals for the construction of images and mandalas for beings with many arms and heads. Ōtsuka also notes that though we see a thorough integration of “Hindu” rituals, these texts are fundamentally rooted in Mahāyāna thought and the path of the bodhisattva.   3) Late-6th cent. to early 7th cent., the end of the Gupta period into the post-Gupta period. This included an emphasis on siddhi for the accomplishment of wishes and powers, as well as abhiṣeka and the further development of mandalas and ritual images. In addition to a focus on dhāraṇī and other attributes found in the previous groups, this group also focuses upon rapid attainment of Buddhahood.409 a. Hṛdaya: These texts contain spells that directly convey the inner meaning of a text, or the power of a Buddha, or deity. Texts, ii-iv contain mandalic images.410 b. New protection spells: These texts relate to the Peacock King, Mahāmayūrī 孔雀王411 line of texts, and contain numerous militant images, including the vajra.412 c. Avalokiteśvara texts: In addition to their emphasis on the Bodhisattva of Compassion, texts in this class also include coordinated mudra-mantra-mandala- based ritual practices.413

993.19.506), Jñānayaśas (J. Daiunkyō shōubon dairokujūshi); Dayunlun qinyujing 大雲輪請雨經, 2 fasc., (T. 991.19.493) Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍 (517-589; C. Naliantiyeshe, J. Narenteiyasha) (J. Daiunrin shōukyō); Bukong juansuo zhuojing 不空羂索呪經 (T. 1093), Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (523-600; C. Shenajueduo, J. Janakutta) (S. Amoghapāśa-hṛdaya, J. Fukūkenjaku shukyō); Rulai fangbian shanqiao zhoujing 如來方便善巧呪經 (T.

1334.21.565) Jñānagupta (J. Nyorai hōben engyō jukyō); Foshuo shierfoming shenzhou jiaolianggongde chuzhang miezuijing 佛説十二佛名神呪校量功徳除障滅罪經 (T. 1348.21.860), Jñānagupta (J. Bussetsu jūnibutsu myōjin jukyōryō kudoku joshō metsuzai kyō). 409 Ōtsuka, “Shoki Mikkyō,” 13-20. 410 Zhufoxintuoluoni jing 諸佛心陀羅尼經 (T. 918.19.01), Xuanzang (J. Shobutsu shindarani kyō); Chishi tuolunijing 持世陀羅尼經 (T. 1162.20.666), Xuanzang (S. Vasudhārā-dhāraṇī, J. Jisedarani kyō); Foshuo qijuzhi fomuxin dazhunti tuoluonijing 佛説七倶胝佛母心大准提陀羅尼經 (T. 1077.20.185), Divākara (S. Cundīdevīdhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu shichi kutei butsumoshin daijuntei darani kyō); Wugoujing guangda tuoluonijing 無垢淨光陀羅尼經 (T. 1024.19.717), Mitraśānta (S. Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhā-dhāraṇī, J. Mukujōkō daidaranikyō). 411 C. Kongqiao wang, J. Kushakuō. 412 Foshuo suiqiu jide dazizai tuoluoni shenzhoujing 佛説隨求即得大自在陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1154.20.637), Maṇicinta (J. Bussetsu zuigusokutokudaijizaidarani jinshukyō); Dafangguang pusazangjing zhong

wenshushiligenben yizi tuoluonijing 大方廣菩薩藏經中文殊師利根本一 陀羅尼經 (T. 1181), Manicinta (J. Daihōkō bosatsu zōkyōchū monjushiri konpon ichiji daranikyō). 413 Qianyanqianbi Guanshiyin Pusa tuoluoni shenzhoujing 千眼千臂觀世音菩薩陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1057.20.83), Zhitong 智通 (?- 653; Chitsū) (J. Sengensenbi kanzeonbosatsu darani shinju kyō); Guanzizai pusa suixinzhoujing 觀自在菩薩隨心呪經 (T. 1103.20.457), Zhitong (J. Kanjizaibosatsu zuishinshu kyō); Guanshiyin Pusa mimizang ruyilun tuoluoni shenzhoujing 觀世音菩薩祕密藏如意輪陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1082.20.197), Śikṣānanda (J. Kanzeonbosatsu himitsuzō nyirin darani shinjukyō); Bukongjuansuo shenbian zhenyan jing 不空羂索神變眞言經 d. Uṣṇīṣa 佛頂 (C. foding, J. butchō).414 e. Vinaya 禁戒.415 f. Abhiṣeka 灌頂系.416

Just as with Yoritomi’s periodization, there is both a cumulative effect, as well as a tendency toward systematization. As discussed above, this “systematicity” should not be read as implying a hierarchical development. Rather, it simply indicates that as Buddhists sought to master this growing body of literature, they endeavored to impose order on the vast array of texts and practices they encountered. The panjiao teaching classification systems developed by early Chinese Buddhist thinkers like Zhiyi may be viewed as part of this effort. In the case of “Esoteric” literature, scholars have indicated that this “systematization” occurred in India simultaneously, and somewhat before, the development of similar systems (tantras) in East Asia.

Next, I will examine the first “phase” in the development of East Asian Esoteric literature: the reception and use of Buddhist spell and dhāraṇī texts as part of the transmission of Indian and Central Asian traditions and texts to the Sino-sphere.

(T. 1092.20.227), Bodhiruci 菩提流志 (d. 727; C. Putiliuzhi, J. Bodairushi) (S. Amoghapāśa-kalparāja, J. Fukūkenjaku jinpen shingon kyō). 414 Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 968.19.353), attr. Du Xingkai 杜行 (S. Uṣṇīsavijayādhāraṇī, J. Bucchō sonshō daranikyō); Wufoding sanmei tuoluoni jing 五佛頂三昧陀羅尼經 (T. 952.19.263) Bodhiruci (J. Gobutsu sanmai darani kyō). 415 Supohutongzhiqingwen jing 蘇婆呼童子請經 (T. 895.18.719), Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Sobakodōjishōmon kyō); Suxidijieluo jing 蘇悉地羯囉經 (T. 893.18.603), Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Soshitsuji kyarakyō). 416 Ruilingye jing 蕤呬耶經 (T. 897.18.760), Amoghavajra (J. Suikiya kyō).

Chapter II

Part II

The Mysteries of Speech in Chinese Buddhism: Dhāraṇī, Spells, and the “Mizang”

Ritual speech acts are said to be among the most powerful tools, or spiritual technologies, available to Buddhists for bridging the perceived gap between Buddhas and ordinary beings.

Moreover, dhāraṇī and mantras were among the most useful resources available to Central and South Asian Buddhists when they encountered Chinese spell craft, and endeavored to find parallels to their own Buddhist technologies of ritual speech. It appears that in some sense, to speak the words of a Buddha, or to speak the name of a Buddha (or both), places the speaker in a complex relationship with that Buddha. Paul Copp’s work on the “Superlative Spell of the Buddha’s Crown,” or “Superlative Spell,” Uṣṇīṣavijaya-dhāraṇī 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼 has been extremely instructive on this topic, and has illuminated many of the common misconceptions about dhāraṇī and the “mystery of speech” in Chinese Buddhist culture.

Copp notes that “dhāraṇī literature” is not a genre unto itself, but is rather composed of multiple distinct genres, including ritual and spell manuals and even sūtra-like narratives which prominently feature a dhāraṇī or spell. Dhāraṇī are unique to Buddhist texts, while mantras find their origin in Vedic literature. McBride notes that scholarship on dhāraṇī can generally be divided into two categories: 1) scholars who follow Lamotte, Nattier, and Braarvig in suggesting that dhāraṇī are primarily mnemonic in function, and 2) those who follow Tucci and Waddell, who hold that dhāraṇī represent an early stage leading to Tantra (proto-tantra). First, contra Lamotte and Nattier, Copp has persuasively argued that dhāraṇī and spells are more correctly understood (according to their application in context) as protective technologies, or vectors conveying the whole meaning (and perhaps power) of a sūtra in one phrase, or as an assumed accomplishment attained along the bodhisattva path. Moreover, in East Asia, terms like mantra, dhāraṇī, and zhou (often translated as “spell”) are often used interchangeably. Nattier tries to clarify this “error,” presumably basing her differentiation on Indian precedent. However, Copp suggests that this conflation is in fact based on Chinese Buddhists’ accurate reading of the Indian context wherein these terms were commonly conflated, and therefore should not be considered a Chinese “misunderstanding” of the terms.

Copp notes that while dhāraṇī largely function like/as mantra, in a deeper sense, their meaning of “to grasp” 總持 (C. zongchi, J. sōji) seems to have been applied across a vast semantic range:

[T]he word “dhāraṇī” (like the word “dharma”) is derived from the Sankrit root √dhr, “to support” or “to grasp.” The derived term seems to have originally referred to the capacity to maintain one’s “hold” of things such as scriptures (i.e. they strengthen one’s memory), of beneficial power (i.e. they improve one’s fate, or karmic-roots) or of one’s own self-composure, as well as to one’s “grasp” (in the sense of “understanding of” or “knack for”) things ranging from Buddhist doctrines to spells.

One of Copp’s most important contributions to this ongoing dialogue is that dhāraṇī and spells were not simply “sonic” entities. While the spoken nature of vocal ritual technologies is the focus of this dissertation, Copp draws our attention to the importance of the written form of dhāraṇī and spells, and how the physicality of the spell itself is said to contain great power. Toganoo Shōun, like Tucci, and others, has suggested that the dhāraṇī and spell literature that accompanied the introduction of Mahāyāna literature into China prepared the Chinese for

the mature, orthodox, Tantrism of Śubhakarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi. In this sense, these texts are somehow “proto-tantric.” While there is good reason to be skeptical of the tendency to label dhāraṇī literature as somehow “proto-tantric,” it appears that the systematization of dhāraṇī manuals may have led to the later popularity and demand for tantras in both India and China. In other words, it is an error to say that dhāraṇī are inherently tantric, or inherently non-tantric. While dhāraṇī are not uniquely tantric, they do indicate the character of the religio-philosophic milieu in which both tantric and proto-Pure Land Buddhisms were developing. This milieu is one in which there was a positive valuation of the religious efficacy of language that stands in stark contrast to the romantic presumptions that language is a hindrance. This latter forms a consistent part of contemporary Western religious culture and the modernist representations of Buddhism within that religious culture. Rather than a suspicion of language, medieval Indian religions, including Buddhism, are heir to the Vedic conceptions of language as metaphysically foundational and religiously central.

Debate over whether the dhāraṇī-piṭaka and the text translated by the three Great Tang Ācārya represent a cohesive “esoteric corpus,” often hinges upon whether or not earlier phases of the tradition should or should not be included under the umbrella of the “Esoteric,” and whether or not other phases of Buddhist history are properly “Tantric.”

One way to resolve this issue is to follow Copp, Sharf, McBride, and Morrell in looking to the Buddhist historian Zanning 贊寧 (919-1001), who describes the history of the transmission of dhāraṇī texts as the beginning of the “Transmission of the Secret Store” 傳密藏 (Chuan mizang), or Secret Piṭaka. Zanning’s history demonstrates that dhāraṇī practice came to be associated with the Tang Ācāryas that scholars have labeled with the term Esoteric Buddhism. Copp notes that there is nothing inherently “Tantric” or “Esoteric” about the term mi, and establishes that “mizang” is in many cases simply used as a way of giving praise to one’s own textual line.429

However, it is not entirely clear what is meant by “Tantric” here, many scholars seem to assume that this is a natural, easily identifiable, category emerging from within Buddhist texts. Therefore the debate about the “tantricity” of dhāraṇī is somewhat off base. To declare dhāraṇī as inherently Mahāyāna (non-tantric) or inherently Tantric (not just Mahāyāna) implies that we have a clear definition for these terms. We do not. Therefore, statements declaring the Mahāyāna normativity and the non-tantric nature of dhāraṇī are largely beside the point. What scholars have identified as “Esoteric” discourse employs a polemical claim to the highest truth and the deepest secret, and this discursive framework circulated in China in the Tang period (as a normative Mahāyāna discourse), and because vocal ritual technologies (such as mantra, dhāraṇī, hṛdaya, paritta, vidyā, etc. ) are defining characteristics of discourse about the tantras, any examination of Esoteric discourse (which is primarily concerned with the tantras) must seek to account for the place of dhāraṇī and spell literature in relation to those later developments in Chinese Buddhist history. Therefore, Zanning’s account may in fact provide us with a basis upon which we might discern a broad sense of continuity between the diversity of dhāraṇī and spell literature, and the tantric systems of the Tang.

Later Han 後漢 (25 – 220) (aka, Eastern Han 東漢)

Scholars speculate that Buddhism arrived in China during the middle of the Han dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE). Luoyang and Pengcheng were the first major monastic centers during the Han. Early Buddhism would have been a “scattered” foreign religion found among various families and communities associated with trade on the Silk Road. According to Toganoo, the introduction of visualization and spell texts during this period helped to lay the ground work for later “Esoteric” developments. For example, he notes the introduction of the *Pratyutpannabuddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 (T. 418) (hereafter, Samādhi Sūtra), as the beginning of the “proto-Tantric” phase. This text is attributed to Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖 (fl. 2nd century), a prolific early translator of Buddhist texts from Western India who arrived in Luoyang 洛陽 in 150. Lokakṣema’s Samādhi Sūtra promotes a form of Amitābha centered “buddha recollection.” Through the cultivation of this samādhi practice one is said to encounter a Buddha of the present who is currently teaching.

It is especially interesting to note that several scholars have also regarded this text as a “proto-Pure Land” sūtra, because the Buddha encountered in this text is Amitābha. Through this form of buddha-recollection, one not only brings about a vision of a Buddha, but in some sense, one produces a ritual environment in which two worlds collide. While experiencing this vision of a Buddha, one is in his presence, and thus, in the Pure Land. Two-worlds collide in order to render both as “empty.” However, the “emptiness” of this vision is not meant to imply that it is not really real, because the vision perceived is a sign of future rebirth in his land. Rather (as noted in the previous chapter), this vision serves as an experiential wedge meant to loosen one’s grip on this supposedly real world of ordinary cognition and perception.

The Samādhi Sūtra also makes explicit reference to the practice of dhāraṇī for the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land. Here, as elsewhere, dhāraṇī, like the attainment of the various powers of a Buddha and rebirth in Pure Lands, form part of the bodhisattva career. One could argue, however, that this important “early” Mahāyāna text confounds such simplistic taxonomic classifications between Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhisms because it predates even the pre-modern Buddhist attempt at this kind of bibliographic classification.

Zurcher notes that Lokakṣema also translated an early version of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra 道行般若經 (T. 224), and Prajñāpāramitā (“perfection of wisdom”) literature was particularly well received among the Chinese gentry class in the South, especially within indigenous elite “esoteric” philosophical circles that practiced Xuanxue 玄學 (J. gengaku) or “Dark Learning.” Chinese intelligentsia were especially receptive to the “Esoteric” doctrine of the Prajñāpāramitā via Xuanxue, which could be seen as an indigenous intellectual analogue to the exo/esoteric discourse prevalent throughout Mahāyāna texts.

Lokakṣema also translated the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 佛説無量清淨平等覺經 (T. 361), and the Akṣobhyavyūha-sūtra 阿閦佛國經 (T. 313),439 two of the most important “Pure Land” texts. As this case shows, depending on the predilection of the scholar, a single monk could be simultaneously the transmitter of “Pure Land Buddhism” or “Tantric Buddhism” into China. Based on this I would like to suggest that “Mahāyāna” Buddhism is by its very nature a composite entity, and Buddhist practice and thought in the premodern world was broadly articulated in a way that, when properly understood, confounds our attempts to essentialize Buddhists as belonging to one “kind” of Buddhism, or the other.

Three Kingdoms Period 三國 (220 – 280)

The decline of the Han began in 184-189 with the rebellions of the Yellow Turbans, a Daoist group among many forces that began to rebel against Han rule. As the Han began to crumble, through both internal and external pressures, China entered into a period of disunity and strife. Somewhat ironically, this domestic fracturing led to a flourishing of Buddhist thought and translations. In 190, Dong Zhuo 董桌 sacked Luoyang, and moved the emperor to Chang’an. With this, the Luoyang Buddhist communities scattered, though some persevered under the Wei dynasty, established by Cao Cao 曹操 (155-220). Liu Bei 劉備 (162-222) took over western

China, present day Sichuan, and founded the kingdom of Shu, later declaring himself emperor of Han. Sun Quan 孫權 became the “emperor” of Wu to the east, and established his capital in Jianye 建業 (Nanjing).

One of the most important monks from this period was Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 223-253) a Central Asian Yuezhi (often identified as Tocharian). After the fall of Luoyang, he moved to Jianye, and became the most prolific translator in the kingdom of Wu 呉 (222-280) during the Three Kingdoms Period. Zhi Qian was the lay disciple of Zhi Liang 支亮, an Indo-Scythian disciple of Lokakṣema. Zhi Qian’s translation of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經 (T. 642) is likely derived from Lokakṣema’s teachings. Like Lokakṣema, Zhi Qian has been regarded as a transmitter of both “Pure Land Buddhism” and early “Esoteric” texts. Zhi Qian is famous for his translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra 佛説維摩詰經 (T. 474).445 While this text is often lauded by contemporary Buddhists and scholars for its literary and non-dualist philosophical content, it is also replete with Pure Land imagery and content, and could arguably be classified as a “Pure Land” sūtra. Zhi Qian was, further, the first translator of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 佛説阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 (T. 362), and as a result he is commonly listed as one of the “transmitters” of Pure Land Buddhism. In addition, Zhi Qian also transmitted the earliest recorded dhāraṇī texts, the Anantamukha-dhāraṇī-sūtra 佛説無量門微密持經 (T. 1011) and Foshuo huaji tuoluoji shenzhou jing 佛説華積陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1356), both notable for their emphasis on nianfo oriented practices and the attainment of Pure Land rebirth.

Eastern Jin 東晉 (317-420) and Sixteen Kingdoms

After the tumultuous Three Kingdoms period, China was once again briefly unified under the Jin Dynasty (265-420), founded by Sima Yan in Luoyang. Sima Yan had been a general under the Wei, but after a period of internal struggle, overtook the Wei dynasty and eventually Wu. Though the early years of the Western Jin were prosperous, after the reign of Emperor Wu (265-290), court infighting and the encroachment of Xiongnu forces from the northwest frontier led to the fall of the dynasty and plunged the land into a new period of disunity. The Eastern Jin (317-420) was based primarily in Jianye, which was renamed Jiankang 建康. Chinese elites had come to congregate in the southern capital, and various strains of Chinese philosophical thought (including Buddhism) began to thrive. Xuanxue was especially important in the South, and it was in this intellectual context that the “gentry” Buddhism of the South developed.

Buddhism appears to have thrived at court in part because of the perceived harmony between Buddhist “emptiness” philosophy and Xuanxue. Lay Buddhism for the cultured elites led to the spread of Buddhism through this period. From this period, as well, we see an increase in the production of Pure Land texts, and many of which have been noted for their “Esoteric” orientation. After the fall of Luoyang in 311, Fotudeng 佛圖澄 (? – 348), an important early spell master, established himself in the Northern kingdom of Later Zhao (319-351). Fotudeng’s most famous disciples were the Maitreyan devotee Daoan 道安 (312/14 - 385), and Lushan Huiyuan 廬山慧遠 (334-416), a famous devotee of Amitābha. It is interesting to note that the two “founders” of the two streams of Pure Land devotion in Chinese Buddhism studied under a master of the “esoteric” arts.

While Fotuteng was in the North, an important dhāraṇī master in the South was Śrīmitra 帛戸梨蜜多羅, a Kuchean monk who came to Luoyang in 307. He translated the Foshuo guanding qiwan erqian shenwang hubiqiu zhoujing 佛説灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘呪經 (T. 1331), which contains numerous references to Pure Lands, Buddha contemplation, rebirth in Pure Lands, and Wuliangshou 無量壽. In addition to specifying rebirth in the Pure Land of the Western direction, there is a lengthy discussion of paths to rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions.

In 399, Sun En from the West marshaled his armies to attack the Jin capital while the general Huan Xuan was battling an uprising in the provinces. While Sun En’s forces were engaged with Liu Laozhi’s forces (another Jin general) Huan Xuan moved to “protect” the emperor and staged a coup d’état. While his reign did not last long, Huan Xuan enacted antagonistic policies directed at the sangha. Huiyuan famously rebuffed these attacks ca. 404, in his famous entitled, “Monks will not revere Kings 沙門不敬王者,” wherein Huiyuan argued that monks maintain a unique social position and are not subject to the laws of man. Huiyuan is especially famous for his assembly of a Pure Land society in 402, wherein he and 123 of his disciples gathered together and practiced the nianfo sanmei, and made a pact to aid each other in the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. The earliest communal rite before a statue of Amitābha was conducted by Zhi Dun in the Eastern Jin, who was also known as a Zhuangzi specialist. Huiyuan’s society was not primarily monastic, but was instead composed of many lay followers. Huiyuan was originally trained in the Chinese classics, and there is evidence that his establishment of this “alpine society” was in no small part influenced by the goal of seeking immortals in mountains. However, this goal was not without its Buddhist dimensions. According to the Lushanji 廬山記 (T. 2095), Huiyuan purportedly had a vision of an immortal with one thousand eyes. Some scholars speculate that this is a reference to the “esoteric” manifestation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

Huiyuan’s community also reputedly practiced the dhāraṇī for rebirth in the Pure Land, Bayiqie yezhang genben desheng jingtu shenzhou 拔一切業障根本得生淨土神呪 (T. 368), translated by Gunabhadra. Also, in Huiyuan’s commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra, Guanwuliangshou jingyishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T. 1749), he mentions the practice and attainment of dhāraṇī in the Pure Land. This theme recurs throughout such “Esoteric Pure Land” texts.

Northern Liang 北涼 (397-439)

In the Xiongnu dynasty, the Northern Liang (397-439), which was eventually overthrown by the Northern Wei in 439, we find the first Buddhist cave temples. Such paintings in Buddhist caves seem to have functioned as immersive environments wherein one could experience the Pure Land here in this world. One of the most important monks of this period was Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (385-433), a monk from Central India who brought many texts to the northern capital. Among these was the Dafengdeng wuxiang jing 大方等無想經 (T. 387), which Toganoo

believes to represent a more developed approach to dhāraṇī, orienting their practice in relation to vinaya 戒, meditation 定, and compassion 慧. Dharmakṣema’s Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-sūtra 悲華經 (T. 157) professes that the dhāraṇī it contains possesses the same power as the sūtra itself, a claim commonly made for dhāraṇī. This text, moreover, contains jātaka tales of both Śākyamuni and Amitābha, and ultimately promotes a Śākyamuni-centered approach to Pure Land aspiration.

McBride has examined Dharmakṣema’s translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (T. 374), which refers to the true teachings of the Mahāyāna as “Esoteric.” Here again we have an important and prolific Mahāyāna thinker and translator, one of the figures who laid the groundwork for the later development of Chinese Buddhism who promotes a vision of the Mahāyāna as “esoteric,” a systematic approach to dhāraṇī and meditation, and concern for Pure Land rebirth permeates all of the texts noted above. Another important monk from the Northern Liang period was Fazhong 法衆 (J. Hōshū), a monk from Turfan, who ca. 400-411., translated the Dafangdeng tuoluoni jing 大方等陀羅尼經 (T. 1339), which is a dhāraṇī text describing various techniques for rebirth in Sukhāvatī, and refers to the Buddha Amitāyus throughout.

Liu Song 劉宋 (420 - 479)

After Huan Xuan overtook the Jin, he was succeeded by Liu Yu 劉裕, who took advantage of the political instability of the North to extend his military reach, establishing the Liu Song. Liu Yu was originally a commander under Jin general Liu Laozhi 劉牢之 of the Jin. The culture of the Jin and the Liu Song dynasties were largely continuous with the successive Southern dynasties centered on the former Jianye capital. At this time, the Central Asian monk Kālayaśas 畺良耶舍 taught in Nanjing ca. 424. He is known as the translator of the Guanwuliangshuo jing 觀無量壽經 (T. 365), also known as the “Contemplation Sūtra,” one of the famous Three Pure Land Sūtras of the Japanese Pure Land tradition, and one of the most important sūtras in the East Asian tradition, more broadly conceived. Scholars are generally in agreement that this text is a Central Asian apocryphon. Along with the Samādhi Sūtra and other contemplation sūtras, this text promotes a form of practice reminiscent of “tantric” sādhana-style visualization exercises said to bring about encounter and unification with a Buddha. Kālayaśas also translated the Bhaiṣajyarāja-bhaiṣajya-samudgata-sūtra 佛説觀藥王藥上二菩薩經 (T. 1161), which describes the two Bodhisattvas, Bhaiṣajya-rāja 藥王菩薩 and Bhaiṣajyasamudgata 藥上菩薩. It claims that they aid beings in the attainment of rebirth in Pure Land by teaching them powerful dhāraṇī and spells, and it promotes the “dhāraṇī gate” as particularly efficacious for Pure Land rebirth. As noted above, Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 (394-468), also from Central India, transmitted the Bayiqie yezhang genben desheng jingtu shenzhou, an early instance of the Rebirth Spell, wangshengzhou 往生呪 (T. 368, 352a12 – 352a13). This dhāraṇī in particular seems to have circulated widely; it was practiced even on Mt. Lu among Huiyuan’s community, and was popularized at the Tang court by Amoghavajra. This dhāraṇī is examined in greater detail below.

Zhiyan 智嚴 (J. Chigon) was a Chinese monk from Liangzhou 涼州 (contemporary Gansu). In 394, he traveled to Kashmir, and after three years returned to China with Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅. Zhiyan was active as a translator in Chang’an ca. 427, and produced the Lotus Samādhi Sūtra 法華三昧經 (T. 269), and Anantamukha-dhāraṇī 出生無邊門陀羅尼經 (T. 1018), both of which contain numerous references to practices leading to Pure Land rebirth. Buddhabhadra later associated with both Kumārajīva and Lushan Huiyuan, and is known as the translator of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra 大方等如來藏經 (T. 666). McBride notes that his translation of the Bodhisattva-bhūmi 菩薩地持經 (T. 1581) ca. 414-421, employs the exo/esoteric dichotomy in order to rank the Mahāyāna teachings themselves. He was also an early translator of one of the major “Pure Land” sūtras, Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha 佛說無量壽經 (T. 360). He is known as well for his translations of the Guanfo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 (T. 643), and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T. 278), both of which have been regarded by some scholars as either “proto-Pure Land” or “proto-tantric” in orientation.

“Transformations” of Avalokiteśvara Dhāraṇī Literature

One of the most important genres of Buddhist literature to be imported during the period of disunity was the “transformations of Avalokiteśvara” 變化觀世音 (C. bianhua Guanshiyin, J. henge kanzeon) literature, which promoted the worship of various manifestations of Avalokiteśvara. Some scholars have viewed this as a new phase, a new “layer” in the development of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism. Yoritomi suggests that this literature may have also laid the groundwork for establishing the popularity of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, and likely helped the Lotus Sūtra grow in importance and stature in Chinese Buddhism, simply because it too contains a chapter on the miraculous powers of Avalokiteśvara. This literature is notable for its significant emphasis on the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī: Throughout Mahāyāna Buddhist literature, Avalokiteśvara is closely associated with Amitābha and the Sukhāvatī mythos. Yan has suggested that it was the “Esoteric Pure Land” features of the literature associated with Avalokiteśvara in particular that helped grow the cult of this bodhisattva. Here we will note a few of the most important pre-Tang examples, though it was only in the Tang dynasty that these texts were most influential.

• Nandi 難提497 was active in the Eastern Jin ca. 419. He translated the Qing Guanshiyin Pusa xiaofuhai tuoluoni zhoujing 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1043). This text

contains the “Six-syllable spell” (S. saḍāsarī-vidyā), the now famous “oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ,” and it describes many different manifestations of Avalokiteśvara. This text examines the salvific role of Avalokiteśvara in particular as a savior who can deliver beings from saṃsāra and into Sukhāvatī.499

Another important text in this “transformations” genre includes the Amoghapāśa-hṛdaya 不空羂索呪經 (T. 1093) text attributed to Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (523-600),501 a prolific monk from Gandhāra. In addition to describing rebirth in Sukhāvatī through the power of Amoghapāśa, a popular “Esoteric” emanation of Avalokiteśvara who uses a lasso and other implements to catch wayward sentient beings, this early text employs terms now commonplace in Pure Land literature, such as buddha-mindfulness, rebirth, etc. Amoghapāśa dhāraṇī texts may be thought of as an especially popular sub-genre of the “transformations” literature. Pure Land concepts and practices feature quite prominently in most versions (See Bodhiruci and Amoghavajra below).

Another important early dhāraṇī text attributed to Jñānagupta, the Dharmolkadhāraṇīsūtra 大法炬陀羅尼經 (T. 1340), holds that through the practice of dhāraṇī, one is able to attain birth in any Pure Land one desires.505 The promise of the ability to travel freely through the various Pure Lands of the “Buddha-verse,” a goal attainable by all high ranking Bodhisattvas, will feature broadly across the more “developed” forms of dhāraṇī and Esoteric literature.

The Ekādaśamukha-dhāraṇī 十一面觀世音神咒經 (T. 1070), translated by Yaśogupta 耶舍崛多,507 a collaborator with Jñānagupta in Chang’an from 561-578, includes a spell dedicated to the Eleven-faced emanation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion that specifically extols the benefit of attaining post-mortem rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Here in this early example, there is no sense in which the “esoteric” arts are seen in tension with the goal of Pure Land rebirth. Rather, as we have seen, and will continue to see, aspiration for Pure Land rebirth is one of the important (and largely overlooked) common features of dhāraṇī, spell, and “Esoteric” traditions.

Bhagavaddharma 伽梵達摩, from Western India, was active in China from the Yonghui reign years 永徽 (650 – 656) of the early Tang Dynasty. He translated a number of important dhāraṇī texts extolling the virtues of the Thousand-hand, Thousand-eyed, Avalokiteśvara. As with other texts in this genre, Pure Land elements suffuse these texts. For example, the Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin Pusa zhibing heyao jing 千手千眼觀世音菩薩治病 合藥經 (T. 1059) holds that one travels to Sukhāvatī on a jeweled chariot, and attains birth in that land within a lotus blossom, whereupon Buddhahood is attained. According to the Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin pusa guang dayuanman wuai dabeixin tuoluonijing 千手千眼觀世音菩薩廣大圓滿無礙大悲心陀羅尼經 (T. 1060), through Buddha contemplation, one is able to attain rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitābha in a lotus blossom, unsullied by birth in a womb. This dhāraṇī is also said to possess such power that if one chants it diligently, and bathes in a river, then one will be able to baptize beings in that river; the water will be infused with the power of the dhāraṇī and purify their sins, and bestow upon them Pure Land rebirth.

• Maṇi(*Ratna?)-cinta 寶思惟 (? – 721) arrived in the Tang capital at Luoyang in 694. He translated a number of important dhāraṇī texts, including other important Amoghapāśadhāraṇī texts, the Bukong juansuo tuoluoni zizai wangshoujing 不空羂索陀羅尼自在王呪經 (T.

1097), as well as other dhāraṇī texts that promote the act of casting off the body and attaining rebirth in Sukhāvatī, Datuoluoni mofa zhong yizixinzhoujing 大陀羅尼末法中一 心呪經 (T. 956). Another interesting text among his output promotes the dhāraṇī of Cintāmaṇi, or “wish granting jewel,” Avalokiteśvara. The Guanshiyin Pusa ruyi moni tuoluoni jing 觀世音菩薩如意摩尼陀羅尼經 (T. 1083) contains descriptions of visions of the bodhisattva assemblies in Sukhāvatī, along with encounters with Amitāyus in Sukhāvatī and Avalokiteśvara in Potalaka.

Northern Wei 北魏 (386-534)/Eastern Wei 東魏 (534-550)

Tanluan 曇巒 (467-543), who is commonly regarded as one of the first Pure Land Patriarchs,521 was active during the Eastern Wei 東魏 (386(534)-550), a Sinicized Xianbei state to the North, formerly allied with the Jin. During the Wei dynasty, as noted above, we see the first cave temples devoted to Pure Land rebirth. It appears that even in cases in which the Buddha image was that of Maitreya or Śākyamuni, aspiration for Pure Land rebirth was of chief concern. Tanluan’s primary doctrinal contribution was his division of the whole of Mahāyāna Buddhism into an easy path and a difficult path. This way of thinking about Buddhism was already evident in the form of exo/esoteric Buddhist discourse, as discussed above. Tanluan held that through “easy practice,” that is, by relying on the power of the Buddha Amitābha, one could attain awakening in his Pure Land. In contrast, Tanluan regarded the practices said to lead one along the (lengthy) bodhisattva path as the “difficult path.” By relying on the Buddha, one could attain the stage of non-retrogression in the Pure Land; while there, one could study the most advanced forms of Buddhism, and attain the highest level of awakening, all under the tutelage of a Buddha. Just as earlier and later thinkers regarded the “esoteric” teaching (which is to say, whichever teaching they regarded as best) as the fastest way to Buddhahood, Tanluan’s “easy” path could be seen as a superlative path to awakening.

According to traditional accounts, Tanluan fell ill and while pursuing practices for life extension, he is purported to have studied under the great Daoist master Tao Hongjing 陶弘景 (456–536). While cultivating these “Esoteric” arts, Tanluan eventually encountered Bodhiruci, and took refuge in the Pure Land path. The attainment of birth in a Pure Land was most certainly seen as consonant with the “Daoist” goals of prolonging life. As with Tibetan Pure Land practice, rebirth in Sukhāvatī is associated with life extension, and thus is not a strictly “post-mortem” destination.

Tanluan continued to use his knowledge of Chinese “spellcraft” to preach the Pure Land doctrine, however, it appears that he regarded the nianfo as a distinct ritual technology. For example, in one famous example, he explains, “…the efficacy of reciting the name of Amitābha by citing a spell from the [[[Baopuzi]]], a [[[Daoist]]] text, for curing edema and an incantation for protecting soldiers on the battle field. Also, after noting the common use of quince moxibustion to cure sprains, he remarks that everyone is aware that the sprain can also be cured simply by reciting the name ‘quince.’”523 In other words, while clearly presenting the recitation of the name of Amitābha as qualitatively different from, and superior to spells, Tanluan’s purported “conversion” should be viewed in this broader context, wherein vocal ritual technologies were regarded as particularly efficacious for tapping into the power of the Buddha.524

523 Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 18, citing: T. 2060.50.470-35. 524 DDB provides a useful list of works for further study of Tanluan: Roger J. Corless, “T'an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva,” in Buddhist and Taoist Practice in Medieval Chinese Society, ed. David W. Chappell (Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1987), 36-48; Roger J. Corless, “T'an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism,” in The Pure Land Tradition: History and Development, ed. James Foard, Michael Solomon and Richard K. Payne (Berkeley: University of California, 1996), 107-137; Roger Corless, “T'an-luan's Canticles to Amita Buddha,” Pure Land, n.s. 6 (1989): 262-278; Roger Corless, “Tsan A-mi-t'o fo chi. (2): Canticles to Amita Buddha,” Pure Land, n.s. 7 (1990): 124-137; Michibata Ryōshū 道端良秀, “Donran to Dōkyō to no kankei (曇鸞と道教との關係),” in Tōyō bunka ronshū (Tokyo: Waseda University Press, 1969), 1001-1020; Roger Corless, “T'an- Sui 隋 (581-618) and Tang 唐 (618-907)

In 550, the Northern Qi (550-577) overtook the Northern Wei, and in 577, the Northern Zhou (557-581) conquered the Northern Qi, and its capital was placed in Chang’an. Emperor Wu of Zhou (r. 561-577) appears to have been suspicious of Buddhism, and suppressed Buddhism severely in 574, and when he conquered Qi, this affected Buddhism negatively throughout the North.525 In 580, the general Yang Jian established the Sui dynasty by seizing power after the emperor died. In 589, he conquered the southern Jin dynasty, and with this move, the Sui dynasty had unified China again. The Sui is often compared to the Qin dynasty (221-206 BCE). Both Qin and Sui lasted for only a few decades, but in that short time, each established policies throughout a unified China that greatly benefitted the following dynasties—the Han and Tang, respectively, which were both looked upon as “Golden Ages” in Chinese history.

To a certain extent, Sui and Tang can be viewed as largely contiguous, and many of the forms of Buddhist practice that flourished during the preceding periods of disunity flourished further during this time. Here we will briefly examine several important Sui-Tang figures who developed often overlapping perspectives on (1) the exo/esoteric dimensions of the Mahāyāna, (2) the cultivation of dhāraṇī and other “vocal ritual technologies,” and (3) aspiration for Pure Land rebirth.

During this period, Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523-592)526 engaged in a famous debate with Emperor Wu, in which he threatened that Wu’s persecution of Buddhism would result in his rebirth in hell.527 Jingying Huiyuan was a scholar of the Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra 十地經論 (T.

luan's Commentary on the Pure Land Discourse: An Annotated Translation and Soteriological Analysis of the Wang-sheng-lun chu (T 1819),” (PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973); Hsiao Ching-fen, “The Life and Teachings of T'an-luan,” (PhD dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1967). 525 Kenneth S. Chen: Buddhism in China, A Historical Survey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 190. 526 J. Jōyō Eon. 527 Tanaka, Dawn of Chinese Pure Land, 24. 1522). Like Tanluan, he was an important early Pure Land thinker who was also interested in the “Esoteric” arts. McBride has pointed out that Huiyuan (not to be confused with Lushan Huiyuan) employed the eso/exoteric dichotomy in his commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, Weimo yiji 維摩義記 (T. 1776). It appears that by this time, Buddhist scholars found the eso/exo- dichotomy (itself a panjiao of sorts) to be “a useful heuristic device….to evaluate the respective merit of the competing systems of Buddhism.” This included dhāraṇī literature as well. Huiyuan wrote an important early Chinese compendium on Mahāyāna Buddhism called Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章 (T. 1851) in which he draws upon Dharmakṣema’s dhāraṇī taxonomy from his Pusadichi jing 菩薩地持經 (T. 1581), in which mantra is classified as a kind of dhāraṇī, and both are regarded as fundamental to the bodhisattva path. McBride notes that, following Huiyuan’s example, many later Chinese Buddhist thinkers also employed Dharmakṣema’s taxonomy.

Jingying Huiyuan is also known especially for his commentary on the Contemplation sūtra, the Guan wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T. 1749). In this commentary, he suggests that the Contemplation Sūtra’s teaching should be viewed as a “sudden teaching,” along with the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra 勝鬘經 (T. 353), and Vimalakīrti (and the Daśabhūmika to some extent). Clearly, for Jingying Huiyuan, like Tanluan (and Daochuo, as we will see) the Pure Land path was regarded as a superlative “esoteric” path for traversing the bodhisattva path more efficiently.

One of the most significant thinkers in East Asia Buddhist history lived during this time: Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智 (538-597). Zhiyi was not the first Buddhist to seek to impose a comprehensive sense of order on the grand diversity of Buddhist literature and ritual, but he has perhaps been the most significant. As we have seen elsewhere, it may very well be the case that Mahāyāna Buddhism itself developed out of this need to establish a framework by which to understand Buddhist diversity. For this task, Zhiyi employed the Lotus Sūtra’s concept of an Eka-yāna 一 (C. yicheng, J. ichijō), “One Vehicle.” In his commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra, Miaofa lianhua jing wenju 妙法蓮華經文句 (T. 1718) and on the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, Weimojing xuanshu 維摩經玄疏 (T. 1777),539 Zhiyi also employed the eso/exoteric dichotomy to rank Buddhist teachings. McBride notes, “Zhiyi’s explanation of ‘esoteric teaching’ is inextricably tied to his understanding of the chronological classification of sūtras, and yet it still refers directly to the advanced teachings of the Mahāyāna.”

Zhiyi emphasized various forms of meditation and Madhyamaka thought. Drawing upon the Samādhi Sūtra, he also developed a form of buddha-recollection which used the Buddha Amitābha to engage the non-duality of Buddhas and beings. In the Mohezhiguan 摩訶止観 (T. 1911), Zhiyi discusses dhāraṇī as a path to perceiving Buddha lands, and claimed the ability of samādhi and dhāraṇī practice to purify the senses upon entry into the “Secret Piṭaka.” Here it will be sufficient to note that just as Zhiyi employed a panjiao system for evaluating levels of profundity in the Mahāyāna corpus, later Buddhists working with the tantras also endeavored to demonstrate that their texts represented the highest teaching of the Buddha. This is perhaps one reason why Japanese Tendai thinkers so readily employed Zhiyi as an early advocate of the “Esoteric” teachings as revealed by the Lotus Sūtra.

Daochuo 道綽 (562-645)545 is credited with the establishment of the idea that in the era of the decline of the dharma 末法 (C. mofa, J. mappō), the “path of sages” is fundamentally inferior to the Pure Land path. During a period of decline, Daochuo contended, one must rely upon the power of Amitābha to attain Buddhahood in the Pure Land. Weinstein suggested that this perspective may be Daochuo’s reaction to his experience of the period of disunity in China. Like Tanluan, Daochuo also appears to have possessed a keen knowledge of the culture and practice of Chinese spells and dhāraṇīs. Some scholars have suggested that Daochuo viewed the vocal recitation of the name of Amitābha was fundamentally similar to a spell. However, recent research by Michael Conway has revealed that Daochuo recognizes the vocal recitation of the nianfo as occupying a superlative place above, and apart from, other common spells.

In Daochuo’s Anleji 安樂集 (T. 1958), he presents the story of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva’s 文殊菩薩 entry into the bodhisattva path via Pure Land rebirth as recounted in the Guanfo sanmei jing 觀佛三昧海經 (T. 643). In this story, Mañjuśrī is describing his past lives wherein he met a Buddha while he was still a child, and attained rebirth in the Pure Land. Upon his entry into the bodhisattva path, he cultivated the nianfo sanmei and countless dhāraṇī. Via this story, Daochuo explains that for ordinary beings 凡夫 (C. fanfu, J. bonbu), Pure Land rebirth is the most effective way to attain awakening. Even though the being that would become Mañjuśrī began the path as a child, he nonetheless became a great bodhisattva.

In another interesting passage, while explaining the difficulty of Buddhist practice, Daochuo explains the “easy” path of Pure Land rebirth. This path is said to be easy because, within a single lifetime, whether short or long, one is able to attain rebirth in a Pure Land, wherein the attainment of Buddhahood is much easier. Among his seven different proof texts, Daochuo includes a reference to the Aparimitāyur-jñānahṛdaya-dhāraṇī 阿彌陀鼓音聲王陀羅 尼經 (T. 370), an extremely important dhāraṇī text said to aid beings in Pure Land rebirth.554 Xuanzang 玄奘 (602-664)555 is arguably the most important and famous Chinese monk to travel to India in search of Buddhist scriptures; his journey is recorded in the Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (T. 2087), which has often used by scholars of Indian Buddhism to reconstruct certain features of the South Asian Buddhist environment. While most famous as the systematizer of Yogācāra 法相 (C. Faxiang, J. Hossō) studies in China, Xuanzang also translated texts in many different areas of Buddhist learning, including many dhāraṇī texts. In his in his

Yogācāra-bhūmi 瑜伽師地論 (T. 1579) distinguishes between esoteric and exoteric upāya. Xuanzang is also well known as a devotee of the Bodhisattva/Buddha-to-be Maitreya 弥勒菩薩, and as an aspirant for rebirth in the “Pure Land” of the Tuṣita heaven 兜率天. Xuanzang’s form of Maitreya devotion was especially influential upon the development of Japanese Buddhism.562 One important dhāraṇī text for rebirth in Tuṣita is the Baming pumi tuoluoni jing 八名普密陀羅尼經 (T. 1365). Xuanzang also translated a number of important Avalokiteśvara dhāraṇī texts promoting post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī. His translation of the Eleven-faced Avalokiteśvara spell, Shiyimian shenzhouxinjing 十一面神呪心經 (T. 1071) discusses the attainment of rebirth in Sukhāvatī,565 and his Amoghapaśa spell, Bukongjuansuo shenzhouxin jing 不空羂索神呪心經 (T. 1094), declares its efficacy in the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Lands of all Buddhas. In addition to texts dedicated to Maitreya and Amitābha, Xuanzang also translated a text promoting rebirth in the Pure Land of Abhirati with Akṣobhya (whose name is here translated as the Unmovable Tathāgata 不動如 來), the Bajikunantuoluoni jing 拔濟苦難陀羅尼經 (T. 1395). Even this small sampling of the dhāraṇī and sūtra translations produced by Xuanzang reveals a great diversity in the nature of Pure Land aspiration in the Buddhist literature of 6th and 7th century India.

Another important translator during the Sui was Zhitong 智通 (?- 653),570 who translated several important new “transformation” dhāraṇī texts dedicated to various avatars of Avalokiteśvara. As with the earlier texts of this genre of dhāraṇī literature, aspiration for Pure Land rebirth is featured prominently. The Sahasrāvartā-dhāraṇī 千轉陀羅尼觀世音菩薩呪 (T. 1035) states that through the practice of this dhāraṇī, one can attain rebirth in all the Pure Lands one desires,572 and it discusses Pure Lands at some length. Toganoo notes that this dhāraṇī circulated very widely, and that it promoted the ideas of purifying one’s karma, fulfilling wishes, and deathbed aspiration for post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land. The Qingjing Guanshiyin Puxian tuoluonijing 清淨觀世音普賢陀羅尼經 (T. 1038) states that one may attain rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions, see all Buddhas, and learn the Dharma from them. Through the power of the Qianyanqianbi Guanshiyin Pusaa tuoluoni shenzhoujing 千眼千臂觀世音菩薩陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1057A, T. 1057B), one may attain rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions, and will be forever separated from rebirth in the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animal realms), and will attain rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha.

The Guanzizai pusa suixinzhoujing 觀自在菩薩隨心呪經 (T. 1103) a more detailed approach to harnessing the power of Avalokiteśvara via coordinated use of mudras and mantras specifically oriented towards post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land. In this text, it states that upon entry into Sukhāvatī, one may meet face to face with Avalokiteśvara, who resides in Sukhāvatī, and receive instruction in dhāraṇī practice for the benefit of all Beings. This text proposes a means by which one might seek instruction in Buddhist practice at the feet of Avalokiteśvara and Amitābha.

Bodhiruci 菩提流志 (d. 727) was an important Indian monk who was invited by Tang Gaozong in 663, but arrived in 693, and served at the court of Wu Zetian 則天武后 (628-705, r. 684-704). He is well known for his translation of the Ratnamegha-sūtra 大寶積經 (T. 310), the Adhyardhaśatikā prajñāpāramitā-sūtra 實相般若波羅蜜經 (T. 240), and assisted Śikṣānanda in the translation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Multiple dhāraṇī texts are attributed to Bodhiruci, many of which contain references to Pure Land aspiration. For example, Qianshouqianyan Guanshiyin Pusa laotuoluonishen jing 千手千眼觀世音菩薩姥陀羅尼身經

(T. 1058) describes the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions,588 and specifies that upon rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha, one will not receive a female form. Similarly, the Cakravarticintāmaṇi 如意輪陀羅尼經 (T. 1080) describes posthumous rebirth in Sukhāvatī from a lotus blossom, which, as we will see below, carries with it the implication that to be “lotus-born” implies a birth freed from contact with a female body. This male-centric description of rebirth presents the male body as the desirable generic default, here associated with purity and spirituality, a feature of Indian religion to which the Chinese audience would have been receptive.

One of his most important translations was the Amoghapāśa-kalparāja 不空羂索神變眞言經 (T. 1092), an extremely important and popular versions of the Amoghapaśa dhāraṇī. The Pure Land benefits of devotion to Amoghapāśa include visions of infinite Buddhas and Pure Lands;593 life extension; seeing the assembly of Bodhisattvas gathered before Amitābha; casting off this womb-born body; rebirth in a lotus blossom and attainment of the stage of nonreturner; rebirth in the Pure Lands of various Buddhas via lotus blossom; ultimately the attainment of full liberation. Another Amoghapāśa text, Bukongjuansuo zhouxinjing 不空羂索呪心經 (T. 1095), discusses nianfo practice, wangsheng, Amitābha, and post-mortem Pure Land rebirth in the Pure Land of whatever Buddha one desires. He also translated texts dedicated to Mañjuśrī, Foshuo wenshushili fabaozang tuoluoni jing 佛説文殊師利法寶藏陀羅尼經 (T. 1185A), and Wenshushili baozang tuoluoni jing 文殊師利寶藏陀羅尼經 (T. 1185B), both of which discuss employing the assistance of Mañjuśrī to attain Pure Land rebirth.

Uṣṇīṣa Texts: From the Crown of Amitābha

Yoritomi notes that from the second half of the 7th century Uṣṇīsavijayā-dhāraṇī texts proliferated along with the Avalokiteśvara dhāraṇī texts. He suggests that this may indicate a similar efflorescence in India around the second half of the 6th century. The uṣṇīsa texts promote dhāraṇī said to bestow upon the practitioner the powers of the top of the Buddha’s head. In many Mahāyāna sūtras this protuberance is said to emit light, and possess a great number of other powers. It is important here not to overlook the polemical claim inherent in the name of these texts. By promoting a dhāraṇī coming from the top of the Buddha, the holiest place on a Buddha’s very body, the text is claiming access to the highest level of Buddhist power. Though not necessarily “Esoteric,” the metaphorical implication is similar to the claim made in “Esoteric” systems to the highest vehicle powered by the words of a Buddha. In the case of the uṣṇīsa, the words come not from the Buddha’s mouth, necessarily, but from the top of his head. It should also be noted that in addition to the ubiquity of Pure Land imagery and aspiration across this genre of dhāraṇī literature, the Buddha whose crown these dhāraṇī are said to come is often the Buddha Amitābha, a fact that is surprisingly enough unnoticed in much of the literature on uṣṇīsa dhāraṇī. Yan notes that uṣṇīsa literature is especially concerned with Pure Land rebirth.

Buddhapāla (aka, Buddhapālita) 佛陀波利606 arrived in China in 676, and was a scholar of Madhyamaka. Legend has it that while practicing in Wutaishan 五台山, he encountered an immortal 仙人 (C. xianren, J. sennin) who compelled him to travel to India to acquire the Uṣṇīsavijayā-dhāraṇī. His translation, Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 967), states that upon the attainment of rebirth, one will have the ability to wander broadly throughout the Pure Lands of all Buddhas. Moreover, it is stated that upon rebirth in the land of peace, one will not acquire a body that is the product of a womb, but rather a miraculous body produced from a lotus blossom.

Divākara 地婆訶羅 was a monk from Central India who was active during the late 7th century. He translated two uṣṇīsa texts, Foding zuisheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂最勝陀羅尼經 (T. 969), and Zuisheng foding tuoluoni jingchuyezhang zhoujing 最勝佛頂陀羅尼淨除業障呪經 (T. 970). The former, references rebirth in Sukhāvatī, and states that after this life, one will be born in Sukhāvatī in a lotus blossom. The later, states that through practicing this dhāraṇī, at the end of one’s life one may attain rebirth in the Pure Lands of various Buddhas, and ultimately attain Buddhahood. Copp notes that the benefits of this dhāraṇī are not merely “other worldly,” but rather it is said that if one empowers a stupa with this dhāraṇī, it will infuse the wind with the power of Buddha and when that wind touches passersby, they will attain rebirth the Pure Land or one of the heavens.

Du Xingkai 杜行 , was active during the reign of Tang Gaozong 唐高宗 (Yifeng era 儀鳳, 676-679), and translated Foding zunsheng duoluoni jing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 967, 968). Like others in this genre, this text promises the attainment of post mortem rebirth in Sukhāvatī, as well as the ability to visit all Buddha fields.

Yijing 義淨 (635-713) was a Chinese monk who traveled to India in 671 to acquire Buddhist texts. Returning in 695, he collaborated with Śikṣānanda in the production of the Avataṃsaka sūtra. His record of his time in India, the Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan 海寄歸内法傳 (T. 2125) and the Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐西域求法高僧傳 (T. 2066), are important sources revealing the state of Indian Buddhism at this time. Among his many important texts are a number of dhāraṇī texts promising rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Yijing’s translation of the Foshuo yiqie gonde zhuangyanwang jing 佛説一切功徳莊嚴王經 (T. 1374) claims that one will attain birth in the Land of Bliss and quickly attain bodhi, see all Buddhas, attain rebirth in Pure Lands, and extend one’s life, and attain rebirth in limitless Pure Lands of the ten directions. His translation of the Foshuo zhuangyanwang tuoluoni zhoujing 佛説莊嚴王陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1375) also describes the attainment of rebirth in Sukhāvatī through dhāraṇī practice.629 Most important among these, however, was Yijing’s translation of the Foshuo foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛説佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 971). Throughout this text there are numerous references to Pure Land rebirth. As with other texts of this genre, through the power of this dhāraṇī, one will encounter all the Buddhas of all the Pure Lands, and all heavenly abodes. Also, one will also attain rebirth and liberation in the Pure Land of Akṣobhya, Abhirati 妙喜世界 (C. Miaoxi shijie, J. Myōki sekai), and upon casting off this body, one will never again acquire a body born of a womb, but will instead be born from a lotus blossom. This point is reiterated later, but this time Sukhāvatī is specified, as is the extension of life and the attainment of rebirth in all Buddha lands.

Chapter II Part III

Early Tantric Systems under the Tang

Yoritomi notes that from the mid-Tang, there developed a new phase in the history of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism. In particular, he and others like Orzech, Davidson, and Copp have noted a level of coherent systematization via initiations into lineages, secret transmission, a special pantheon of new deities, and the employment of the three mysteries as an organizing rubric appearing in the Sino-sphere that may be indicative of similar developments in South Asia. On the one hand, it is clear that the tantric systems introduced by the monks regarded as the founders of Esoteric Buddhism in China do indeed constitute a new phase in the development of Chinese Buddhism literature, in that they represent true “systems” of Buddhist ritual and power. It is this rhetoric of power that differentiates this phase most clearly. Prior to this phase, there is arguably a more “other-power” orientation, employing dhāraṇī and spells to tap into the power of the Buddhas. With this new phase, though, the practitioner becomes the Buddha and wields their power over the universe. However, this observation should not suggest that there is not a high degree of coherence and continuity between the early transmission of dhāraṇī literature, and the more organized systems of mid- to late-Tang Buddhism.

One of the most important tantric systems of this time in both India and China was undoubtedly the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra translated by Atikūṭa, a monk from Central India who arrived in Chang’an ca. 652. In Chang’an he resided at Ci’en Monastery 慈恩寺, and later established altars at Huiri Monastery 慧日寺. This massive text was said to represent only, “…a portion of a larger Vajramahāmaṇḍa Scripture, a small portion of the great Dhāraṇī-piṭaka.” Nonetheless, the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra came to be an extremely influential text, spawning many ritual traditions in both China and Japan.

The composite nature of this text allows scholars to see an intermediate stage between the specialized single ritual, dhāraṇī, spell texts, which were often oriented around a single object of devotion, incantation, or ritual, and the comprehensive tantric systems introduced in the Tang. Though eventually “eclipsed” by the Mahāvairocanasūtra translated by Śubhakarasiṃha, which was itself eventually eclipsed by the Vajraśekhara traditions of Vajrabodhi and Amoghavajra, this early text presents a vast array of dhāraṇī and other ritual forms organized around, “abhiṣeka, homa, mantra, and so on in the creation of a mandala/altar and the investiture of a disciple with royal symbols. In contrast to typical dhāraṇī texts, the disciple is enjoined here to utmost secrecy (T. 901.18:795a2–14).”

Of particular interest for this project is the Dhāraṇīsamgraha’s inclusion of a fairly long section devoted to rituals associated with Amitābha and rebirth in Sukhāvatī. A comprehensive analysis of the Pure Land ideas and practices found in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra could easily form the basis of a book length study unto itself, and is beyond the scope of this dissertation. For now, we will simply mention a few recurring themes, noting how and in what contexts Amitābha and/or the Pure Land(s) are mentioned. The inclusion of Pure Land-oriented practice is not an example of the “syncretism” of Pure Land and “Esoteric” Buddhism. Rather, these texts presuppose a readership already familiar with the myriad Pure Lands of the ten directions, and mentions various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that are said to aid beings in the attainment of Pure Land rebirth such as Śākyamuni, Avalokiteśvara, and Vajragarbha Bodhisattva 金剛藏菩薩. The Dhāraṇīsamgraha may, therefore, be of some use in understanding the place of Pure Land devotion in India around this time. Beginning with fascicle four, the text includes a lengthy section on the various rituals associated with the many emanations of Avalokiteśvara, reminiscent of the “Transformation Avalokiteśvara” genre of dhāraṇī texts. In particular, in this and many other contexts, Avalokiteśvara is shown promoting rituals and other practices that lead to rebirth in Sukhāvatī after death. This should not be surprising, after all, because the standard iconography of Avalokiteśvara represents this bodhisattva with a statue Amitābha in his crown. In a multiheaded emanation, there are correspondingly many emanations of Amitābha accompanying him.642

The section on Amitābha begins as if it were an independent sūtra: “Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was in Potalaka [the Pure Land of Avalokiteśvara], also known as [the mountain] island in the sea, and in attendance were a great number of arhats numbering 1500.” The Bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta Bodhisattva 大勢至菩薩 and countless other Bodhisattvas, devas, and other beings were in attendance. Amitābha’s interlocutor is Avalokiteśvara, who proceeds to ask the Buddha which methods are most appropriate for that attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land. The Buddha responds by stating that that there are many mudras, mantras, rituals that may aid a being in the pursuit of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, which he then goes on to explain.

For example, the Great Heart Mudra of Amitābha 阿彌陀佛大心印 leads to Pure Land rebirth immediately when it is considered, and it extinguishes the four grave sins of monks and nuns and the five unnatural sins. The Mudra of Amitābha that Annihilates Sin 阿彌陀佛滅罪印 is said to assist in effectively employing meditation to purify ones karma and past sins. The Seated Meditation Mudra of Amitābha 阿彌陀坐禪印 aids in the recovery of illness. The Mudra of the Uṣṇīṣa of Amitābha 阿彌陀佛頂印 is said to cure sickness when accompanied by Buddha contemplation, while the Amitābha Chakra Mudra 阿彌陀佛輪印 is said to aid in the purification of sins and sickness when accompanied by Buddha contemplation and spells, and the use of prayer beads 數珠 (S. mālā, C. shuzhu, J. juzu) made of gold, silver, copper, or crystal. The Mudra Ritual of Amitābha that Cures Sickness 阿彌陀佛療病法印 will protect one from sickness and all manner of harmful demons and spirits. Toward the end of this long description of rites associated with the Buddha Amitābha, there are instructions for how to make rosaries of various materials such as gold or jewels that will be especially efficacious in one’s practice. At the end of this section it is stated that this dhāraṇī, mudra, and spell program is merely an abbreviation, because within the teachings of Amitābha there are 84,000 dharma gates, and that these ritual practices will lead to limitless merit.

Amitābha is not the only being that may assist in Pure Land rebirth. In addition to the various emanations of Avalokiteśvara, such as the Eleven-headed Avalokiteśvara, both Mañjuśrī, and Mahāsthāmaprāpta may also be of assistance. In all of these cases, specific dhāraṇī, mantras, and mudras are applied not only for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth after death, but for this-worldly benefits as well. These rituals are said to strengthen the mind, turning one into a cosmic virtuoso of sorts, able to attain rebirth in all the Pure Lands of the ten directions upon merely thinking it. The five sins 五逆 (C. wuni, J. gogyaku), and in fact all sins, may be expunged by cultivating various ritual altars, and daily practice of the dhāraṇī of Acalanātha 不動明王, Amitāyus, etc., and ultimately, these practice are said to lead one to rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitāyus.

In no sense is it implied that here Pure Land Buddhism is being “combined” with “Esoteric Buddhism. The goal of rebirth in Sukhāvatī is seen as a goal traversing the Parāmitāyāna and the Mantra-teachings, a stop-over along the road to Nirvana. 爾時世尊正在大會。説般若波羅蜜。及説是眞言法利益方便。能令一切人非人等。聞此陀羅尼者。悉發無上菩提之心。迴向十方諸佛國土。當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提. At that time the World Honored One, in the great assembly, preached teachings such as the Perfection of Wisdom, up to and including the upāya and benefits of the Mantra-dharma, which is able to cause all humans and non-humans to hear this dhāraṇī, to attain completely the unsurpassed bodhi-mind, and to come and go to all the [[[Pure]]] Buddha Lands of the Ten Direction, and to attain perfect and complete enlightenment.

In this way, rebirth in the Pure Land is a vehicle for transformation, and not simply a destination. Following the career of Atikūṭa, a number of Indian ācāryas 阿闍梨 (C. asheli, J. ajari) came to China promoting texts and systems even more important in scope and influence. While the Dhāraṇīsamgraha might be considered a compendium of systems, texts like the Mahāvairocana and Vajraśekhara may be seen as more coherent, streamlined, approaches to the attainment of awakening. However, these new texts still contain many of the same features as the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha; like the Lotus Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, they bear the marks of their own stages of composition and expansion. As with the stages outlined above, the goal of postmortem rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī remains a constant in them as well.

Śubhakarasiṃha and the “Mantra-nāya”

Śubhakarasiṃha is regarded as the first Great Tang Ācārya and as a patriarch of Esoteric Buddhism in the Japanese Shingon tradition. According to the classic hagiography, born a prince in Central India, during a period of great political unrest he was forced to take up arms against his brothers in a succession dispute. Though victorious, he abdicated and became a monk. During his travels, he acquired numerous texts and became an accomplished master of dhāraṇī and meditation. He eventually studied under Dharmagupta, and mastered dhāraṇī, yoga, and the three mysteries. Śubhakarasiṃha later met the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara and the arhat Mahākāśyapa under Mt. Kukkuṭapāda. Later a divine being implored him to travel to China to teach in the land guarded by Mañjuśrī. He arrived in Chang’an in 716, whereupon he translated a great number of texts and ritual manuals previously unseen in China. Upon his death, he was entombed at Longmen, and his grave apparently became a popular pilgrimage site.

It is interesting here that Zanning’s biography includes this encounter with the first Indian patriarch of the Chan tradition. Some scholars have speculated that in fact, the Esoteric lineages of the Tang established a fascination with lineage that later led to the Chan emphasis of the mind-to-mind transmission between master and disciple. Moreover, Orzech has suggested that the rise of Chan may be attributed to an indigenous reaction against the popularity of the decidedly “Indian” traditions of the Tang ācāryas.

Śubhakarasiṃha was one of the most prolific translators of texts associated with what scholars now call Esoteric Buddhism. Along with Vajrabodhi, scholars regard his arrival in China as inaugurating a new phase in Chinese Esoteric Buddhism. In particular, if we look to the Mahāvariocana-sūtra, then we see a kind of scripture different from the more “specialized” forms of dhāraṇī and mantra ritual manuals, which had accompanied the transmission of Buddhism into China. However, while we can see that the organization of the text is more systematic and coherent then the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha of Atikūṭa, there are nevertheless remarkable similarities between the two texts. Most notably, both bear distinctive features of synthetic compilation, a feature which may inform us as to how dhāraṇī and mantra traditions were being organized and deployed in South Asia. The Mahāvairocana-sūtra seems to represent a comprehensive approach to the Buddhist universe, organized around the Cosmic Buddha,

Mahāvairocana, in the Akaniṣṭhāḥ 色究竟天668 heaven, before whom all Buddhas learn the “three mysteries” and attain awakening, including Śākyamuni Buddha. The Mahāvairocana- sūtra claims to present the “sudden” path by which all beings may attain corporeal awakening in this very body, just like Śākyamuni. Orzech has suggested that it was precisely this organizational comprehensiveness that seems to have won out over more amorphous collections like the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra.

That Buddhahood could be attained here and now for those with superior capacities does not necessarily mean that awakening in the Pure Land was not a desirable goal. The Buddha Amitābha is one of the five Buddhas of the mandala described in the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, and he appears throughout the text. Moreover, just as with ordinary Mahāyāna texts, the Mahāvairocana-sūtra describes the attainment of rebirth in particular Pure Lands up to and including the Pure Lands of the ten directions simply as a matter of course. In other words, Amitābha and Sukhāvatī are features presumed by this textual tradition.

Other texts associated with Śubhakarasiṃha notable for their Pure Land content, include the Suxidijieluo jing 蘇悉地羯囉經 (T. 893) and a ritual text, the Suxidijieluogongyangfa 蘇悉地羯羅供養法 (T. 894), which mentions mantras for purification of the body and the attainment of a Pure Land. Supohutongzhiqingwen jing 蘇婆呼童子請經 (T. 895) makes numerous references to Pure Lands. Foding zunshengxin podizhuan yezhang chusanjie mimisanshen fogou sanzhong xidi zhenyan yigui 佛頂尊勝心破地獄轉業障出三界祕密三身佛 果三種悉地眞言儀軌 (T. 906) contains numerous references to Amitābha, Pure Lands, rebirth, as well as post-mortem rebirth, and discusses the attainments of beings in those lands. The Zunshengfoding xiuyu jiafa yigui 尊勝佛頂脩瑜伽法儀軌 (T. 973) includes mantras for

deliverance from unfortunate realms of rebirth, purification of sins, and the attainment of Pure Land rebirth.677 In the Qijuzhidubufa 七倶胝獨部法 (T. 1079), one is said to attain rebirth in the Pure Lands of the four directions. Rituals concerning devotion to the Bodhisattva Maitreya are presented in the Cishipusa lüexiuyu’e niansong fa 慈氏菩薩略修愈誐念誦法 (T. 1141), which includes many references to rebirth in the ten Pure Lands of the ten directions,681 and rebirth in Tuṣita heaven.682 The Dizangpusa yigui 地藏菩薩儀軌 (T. 1158) is dedicated to the Bodhisattva of the Netherworld, Kṣitigarbha, and presents rituals for the purification of sins of the dead and the attainment of rebirth in Sukhāvatī.684

Śubhakarasiṃha’s most famous disciple, and the co-translator of the Mahāvairocanasūtra, was Yixing 一行 (683-787) an important scholar, engineer, astronomer, mathematician, and Buddhist thinker in his own right. As a polymath, he sought to attain a high level of expertise in all available fields of knowledge, including Daoism, Northern Zen, Tiantai, etc. Therefore, we might regard his participation in the “Mantra-nāya” teachings of Śubhakarasiṃha not as evidence of his “conversion” to a new “kind” of Buddhism, but rather as his pursuit of a newly available area of specialized Buddhist knowledge.

Figures like Yixing are therefore important for grasping the interdependence of the various Buddhist traditions. Yixing made a lasting impact upon East Asian Buddhism through his commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, the Dapiluzhenachengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796), which is particularly focused on the concept of attaining Buddhahood in this body 卽身成佛 (C. jishen chengfo, J. sokushin jōbutsu), and provides precedence for the dual cultivation of the Mahāvairocana and Vajraśekhara.

Yixing’s commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra also contains many references to Pure Land rebirth. For example, we see a discussion about the bodhisattva’s vow to cultivate Pure Land adornments,688 and a famous passage about Śākyamuni’s eternal life span and his cultivation of a Pure Land. This passage about Śākyamuni is quoted in many of the Japanese sub-commentaries on this text. Yijing discusses the “esoteric” nianfo sanmei, and presents a comprehensive vision of the Buddhist universe, describing it as the Buddha Land of Secret Adornment 密嚴佛土法界. Like the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Yijing regards the ability to visit the various Pure Lands of the ten directions as one of the many attainment made possible through “this secret teaching of the Mahāyāna 此大乘祕教.”

Vajrayāna in East Asia: The Great Teachings of Yoga

Beginning with the monk Vajrabodhi, the dhāraṇī and mantra traditions, eso/exoteric discourse, claims to a superlative path, and tantric literature are framed in terms explicitly labelled as “Vajrayāna,” the Lightning Vehicle. Vajrabodhi was a Brahman from South India who converted to Buddhism at sixteen, and studied at Nālandā. Later, in West India, he learned the yoga of the three mysteries, and dhāraṇī. While traveling in Sri Lanka, he learned of Buddhism’s flourishing in China, whereupon he boarded a vessel and took the southern sea route there. In 719, he arrived in Canton and by imperial order was lodged at 慈恩寺, and several others. At each temple he stayed at he established mandalic altars and conducted abhiṣeka rituals. When the emperor’s daughter fell ill, Vajrabodhi performed an exorcism using children as mediums who went as emissaries to King Yama. The spirit of the daughter returned for a short while, and after this event, it is said that the Emperor Xuanzang, who was a patron of Daoism, came to have faith in Vajrabodhi. Upon Vajrabodhi’s death, his disciple, Amoghavajra, convinced the emperor to grant him the title Great Tipiṭaka Master and Expounder of the Teachings 大弘教三蔵.

Vajrabodhi is notable for his translation of the Vajraśekhara, supposedly part of a much longer work, which he learned from Nāgabodhi, purportedly an 800 year-old disciple of Nāgārjuna. As do the Mahāvairocana-sūtra produced by Yixing and Śubhakarasiṃha, this text makes references to Amitābha and the Pure Lands of infinite Buddhas throughout. In the Vajraśekhara and the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Pure Land rebirth as a primary soteriological goal is not given the highest priority, but the rapid attainment of Bodhisattva powers via the tantras is said to allow one to travel freely throughout the Pure Lands of the ten directions. Therefore, specifying or placing particular emphasis on one individual Pure Land may have seemed superfluous.

In any case, other texts attributed to Vajrabodhi include clear references to rebirth in the Pure Land. For example a text dedicated to Cundā, Foshuo qijuzhifomu Zhuntidaming tuoluoni jing 佛説七倶胝佛母准提大明陀羅尼經 (T. 1075) clearly describes Pure Land rebirth as a significant goal,696 and the Wuda xukongzangpusa suji dashenyan mimi shijing 五大虚空藏菩薩速疾大神 祕密式經 (T. 1149), which is dedicated to the worship of the Bodhisattva Ākāśagarbha, includes references to saving sentient beings from hell, and delivering them to Sukhāvatī. Vajrabodhi further composed Yaoshirulai guanxing yigui fa 藥師如來觀行儀軌法 (T. 923), a ritual manual dedicated to the Medicine Buddha, in which the attainment of Pure Land rebirth is discussed several times.

Amoghavajra: Vajrayāna as the Highest Vehicle 最上 at Court

Vajrabodhi’s most famous disciple was Amoghavajra, an Indo-Sogdian, who moved to China as a child. Under Vajrabodhi’s tutelage, Amoghavajra mastered the Vajraśekhara and a number of other tantras. After his master’s death, Amoghavajra set out for the southern seas, travelling around the Malay Peninsula. It is said that he encountered many difficulties and bad weather, but thanks to the powers he had gained through his austerities, his voyage continued without incident. Making his way to Sri Lanka, Amoghavajra collected texts covering a variety of mudra-mantra-mandala ritual systems. In 756 he returned to the Tang capital, and lodged at

Daxingshansi 大興善寺 from 758-9, where he performed abhiṣeka and homa for the emperor. Amoghavajra received imperial sponsorship to establish a Mañjuśrī Hall on Mt. Wutai, a site also associated with Piṇḍola, the arhat known for his mastery of the “esoteric” arts. Amoghavajra is said to have placed particular emphasis on the importance of dhāraṇī. He was revered for having conquered/converted a great snake living in the mountains, and for having successfully prayed for rain on numerous occasions. During the battle against An Lushan 安祿山, at the behest of the emperor, Amoghavajra employed the Renwang-jing 仁王經 (T. 246) to send a spirit army to defeat the opponents of the Tang, Tibetan armies from the West. Zanning notes that there was a lineage of three persons—Vajrabodhi, Amoghavajra, and Huilang 慧朗—but that after that, the lineages proliferated (and thus, implicitly degraded). This final point is particularly interesting because, while many scholars have used Zanning to argue for an “Esoteric School,” this last point seems to refer to the general dissemination of Amoghavajra’s “yoga” throughout Chinese Buddhism.

Yoritomi suggests that the career of Amoghavajra represents a new stage in the development of Esoteric Buddhism. For Yixing, who was ethnically Chinese, “Esoteric Buddhism” was an object of knowledge for acquisition. For Amoghavajra, who was arguably bicultural, “mijiao” was “in his bones,” as he had studied it as a young boy, and his fluency in Chinese language and culture allowed him to convey more fully not only the meaning of “Esoteric” texts through his translations, but also to bring that meaning to life as someone who could walk between the worlds of Indian and Chinese traditions.704 Figures like Amoghavajra should complicate our notions of the so-called “Sinification” of Chinese Buddhism.

Amoghavajra is notable for his application of Vajrayāna technologies to aiding emperors in attaining Pure Land rebirth. One of the most important “Esoteric Pure Land” texts in East Asia is a ritual manual dedicated to Amitāyus, the Wuliang rulai guanxing gongyang yigui 無量壽如來觀行供養儀軌 (T. 930). In Japan, ever since Kūkai established his Vajrayāna ritual lineage he received under Huiguo, this text has been central to the Shingon tradition, and the Fundamental Dhāraṇī of Amitāyus 無量壽如來根本陀羅尼 contained therein may still be heard in Shingon and Tendai temples today:

Ārya Amitābha nāma dhāraṇī Namo ratna-trayāya, Namaḥ āryāmitābhāyā, Tathāgatāyārhate samyak-saṃbuddhāya, tad yathā, Oṃ amṛte amṛtodbhave amṛta-saṃbhave amṛta-garbhe, Amṛta-siddhe amṛta-teje amṛta-vikrānte, Amṛta-vikrānta-gāmine amṛta-gagana-kīrti-kare, Amṛta-dundubhi-svare sarvārtha-sādhane, Sarva-karma-kleśa-kṣayaṃ-kare svāhā.

無量壽如來根本陀羅尼曩謨 囉怛曩 怛囉夜耶曩莫 阿哩野弭跢婆耶 怛他蘗跢夜囉賀帝 三藐三沒馱耶 怛儞也他唵 阿蜜㗚帝 阿蜜㗚妬納婆吠微閉 阿蜜㗚多三婆吠 阿蜜㗚多蘖陛 阿蜜㗚多悉 阿蜜㗚多帝際 阿蜜㗚多尾訖燐帝阿蜜㗚多尾訖燐多 誐弭寧 阿蜜㗚多誐誐曩吉底迦㘑 阿蜜㗚多嫰努批娑嚩㘑 薩縛囉他 娑馱寧 薩縛 羯磨 訖禮捨 乞灑孕 迦 娑縛賀

As noted in Chapter I, the term “amṛta-,” which appears several times in the dhāraṇī above, and the mantra below, is a term used in the Ṛg Veda that has no objective connection to Amitābha, but the common association between amṛta and the elixir of eternal life has linked the term with the name “Amitāyus,” which is often translated as “Limitless Life,” with the concept mahāsukha 大安楽 (C. daanle, J. daianraku), which may refer in particular to the ultimate bliss attained through the practices found in the tantras. Several versions circulated in China, T. 366, 368, and 1185a, are noticeably shorter, while T. 930 contains the version used in the Shingon School today. It is this version that claims that one who chants this dhāraṇī 1000 times will gain rebirth in the highest level of the Pure Land. This text is also the source for the Heart Mantra of Amitāyus 無量壽如來心眞言 : Oṃ amṛta tejehara hūṃ 唵阿蜜㗚多帝 賀囉吽 (T. 930, 72b07 – 72b07).

The dhāraṇī and mantra presented in this text allow the practitioner to gain a vision of the Pure Land of Amitāyus in his assembly of Bodhisattvas, hear limitless sūtras, and at the end of one’s life with an unperturbed mind, through this samādhi, quickly attain birth in the Pure Land in a lotus blossom, born at the stage of a bodhisattva.7 3 This text and other Pure Land dhāraṇī texts describe a seven-jeweled chariot ride to Sukhāvatī.714 At the end of one’s life, one will certainly attain rebirth in Sukhāvatī, reach the highest grade of the Pure Land as a bodhisattva,716 and in Sukhāvatī, one will see the Buddha, hear the dharma, and quickly attain the highest level of bodhi. This ritual text follows a fairly standard tantric model of constructing and purifying a ritual space, inviting a Buddha, attaining union with him, and sending him back to his Pure Land.

Like the Samādhi Sūtra, this ritual is not indicative of “Pure Land” devotion, but rather a generic template into which one might insert any Buddha, bodhisattva, god, etc. However, an interesting feature of this text is its extensive utilization of imagery drawn from the Contemplation Sūtra, either a Central Asian or Chinese apocryphal text. Orzech has suggested that this text was composed by Amoghavajra as a way of appropriating the Pure Land piety of the Chinese as a vehicle for transmitting tantric texts. While it is likely that this text was not based strictly on an Indian original, it should be clear by now that there would have been no need to add “Pure Land” elements to a “tantric” text.

A number of texts composed and translated by Amoghavajra (or attributed to him) that deal with Pure Land rebirth in significant ways. One example is, Jiupin wangsheng amituosanmodiji tuoluonijing 九品往生阿彌陀三摩地集陀羅尼經 (T. 0933), which describes dhāraṇī for the nine levels of rebirth in the Pure Land. Next, the Putichang suoshuo yizi dinglun wangjing 菩提場所説一 頂輪王經 (T. 950) contains mantras and empowerments, or adhiṣṭhāna , for Pure Land rebirth,720 and Yizi qite foding jing 一 奇特佛頂經 (T. 0953) describes rebirth in Sukhāvatī and encountering Amitāyus. A text dedicated to the cintāmaṇi, or wish fulfilling gem, Ruyibaozhu zhuanlun mimixianshenchengfo jinglun zhouwangjing 如意寶珠轉輪祕密現身成佛金輪呪王經 (T. 961) describes rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitāyus, the casting off of the body, birth in the highest level of the Pure Land on a Lotus dais, coursing through the ten directions of the Vajra World Assembly, and worship at the feet of Mahāvairocana.

Dhāraṇī texts dedicated to the Buddha’s relics, such as Baoxidi chengfo tuoluonijing 寶悉地成佛陀羅尼經 (T. 962), also promise to grant post-mortem Pure Land rebirth and the attainment of the level of Dharmakāya, and in accordance with one’s vow, the ability to travel to all Pure Lands of the ten directions, and hear the Buddhas preach.728

Again, Aliduoluo tuoluoni alulijing 阿唎多羅陀羅尼阿嚕力經 (T. 1039) contains numerous references to Pure Land practice, and implores practitioners to cast off their bodies, to attain Rebirth in Sukhāvatī, and attain Buddhahood rapidly.730

There are, further, many texts promoting the worship of Avalokiteśvara attributed to Amoghavajra. As we have seen, Avalokiteśvara was regarded as a savior par excellence in Esoteric and dhāraṇī literature, and one of his/her many roles is to aid beings in attaining rebirth in Sukhāvatī and/or the Pure Lands of the ten directions was one of the most prominent. Jin’gang kongbu jihui fangguang guiyi Guanzizai pusa sanshi zuisheng xinmingwangjing 金剛恐怖集會方廣儀軌觀自在菩薩三世最勝心明王經 (T. 1033), and Guanzizai pusa shuo puxian tuoluonijing 觀自在菩薩説普賢陀羅尼經 (T. 1037) explicitly discuss post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land. Guanzizai pusa xinzhenyan yiyin niansong fa 觀自在菩薩心眞言一印念誦法 (T. 1041) describes travel to the Pure Lands of the ten directions and quickly attain the highest level of bodhi. Guanzizai pusa dabeizhiyin zhoubian fajie liyi zhongshengxunzhenrufa 觀自在 菩薩大悲智印周遍法界利益衆生薫眞如法 (T. 1042) provides instructions to “yoga practitioners” who aspire for rebirth in Sukhāvatī in order to benefit other beings, and it teaches post-mortem rebirth in the highest grade of Sukhāvatī.738 Jin’gangding yujia qianshou

qianyan Guanzizai pusa xiuxing yiguijing 金剛頂瑜伽千手千眼觀自在菩薩修行儀軌經 (T. 1056) makes prolific reference to Amitāyus and Sukhāvatī, stating that at the end of one’s life, the object of devotion will appear to guide one to the Pure Land, where one will be born in the womb of a lotus as a bodhisattva of the highest grade, and then rapidly attain the highest awakening. Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin pusa dabeixin tuoluoni 千手千眼觀世音菩薩大悲 心陀羅尼 (T. 1064) states that by the power of this dhāraṇī, one will attain birth in whatever Pure Land one has vowed to attain birth in. In this sūtra, Amitāyus proclaims additional vows regarding his own attainment of awakening, similar to what we see in the Longer

Sukhāvatīvyuha-sūtra. For example, he mentions that if beings who practice this dhāraṇī fall into the three evil realms, he will not attain awakening. He also states that beings who practice this dhāraṇī will attain birth in any Pure Land they desire, or else he will not attain awakening. Shiyimian Guanzizai pusa xinmiyan niansong yiguijing 十一面觀自在菩薩心密言念誦儀軌經 (T. 1069) describes mantras for post-mortem rebirth in Sukhāvatī, and includes a visualization of a seven-jeweled chariot, ridden by Mahāsthāmaprāpta, Amitāyus, and Avalokiteśvara that will escort one to the Pure Land. A text dedicated to Hayagrīva, a wrathful Horse headed manifestation of Avalokiteśvara 馬頭觀音, Shenheyehelifu daweinuwang lichen dashen yangongyang niansong yigui fapin 聖賀野紇哩縛大威怒王立成大神 供養念誦儀軌 法品 (T. 1072A) presents vows for Pure Land rebirth, and promises salvation from the three evil realms and certain rebirth in Sukhāvatī.

Ekajatā-dhāraṇī 佛説一髻尊陀羅尼經 (T. 1110) mentions post mortem rebirth in the realm of Amitāyus.750 Pubianguangming qingjing chicheng ruyibaoyin xinwunenbsheng damingwang dasuiqiutuoluonijing 普遍光明清淨熾盛如意寶印心無能勝大明王大隨求陀羅 尼經 (T. 1153) contains numerous references to Sukhāvatī, nianfo, and Pure Land rebirth, and states that one whose life has come to and end will certainly attain birth in Sukhāvatī. Jin’gangding yujia zuisheng mimi chengfo suiqiujide shenbian jiachi chengjiu tuoluoni yigui 金剛頂瑜伽最勝祕密成佛隨求即得神變加持成就陀羅尼儀軌 (T. 1155) describes post-mortem birth in the highest level of Sukhāvatī via the attainment of the nianfo samādhi through the cultivation of the three mysteries and other “secret” rites. Here we have one of the first explicit references to what one might call “himitsu nenbutsu” practice for the purposes of the attainment of post-mortem Pure Land rebirth. This text also outlines practice for transforming hell into the Pure Land, and later states that upon attaining birth in the land of tranquility, one will be born in a lotus blossom, not from a womb.

The Dacheng yujia jin’gangxinghai manshushili qianbiqianbo dajiaowangjing 大乘瑜伽金剛性海曼殊室利千臂千鉢大教王經 (T. 1177A) makes numerous references to the “Pure Land path” (or gate 門), Buddha and bija contemplation, and rebirth in Sukhāvatī. The Pure Land Gate is one gate among five as outlined by Śākyamuni. This “Pure Land Gate” is described as step four of five in the mandala.

Amoghavajra is regarded as perhaps the greatest of the Tang ācāryas, and his career has received the extensive coverage in English language and Japanese scholarship. And yet, the goal of rebirth in the Pure Land has been all but overlooked in this scholarship. The very notion that the Great Teachings of Yoga would not always-already accomplish for the practitioner Pure Land rebirth, as well as Buddhahood and rainmaking, simply would not have occurred to Amoghavajra. The highest goal of Mahāyāna Buddhism is the attainment of anuttarā-samyaksaṃbodhi 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提. Along the way to this goal, throughout virtually all major and minor Mahāyāna texts, the Bodhisattva attains rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions, and the purification of their area of influence also results in the creation of a “Pure Land.” The dhāraṇī gate and the Secret Piṭaka (which at times were considered the same things) purport to lead beings to this and many other goals more quickly than could other forms of Buddhist practice.

Chapter II

Part IV

After Amoghavajra: The Esotericization of Chinese Buddhism

As Yan has argued, from the Song period on, Chinese Buddhism can be characterized as possessing three main features: Chan meditation, Esoteric rituals, and the aspiration for Pure Land rebirth as a ubiquitous soteriological goal, and from the Five Dynasties and into the Song (and as this chapter suggests, possibly even earlier) “Esoteric Pure Land” permeated the Chinese Buddhist tradition. As we will see from Chapters 4-6, these developments had a far ranging effect upon the greater East Asian Buddhist world, and each are reflected in the teachings of Dōhan in 12-13th century Japan. In China, after Amoghavajra, Zanning tells us, the “Esoteric” teaching degraded, and while it was practiced widely, no great masters emerged. Nevertheless, not only may we speak about the general “esotericization” of Chinese Buddhism, but we may even go so far as to label “Esoteric Pure Land” as a significant dimension of the broader Mahāyāna Chinese Buddhist worldview.

One of the dominant features of this dimension of East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism is the engagement with the tension between the “self/other” dichotomy as pertaining to the relationship between Buddhas and deluded beings. Dhāraṇī and mantra are not simply “self-power” technologies whereby beings seek to control their own destinies, but the chanting of these technologies of the mystery of speech could also be considered an act of faith. This is because these powerful words are not our words; they are the words of the Buddha. These words straddle two worlds, and the power of the Buddhas render them effective. In 982, Emperor Taizong (r. 976-997) of the Northern Song established a new translation bureau that produced many of new texts, including many tantras. Among these include the

Hevajra-tantra 佛説大悲空智金剛大教王儀軌經 (T. 892), translated by the Indian monk Dharmarakṣa 法護 (?-1058),764 and the Mañjuśrīmulakalpa 大方廣菩薩藏文殊師利根本儀軌 經 (T. 1191), translated by Tianxizai 天息災 (?- 1000), a monk from Kashmir active in China through the end of the 9th century. The Mañjuśrīmulakalpa makes numerous references to Pure Lands, emphasizing Sukhāvatī in particular, and discusses wangsheng, nianfo, Amitāyus, and Amitābha. Individual chapters from this text circulated independently. Tianxizai also collaborated with Dānapāla and Fatian on the translation of the Kāraṇḍavyūha 佛説大乘莊嚴寶王經 (T. 1050)768 which states that in addition to the rapid attainment of rebirth, one is also able to witness Amitāyus preaching the Dharma in the Pure Land.769 Other important texts translated in this new bureau was the full translation of the Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāmamahāyāna-sūtra 佛説一切如來眞實攝大乘現證三昧大教王經 (T. 882),770 and the Guhyasamāja-tantra 佛説一切如來金剛三業最上祕密大教王經 (T. 0885),771 both translated by Dānapāla.

Another important translator from this period was Dharmabhadra 法賢 (? – 1001)772 from Nālandā who translated the Foshuo yujia dajiaowang jing 佛説瑜伽大教王經 (T. 890),773 which mentions Amitāyus and the delights of the Pure Land.774 The Foshuo wuliang gongde tuoluoni jing 佛説無量功徳陀羅尼經 (T. 0934)775 presents dhāraṇī for the attainment of visions of Amitāyus.776 Another version of this text was translated by Dharmadeva 法天,777 also from Nālandā, active in China from 973-981: the Aparimitāyur-mahāyānasūtra 佛説大乘聖無量壽決

manjushiribosatsu kegon pongyō enman tokkyahunnuō shingon daiitokugikihon, 1 fasc., corresponds to Chapter 50 of the Sanskrit version (Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa) and to Chapter 33 of the Tibetan version held at Otani University (No. 162). One theory attributes this text to Amoghavajra. DZD, 339; T. 1216, 大方廣曼殊室利童真菩薩華嚴本教 讚閻曼德迦忿怒王真言阿毘遮嚕迦儀軌品, C. Dafangguang manshushili tongzhenpusa huayanbenjiaozhanyan mandejiafennuwang zhenyan apizhelujia yigui pin, J. Daihōkōmanjushiri dōshinbosatsu kegonhongyōsan enmantokkyahunnuō shingon abisharokya giki hon, 1 fasc., corresponds to Chapter 51 of the Sanskrit, and Chapter 34-35. Attr. Amoghavajra. DZD, 339; T. 1276, 文殊師利菩薩根本大教王經金翅鳥王品, C. Wenshushilipusa genben dajiaowang jing jinchiniaowang pin, J. Monjushiribosatsu konpon daikyōō kyō konjichōō bon, 1 fasc., variant text of T. 1191. DZD, 351. 768 T. 1050, C. Foshuo dacheng zhuangyan baowang jing, J. Bussetsu daijōshōgon hōō kyō. 769 速得往生極樂世界面見無量壽如來聽聞妙法 (T. 1050, 50b05 – 51a29; 53a14- 53a28 770 T. 882, C. Foshuo yiqierulai zhenshi shedashengxianzheng sanmei jiaowangjing, J. Bussetsu issainyorai shinjitsu shōdaijō genshōzanmai daikyōōkyō. 771 T. 885, C. Foshuo yiqierulai jingang sanye zuishang mimi dajiaowangjing, J. Bussetsu issainyorai kongōsangō saijōhimitsu daikyōōkyō. 772 C. Faxian, J. Hōken.

773 T. 890, J. Bussetsu yuga daikyōō kyō. 774 T. 890, 582b05-582b10. 775 T. 934, J. Bussetsu muryōkudoku daranikyō. 776 得見無量壽佛 (T. 934, 80a27 – 80b07). 777 C. Fatian; J. Hōten. 定光明王如來陀羅尼經 (T. 937). He also translated the Samāyoga-tantra 佛説一切佛攝相應大教王經聖觀自在菩薩念誦儀軌 (T. 1051), which describes the attainment of the body, speech, and mind of Amitāyus, as well as post-mortem rebirth in Sukhāvatī. There were many other “unambiguously” tantric texts translated at this time, most of which employ the idea of the Pure Land as both concrete soteriological goal as well as object of contemplation. It is highly likely that these “two” were not necessarily regarded as separate.

In the Dazhong Xiangfu fabao lu 大中祥符法寶錄 catalogue of texts (1013), Esoteric texts are assigned to a new category, the Secret Division of the Mahāyāna Corpus 大 経蔵秘密 部. Even at this late date, by which “Tantra” had purportedly emerged as a distinct “kind” of Buddhism in India, in China, this distinction is treated as a bibliographic category falling well within the umbrella of the Mahāyāna.

Orzech, Keyworth, and others, have noted that this period lacks a clearly defined lineage of “Esoteric” masters, however, the rituals, images, and texts commonly associated with Esoteric Buddhism pervaded the Chinese Buddhist world, especially Sichuan. The most obvious example of an “Esoteric Pure Land” ritual that has permeated Chinese Buddhism is the Foshuo jiuba yankou egui tuoluoni jing 佛說救拔燄口餓鬼陀羅尼經 (T. 1313). This text was transmitted in the Tang by Amoghavajra (an earlier translation by Śikṣānanda, T. 1314 also exists). During the Song, Tiantai ritual specialists greatly popularized this text.787

Orzech has translated this text, and examined the ritual structure of other versions, T. 1319 and T. 1320. It should come as no surprise that one of the most important Esoteric traditions to survive down to the present is concerned in particular with the procurement of Pure Land rebirth for its intended object, the Hungry Ghosts 餓鬼 (C. egui, J. gaki).

Chapter II

Conclusion

This chapter examined the prevalence of Pure Land cosmology, thought, and aspiration within the Chinese Buddhist “Esoteric” literary corpus, or the Secret Piṭaka. The debate over what exactly constitutes this corpus has gone on for well over one thousand years, meaning that the matter will not be settled here. Rather, I suggest that one way of thinking about “Esoteric Buddhism” is to recognize it as an expression of a discourse fundamental to Mahāyāna Buddhism, as one manifestation of the broader effort toward establishing a superlative path—the most efficient path to Buddhahood—and not as an East Asian variant of a separate and objectively identifiable “Tantric Buddhism.”

An exhaustive study of these many texts compiled in this chapter is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but the resources amassed in this chapter should be of use in explaining the Pure Land history of “Esoteric Buddhism,” or the Esoteric history of “Pure Land Buddhism.” From the early dhāraṇī literature and the early “proto-” and tantric systems of the Tang, from the Song translation of the texts that came to be regarded as the major tantras of the Indo-Tibetan tradition, to the Hungry Ghost Burning Mouth ritual, aspiration for rebirth in Sukhāvatī has been, at least, a cosmological and soteriological presupposition. In many cases, Pure Land rebirth emerges as one of the dominant concerns for “Esoteric” literature in East Asia, however “Esoteric” might be defined.

This chapter serves as a basis for placing the following chapter concerning Japanese “Esoteric” discourse, within a broader East Asian Mahāyāna conversation. Japanese Buddhism is often studied as an object unto itself, divorced from its broader regional context; in some cases, the Japanese context has even been projected onto the Chinese context. Rather than employ Japanese developments as a litmus test for evaluating the rest of Buddhism, the intention here is first to establish what features of Japanese Esoteric discourse and Pure Land aspiration may be found in common with the Chinese tradition. As will the following chapter will show, 8th to 12th century Japanese developments may in fact be seen as largely contiguous with the ideas and practices outlined here.

CHAPTER III

EARLY JAPANESE “ESOTERIC PURE LAND”

Introduction

Within the “Mahā/Vajrayāna” ritual and doctrinal world of the greater East Asian cultural sphere, the goal of rebirth in the Buddha Amitābha’s 阿彌陀如來 Pure Land Sukhāvatī 極樂淨土 (C. Jile jingtu, J. gokuraku jōdo), or in the Bodhisattva Maitreya’s 彌勒菩薩 Tuṣita heaven 兜率天 (C. Doushuo Tian, J. Tosotsu Ten), has remained prominent. Throughout the early history of Buddhism in Japan (6th -12th centuries), many of the ritual technologies for rebirth in a Pure Land were the same ones most often labeled by scholars as “Esoteric.” However, the importance of Pure Land thought in the development of Esoteric Buddhist thought and practice in Japan has been largely ignored or misunderstood. This chapter will examine the prominence and diversity of “Esoteric Pure Land” 密教淨土教 (C. mijiao jingtujiao, J. mikkyō jōdokyō) in the early history of Japanese Buddhism as a site for the articulation and contestation of orthodoxy and identity formation, and it will survey a wide range of primary and secondary sources to lay the ground work for the examination of Dōhan’s thought in Chapters IV - VI.

The academic study of Japanese Buddhist history remains to this day defined by the contemporary sectarian landscape of early-modern and modern Japan. In the early 17th century, the Tokugawa Shōgun 德川將軍 decreed that all temples and subjects must be affiliated with a particular, and clearly defined, sectarian institution, and that these institutions must establish and maintain set orthodoxy positions and refrain from mixing with or critiquing the positions of other groups. This policy led to an emphasis on founder worship and the designation of orthodox textual interpretations for canonical texts. Later, during the late-19th and early-20th centuries,

Japanese Buddhist seminaries were transformed into European style universities, adapted to the Western model for the academic study of Buddhism. These developments resulted in the creation of distinct and clearly defined areas of study. As products of this highly influential hybrid model, contemporary scholars in Japan and the Anglophone world have been socialized into artificially constructed disciplinary regimes. As a result, something like “Esoteric Pure Land” rarely even registers on the radar of most scholars.794 Scholarship on Japanese Esoteric Buddhism, often referred to as mikkyō 密教, has tended to focus upon the life and doctrine of Kōbō-Daishi Kūkai 弘法大師空海 (774 - 835), often regarded as the transmitter of a new “kind” of Buddhism and the founder of a new school of Japanese Buddhism, the Shingon School 眞言宗. As a result, scholars interested in “Esoteric Buddhism,” almost inevitably use Kūkai as the telos for all teachings and practices that preceded

no shingonmikkyō to mikkyōjōdokyō 平安期真言密教の研究: 平安期の真言教学と密教浄土教, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Nonburu sha ノンブル社, 2008).

794 For more on this issue, see the Introduction to this dissertation, as well as Chapter I, especially Parts II and III, and Chapter V, Part I. him, and employ his sokushin jōbutsu 卽身成佛 concept, said to indicate the immanentalist attainment of “Buddhahood in this very body,” as the litmus test to measure whether or not a given practice or idea is “pure-esotericism” 純密 (J. junmitsu) or “miscellaneous esotericism” 雜密 (J. zōmitsu). Likewise, scholars of Pure Land Buddhism have tended to orient the study of Pure Lands around the doctrinal writings of either Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212) or Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1263), the “founders” of the Jōdoshū 淨土宗 and Jōdo Shinshū 淨土眞宗 traditions, respectively. As a result, the diversity of Pure Land perspectives in premodern Japanese and East Asian Buddhism, particularly those contemporary to and following the careers of the Pure Land founders, has been neglected. This is even more so the case with texts and institutions said to be “Esoteric” in nature. In other words, in order to better understand the development of Pure Land thought in Japan, and the Esoteric ritual lineages and discourses that dominated that environment, we must move beyond “sectarian consciousness” 宗派意識 (J. shūha ishiki) as the dominant organizing rubric in the study of Japanese Buddhism. In order to chart the early development of “Esoteric Pure Land” in Japan, we will first establish that for early Buddhists in Japan “Esoteric Buddhism” and “Pure Land Buddhism” were understood as coterminous features (or dimensions) of a highly diverse and multifaceted cosmopolitan Mahāyāna culture. The term kenmitsu (literally meaning “exoteric/esoteric,” or “revealed/secret”) 798 was popularized by Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄 (1926-1993) as a way to describe the interconnected environment of medieval Japanese religion and politics. According to Kuroda, the kenmitsu taisei 顯密體制, or exo/esoteric system, was an elite discourse that permeated Japanese Buddhism in which mitsu or “secret” ritual lineages based in the study of the tantras, and ken or “revealed,” doctrinal lineages functioned together as a fluid yet hierarchically oriented “orthodoxy.” My contribution to this ongoing conversation will be addressed in Chapters IV – VI; however, I will briefly contend that in order for the conversation to move forward, we must stop treating Japan like an “island nation,” and recognize that the kenmitsu discourse was crafted in dialogue with “Mahā/Vajrayāna” Buddhists texts and traditions on the continent from the very inception of the Japanese Buddhist tradition. In other words, Kuroda’s theory may be employed to suggest, as scholars of Tibetan, Indian, and Chinese Buddhism have suggested, that the traditions often subsumed under the rubric of Esoteric/Tantric Buddhism was likely never understood as a thing unto itself, as a “kind” of Buddhism, but was rather a Mahāyāna polemical sub-discourse used by Buddhists to draw upon and critique other Mahāyāna strategies and technologies. In other words, the kenmitsu concept, when read within its broader East Asian context might be productively reimagined as similar to the “Mahā/Vajrayāna” concept discussed in the previous chapters.

Many scholars have followed the lead of Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞 in arguing that beginning in the 10th century, “Pure Land Buddhism” emerged as a reformation movement in protest against the decadent and elitist “Esoteric Buddhism” of the period. These scholars argue that political and social unrest caused by the collapse of the shōen 荘園 provincial estate land and tax administration and management system, and the 9th to 10th century rise of the warrior class, lead aristocrats and commoners alike to reject the aristocratic and elitist ritualism of the “Esoteric” schools (Shingon and Tendai) in favor of a more egalitarian and other-worldly oriented “Pure Land Buddhism.” This meta-narrative was critiqued by Kuroda and Hayami Tasuku 速水侑 from the 1970s, and by Kakehashi Nobuaki 梯信暁 and Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一 more recently. Drawing upon their work, and others, this chapter will argue that it is no mere coincidence that the so-called “Pure Land schools” developed out of an “esotericized”

(mikkyōka 密教化) Hieizan. These scholars have demonstrated that whatever else this “Pure Land Buddhism” was, it was also deeply dependent upon, and participatory in, the broader Vajrayāna ritual culture that had evolved in Japan over the course of Japanese Buddhist history. In the construction of “Pure Land” as an object of study, we cannot assume a devotional style that is focused on the Buddha Amitābha or the Pure Land Sukhāvatī, nor can we assume the centrality of the incantation of the six syllable “Namu Amida Butsu 無阿彌陀佛,” nor can we dismiss the use of this chant when it is used for thaumaturgical or “magical” 呪術 (C. zhoushu, J. jujutsu) purposes. Rather, we must scrutinize each context itself as the ultimate arbiter of what “Pure Land” might entail. In other words, rather than imposing a category from the outside, categories must be designed in dialogue with particular contexts. Similarly, in the case of “Esoteric Buddhism,” we cannot assume that polemical or apologetic heuristic devices, such as the distinction between pure and miscellaneous, or the distinction between esoteric and exoteric, maintain inherent descriptive or interpretive value for all contexts—but neither should we dismiss such distinctions outright simply because they originate in the works of a great Buddhist thinker or in the minds of later interpreters of a tradition. Aside from a few elite monks, very few Buddhists would have ever explicitly seen themselves as doing Esoteric or Pure Land Buddhism as things unto themselves. Rather, in times of need, Buddhists typically turned to ritual specialists as professionals, not only proficient in a broad range of areas of doctrinal specialization, but also versed in ritual traditions regarded as the highest technologies of their day.

This chapter, covering roughly the 6th to 12th centuries, is divided into four parts. Part I investigates early Japanese Buddhist (6th to 9th cent.) engagement with different genres of Mahāyāna literature, especially those presenting rituals for exerting control over “this” world and the “next.” This section will examine the spells, images, dhāraṇī, texts, ritual professionals (orthodox and otherwise) employed by the rulers of the early Yamato 大和 state, and the founding of the major Buddhist monasteries, focusing in particular on Tōdaiji 東大寺 and the Daibutsu 大佛 (“Great Buddha”).802 This section investigates the early configuration of the concept of “Pure Lands,” political and/or postmortem, and the ritual technologies now conventionally referred to as komikkyō 古密教, or “old Esoteric Buddhism.”803

Part II reconsiders the nature of Kūkai’s contribution to Japanese Buddhism, and seeks to contextualize him both within his particular Nara institutional context and broader Sinitic cultural context. Certainly, when Kūkai returned from almost two years of study China in 806, he introduced to Japan a theory of ritual speech and performance that relied heavily upon genres of Mahāyāna literature known as giki 儀軌 (Skt. kalpa, tantra, vidhi), which had been underrepresented in Japan before his career. However, recent scholarship on Kūkai and Esoteric Buddhism in East Asia suggests that Kūkai’s systematic and comprehensive approach to the Buddhadharma should be read not as the founding of a “school,” nor the introduction of a new

802 Joan R. Piggott, The Emergence of Japanese Kingship (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997); Herman Ooms, Imperial Politics and Symbolics In Ancient Japan: The Tenmu Dynasty, 650-800 (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2009); Michael Como, Shōtoku: Ethnicity, Ritual, and Violence In the Japanese Buddhist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), and Weaving and Binding: Immigrant Gods and Female Immortals in Ancient Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2009); Allan G. Grapard, The Protocol of the Gods: A Study of the Kasuga Cult In Japanese History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); Dorothy C. Wong, and

Eric M. Field, Hōryūji Reconsidered (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008); Nemoto, Seiji 根本誠二, Nara jidai no sōryo to shakai 奈良時代の僧侶と社会 (Tokyo: Yūzankaku 雄山閣, 1999), Tenpyōki no sōryo to tennō: sōdōkyō shiron 天平期の僧侶と天皇: 僧道鏡試論 (Tokyo: Iwata Shoin 岩田書院, 2003), Nara Bukkyō to Mikkyō 奈良仏教と密教 (Tokyo: Koshi Shoin 高志書院, 2011). 803 Komikkyō: Nihon Mikkyō No Taidō: Tokubetsuten 古密教: 日本密教の胎動: 特別展 (Nara 奈良: Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館, 2005); Nakano Satoshi 中野聡, Nara jidai no Amida nyoraizō to jōdo shinkō 奈良時代の阿弥陀如来像と浄土信仰 (Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版, 2013). “kind” of Buddhism,804 but rather, as the development of a new jiaoxiang panjiao 教相判釋 (J. kyōsō hanjaku), commonly abbreviated as panjiao. This interpretive polemical rubric (panjiao) was based in part on dhāraṇī and spell literature already existing in Japan, the introduction of new genres of ritual manuals (tantras, etc.), as well as upon a sophisticated theory of ritual language that draws upon the Mahāyāna “exo/esoteric” dialectic found throughout the broader South and East Asian Buddhist world. This section also presents early “Esoteric Pure Land” literature attributed to Kūkai and the various theories concerning Kūkai’s entry into eternal

samādhi and/or/as Pure Land rebirth atop Kōyasan 高野山.805 Part III, investigates the rise of Hieizan 比叡山 as the dominant force in early Japanese religious and political history.806 This section investigates Saichō’s 最澄 (767-822) efforts to establish Hieizan as an independent institution, free from Nara hegemony, and argues that following the development of “Taimitsu 台密” (Tendai mikkyō 天台密教) by Ennin 圓仁 (794864), Enchin 圓珍 (814-891), Annen’s 安然 (841-902?), and Ryōgen’s 良源 (912-985) successful establishment of Hieizan as the dominant Buddhist power in Japan, “Esoteric Pure Land” emerged as a dominant feature of premodern Japanese religion. Following this, this section also considers the emergence of “Pure Land Buddhism” and hongaku 本覺 “original

804 Ryūichi Abe, The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). 805 Gorai Shigeru 五来重, Kōyasan to Shingon Mikkyō no kenkyū 高野山と真言密教の研究 (Tokyo: Meicho Shuppan 名 出版, 1976); Wada Shūjō 和田秀乘, Kōyasan shinkō no keisei to tenkai 高野山信仰の形成と展開

(Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館, 1997); Shirai Yūko 白井優子, Kūkai densetsu no keisei to Kōyasan: nyūjō densetsu no keisei to Kōyasan nōkotsu no hassei 空海伝説の形成と高野山 : 入定伝説の形成と高野山納骨の発生 (Tokyo: Dōseisha 同成社, 1986), and Inseiki Kōyasan to Kūkai nyūjō densetsu 院政期高野山と空海入定伝説 (Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2002); Hyōtani Kazuko 俵谷和子, Kōyasan shinkō to kenmon shinshi: Kōbō daishi nyūjō densetsu wo chūshin ni 高野山信仰と権門貴紳 : 弘法大師入定伝説を中心に (Tokyo: Iwata Shoin , 2010); 村上弘子, 高野山信仰の成立と展開 (Tokyo: Yūzankaku 雄山閣, 2009). 806 Paul Groner, Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2000), and Ryōgen and Mount Hiei: Japanese Tendai in the Tenth Century (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2002); Jinhua Chen, Legend and Legitimation: The Formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism In Japan (Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 2009). enlightenment” discourse through an examination of the works of other prominent Hieizan monks versed in kenmitsu ritual and doctrine: Senkan 千觀 (918-983), Zenyu 禪瑜 (913?-990),

Genshin 源信 (942-1017), and Ryōnin 良忍 (1073-1132). Part IV, builds upon parts I-III by proposing that the simultaneous (re)emergence of “Kūkai studies” 空海學 and the rise of Kōyasan as a major pilgrimage center depended upon the confluence of efforts by “Esoteric Pure Land” thinkers in Nara, Hieizan, and Heian-kyō Buddhist temples, such as Eikan 永觀 (1033-111) and Chingai 珍海 (1091-1152), Jōyo 定譽 (958 - 1047), Ninkai 仁海 (951-1046), Saisen 濟暹 (1025-1115), and Jippan/Jitsuhan 實範 (?1144), and so on. Next, this section then focuses on the life and thought of Kakuban 覺鑁 (10951143), tracking his meteoric rise through the ranks of Kōyasan’s monastic hierarchy in the context of Insei period 院政期, and his “himitsu nenbutsu 祕密念佛” (“secret” Buddha contemplation) thought. Ultimately, this chapter is designed to pursue the various threads throughout the Nara and Heian period that laid the foundation from which Dōhan’s medieval Kōyasan “Esoteric Pure Land” culture emerged.

Chapter III

Part I

Buddhism in the Nara Capital: Ritual Power and the Next World

It has been suggested that Yamato state (the name of one of the early states on the archipelago we now call “Japan”) centralization was in part prompted by the rise of the Sui-Tang 隋唐 (581-618, and 618-907, respectively), and subsequent the fall of Paekche 百濟 in 660. Beginning perhaps in the mid-6th century, Paekche emissaries began sending Buddha statues and Buddhist texts as a means of establishing ties with powerful chieftains and kinship groups inhabiting the archipelago. By this point, continental modes of material and intellectual culture had perhaps already been trickling in for quite some time, but with the expansion and collapse of regimes on the continent, that process accelerated. Many scholars now consider the dates of the purported introduction of Buddhism, 538 or 592, represent the official acknowledgement of practices that had been going on for some time among recently immigrated kinship groups, and perhaps others as well.

Herman Ooms and Michael Como have examined the various political and military events that led to the establishment of Buddhism as a state religion. While this process is usually described as the introduction of a “foreign” religion confronting a “native” religion, we should keep in mind that many of the so-called “indigenous” traditions against which Buddhism is often contrasted also seem to have been relatively recently imported. For example, the defeat of the Mononobe 物部 clan by the Soga 蘇我 clan in 587 should not be viewed as a “pro-Shintō” Mononobe versus a “pro-Buddhist” (and thus “pro-foreign”) Soga. Rather, when viewed in the context of similar political conflagrations from this period, these clans appear as only two rival groups both employing recently imported forms of ritual knowledge to vie for position at court. The early promotion of Buddhism must be viewed in the context of the struggle for power of different families over and against one another at the center of Yamato state formation, not a nativist culture trying to survive in the face of foreign encroachment. The individual usually credited as having truly established Buddhism in Japan is Shōtoku Taishi 聖德太子 (574-622). Shōtoku was installed as the regent of Empress Suiko 推古天皇 (554-628; r. 592-628), after Soga no Umako 蘇我馬子 (551-626) assassinated Emperor Sushun 崇峻天皇 (520-592; r. 588-592) in 592. Until quite recently, Shōtoku was also conventionally regarded as the author of three of the most important early Japanese commentaries on Buddhist texts: Hokke gisho 法華義疏 (T. 2187), Yuimagyō gisho 維摩經義疏 (T. 2186), and Shōmangyō gisho 勝鬘經義疏 (T. 2185). While Shōtoku’s authorship is now doubted by scholars, there is no doubt about the popularity of these commentaries, as they which were cited by the great

Sanron/Pure Land scholar Chikō 智光 (? - ca. 776), and others. These commentaries clearly demonstrate that Nara Buddhist intellectuals maintained a high degree of cultural fluency in Mahāyāna thought and had a particular affinity for Pure Lands as desirable locations for future rebirth. According to Inagaki, the “Shōtoku” portrayed in these commentaries believed that, “sentient beings have their own land of reward and retribution, whereas Buddhas dwell in no fixed lands; Bodhisattvas above the seventh stage are the same as Buddhas in that they have no abode. But Buddhas and those Bodhisattvas can manifest lands by their supernatural powers in order to save sentient beings.” As a result, for a long time scholars held that surely Shōtoku would have been an aspirant for Pure Land rebirth, and the Jōdo Shinshū School still ranks him among the Japanese Pure Land patriarchs.

However, over the last several decades, a new scholarly consensus has established: Shōtoku was likely not an aspirant for Pure Land rebirth as it he has traditionally been understood. Many scholars contend that belief in the afterlife in the 6th and 7th centuries likely drew upon earlier pre-Buddhist (possibly “Daoist”) conceptions of a spirit world. The consensus among Japanese scholars seems to be that rather than individual aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha, a prominent feature of Japanese Buddhism from the 10th century, early sources seem to reveal instead that aristocrats invested in statues and temples for the purpose of pacifying the spirits of ancestors and quelling the spirits of recently dispatched rivals. The Pure Land was seen as such an attractive location for their rebirth, that there would be no reason for these spirits to return and bother the living. Accordingly, rituals were designed to care for the dead, both friend and foe. Sending beings to the Pure Land was seen as a deliberate strategy to maintain order in this world. At this time, the boundary between this world and “that” world was believed to be quite permeable. Pure Land oriented rituals then served as a way to render the boundary more substantial. This way of conceiving of pursuing rebirth in the Pure Land through the cultivation and transference of merit is referred to as tsuizen jōdo 追善淨土 (“Pure Land [[[rebirth]] through] pursuing the good”), and it is often derided in secondary academic literature as an inauthentic form of Pure Land practice that demonstrates a lack of engagement with “true” Mahāyāna thought. However, the term tsuizen signifies the cultivation of good roots for the establishment of connections with Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and fortunate future rebirths, a practice fundamental to Mahāyāna Buddhism in practice. Much of the scholarship on this period is obsessed with finding Pure Land thought resembling the Pure Land thought of later ages—the Kamakura period (1195-1333), in particular. Because these scholars assume that later “faith-focused” Japanese Pure Land Buddhists represents a more complete revelation of the true Mahāyāna, the centrality of jujutsu 呪術, or “spellcraft,” Pure Land activity in Nara and Heian religion is regarded unfavorably. Unlike the situation described in these accusations, even at this early period there existed a deep engagement with a variety of Mahāyāna literary sub-genres. Some of these sub-genre’s focus on the nature of the Pure Land, while others focus on the mastery of spells, but often both are of concern. Tsuizen devotion in fact represents a fairly sophisticated and accurate understanding of the Mahāyāna understanding of spells, incantations, and other ritualized speech acts in Mahāyāna literature.

The first references to a Japanese monk who preached the Pure Land concern the monk Eon 惠隱 (early 7th cent.). Eon was an early Japanese scholar of Madhyamaka 三論 (C. Sanlun, J. Sanron), possibly of Chinese descent. In 608, he accompanied the diplomat Ono no Imoko 小野妹子 (late-6th – early-7th cent.) to China, where he stayed for over 30 years. Upon his return, around 639, he was invited to the imperial palace to deliver the first lecture on Buddhism recorded in Japanese history. The weight of this obligation must have weighed heavily upon Eon’s mind. After such a long period of study in China, he must have had at his disposal a vast corpus of Buddhist texts from which to lecture. He chose the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量壽經 (T. 360). This choice might suggest that the intended audience was already “fluent” in Buddhist matters to a certain extent, or that they already knew of the Pure Land as a soteriological goal and cosmological reality. In 652, Eon was asked to deliver the same lecture again, but this time his audience included over 1000 monks. Such a large number suggests that along with tsuizen jōdo thought, we also see a rather broad diffusion of knowledge and interest in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī and the Buddha Amitābha.

The Pure Land and Spellcraft The Nihonshoki 日本書紀, Shōsōin monjo 正倉院文書, Shoku nihongi 續日本紀, and the Nihon Ryōiki 日本靈異記 record that in addition to the standard Mahāyāna texts often associated with the introduction of Buddhism to Japan, so-called “Esoteric” texts and dhāraṇī 陀羅尼 (C. tuoluoni, J. darani) literature also constituted major areas of interest for early Buddhist scholars and ritualists in Japan. Nor was this happenstance: These texts were intentionally imported and sought after by monks in Japan well over a century before Kūkai introduced his Esoteric Buddhist ritual system.

Beghi has noted that many of the most important early Japanese Buddhist thinkers were also interested in the texts and rituals that contemporary scholars often label as “Esoteric” or “proto-Esoteric.” Indeed, given the complexity of Chinese engagement with spell, dhāraṇī, and tantric literature, it should come as no surprise that the monastics who first established the key areas of specialized knowledge, all of whom were attentive to developments on the continent, would also have taken interest in what some scholars might regard as the Esoteric corpus. After all, dhāraṇī and “Esoteric” texts were already rather broadly diffused in the Chinese Buddhist world by the 7th and 8th centuries.

In 660, a monk named Dōshō 道昭/道照 (629–700), often regarded as the transmitter of Yogācāra 法相 (C. Faxiang, J. Hossō) to Japan at Gangōji 元興寺 (the ancestral temple of the Soga clan), returned from China with a large number of texts. Among them was the Vajramaṇḍa-dhāraṇī 金剛場陀羅尼經 (T. 1345), translated by Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (561– 592). Dōshō had studied under Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) and Kuiji 窺基 (632-682) for seven years. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Xuanzang was also one of the most important transmitters of Indian Buddhist texts in Chinese Buddhist history, many of which were dhāraṇī and spell texts. Xuanzang was also a major proponent of devotion to Maitreya, and as a result of the efforts of Dōshō and others, Japanese Yogācāra scholars have long been associated with this particular form of “Pure Land” devotion. At this time, monks freely studied under a number of teachers. Though many would eventually specialize in one area of learning, they continued to draw upon a catholic range of Buddhist teachings.826 Dōshō is also recorded as having studied Chan 禪 (J. Zen) under Huiman 慧滿 (7th cent.), himself recorded as a disciple of Huike 慧可 (487-593), the purported second Chinese patriarch of Chan.

Like other Buddhist monks of his time, Dōshō built roads, bridges, and promoted the practice of cremation, and spread the use of spells. Dōshō is also significant in the history of Japanese Buddhism because of the miraculous events said to have surrounded his death. His disciples recorded a luminous presence that moved through the temple of his demise in a westerly direction, thus signifying rebirth in the Pure Land. This seems to indicate that even at this early date, Buddhist monks in Japan were already attentive to the aspiration for rebirth, and the signs that accompany that rebirth.

Meditation, Purity, and Magic: The Struggle between Official and Unofficial Monks During the Nara period, a special class of monks known as kanbyō zenshi 看病禪師 were employed by members of the court and the imperial family to care for aging, sick, dying, or deceased individuals. The term zenshi 禪師 (C. chanshi) has since the Kamakura period 鎌倉時代 (1185-1333) come to refer to one who is accomplished in seated meditation 座禪 (C. zuochan,

J. zazen), but this earlier use of the term has an entirely different connotation. “Zen” here refers less to the act of “meditation” than to the jñāna/dhyāna, or states of deep consciousness, described in South Asian meditation/yoga and cosmology. In order to attain final enlightenment, one must master the states of deep trance. Because the acquisition of supernormal powers has often been associated with the mastery of deep meditative states, South and East Asian masters of samādhi and meditation have often been employed as ritual specialists. In early Japan this was very much the case, as these “zenshi” were often associated with medical arts and were employed to look after the sick. Important “zenshi” included Hōei 法榮 (8th cent.) who looked after Emperor Shōmu 聖武天皇 (701-756; r. 724-749), and Dōkyō 道鏡 (?-722; who was technically a Dharma Master 法師 (C. fashi, J. hōshi), and who looked after Empress Shōtoku 稱德天皇 (718-770; r. 749-758 (as Kōken 孝謙), r. 764-770). Also essential for understanding this period are the “unofficial” spell masters, the most prominent examples being Gyōki 行基 (668–749) and En no Gyōja 役行者 (c. 7th-8th cent.).

Gyōki was a “self-ordained monk” 私度僧 (J. shidosō) known to have been a spell master and Pure Land preacher. He is therefore commonly looked upon as either a “proto-Pure Land” or “proto-Esoteric” figure in traditional scholarship. Of course, these labels would have likely made little sense to monks like Gyōki. In 685 he officially entered the Yakushiji 藥師寺 temple in Nara. The cult of the Medicine Buddha 藥師如來,831 the primary image at this temple, seems to have centered upon spells and rituals to cure sickness and suffering in this life, and to provide peace for the deceased, in the Pure Lands of the Medicine Buddha or Amitābha. Gyōki is known to have studied Yogācāra under Dōshō, but later traveled to various areas in Japan, devoting himself to social work, cremation, and the establishment of temples, which led to him being regarded as a “bosatsu” 菩薩 (S. bodhisattva, C. pusa), an official imperial title, while still alive.

From 717, the government began to issue official proscriptions against preaching to the laity. This was done in particular to prohibit the spread of unorthodox teachers who were seen to pose a threat to social and political stability. It appears that the court had grown worried about the powers that came with the cultivation of the “Esoteric” meditative arts in the mountains. That power, it was feared, could be used to destabilize the government’s monopoly of power. Gyōki was eventually co-oped by the state, and associated with Gangōji and the fundraising that went to aid in the establishment of the Daibutsu in 752. The repeated issuing of these and similar laws throughout this period should indicate to us that despite official prohibition, unorthodox Buddhist activities had begun to spread among the populace, and that teachers like Gyōki continued to proliferate, though less indirect evidence for their activities is indeed scarce. Gyōki continued to build numerous Buddhist centers and temples, and carried out a number of other construction projects, while teaching commoners and

aristocrats alike. According to Inagaki, Gyōki was also known to have preached the nenbutsu 念佛 to commoners. The “nenbutsu” that Gyōki would have taught at this time was intended primarily for the pacification of (potentially) wrathful spirits. The nenbutsu as a technology of spellcraft was a defining characteristic of Gyōki’s “Pure Land” thought and practice, and may be seen as an early instance of a dimension of Japanese Pure Land practice that exists up to today. The other major important unorthodox ritual master from this period was En no Gyōja, an infamous mountain ascetic and folk hero who established his hermitage in the Katsuragi mountains. Scholars have referred to these mountain practitioners as sanrin gyōja 山林行者, or an ascetic of the mountains and forests, En no Gyōja naturally attracted the envy and suspicion of the powerful elites. His practices constituted a form of Buddhism common at this time, in which local traditions, Buddhist rituals and spells, and “Daoist” “magic,” blended freely. Whether En no Gyōja was a “Buddhist” or not is debatable, but the Shūgendō 修験道 tradition regards him as their founder. His exile in 699 for the performance of unauthorized austerities suggests the distrust the government’s distrust for unorthodox practitioners of the “Esoteric” arts.

One of the most important figures to assist in the establishment state-monastic regulations over unorthodox Buddhist activity was the monk Dōji 道慈 (675–744), who in 718 returned to Japan after studying Madhyamaka in Tang China for eighteen years. In Chang’an 長安 Dōji studied under Yuankang 元康, who is said to have initiated him into the “inner most secrets” 祕奧 of Chinese Madhyamaka. Dōji also transmitted the Kokūzōbosatsu shomon shichibutsu daranikyō 虚空藏菩薩諸問七佛陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1333) and the gumonjihō 求聞持法, the ritual that later purportedly inspired Kūkai to seek out the “Esoteric” teaching in China. It is said that Dōji also studied under Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637–735), but some scholars doubt this claim. After taking up residence at Daianji 大安寺 in Yamato, Dōji promoted so-called “nation protecting” Buddhism through the Sūtra for Benevolent King 仁王般若経 (T. 245) and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra 金光明最勝王經 (T. 665). These sutras are often described as “prototantric,” because of their complex, politically oriented-cosmology, and their focus on “thisworldly” benefits. It should be noted that these and other sutras at the center of political life are also full of references to Pure Lands and to the potential for rebirth in them. The promise of “purification” of the realm and the creation of the king as a universal monarch that is found in many Mahāyāna sutras was of great interest to the Japanese Emperor Shōmu.

Emperor Shōmu and the Creation of (Mahā)Vairocana’s Buddha Land In 741, Tōdaiji 東大寺 was established as the administrative center for the provincial monasteries 國分寺 (J. kokubunji) and convents 國分尼寺 (J. kokubunniji). Though often associated with the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 tradition, Tōdaiji was a major center for Buddhist learning including Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Vinaya—and eventually Shingon and Tendai as well. Tōdaiji was established by Emperor Shōmu and the Empress Kōmyō 光明 (701– 760), both prolific patrons of Buddhist activity who, in an age of great political and social instability and famine, endeavored to employ the power of the Buddhas to pacify the realm. While historiography on this period tends to favor Shōmu, Kōmyō should be viewed as a significant contributor to the early development of Buddhism in her own right. As will be examined below, she in particular seems to have favored what we might here refer to as “Esoteric Pure Land” ritual technologies.

Shōmu charged the monk Rōben (Ryōben) 良辯 (689-773) with the construction of Tōdaiji, and it was Rōben who convinced the emperor to employ the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and its vision of an interconnected Buddhist cosmos populated with interpenetrating Pure Buddha Lands, as the basis for Tōdaiji activities. Rōben is regarded as the Japanese founder of the Avataṃsaka tradition, which he studied under the Sillan monk Simsang 審祥 (?-742), a direct disciple of Fazang 法蔵 (643-712). Fazang is regarded as the founder/systematizer of the East Asian Avataṃsaka-sūtra exegetical tradition which, though hardly a “school,” later came to influence the development of East Asian Buddhist thought significantly. In addition to his Avataṃsaka studies, Rōben also sought out a number of important early Esoteric texts including the Amoghapāśa-dhāraṇī 不空羂索神呪心経 (T. 1093) and the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra 陀羅尼集経 (T. 901), both of which were examined in Chapter II. Those interests might result from the influence of his teacher. They were two of the most important and widely most utilized “Esoteric Pure Land” texts in Chinese and Japanese history.

At the Tōdaiji Lotus Hall 法華堂 (J. Hokkedō) Rōben installed images of Amoghapāśa Avalokiteśvara 不空羂索菩薩 and Vajrasattva 金剛薩埵, and at Tōshōdaiji 唐招提寺 he built statues of the Thousand-hand Avalokiteśvara 千手觀音 and Mahāvairocana, all of which are still extant and popular objects of devotion. In 752, Shōmu marked the completion of the Tōdaiji complex and the construction of the Daibutsu by performing the eye-opening ceremony that is said to empower Buddha statues with the power of a Buddha. Assisting in this ritual was the monk Bodhisena 菩提僊那 (704–760), an important (possibly) Indian master who transmitted a number of major “Esoteric” texts to China and Japan. Bodhisena was brought to Japan by Daoxuan 道璿 (702–760) in 736, and seems to have been very possibly the only Indian master to teach in Japan. Texts transmitted by Daoxuan and Bodhisena included Vajrabodhi’s earlier version of the Vajraśekhara-sūtra, the Mahāvairocanā-sūtra, and the Sussiddhikāra 蘇悉地羯羅經 (T. 893).

The establishment of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and its vision of an interconnected cosmos was central Shōmu and Rōben’s aspiration to employ Buddhism to unify the realm. Scholars are at times puzzled by the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, and they commonly refer to certain features of the text as either “proto-tantric” or “proto-Pure Land.” Indeed, many of the elements commonly employed in polythetic strategies for defining tantra over and against “normative” Mahāyāna are well represented in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra; even a cursory reading reveals the ubiquity of Pure Lands. Like some tantric texts, the Avataṃsaka is a massive compendium of texts linked together by repetition of tropes and imagery presenting a grand, almost “psychedelic,” vision of the Buddhist cosmos, and it bears the marks of synthetic composition and heterogeneous compilation. However, unlike the tantras, rituals and spells are not the chief object of the sūtra’s exposition. The Buddha Vairocana 毘盧舍那佛 is the main object of devotion in this text, and is taken to be a kind of cosmic Śākyamuni, or lord of the infinite Pure Lands

said to populate the infinite universe. He is similar in both name and function to Mahāvairocana, who is the main object of devotion in the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, one of the cornerstones of Kūkai’s Vajrayāna system. Kūkai apparently regarded the Avataṃsaka-sūtra very highly, suggesting that the doctrinal system derived from this text provided a clear picture of the greater Mahāyāna vision of reality, but that it lacked the ritual component essential for rendering that reality concrete. In fact, once Kūkai established his abhiṣeka 灌頂 (C. guanding, J. kanjō) platform at Tōdaiji, Vairocana became Mahāvairocana! However, rather than use Kūkai’s polemic claim to “Esoteric” revelation as a descriptive litmus test for other sutras, we can take a broader view, one more appropriate to the Tōdaiji context, and recognize that the so-called “tantric” elements in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra are all simply elements of the default Mahāyāna worldview. In other words, comprehensive Mahāyāna systems bear family resemblances to one another because they all draw upon the same broader literary context to establish claims about what really happened when Śākyamuni attained awakening.

With the completion of Tōdaiji and the Great Buddha, the light of Vairocana, was understood to shine throughout the land, illuminating and purifying the world with the enlightened rule of the emperor as a universal monarch at the center of a cosmic mandalic Pure Land. Tōdaiji was the administrative center of the kokubunji, and it served to unify the realm both administratively and symbolically, effectively making Japan a “Pure Land.” In that same year, the first Amitābha Hall 阿弥陀堂 (J. Amida-dō) was established at Tōdaiji as well. In 761, empress Kōmyō died. All of the provincial temples and major state temples were ordered to construct Pure Land tableaus 淨土變相圖 (J. jōdohensōzu), or two-dimensional depictions of the Pure Land to be used in meditation or for teaching unlettered laity. In addition, Amitābha was established as the primary object of devotion 本尊 (J. honzon) of all of the Kokubunniji nunneries throughout the realm, thus further unifying Buddhist practice throughout the realm. The following year, an Amitābha Pure Land Hall was established at Hokkeji, a temple established by Kōmyō as the head temple of the Kokubunniji system. Buddhist women were not only early pioneers in the establishment of Pure Land faith as a major feature of Japanese Buddhism, but up through the medieval period, also a primary audience and object of “conversion” for Pure Land preachers.

Kōmyō and Dhāraṇī Texts

Beginning in 741, Empress Kōmyō revitalized the scriptorium (Shakyōjo 寫經所) and bestowed handwritten copies of the Buddhist canon upon important temples throughout the country. Records of the texts procured and disseminated at this time demonstrate that so-called “Esoteric” texts were understood to function within a general Mahāyāna frame work, not as a separate category. Beghi notes that texts translated by, Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (523-600), Śikṣānanda 実叉難陀 (fl. ca. late 7th cent.),855 Bodhiruci 菩提流志 (d. 727),856 Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637-735), Vajrabodhi 金剛智 (671–741), and Amoghavajra 不空 (705–774) were known in Japan at this time, and that the more systematic and more doctrinally coherent (i.e., so-called “junmitsu”) sūtras were not merely imported, but were also read and circulated.

This is demonstrated by the requests made by Tōdaiji in 722 to the palace for a copy of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra. Moreover, statues and halls dedicated to so-called “Esoteric” deities such as, Ekādaśamukha Avalokiteśvara 十一面觀音 , Sahasra-bhuja sahasra-netra Avalokiteśvara 千手千眼觀音, or Amoghapāśa Avalokiteśvara were also constructed at various temples. Dhāraṇī texts were especially important and popular at this time. According to ordination and training documents, novice monks were required to memorize various sūtras and dhāraṇī.

Some of the most popular were the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 967), Avalokiteśvara-ekādaśamukha-dhāraṇī 十一面神呪心經 (T. 1071), both of which have significant Pure Land content, and Adhyartha-śatikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra 金剛頂瑜伽理趣般若經 (aka, Rishukyō 理趣經, T. 241). Other important dhāraṇī texts known to have circulated around the major temples at Nara and the palace include the Śaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī 六門陀羅尼經 (T. 1360), Abhiṣeka Sūtrạ 佛説灌頂經 (T. 1331), and the Cundīdevī-dhāraṇī 七倶胝佛母心大准提陀羅尼經 (T. 1077), and the Mahābala-dhāraṇī-sūtra 大威徳陀羅尼經 (T. 1341), Dafajutuoluonijing 大法炬陀羅尼經 (T. 1340). Kōmyō herself seems to have been especially fascinated with the Dhāraṇīsaṃgrahasūtra. As examined in some detail in the previous chapter, this dhāraṇī compendium contains extensive Pure Land content, including various rituals concerning proper performance of mudras, mantras, and mandalas. Not only was this text important in India and China at this time, but, Beghi notes, that many rituals in Japan were derived from this text and that we could perhaps regard it as one of the most important texts for this period.

Empress Shōtoku and the “Dōkyō Incident”

In 749, Emperor Shōmu and Empress Kōmyō abdicated and entered the cloister. Their daughter reigned as Empress Kōken (718-770; r. 749-758). In 758, Kōken abdicated and entered the Hokkeji nunnery in 762. She was succeeded by Emperor Junnin (r. 758-764), but turbulence at court forced Kōken to retake the throne from Junnin in 764, reigning as Empress Shōtoku until 770. The monk Dōkyō (?-772) was Empress Shōtoku’s adviser and ritualist who, much to the concern of other factions at court, remained at her side throughout her reign and received the highest court rank: hōō 法王, or Dharma King. In 770, Empress Shōtoku built dhāraṇī stupas throughout the realm at the Ten Great Temples in the aftermath of the Fujiwara no Nakamaro rebellion. Fujiwara no Nakamaro (706764) had been a high ranking official who received numerous titles and honors under the previous emperor. However, his disdain for the Kōken-Dōkyō regime led to an outbreak of violence in 764 during which he and his family were slaughtered. Buddhist technology and power was employed in particular to pacify the spirits of slain enemies, and dispatch them to the Pure Land. The establishment of these stupas was no exception.

The dhāraṇī encased in these stupas was the Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhā-dhāraṇī 無垢淨光陀羅尼經 (T. 1024), originally translated in China by the Tocharian monk Mitraśānta 彌陀山876 who also co-translated the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra 入楞伽經 (T. 762) with Śikṣānanda. This dhāraṇī was likely chosen for several reasons. First, it is said to aid in the extension of life, rebirth in Sukhāvatī, Tuṣita, and Abhirati 妙喜, the Pure Land of the Buddha Akṣobhya 阿閦如来. It purifies all sins, and prevents falling into hell. By aiding its enemies in their attainment of Pure Land rebirth, the Kōken regime worked to ensure that the spirits of the dead would not return to wreak havoc on the living. Second, the placement of these stupas sent a message of a unified consciousness and rule. Major temples were not simply “religious” sites of devotion, but were organs of state and demonstrations of the extent of the government’s reach and power. Organizing all major temples in a single devotional act also projected a sense of control and success over potential foes. In addition, this text was important in Heian and Kamakura periods, as both Kūkai and Ennin are recorded as having imported new versions of the text. By the end of the Heian period, it came to be associated with rituals concerning Amitābha, as well as the Muryōju konpon dhāraṇī 無量壽根本陀羅尼, examined in the previous chapter.

Dōkyō was known for his assiduous ascetic practices in the Katsuragi Mountains 葛木山. Like Gyōki and En no Gyōja, he too was regarded as a potential source of power and danger. Dōkyō performed “secret rites” for the health of the Shōtoku Empress at Saidaiji 西大寺. However, when the rites for Kōken failed, factions opposing the Shōtoku-Dōkyō administration banished him, and spread rumors that his black magic had killed the empress. Dōkyō died in 772.

Abe contends that much of the backlash against the Shōtoku-Dōkyō administration came from its patronage of the priestly elite, which resulted in the neglect of other important economic and political interests at court. Dōkyō appointed many of his loyal followers to high posts in the sangha (and thus imperial) administration. In fact, Dōkyō almost became the emperor himself, but various factions at court that had been negatively affected by Dōkyō and Shōtoku’s favoritism toward factions based in Nara resisted and exiled him. Much like the SogaMononobe struggle, we should recognize that rivaling factions had competing local interests, and these local interests often had their own ideas about how the state should function. Our knowledge about Dōkyō, of course, comes to us from the faction that won. One of the more popular rumors suggested that Dōkyō’s “Esoteric” initiations given to the empress were sexual in nature. Others simply argued that he was the best example of the danger posed by impure, unrestrained Buddhist activity. As opportunistic factions vied for power in the aftermath of the Dōkyō “incident,” the capital moved several times. It has been suggested that the eventual relocation of the capital to Heian-kyō in 794 was influenced by the Emperor Kanmu’s 桓武天皇 (737-806, r. 773-781) desire to strengthen his own position against these factions, but also by his efforts to invest his authority in new Buddhist practitioners who would use the powers they had gained in their ascetic practice for the benefit of the state.

Other important monks associated with the early reception of “Esoteric” texts and rituals in Japan include Genbō 玄昉 (? – 746), a Yogācāra scholar who assisted with the construction of the Daibutsu, and Zenju 善珠 (723-797), a scholar-monk of Kōfukuji 興福寺, and student of Genbō. In 735, Genbō returned to Japan after having studied in China. He had received the purple robe from Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (685–762), and is known to have been an aspirant for Pure Land rebirth in Tuṣita, who practiced numerous dhāraṇī with that goal in mind. Most of the scholarship on Zenju has emphasized his commentaries on the Pure Land sutras, noting his debt to Mahāyāna thinkers on the Korean peninsula. However, Zenju was also an important “Esoteric” Buddhist thinker from Nara, along with his close associate, Nyohō 如寶 (? – 815). Nyohō received the precepts from Ganjin at Tōdaiji’s precept platform in 754, and he studied at Yakushiji and Tōshōdaiji, both temples containing images associated with Esoteric Buddhist rituals. Nyohō was also quite close to both Zenju and Kūkai as well.

Though Kūkai is commonly regarded as the monk who is responsible for the establishment of Esoteric discourse and ritual in Japan, there is ample evidence for a much broader and older context within which the “Esoteric” first functioned in Japan. This section has presented only some of that evidence. The following section will build upon the research presented above to reevaluate the place of Kūkai’s legacy in the transmission of Esoteric Buddhist culture, and the establishment of Pure Land practice as a major feature of Japanese Buddhism.

Chapter III

Part II

Kūkai, Kenmitsu Discourse, and the Founding of Kōyasan

In the early 9th century, having relocated the government to Heian-kyō (present day Kyoto), the emperor also resumed diplomatic missions to China. These two moves signaled a reinvestment in operating the Japanese state on the model of Tang China. The new Heian-kyō capital was modeled on the Tang capital at Chang’an, and the monks dispatched to China were given the task of aligning Japanese Buddhist practice more closely to recent developments in China. Two of the most famous monks in Japanese Buddhist history were part of the same government sponsored mission to China in 804, Kūkai and Saichō. Kūkai had been a student in the Confucian state academy, but dropped out to become a self-ordained monk. Saichō, too, purportedly disillusioned with Nara monastic culture, had previously retreated to Hieizan, which was positioned just to the northeast of the future Heian-kyō capital, established in 794. As in previous eras, the state valued such assiduous solitary meditators, who were believed to possess the power necessary to successfully perform state rituals, but who also lacked the taint of political power. Hayami has suggested that after the Dōkyō Incident, court elites increasingly feared the power of unorthodox and corrupted spell masters. As “dropouts,” Saichō and Kūkai were possibly seen as embodying the ideal of the pure monk. The emperor sought out monks who kept the precepts, who had acquired the powers associated with ascetic practice in the wilderness, and who maintained the purity the court so desired.

Kūkai and Saichō alike journeyed to China in search of the highest teaching of the Mahāyāna. All Mahāyāna systems claim to present the Buddha’s true (“mysterious”) intent 密意 (C. miyi, J. mitsui). East Asian Buddhist thinkers read broadly across various genres of texts and often specialized particular texts (Lotus, Avataṃsaka, etc.) and practices (meditation, dhāraṇī, doctrinal study, precepts, etc.) which were used to construct all-inclusive hierarchical systems known as panjiao capable of adapting to the occasional influx of new materials, either homegrown or imported. In the early Tang period, Indian ritual specialists such as Śubhakarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi introduced important Indian ritual systems (tantras) which feature prominently dhāraṇī, mantra, and mandalic imagery. The polemical claims made by these monks should be read in their broader Mahāyāna ritual and apologetic context, rather than reify them as embodying a fundamentally distinct “kind” of Buddhism.

One of the terms used to subsume Śubhakarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi, as well as their respective disciples, Yijing and Amoghavajra, under a single Buddhalogical umbrella term is “mikkyō/mijiao” or the “secret teachings.” However, a demonstrated in the previous chapter, many scholars now recognize that many of the rituals, texts, and discursive positions often labelled as “Esoteric” had permeated South and East Asian Buddhism for some time, and the term “mikkyō” as well may be found throughout Mahāyāna literature as a polemical designation (not a descriptive one) meaning the secret or the best or the highest teachings of the Mahāyāna. In some cases, it may simply be a synonym for the Mahāyāna itself. Mikkyō is, therefore, a slippery term indeed. Discussion of “mikkyō” in Japan is often centered upon Kūkai. Indeed, the contemporary Shingon School has established the popular image of Kūkai as a founder who was responsible for introducing Esoteric/Vajrayāna/Tantra to Japan. In order to fully understand how Esoteric discursive positions were retroactively constructed in Japan, we must first return Kūkai to his context, and appreciate the dual role played by Tendai and Shingon Buddhist traditions in the coconstruction of “Mahā/Vajrayāna” discourse in Japan of the 9th -12th centuries.

Kūkai’s Exo/Esoteric Buddhism

Upon his arrival in China, Kūkai trained in Chang’an, a city at the eastern terminus of the Silk Road, connected to various trade networks stretching all the way to Rome, Central Asia, and South Asia, and at that time the center of the cosmopolitan East Asian Buddhist world. Kūkai was able to learn from the Qinglongsi 靑龍寺 (J. Seiryūji/Shōryūji) master Huiguo 惠果 (746806), who was instrumental in providing Kūkai with access to many newly imported Indian Buddhist texts, as well as ritual paraphernalia that had not yet been introduced to Japan such as the Indian homa 護摩 (C. humo, J. homa) fire ritual altar. Kūkai claimed that just before his master’s death, Huiguo conveyed to his new disciple the deepest secrets of the “Esoteric” teachings so that he could transmit them to Japan.

Upon his return to Japan, Kūkai languished in obscurity for the first few years after his return, unable to teach what he had learned in China. However, once the emperor and other elites learned of the unique approach to Buddhist ritual that Kūkai’s system provided, Kūkai quickly rose in prominence. Kūkai promoted a panjiao (the term he often used was kyōhan 教判) based in the dialogic engagement between the hidden, or mysterious teachings (mikkyō) of the Buddha, and the apparent or surface level teachings (kengyō), accommodated to the various capacities of sentient beings. Discourse on the relationship between “ken” and “mitsu” featured prominently in Kūkai’s early works, and in medieval Japan ultimately came to dominate Japanese ritual and doctrinal polemics, leading to a diverse and highly fluid semi-orthodox system referred to by Kuroda and his followers as the exo/esoteric system (kenmitsu seido).

Mikkyō is often translated as “Esoteric Buddhism,” a term that connotes a limited range of influence or access. In fact, however, the teachings and practices often associated with “mikkyō” functioned, in some sense, as the fundamental ritual logic for imperial consecration rituals, the sacralization of the Japanese language and landscape, the emergence of “Shintō” ritual and discourse in the fourteenth century, and the semiotics around which ritual and the transmission of knowledge were facilitated in medieval culture. In a sense, Japanese mikkyō may simply be regarded as an integrated (yet hierarchical) Mahāyāna Buddhist discourse for the transmission of knowledge and power, or a practical technology employed in politics, economics, science, art, and literature. Traditionally, scholars have tended to imagine Kūkai as having started a new “sect,” or as having transmitted a new kind of Buddhism to the archipelago. However, in order to truly appreciate the nature of Kūkai’s contribution to the establishment of “Esoteric” ritual discourse in Japanese Buddhism, we must view his career in its particular and broader context. In order to do this, I will build upon Abe’s three basic theses about Kūkai: First, that Kūkai worked within and through the Nara institutions; second, that Kūkai’s success derived from his successful integration of abhiṣeka rituals into the court and the major institutions in Nara and Heian-kyō; and third, that Kūkai created not a “school,” but rather new, dichotomous discourse and theory of ritual language.

Kūkai described his teaching as the Vajrayāna 金剛乘 (J. kongōjō), the Highest Vehicle 最上乘 (J. saijōjō), the Secret Piṭaka 祕密藏 (J. himitsuzō), or the Mantra Piṭaka 眞言藏 (J. shingonzō). He tended to use the terms zō 藏 (S. piṭaka, “treasury”) or jō 乘 (S. -yāna, “vehicle”), and rarely employed the term “shū” 宗. Perhaps this decision reflects his effort to establish the legitimacy of his teachings as a new way of thinking about (existing) Buddhism and Buddhist ritual, rather than as simply yet another area of study. To have framed mikkyō as a shū would have established (which is to say, lowered) his teachings on the same level as the Nara disciplines of Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, Avataṃsaka, etc. As part of this effort, Kūkai emphasized the complementarity of what he labeled as “exoteric” (essentially all forms of Buddhism not yet charged/activated with his ritual theory) and the “esoteric,” a latent quality which, once recognized/activated, renders ritual effective, and the ritualist powerful. In other words, for Kūkai, Esoteric Buddhism was not a different kind of Buddhism, but the essence of Buddhism as understood from the perspective of the Buddha(s).

Let us consider the Daioshō hōi Heianjō taijōtennō kanjōmon 大和尚奉爲平安城太上天皇灌頂文 (T. 2461), in which Kūkai presents a five-fold taxonomy of teachings: sūtra, vinaya, abhidharma, prajñāpāramitā, and dhāraṇī. Here, the dhāraṇī-piṭaka is placed at the end, perhaps implying a hierarchical orientation. A few lines down, Kūkai provides an eight-fold taxonomy, which assigns the “secret Vajrayāna 祕密金剛乘,” the highest position above the three Hīnayāna and four Mahāyāna positions. It is also important to note the way that Kūkai positions the Esoteric Buddhism as related to, but not simply analogous to, the dhāraṇī-pitaka. Here in Kūkai’s works, later in Dōhan’s, and in the previous chapter’s examination of the history of the Secret Piṭaka, there is a certain ambiguity between the darani-zō and the kongōjō.

At the request of Emperor Junna 淳和天皇 (785-840; r. 810-823) Kūkai wrote the Himitsu mandara jūjushinron 秘密曼荼羅十住心論 (T. 2425) in which he lays out ten levels of beings’ capacities for comprehending the Dharma: 1) 異生羝羊心, the mind like a worldly sheep, a mind that is consumed with desires and lust 2) 愚童持齋心, the mind like a dim witted child (Confucians and materialist-nihilist philosophies) 3) 嬰童無畏心, the mind like a smart child (Daoists and Brahmins) 4) 唯蘊無我心, the (non-Mahāyāna, śrāvaka) mind that apprehends the nature of the aggregates and the notion of no-self 5) 拔業因種心, the (non-Mahāyāna, pratyekabuddha) mind that has eliminated the causes of karma 6) 他緣大乘心, the Mahāyāna mind apprehending the interdependence of all beings, the mind of compassion, Yogācāra 7) 覺心不生心, the mind that apprehends that Mind is non-arising, emptiness/wisdom, Madhyamaka 8) 一道無爲心, the mind that apprehends the One Vehicle, Tiantai (Lotus/Madhyamaka)

9) 極無自性心, the mind that is beyond the extremes of self-nature (Avataṃsaka-sūtra) 10) 祕密莊嚴心, the mind of mysterious adornment, teachings of the Mahāvairocana Buddha, Buddhism from the perspective of Buddhas

While it may seem at first glance that this ten-stage hierarchically organized presentation of the diversity of the Buddhist world is simply a way to present Kūkai’s own teachings as the highest of the high, when read in the context of Kūkai’s other (and later) works and actions, Kūkai appears to be making a much more subtle move. This hierarchical orientation of the tenstages is certainly part of Kūkai’s polemic, but this is not the whole story. Kūkai clearly differentiates between the shallow and the deep levels of understanding of the Buddhist teachings, just like other Mahāyāna thinkers before him. However, through the mantra path, he claims, one is able to reveal even the surface level interpretation to possess the deepest mysteries of the Mahāyāna. And as Abe has suggested, it was Kūkai’s ability to locate his “secret” teaching within the established practices that preceded him that led to the successful integration of his ritual program through normative Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Nara Buddhist establishment. Kūkai proposed a path to direct participation in the power of the Buddhas through the ritual orchestration of the three mysteries of body, speech, and mind via mudra, mantra, and

mandalic contemplative exercises. Through Kūkai’s system, the already manifest unity of signifier and signified was enacted through art and speech. Mandalas, mudras, and mantras were not merely symbols, but their performance was inherently enlightened activity. Other features of Kūkai’s ritual program included initiation, or abhiṣeka 灌頂 (C.

guanding, J. kanjō), and empowerments, or adhiṣṭhāna 加持 (C. jiachi, J. kaji). Many of the deities, dhāraṇī, mantra, and other practices systematized by Kūkai already existed in Nara, but the giki were newly imported by Kūkai. Giki were ritual manuals that drew upon dhāraṇī, mantra, and spell genres of Buddhist ritual text. Kūkai held that the correct performance of these rites required initiation/consecration, and empowerment from a qualified teacher. Kūkai argued that unless monks were properly initiated into the language of mantra and dhāraṇī, the recitation of texts for the protection of state would be like “…reading a medical textbook to someone who was ill.” Kūkai actively employed Nara ritual culture to his advantage, arguing that his shingon theory was latent in Nara dhāraṇī. Kūkai defined mantra as a subclass of dhāraṇī, each of whose syllables conveys the truth. Abe notes, “Mantras show that dhāraṇī are not devoid of meaning but, on the contrary, saturated with it. It is through their semantic superabundance that Kūkai attempted to explain why dhāraṇī were impregnated with the power to condense the meaning of scriptures, to protect chanters, or to bring about supernatural effects.” In other words, while simultaneously establishing a preliminary division between ken and mitsu (and to some extent between miscellany and pure mikkyō), Kūkai also played upon the common concern for mastery of the Secret Piṭaka.

Kūkai and the Nara Clergy

Kūkai’s main disciples were all members of the Nara clergy. In fact, becoming a shingonja 眞言者 (a practitioner or mantra) merely required the acquisition of lineage via abhiṣeka—something that any elite monk could gain—and clergy affiliated with the temples on and around Hieizan and the Nara could join this “loosely organized club.” In 816, Kūkai initiated the Daianji monk Gonsō 勤操 (758–827), a prominent Nara scholar-monk. Following Kūkai, many “Nara monks” integrated mikkyō into their basic monastic regimens. Enmyō 圓明 (d. 851) and Dōshō 道昌 (789-875) studied mikkyō and Prajñāpāramitā literature and Madhyamaka. Avataṃsaka-sūtra specialists employed the idea of “interpenetration” to approach mikkyō. The Kōfukuji bettō (highest government administrative post in temples) Jōshō 定照

(906-983) studied Yogācāra and mikkyō. The Gangōji monk Shōbō 聖寶 (832-909) studied Madhyamaka, Avataṃsaka exegesis, Prajñāpāramitā, and mikkyō at Tōdaiji. The Kōfukuji monk Shinkō 真皎 (934-1004) studied Yogācāra and mikkyō. In fact, Nara clergy remained dominant players in all areas of Buddhist learning not merely throughout the 8th century, but also through the 9th century and beyond. In a sense, Kūkai could also practically be considered a “Nara” monk himself. His career began in Nara, and most of his activities revolved around (or were directly connected to) Nara clergy and institutions.

As the above examples show, Kūkai should be regarded as a participant in a Buddhist culture that does not easily fit into dichotomies based on the reification of facile divisions—not between “Nara” vs. “Heian Buddhism,” nor “Mahāyāna” vs. “Vajrayāna/Tantrism/Esoteric Buddhism,” nor even “Chinese” vs. “Japanese Buddhism.” By the end of his life, Kūkai had become one of the most important monks in the realm. Emperor Saga 嵯峨天皇 (785-842, r. 809-823) bestowed upon Kūkai Kōyasan in 816, and Tōji in Kyoto in 822, as centers for him to train monks in his ritual system. That same year, Kūkai constructed the abhiṣeka hall at Tōdaiji, “the central monastic complex of the Nara Buddhist community.”907 In 827, he was put in charge of the sōgō 僧綱 (the main imperial office overseeing monastic affairs) and began performing many important rites for the imperial court. In 834, Kūkai established the Mishuhō 御修法 in the court’s annual ritual calendar. In 835, just before he died, Kūkai was able to establish Shingon-in 眞言院, the first temple inside the imperial palace. In this way, practitioners of the mantra path 眞言行人 (J. shingon gyōnin) began to populate the Heian-kyō capital as well as the former Nara capital.

The Founding of Kōyasan: Establishing a Pure Land in this Realm

Kūkai believed that a long period of dedicated meditation and study was essential to maintaining the integrity and potency of Esoteric ritual practice. He established Kōyasan as a retreat center in which monks could work full-time on ritual and meditation without the (very lucrative) hustle and bustle of the capital breaking their concentration. It is said that Kūkai selected Kōyasan (literally “high mountain plain”) because it is surrounded by eight peaks resembling the eight-petaled lotus 八葉蓮華 (J. hachiyō renge) of the Womb Realm Mandala 胎

蔵界曼荼羅 (J. Taizōkai mandara). As Kūkai was nearing the end of his life, he desired to spend his last days in meditation atop Kōyasan. Though often distracted from this goal, continuously called back to the capital to perform rituals, he was eventually able to spend his final days meditating on the mountain, where he passed away in 835. Though Kūkai died before he was able to see Kōyasan emerge as a key center of Buddhist power and devotion, his disciple Shinzen 眞然 (804-891) established a temple on the site where Kongōbuji 金剛峰寺 now stands. William Londo has noted that the generally accepted impression that Kōyasan could be considered the Shingon alternative, or equivalent, to the Tendai tradition’s Hieizan is a mistaken comparison. Almost immediately after Kōyasan was established, the mountain temple complex began to decline in popularity, and practically “dropped off the map.” It is possible that it was precisely this marginality that later allowed Kōyasan to emerge as an important site for nenbutsu practice and Pure Land aspiration.

It is often noted that after Kūkai’s passing he did not leave a single heir to the “Shingon School.” This “discontinuity” appears far less troubling when we keep in mind that Kūkai had established his ritual systems by integrating them across, and expressing them through, the Nara Buddhist establishment. In effect, Tōdaiji and Kōfukuji in Nara both became “Shingon” training centers, as did Tōji, Takaosanji 高尾山寺, and Ninnaji 仁和寺 in the Heian-kyō capital. Hieizan too became a major “Shingon” center very early on. One result of this plurality is that no single institution could final claim to authority over all the others, meaning that “Shingon/mikkyō” was not regarded as a singular entity with a set “orthodoxy.” Indeed, as Ryūichi Abe has contended, the establishment of a “school” was not Kūkai’s primary aim. It is therefore questionable to what extent we can imagine a “Shingon School,” as such, to have existed immediately after Kūkai’s perishing or, for that matter, throughout most of Japanese Buddhist history.

In contrast to the Shingon training centers of Nara, Kyoto, and Hieizan, Kōyasan suffered from financial problems almost immediately after its founding. In addition to its considerable distance from the capital, a turbulent relationship with Tōji became another factor leading to the eventual fall of Kōyasan in the 10th century. After Kūkai, Tōji was overseen by the monk Jichie 實慧 (786-847), who was followed by Shinzei 眞濟 (800-860). After Shinzei became the abbot of Tōji, he asked the court to allot to Tōji the yearly ordinands 年分度者 (J. nenbundosha) originally designated for Kōyasan. Perhaps already aware of the intractable marginality of Kōyasan, Shinzei may have felt that the quota of yearly ordinands would be put to better use within the capital. However, when Shinzen became the abbot of both Tōji and Kongōbuji, he was able to re-delegate the ordinands to Kōyasan.913 It appears that while Shinzen was abbot, he wanted to work to promote Kōyasan as a key site for Shingon training, rather than as a mere subsidiary of Tōji. As Londo notes, Shinzen was able to acquire the title of zasu 座主 for the abbot of Kōyasan, which would signal an (at least nominally) equal status with the zasu of Hieizan.

A very active preacher, Shinzen worked to promote Kōyasan as a devotional site where emperors and aristocrats could seek Pure Land rebirth. In 883, he led Emperor Yōzei 陽成天皇 (869-948, r. 876-884) to Kōyasan to pray to the Bodhisattva Maitreya for salvation in the Tuṣita heaven. By this time, popular belief in Tuṣita had become widespread, and it is possible that Kūkai himself promoted this form of post-mortem “Pure Land” aspiration, though this point is debatable. Due to the efforts of Kūkai’s immediate disciples, and those in his early lineages, Kōyasan came to be seen as a portal to various Pure Lands, and even as a Pure Land unto itself. In the late-Heian and Kamakura periods in particular, but even shortly after Kūkai’s death, devotion to him as a bodhisattva savior figure spread throughout elite and common circles. Kūkai’s body was entombed upon the mountain, but soon after his death, his early disciples came to believe that rather than dying in the traditional sense, Kūkai had entered into an eternal samādhi in order to await the descent of the future Buddha Maitreya (The “Dragonflower Assembly,” Longhua hui 龍華會) into our world. It is often assumed that Kūkai’s slogan, sokushin jōbutsu “the attainment of Buddhahood in this very body,” presupposes an immanentalist theory of salvation. In fact, Kūkai’s “applied” Esoteric theory worked to envelop all Buddhist traditions, and seems to have often been articulated through faith in “Pure Land” rebirth.

In 877, in order to boost the prestige of Kōyasan further, Shinzen relocated the Sanjūchō sasshi 三十帖册子 [Thirty Volume Scripture], a collection of works written by Kūkai, to the mountain. By investing Kōyasan with these texts, he hoped to promote the mountain as a site for scholarship and ritual practice. However, he may have inadvertently set a ticking time bomb on the mountain. In 912, a row over the Thirty Volume Scripture emerged between Tōji and Kōyasan. Tōji’s abbot Kangen 觀賢 (853-925) demanded that Mukū 無空 (d. 916), the abbot of

Kōyasan, return the texts immediately to Tōji, claiming that Tōji was the rightful owner. Mukū refused to return the texts even when the court sided with Kangen. In protest against Tōji’s inappropriate exercise of power (thanks to the work of Shinzen, Kōyasan at this time was not necessarily under Tōji’s authority) Mukū abandoned the mountain in 916, and took up residence in Yamashiro 山城. Eventually, in solidarity with Mukū, all of the priests left the mountain to join their abbot. In 919, Kangen, under the court’s authority, reclaimed the texts and “returned” them to Tōji. “Since the Thirty-volume Scripture incident, it became an established rule that Tōji’s abbot in Kyōto was appointed to the abbotship of Mt. Kōya. The office of kengyō 檢校, ‘inspector general,’ of Kongōbuji represented the highest administrative post occupied by the resident priest of Mt. Kōya.” Mukū is remembered for his miraculous Pure Land rebirth in the Kōya ōjōden 高野往生

傳. Mountains have often been regarded as liminal spaces ideal, for the cultivation of meditative powers and the purification of sins. Kōyasan in particular seems to have attracted various practitioners aspiring for Pure Land rebirth. While Mukū’s retirement may have led to further decline in the mountain’s institutional infrastructure, stories about his, and other’s rebirth in the Pure Land there, would, in some sense, eventually lead to its revival. Despite the best efforts of Shinzen to establish Kōyasan’s institutional independence, from the early 10th century, lack of funds and lack of interest led to only sporadic renovations. Finally in 952, the area around the Oku-no-in 奧ノ院 Mausoleum burned down. In that same year, Kankū 寬空 (884-972), the abbot of Tōji, dispatched Gashin 雅眞 (d. 999) to rebuild the area, a task which he finished within six months. Unfortunately, another devastating fire struck the mountain in 994 destroying almost the entire complex. This time, Gashin was less successful in locating the funds necessary to rebuild. Other problems added to the damage inflicted by fires and lack of funds. In 998, when the court appointed the governor of Kii Province 紀伊国 (present day Wakayama Prefecture 和歌山

県), Ōe no Kagemasa 大江景理, to oversee the rebuilding of Kōyasan. It appears that he instead embezzled the funds and land provided him, thus hampering the revitalization efforts even further. Finally, Gashin died in 999, the renovation incomplete. Though other monks endeavored to continue the rebuilding effort, they lacked the funds, inspiration, and man power to rebuild the mountain. Kōyasan was nearly a memory. Londo notes that while Emperor Uda 宇多天皇 (867-931, r. 887-897) did make a pilgrimage to Kōyasan in 900, very few trips were taken to the mountain by people of much importance for over a century until Fujiwara no Michinaga’s 藤原道長 (966-1028) pilgrimage in 1023. In other words, between 900 and 1023, Kōyasan had nearly “fallen off the map.” It would only reemerge as an important pilgrimage site after the mid-11th century, nearly two-hundred years after its founding.

The Pure Land in Kūkai’s Works

As discussed above, Pure Land rebirth was a major concern within the dhāraṇī culture of Nara. Statues depicting the various manifestations of Avalokiteśvara populated the halls of Nara and Heian-kyō temples. Amitābha, the Medicine Buddha, Śākyamuni, and Maitreya were popular objects of devotion associated with Pure Land rebirth. While these developments are widely recognized, Kūkai’s impact upon these areas of Buddhist practice has been all but ignored in the secondary literature. It is certainly not the case that Kūkai and the first generations of his disciples ignored the idea of Pure Land rebirth. Rather, the problem is that when scholars seek to address Kūkai and Esoteric Buddhism in Japan, they are often following a set academic agenda that predetermines what is and is not subject to discussion. Here I will examine a few examples of Kūkai’s views on Pure Land(s).

Apart from the “Pure Land” cult that evolved around the tomb of Kūkai on Kōyasan, Kūkai’s own works make numerous references to purified Buddha Lands in a way similar to Amoghavajra, who is regarded by some as the essential Chinese “Esoteric Buddhist” thinker. According to both Amoghavajra and Kūkai, mastery of tantric ritual lead to rapid progress along the bodhisattva path, which by definition includes not only the acquisition of a Pure Land, but also the ability to travel to all Pure Lands of the ten directions. This ability represents a basic feature of the bodhisattva path. Esoteric approaches to the bodhisattva path were all encompassing. They include everything, albeit systematized around mudra-mantra-mandala coordinated ritual activities where in the bodhisattva stages are collapsed into a single moment. The attainment of awakening and simultaneous rebirth in all Buddha Lands from within this Buddha Land (no doubt, drawing upon the Avataṃsaka-sūtra) is something that Kūkai seems to take for granted as a feature of Mahā/Vajrayāna cosmology and soteriology.

In the Hokkekyō kaidai 法華經開題 (T. 2190), a commentary on the Lotus Sūtra attributed to Kūkai, we find numerous references to Sukhāvatī and rebirth. In addition to pointing to the contemplation of the Sanskrit letter “A” as the one true Ekayāna 一乘, this text also contains a particularly interesting Avalotiseśvara Pure Land/Lotus Sūtra visualization ritual which is centered upon Amitābha’s seed-syllable, hṛīḥ. This passage presents “hṛīḥ syllable contemplation” as a direct path to the attainment of Pure Land rebirth.

Whether or not Kūkai in fact wrote this text, as with the texts attributed to Amoghavajra in the previous chapter, it certainly appears that whoever wrote it saw its teachings on the Pure Land as coherent within the Esoteric system. Indeed, Pure Lands as a feature of Buddhist cosmology (as detailed in the previous two chapters) are ubiquitous throughout the Esoteric corpus of South and East Asia upon which Kūkai drew. Pure Land rebirth was a normative goal within the Esoteric corpus, in India and China (and later Tibet), and though it does not seem to feature prominently in Kūkai’s writings, there is no reason to reject the attribution to him of references to Pure Land rebirth out of hand as inherently spurious. Moreover, that this text, and texts like it, present an unambiguously “Esoteric Pure Land” perspective should indicate to us that Kūkai’s early disciples and lineage holders did not regard “Pure Land” and “Esoteric” as separate approaches to awakening. In one sense, they may both be regarded as potential “sudden” or “easy” paths to awakening (as opposed to “gradual” or “difficult” ones).

Kūkai is also said to have authored the Muryōju nyorai sakuhō shidai 無量壽如來供養作法次代, a ritual commentary on Amoghavajra’s Wuliang rulai guanxing gongyang yigui 無量壽如來觀行供養儀軌 (T. 930), in which Amoghavajra draws upon the Contemplation Sūtra 觀無量壽經 (T. 365) and the Avataṃsaka-sūtra to present a simple contemplation ritual focused on Amitābha, Sukhāvatī, and Avalokiteśvara. Amoghavajra’s short “Esoteric Pure Land” text was transmitted to Japan multiple times by Kūkai, Saichō, Ekū 惠空, and Enchin. It is cited in Kakuban’s Gorin kuji myō himitsu shaku 五輪九 明祕密釋 (T. 2514), Genshin’s Ōjōyōshū 往生要集 (T. 2682), and Eikan’s Sanji nenbutsu kanmonshiki 三時念佛觀門式. It further served as a source text for the Tendai Amidahō sanbusaku 天台阿彌陀法三部作, and it remains one of the most important rituals transmitted within Japanese Esoteric lineages today. Whether or not Kūkai actually wrote the commentary attributed to him, the text it is based on is extremely important for the development of Japanese Buddhism, and remains in use in Tendai and Shingon ordination and training.

According to the ritual commentary attributed to Kūkai, following the preliminary invocations and purifying mantras, the mantra practitioner is enjoined to envision the lapis lazuli ocean of Sukhāvatī. From this ocean emerges a Sanskrit seed syllable written in the Siddhaṃ script (an ancient script for writing South Asian languages in use during the early transmission of Buddhist texts into East Asia, and preserved in Japan today) the luminous crimson syllable hrīḥ, which, like the Buddha Amitābha is said to illuminate all of the Buddha Lands of the ten directions. The syllable transforms into Avalokiteśvara, and finally Amitābha. Upon Amitābha’s chest is a moon disc with the Amitābha mantra inscribed in Siddhaṃ letters: Oṃ aṃṛta teje hara hūṃ (J. on amirita teje kara un). Beginning with “oṃ” written in the center, the mantra wraps around the moon disc. The shingonja then envisions the same moon disc upon his or her own chest. Amitābha then begins to chant the mantra, projecting the moon disc out of his mouth and into the meditator’s head. The shingonja then reciprocates, shooting the moon disc from his head into the feet of Amitābha. Scholars of Tibetan Buddhism will note the similarities between this ritual and the popular phowa practice.933

Kūkai then encourages the mantra practitioner to envision the features of the Pure Land as described in the Contemplation Sūtra, wherein the Buddha’s light is said to illuminate the Pure Lands of the ten directions. This rite is said to purify one of all forms of illness and suffering, and to purify one’s sins similar to the popular repentance rituals often associated with Amitābha. Moreover, at the end of one’s life one will certainly attain rebirth in the highest level of the Pure Land of Bliss. However, the Pure Land is also realized to be empty, as the shingonja realizes that they maintain a non-dual union with the Buddha. All dharmas are empty, and the mind of awakening is originally non-arising and pure.

Investigation into Medieval Japanese Vajrayāna Pure Land,” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies (Third Series) 15 (2013): 155-157. 933 Patrul Rinpoche, The Words of my Perfect Teacher: A Complete Translation of a Classic Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), 351-366.

Of particular interest here is the notion that the chanting of the mantra itself, as initiated by Amitābha, is the conduit by which these benefits, including the attainment of post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land, are in fact realized. For Kūkai, as well as for other “Esoteric” thinkers after him, mantra technologies are said to be powerful precisely because they are the words of the Buddha, and are therefore an “other-power.” References to Pure Lands, Buddha Lands, and the world spheres of the ten directions are ubiquitous throughout Kūkai’s magnum opus, the Ten Stages of Mind, mentioned above. Written at the request of Emperor Junna, this text served, in some sense, as Kūkai’s final word on “Esoteric” doctrinal orthodoxy. That this text contains references to Pure Lands should not be the least bit surprising. The “point” of this text is basically to demonstrate to the emperor not only the place of Esoteric Buddhism in the ritual life of an emperor, but also the place of all other Buddhist traditions within Esoteric Buddhism, and the place of Esoteric Buddhism with all other Buddhist traditions. Given that Pure Lands are a ubiquitous feature of Mahāyāna literature, and a dominant soteriological goal for lay and monastic Buddhists throughout the history of East Asian Buddhism, and a common goal throughout the Mahā/Vajrayāna corpus, it would be surprising if they did not appear in some form or another.

In conclusion, as noted above, that “Esoteric” ritual discourse which came to dominate Japanese religious life may in some respect be attributed to Kūkai. However, while Kūkai may have “turned the wheel” of the teachings, as it were, it was the cosmopolitan Nara monks that preceded him, and the architects of the Hieizan Taimitsu lineages following him that kept it rolling. Kūkai helped cement the very idea of an “Esoteric” approach to Buddhist practice at court and the highest ranking temples in Japan, and he even introduced unknown genres of Mahāyāna literature that became extremely popular. But, like the site of his grave on Kōyasan, Kūkai’s doctrinal writings quickly fell into disuse within a generation or two after his passing. In the following section I will examine the growth of Hieizan Esoteric lineages and Pure Land practices because just as these lineages came to dominate early-medieval religion, 11th and 12th century “Kūkai Studies” revivalists and Kōyasan pilgrims and fundraisers worked to (re)establish Kūkai’s legacy as a center of gravity within Japanese Esoteric thought and practice. The goal of attaining rebirth in a Pure Land shaped one of the main areas of concern for these revivalist scholar-monks.

Chapter III

Part III

Saichō and Hieizan

The contemporary Tendai School looks to Saichō as its founder. Similarly, scholars of Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhism look to him as an early “systematizer” of those traditions as well. In order to understand the place of Esoteric and Pure Land Buddhism in Saichō’s thought, and thus their position in the development of an independent Hieizan institution, we must first look to Saichō’s universal “Ekayāna” Tendai system. Saichō was ordained at Tōdaiji in 785, and studied the Avataṃsaka-sūtra under Gyōhyō 行表 (722-797), and also studied Vinaya, the Brahma Net Sūtra 梵網經 (T. 1484), Lotus Sūtra, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, etc. (Each of these areas of expertise would prove useful in his later career. ) Early on, Saichō’s reputation as an earnest and disciplined monk reached the emperor, as Saichō had with some luck established his hermitage in the mountains just to the northeast of the place where the new capital would be built. Kanmu enlisted Saichō as an ally, perhaps due to Saichō’s relative marginality in relation the competing factions in Nara (though this point should not be overstated), and became Saichō’s patron. The emperor rebuilt Saichō’s humble shack in 788, and along with numerous elite monks from Nara, attended a service held there in 794. In 804, Saichō was sent to China as part of the same envoy with Kūkai traveled. Whereas Kūkai studied in Chang’an and stayed for almost two years, Saichō traveled to Tiantaishan 天台

山. In the Tiantai mountain region, lineages had been developing around Zhiyi’s 智 (538- 597) Lotus Sūtra panjiao doctrinal classificatory system. In this panjiao the Lotus was argued to represent the “Esoteric” teaching revealed by Śākyamuni to his more accomplished disciples, that all beings will ultimately embark on the Bodhisattva path and thus attain awakening. Zhiyi’s system, and later Saichō’s, can be understood as a theory of universal salvation within which all Buddhist systems find their place. In East Asia, panjiao systems that centered upon particular sutras and/or commentaries proliferated. These systems, which should not be understood as a “sectarian” entities, employed the teachings present in one text (or group of texts) to orient all other texts, thus serving as universalizing rubrics. Zhiyi employed the Lotus, while other thinkers employed the Nirvana Sūtra or the Avataṃsaka. In one sense, we may understand all of these panjiao systems as various strategies for “making sense” of the diversity of Buddhist teachings available within the East Asian cultural sphere, strategies allowing students of that system to distinguish between the revealed (ken) and inner/hidden (himitsu) teaching. Zhiyi’s use of the concept of the “Esoteric,” though preceding Kūkai’s kenmitsu (exo/esoteric) thought, was never the less drawing upon the same tension between the revealed and the hidden within Mahāyāna literary culture, and thus provided a basis from which Japanese Tendai monks might successfully deploy Kūkai’s kenmitsu within/alongside the Tendai doctrinal framework.

Unlike Kūkai, Saichō seems to have employed a more confrontational approach to establishing the credibility of his teachings in the eyes of the Nara monastic elites. As he began to teach the Tendai doctrine that he had learned in China, the Nara monk Tokuitsu 徳一 (781?- 842?), a Yogācāra scholar at Kōfukuji and Tōdaiji, engaged Saichō in a famous debate on the doctrine of Buddha-nature, the correct interpretation of the Lotus Sūtra, and the differentiation between “provisional” and “true” teachings. Discord between Saichō and Tokuitsu may suggest that Saichō established his “school” apart from of the Nara establishment. And indeed, one of the distinguishing characteristics of Saichō and the Hieizan establishment is its (eventual) relative institutional autonomy from Nara based temple networks, but this point is easy to overstate. According Saichō’s Hieizan curriculum, monks were expected to remain on the mountain continuously for twelve years of study. However, as was common in the shared kengaku 兼學, or “dual-study,” culture of Buddhist learning, students frequently engaged in the study of many different traditions, staying with a teacher for only a few years, then moving on. As a result, Saichō frequently lamented that many of his students went on go to study elsewhere.942 He was not necessarily proposing that students not study in Nara; rather, he was arguing that they should follow the Tendai program first, so that they not be hindered by the “Hīnayāna” ordinations in Nara.

Indeed, the relationship between Hieizan, Heian-kyō and Nara based temples remained quite fluid. In later centuries, it remained acceptable for monks to descend the mountain to study with other teachers. Also, monks were allowed to descend the mountain in order to carry out rituals for the dead and dying members of noble families. In this way, the obligation to save sentient beings (and, of course, acquire patronage) took priority over maintaining a cloistered training regime. Beginning in 805, Saichō petitioned the court to level the playing field regarding the number of yearly ordinands each of the areas of specialization (that is, “schools”) were allowed. At that time, five yearly ordinands were able to specialize in Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. Saichō argued that these should be each reduced to three, and two ordinands each should be trained in Avataṃsaka, Lotus, or Vinaya. In addition to establishing more yearly ordinands for his Hieizan-based tradition, Saichō sought administrative independence from Nara. Saichō wanted to be able to ordain monks without the approval of a faraway (and often hostile) administrative bureaucracy. Monks on Hieizan were to be trained, ordained, and authorized locally. Saichō died before Hieizan attained institutional independence. Therefore, it was left up to his disciples to establish the Hieizan ordination platform, and the legitimacy of Hieizan’s autonomy, problems which Groner suggests may have led to Hieizan factionalism.

Pure Land Contemplation and Esoteric Ritual in the Tendai Curriculum

Saichō’s Tendai curriculum included two basic tracks: (1) the Shikangō 止觀業, or the meditative/doctrinal study of Zhiyi’s Mohezhiguan 摩訶止觀 (T. 1911),948 and (2) the Shanagō 遮那業 , the study of the rituals associated with the Mahāvairocana-sūtra.949 Zhiyi’s Mohezhiguan drew upon the *Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 (T. 416-19) (hereafter, Samādhi Sūtra) in the construction of a four-fold contemplative practice that focuses the mind on the Buddha Amitābha. The jōgyō sanmai 常行三昧 (C. changxing sanmei), or constant practice samādhi, as cultivated on Hieizan was part of Saichō’s early teaching and is conventionally regarded to as the beginning of Japanese Pure Land practice. Aspiration for visions of a Buddha through samādhi practice, and the aspiration for Pure Land rebirth, formed but nodes in the net of the Mahāyāna, a net that Zhiyi, and later Saichō, aspired to encompass. Saichō’s engagement with Amitābha contemplation laid the ground work for later developments in Japanese Pure Land, but as outlined above (and in the previous two chapters), Tendai lineages were not the only source for Pure Land thought and practice. Rather, Saichō’s Tendai system was designed to respond to the needs of the Japanese Buddhist environment, wherein (just like the rest of the Mahāyāna world) spellcraft and ritual performance were of utmost importance for attaining Pure Land rebirth. One form of practice known as yama no nenbutsu 山の念仏, or mountain nenbutsu, grew out of the jōgyō sanmai practice, on the one hand, but also seems to have developed out of the earlier thaumaturgical Pure Land practices associated with Gyōki and others.

Though based in the teachings of Zhiyi and the thought of other masters from the Tiantai mountain region, Saichō’s “Tendai” tradition must be understood in relation to the “Esoteric” ritual culture of the late-8th and early-9th centuries (which he helped establish) and Kūkai’s construction of “ken/mitsu” discourse. Moreover, as is the case for Kūkai, we must keep in mind the intertwined Nara based lineages rooted in major landholding institutions wherein the competition for patronage could at times be quite fierce. Therefore, the early establishment of Tendai as an institutionally “independent” entity should be understood in the context of NaraHeian Buddhist politics and the competition for mastery of the latest ritual traditions from the continent. Saichō was in fact the first monk to perform the abhiṣeka ritual initiation for the emperor and the court. As Kūkai had done in Chang’an, Saichō studied under Chinese masters who had received initiation into “Esoteric” ritual lineages on Tiantaishan. Saichō returned to Japan before Kūkai, and thus had achieved a “head start” in establishing his authority over the newly imported ritual systems that had come to proliferate in the Tang dynasty. However, once Kūkai’s more extensive training and massive collection of texts and ritual implements became known, Saichō’s qualifications were dismissed as second-tier. For a time, Saichō and Kūkai maintained cordial relations, as Saichō and several of his disciples received abhiṣeka initiations from Kūkai. However, when Saichō asked Kūkai for copies of more advanced ritual texts, Kūkai demanded that Saichō first become his student. Saichō’s refusal seems to have led to the split between the two. Regardless, there continued to be considerable overlap and interchange between “Shingon” and “Tendai” “Esoteric” practice and scholarship. The terms Taimitsu 台密 and Tōmitsu 東密 have been used to differentiate Saichō and

Kūkai’s “Esoteric” lineages, however, this is arguably an anachronistic division designed by Kokan Shiren 虎関師錬 (1278-1346), a monk and historian from Tōfukuji 東福寺 in a history of Buddhism in Japan, entitled Genkō shakusho 元亨釋書, written in 1322. By that time, Tendai and Shingon factions had achieved a higher level of independence. Before this time, the terms “shingon” and “mikkyō” were used interchangeably to refer to elite forms of ritual and practice, and “Tendai” and “Shingon” lineages were not absolutely distinct from the Nara establishment, nor from each other, as lineages between temples tended to overlap and/or compete with each other for patronage and resources. Hieizan based “Esoteric” lineages and their historical domination of the Japanese Buddhist environment have largely been ignored. Dolce notes that in part, this is due to the successful monopolization of “mikkyō” scholarship (traditional and modern) by Japanese Shingon scholar-priests.953 She further points out that scholars who have devoted their attention to Tendai have tended to focus on the so-called “exoteric” dimensions of the Tiantai/Tendai tradition, such as the Mohezhiguan and the intellectual tradition of Zhiyi.954 For example, Ennin is known for his diary recounting this voyage to China; Jien is known for his Buddhist history, the Gukanshō 愚管抄; and Eisai/Yōsai 榮西 (1141-1215), regarded in the Heian period as the originator of a Taimitsu lineage, the Yōjō-ryū 葉上流, is primarily remembered as a Kamakura Zen founder. As a result, the extensive Taimitsu corpus has been rather neglected in comparison with the Shingon School.

Before moving on to examine the important contributions made by Taimitsu thinkers to the development of Japanese Pure Land thought, it would be instructive to note that we should be hesitant to view “Tendai” or “Hieizan” as signifying a singular entity.958 “Tendai” on Hieizan was not a homogenous monolith, but was broken into competing temples with diverse administrative responsibilities and conflicting lineage loyalties. Therefore, it is difficult to view “Tendai” from Saichō’s time onward as a single sectarian organization with a unified hierarchical or institutional structure.

Rather, as Saichō’s immediate disciples participated in a broader Buddhist world of local competing institutions, political factions, and administrative centers (just as Saichō and Kūkai had done), we should rather view Hieizan as a developing “center of gravity” within the Buddhist world of the time, wherein the lineages that claimed descent from Saichō competed for supremacy. In the medieval context, “Taimitsu” referred to Jimon (temple branch) and Sanmon (mountain branch) Tendai traditions, each of which maintained its own lineages, practices, doctrines, and founders.959 In other words, it might be better to think of the term Taimitsu as a geographic designation, much like the terms Tiantai in China. Rather than signifying a sectarian distinction, these terms might be taken as referring to localized lineage affiliations with particular institutions. Keeping this in mind, will help us to avoid an anachronistic sectarian reification of Tendai and Shingon autonomy in favor of a more grounded understanding of lineages as tied specific places and groups.

蘇悉地對受記 (T. 2392); Annen’s catalogue of esoteric material, the Hakke hiroku 八家秘録; and the medieval ritual collections Shijūjōketsu and Asabashō.” Dolce, “Taimitsu,” 751-752. 958 Dolce, “Taimitsu,” 745. 959 Dolce, “Taimitsu,” 744. “Taimitsu”

After Saichō, Ennin is regarded as the second great “Taimitsu” thinker. Ennin was one of the most important transmitters of “Esoteric” continental ritual culture in Japanese history, and is also commonly regarded as one of the most important systematizers of Pure Land doctrine on Hieizan. But Ennin may well be one of the clearest examples of what I would refer to as an “Esoteric Pure Land” thinker in early Japanese history. Ennin’s mastery of “Esoteric” ritual far surpassed both Kūkai and Saichō, but because he was not regarded as a “founder,” his contribution is often neglected. Ennin began his career as Saichō’s student, studying Tendai doctrine, and received denbō kanjō 傳法灌頂, the Dharma transmission abhiṣeka. Ennin became the third abbot (zasu) of Hieizan, and came be regarded as the founder of the Tendai Sanmon lineage 天台宗山門派 situated in the Yokawa 横川 district of the mountain. Ennin also purportedly initiated the cult of Fudōmyōō 不動明王 (S. Ācalanathā-vidyārāja), a deity often regarded as one of the defining characteristics of Japanese Esoteric Buddhism.961

In 835, Ennin travelled to Tang China. He had hoped to travel to Wutaishan 五台山, but was denied official permission. So, it was fortuitous that when he initially intended to return to Japan, unfavorable weather conditions forced him to turn back. At this time he was able to travel to Wutaishan, where he would study the Mohezhiguan, and receive 37 fascicles of Tiantai doctrinal commentaries. Wutaishan is regarded as the site of Mañjuśrī’s Pure Land. It was here that Ennin purportedly learned the five-tone Wutai style of chanting the nenbutsu, a form of practice that became very popular on Hieizan. Ennin was able to continue his studies at various temples in Chang’an, acquiring many ritual implements, images, and ritual manuals that had not yet been transmitted to Japan. Ennin also acquired the Susiddhikāra, which would come to form one of the three most important texts for the “Taimitsu” tradition. Whereas Kūkai’s lineage came to promote the Mahāvairocana and Vajraśekhara systems, together with the Vajra and Womb World Mandalas, Tendai tradition added a third component based on the Sussiddhikāra, which is attributed to Ennin. This tripartite system would eventually be incorporated into both Tōmitsu and Taimitsu lineages.

In 842, Emperor Wuzong 武宗 (814–846; r. 840–846) initiated his infamous persecution of Buddhism, an eventuality that forced Ennin’s premature return to Japan. Upon his return to Japan, he performed the kanjō ritual on Hieizan in 849, and became the zasu of Hieizan in 854. As zasu, Ennin would perform many rituals for the imperial family and courtly elite. Back in Japan, Ennin developed a unique approach to the Mahāyāna division between kengyō and mikkyō. For Ennin, the kengyō included Yogācāra and Madhyamaka, and other schools of doctrinal study that rely on the Three Vehicles model. The mikkyō, on the one hand, was divided into rimitsu 理密 and jirigumitsu 事理俱密. The rimitsu, or mikkyō in principle, included the Lotus, Nirvana, and Avataṃsaka sūtras, and others of that nature. These appear to be the sutras that present the Ekayāna perspective, the grand vision of the Mahāyāna, as well as the doctrine of the unity of nirvana and saṃsāra, etc., but which lack the ritual component necessary for rendering this vision complete. By contrast, the jirigumitsu included the Mahāvairocana and Vajraśekhara texts, which also present the Ekayāna vision, and which include extensive ritual procedures and commentaries to render the teachings concrete. Whereas Saichō regarded the Lotus and Mahāvairocana to be presenting the same Ekayāna vision, Ennin elaborated on Saichō’s assessment, emphasizing the importance of ritual.

Ennin came to be associated with the so-called yama nenbutsu 山念仏, or “mountain nenbutsu,” which is often described by scholars as leading to the ascetic nenbutsu practices of figures like Kōya 空也 (aka, Kūya, 903-972), who was a lineage descendant of Ennin. Yama nenbutsu is connected to “market place nenbutsu” 市念仏, as official and unofficial monks who specialized in nenbutsu chanting would often come down from the mountains to chant the nenbutsu in the presence of the common people. The popular understanding of the inherent power of ritual speech, as mantra, as spell, as a vehicle for transformation and the purification of karma, led the nenbutsu in particular to emerge as a site for the articulation of a diverse range of doctrinal innovations, many of which were pioneered by Hieizan thinkers at a time when

“Esoteric” lineages and practices flourished

Other important “Esoteric Pure Land” thinkers influenced by Ennin include Henjō 遍昭 (816?-890), who focused on the Amida sanmai 阿彌陀三昧; Sōō 相応 (831-918); and Zōmyō 増命 (843-927), a disciple of Enchin who painted images of the Pure Land in the Western Pagoda area. Enshō 円昌 (880-964), the 15th zasu of Hieizan is also known to have conferred the precepts upon Kūya, and his raigō 来迎 deathbed vision was made famous by Yoshishige Yasutane’s 慶滋保胤 (933-1002) Nihon ōjō gokuraku ki 日本往生極樂記. Ennin is believed to have promoted the jōgyō sanmai and to have established the Jōgyōsanmai Hall. Stories about Ennin’s successful attainment of Pure Land rebirth later circulated, intimating that he died chanting the Amitābha Dhāraṇī (See Chapter II) while holding the Amitābha mudra—body, speech, and mind orchestrated for the attainment of personal salvation in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amitābha. While there is some doubt concerning Ennin’s own Pure Land practices—there is considerable evidence that many of the practices attributed to him predate his career—never the less, Hieizan based practices such as the fudan nenbutsu 不断念仏 (uninterrupted nenbutsu) spread to Tōmine 遠峰 in Yamato, and other temples in Kyōto, and eventually Kōyasan. Like Kūkai, Saichō, and other masters, Ennin came to be regarded by some as a Pure Land patriarch. Following Ennin, the next great “Taimitsu” thinker was Enchin, the 5th zasu of Enryakuji. While Ennin is generally (and retrospectively) associated with the Sanmon, or mountain based lineage, Enchin is regarded as the “founder” of the Jimon, or off mountain “temple” based lineage. Also, Ennin is associated with the Eastern Pagoda, while Enchin’s lineage is associated with the Western Pagoda. The Jimon lineage came to be based in Miidera 三井寺 (or Onjōji 園城寺) off the shore of Lake Biwa 琵琶湖. Though historically smaller, Onjōji seems to have produced especially influential “Esoteric” thinkers and ritualists. Kumano and Yoshino cults

were important branches of the Jimon faction. Altogether, Jimon, Sanmon, and Tōji were major lineages in competition in the capital. In 828, Enchin ascended Hieizan and studied under Gishin 義眞 (781-833), the zasu at the time. He studied the Shanagō and Shikangō before travelling to China in 851. In China he studied Mohezhiguan doctrine and meditation on Tiantaishan 天台山. Later, in Chang’an, he received initiations at Qinglongsi, the temple at which Kūkai studied. Enchin drew upon Ennin’s kenmitsu vision, but emphasized the subordinate position of the Lotus, and further emphasized the importance of ritual in his Dainichikyō shiki 大日經指歸.

Enchin makes numerous references to the attainment of rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī in his major work on Esoteric Buddhism, Nyūshingonmon nyūnyojitsukenkōenhokke ryakugi 入眞言門入如實見講演法華略儀 (T. 2192, 196c17-202b10). In the Jubosatsukaigi 授菩薩戒儀 (T. 2378, 629b28-629c19) Enchin describes rebirth in the Pure Land in terms common to the East Asian Mahā/Vajrayāna corpus; the “casting off of the body” 捨此身; the attainment of rebirth in the realm Sukhāvatī 生極樂界; the attainment of full awakening upon hearing the Buddha Amitābha preach the Dharma 彌陀佛前聽聞正法悟; and the attainment of the power to

travel throughout the Pure Lands of the ten directions to pay homage to all the Buddhas therein 無生忍具大神通遊歴十方供養諸佛, and always to hear the perfect Dharma of the highest Mahāyāna 常聞無上大乘正法. All this suggests that Enchin and Ennin; were participants in a broader “Mahā/Vajrayāna” culture within which the concept of the Pure Land was regarded as one important phase of the Bodhisattva path. The next major Taimitsu thinker was Godai’in Annen 五大院安然 (841-902?), a monk from the same family as Saichō, and a student of Ennin. Though Annen never studied in China, through his substantial contributions to Japanese Esoteric Buddhism scholarship, he is often ranked alongside those who did. After Ennin and Enchin, Annen is regarded as one of the founders of the Taimitsu tradition, being especially influential in medieval Tō- and Taimitsu lineages. Annen further elaborated on the ideas of Ennin and Enchin by arguing for a five-fold doctrinal division (yet another panjiao) in his Taizō kongo bodaishingi ryaku mondō shō 胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔 (T. 2397). Here, drawing upon Zhiyi’s system, Annen developed his own

panjiao of the Five Periods and Five Teachings. First he divides the Buddhist teachings into those that believe in the three vehicles 三乘 (J. sanjō: zō 藏, tsū 通, betsu 別), and those that accept the one vehicle, or eka-yāna 一乘 (en 圓 and mitsu 密). Annen seems to have regarded Shingon as superior to Tendai by itself, whereas Ennin and Saichō saw them more closely aligned. Under the heading of the “Perfect Teaching,” Annen included both the Lotus, Avataṃsaka, and others that present a comprehensive Mahāyāna worldview, however, like others before him, he regarded Shingon as providing a more embodied and concrete manifestation of that ultimate reality.

Annen also disagreed with Kūkai’s assessment that the Avataṃsaka was superior to the

Lotus, and he positioned Tendai just below Shingon in his own version of the Ten Stages of Mind.

Annen believed that from the perspective of ultimate reality, all Buddhas are one Buddha, all

Buddha lands are one Buddha land, and that all teachings fit within a universal mikkyō rubric.

Building upon key features of both Saichō and Kūkai’s competing visions of Esoteric Buddhism, Annen argued that the panjiao evolutionary/hierarchical divisions may be ultimately collapsed on the basis of the mutually-interpenetrating perspective of shingon. In this sense, like Kūkai, Annen’s “shingon shū” sought to encompass and unify all Buddhism.

In the Shingonshū kyōjigi 眞言宗教時義 (T. 2396), Annen employed the term “Shingonshū” as a label for his teachings, and referred to himself as a Shingon-shū monk. This usage demonstrates the fluidity of the concept of “shingon” as well as of the term “shū.” That a Hieizan monk could lay claim to the term “shingon-shū” should give scholars of Japanese Esoteric Buddhism pause, as it clearly demonstrates that during Annen’s time, the concept possessed a much broader range than it does today. Annen’s legacy, too, reached beyond sectarian categories, and it is perhaps for this reason that his impact has been overshadowed by those historical figures who nicely fit into sectarian teleologies.

Ryōgen and the Aristocratization of the

Depending on one’s perspective, Ryōgen 良源 (912-985) is either the hero of Tendai history, or the school’s greatest villain. Ryōgen, like many elite monks, was a master of both Tendai doctrine and Esoteric ritual, and he seems to have promoted this dual learning in his training of disciples, many of which would go on to be both important “Taimitsu” thinkers as well as major systematizers of the forms of Buddhist practice scholars would go on to describe as “Pure Land Buddhism.” Ryōgen’s rise to power led to a major schism in the Japanese Tendai tradition between the Jimon and Sanmon lineages. From this point on, the descendants of Ennin and Enchin would remain functionally autonomous. However, Ryōgen’s career also marked the establishment of Hieizan as the dominant Buddhist institution in Japan.

Before Ryōgen took office, the mountain had experienced significant financial trouble. In 823, the year after Saichō’s death, Hieizanji was renamed Enryakuji. Officially granting this mountain temple its own imperially recognized name meant that monks did not have to be affiliated with Nara temples, as they had up to this point. However, “official” freedom from Nara and the sōgō also meant that the monks on Hieizan were in a precarious financial position as they were somewhat at a disadvantage in the patronage network. Many of Saichō’s students were Kōfukuji monks, and since Kōfukuji was the Fujiwara family temple, Saichō was able to establish important patronage relations with Fujiwara officials.978 Lay patrons were essential in this early period for overseeing monastic infrastructure, the training of monks, resolving disputes, and helping proposals get through court channels more smoothly. Ryōgen developed a strong relationship with Fujiwara no Morosuke 藤原師輔 (908-960), and would eventually tonsure Morosuke’s son, Jinzen 尋禪 (943-990), who became the zasu of

Hieizan. This move by Ryōgen set in motion a trend by which the sons of elite families came to dominate the highest ranks of major temples. In this way, families competing with each other at court came to participate in the competition between monastic lineages. This is a fairly interesting (or unfortunate) development when one considers the degree of social mobility that monasteries had previously provided those from the lower classes up to this period. Stone notes that from 782 to 990, 97% of the monastic population came from the commoner class, from 9911069, 52%; and, from 1070-1190, 10%. Early on, becoming a monk was one way of transcending the station of one’s birth, but from Ryōgen’s time onward, temple succession became one more arena wherein aristocrats competed with one another for power. Indeed, to a large degree, this had always been one function of temples as institutions since Buddhism first arrived on the archipelago. But after Ryōgen, a new system emerged:

From Shirakawa [1053-1129] on, retired emperors placed imperial princes as ranking abbots at the Enryakuji, Onjōji, and other major temple-shrine complexes in an effort to gain some control over these institutions and their armed forces. The first hōshinnō at the Enryakuji was Saiun, son of Emperor Horikawa, appointed zasu in 1156 by Retired Emperor Goshirakawa. From the Insei of Retired Emperor Toba (retired 1129-1156), virtually all zasu were imperial princes.

It seems obvious that at this time, Buddhist centers came to acquire land and power on par with noble families and the court. Often enough, though, these powerful monasteries were in fact run (or came to be run) by powerful elite families, or by retired emperors themselves. In this environment ritual lineages continued to proliferate as a common ritual culture, and Hieizan, with its proximity to the capital and close familial and political connections with the imperial family and the aristocracy eventually came to dominate that environment.

While elite families employed major temples to aid in their mastery over this world, they also endeavored to draw upon the power of elite ritual specialists to help them control their fates in the Afterlife. From the 10th century, obtaining deathbed visions of one’s impending future rebirth in the Pure Land came to be one of the primary preoccupations of Japanese Buddhist practice. To a significant degree, the difference between rebirth in the Pure Land at the last moment of death (J. ōjō) and the attainment of corporeal awakening (J. sokushin jōbutsu) came to be blurred. Given the close relationship between the sangha and the aristocracy, it was common for a priest to accompany one in the last moments for assistance in the transition that death represented. Visualization practices drawn from Pure Land and Esoteric texts were important for deathbed practice.

It is often assumed that contemplative nenbutsu practice was the initial dominant trend and that vocal recitation grew later under the influence of the Ōjōyōshū. However, Kakehashi contends that Ryōgen’s Pure Land thought and the impact he had on Senkan and Zenyū reveals that the vocal nenbutsu and aspiration for rebirth were both of prime importance, especially for the aristocracy, amongst whom Ryōgen actively promoted devotion to Amitābha. Drawing upon the Contemplation Sūtra, Ryōgen crafted his Gokuraku jōdo kuhon ōjōgi 極樂淨土九品往生義. This text examines the different levels of rebirth in the Pure Land, and the practices and aspirations that lead to that attainment. Included among the nine grades is the lowest level of the low, into which even the wicked and evil may be born. Indeed, we find here, as in the works of Ryōgen’s doctrinal descendants a theory of Pure Land rebirth that approaches a theory of universal salvation, wherein those at the lowest stage may nevertheless attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

Hieizan and “Pure Land Buddhism”

First developed in the 6th century, tsuizen Pure Land teachings continued to attract interest. From the 10th century, a diverse range of practices evolved alongside and out of the traditional jōgyō sanmai, one of the cornerstones of the Shanagō curriculum. Nara Hiromoto 奈良弘元 has suggested that monks atop far away mountains eventually came to cultivate practices first pioneered on Hieizan, including the fudan nenbutsu and yama no nenbutsu (which may refer to different versions of the same thing), the Nijūgo sanmai e 二十五三昧会, and evening repentance rituals 阿彌陀懺法 (J. Amida senbō) centered upon Amitābha. All of these practices were especially popular on Kōyasan.

However, should these practices be considered the early phase of a distinctive “Pure Land Buddhism?” Like Inoue and others, Nara argues for a narrow definition of Pure Land Buddhism is necessary to render it an intelligible object of academic inquiry. Nara defines Pure Land Buddhism as the aspiration of a faithful devotee for individual salvation in the Pure Land, and clearly differentiates between earlier forms of practice and the meditative/ascetic traditions that developed on Hieizan. While the argument could be made that this kind of analytical utility is important for constructing an object of study, I would suggest that such narrow definitions lend themselves all too easily to teleological reification of lines of descent and “influence.” In any event, it seems clear that 10th century Hieizan monks had their collective fingers on the pulse of the Buddhist world, and continued along with their rivals and colleagues in Nara and the Heian-kyō to employ “Esoteric” technologies for the attainment of goals in this world and the next. The monk Genshin is usually credited as having consolidated the various threads of the Tendai Pure Land tradition and as having articulated something like a “Pure Land Buddhism” that became popular amongst elites and commoners alike. However, there were other thinkers at this time (and before) who also contributed to the systematization of Japanese Pure Land thought, and again, they also seem to have cultivated their ideas in the context of Esoteric ritual training and doctrinal expertise.

Senkan (918-983) was an important kenmitsu thinker who not only preached rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha, but who also employed “Esoteric” ritual technologies to pray for rain. Senkan is believed to have chanted the nenbutsu ten times at the moment of death, an event that influenced later deathbed practices. Trained in various practices, Senkan seems to have regarded Pure Land practice as a component of the Bodhisattvas striving for awakening. While some scholars have characterized him as promoting a “self-power” approach to Pure Land, that is not entirely appropriate because, as he also promoted the idea that even the most ignorant beings may attain awakening through the power of the Buddha. Senkan’s Jūgan hosshin ki 十願發心記 promoted the idea that even ignorant beings have the ability to attain salvation in the lowest of the Nine Grades. Senkan also composed the Amida wasan 阿彌陀和讚, purportedly for the purpose of teaching commoners about the Pure Land. Another important early 10 century Pure Land thinker was Zenyu 禅瑜 (913?-990), the author of the Amida shinjūgi 阿彌陀新十疑. Zenyu drew upon Ryōgen and Shandao 善導

(613-681)996 and likely had a profound influence on the development of Genshin’s thought. Like Senkan, Zenyu emphasized the power of even one recitation of the name of the Buddha. He also regarded the “secret speech” 密語 (J. mitsugo) of the Tathāgata as the cause for rebirth in the Nine Stages in the Pure Land. A single recitation of the name, he claimed, may purify all sins and make rebirth possible. Zenyu represented a stream of thought found especially in Esoteric ritual texts wherein the power of speech itself is said to originate from the power of the Buddhas, and it is thus a power in which beings are able to participate.

Genshin is regarded by many as the first true “Pure Land Buddhist.” In some circles, his Ōjōyōshū (T. 2682) is credited with having established the aspiration for rebirth in a Pure Land as a ubiquitous goal among aristocrats and commoners alike. However, many of the ideas commonly attributed to Genshin, such as the possibility that even the most ignorant beings could attain salvation, the vocal recitation of the name, etc., were already to some extent present in other traditions. As Ryōgen’s disciple, Genshin studied both Tendai doctrine and mikkyō ritual, and he drew upon Ryōgen’s Pure Land thought in particular. Like Ryōgen, Genshin seems to have regarded Buddha contemplation as superior to the simple recitation of the name of the Buddha by itself. While Genshin was a well-known disciple of Ryōgen, some scholars have suggested that Genshin retired to Yokawa 横川 out of protest against the aristocratization of the sangha. Regardless, Genshin’s work was highly influential in aristocratic circles, and it is known that Fujiwara no Michinaga, among many others, read the Ōjōyōshū. While the Ōjōyōshū is usually understood to present the “normative” of the Pure Land Buddhist tradition (kengyō, not mikkyō), in fact, Genshin’s presentation of the goal of post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha is constructed with the assumption that “ken” and “mitsu” perspectives formed the basis for a common ritual system, and on the level of principle (ri 理, or fundamental truth) they are unified.

However, according to the opening passage of the Ōjōyōshu, because the world is in the age of mappō 末法 (C. mofa)—the latter days of the Law (Dharma)—progress in the manifold kenmitsu teachings and rituals available to the Buddhist practitioner has become extremely difficult. Therefore, all should aspire for rebirth in the Pure Land, wherein it is easier to progress along the Bodhisattva path via ken and mitsu practice. While the vocal and meditative recitation/contemplation of the name of Amitābha is the main object of Genshin’s inquiry, he also discusses the basis by which various other practices are also conducive for rebirth in the Pure Land. For example he lists numerous mantra and dhāraṇī texts that were widely recognized for their potency in aiding beings in the attainment of Pure Land rebirth, and Genshin notes that within the Mahāyāna (which is composed of ken and mitsu) there are numerous mantra and dhāraṇī for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth.

Genshin also notes the great potential found even (if not especially) in the earliest stages of the Buddhist path. Genshin’s broader impact upon Tendai Pure Land thought seems to have stemmed from his involvement in the nenbutsu kessha 念佛結社 at Shuryōgon-in 首楞嚴院, which drew upon the long Hieizan tradition of the fudan nenbutsu. As noted above, these groups often had connections to unofficial monks and practitioners of spell arts. In 988, Genshin conducted the

Yokawa Shuryōgon-in nijūgo sanmai shiki 橫川首楞嚴院二十五三昧式 (T. 2723). Later tradition regarded Genshin as the founder of this group of twenty-five nenbutsu practitioners, but it appears that he simply integrated himself into an existing community of Pure Land aspirants. According to the Yokawa Shuryōgon-in nijūgosanmai kishō 横川首楞嚴院二十五三昧起請 (T. 2724), attributed to Genshin, we see the nenbutsu described in connection with the Kōmyō Shingon 光明眞言, or the Mantra of Light, a popular ritual used for the purification of sins and rebirth in the Pure Land. It appears that for Genshin, the nenbutsu and the Kōmyō Shingon were but two possible technologies by which the practitioner could bridge the gap between the realm of the Buddhas and the karma-bound realm of sentient beings. After Genshin, other important Pure Land theorists from this period include Kakukei 覺慶 (928－1014), Kakuun 覺運 (953-1007), Kakuchō 覺超 (960-1034), and Kōgei 皇慶 (977- 1049). Each of these figures deserves an individual study, but for now it will be sufficient to say that like Genshin, they were initiated into the mikkyō lineages, and wrote many important texts discussing the nature of Pure Land rebirth.

Hongaku Pure Land and Secret Oral Transmission Literature

Tendai Pure Land thought was also foundational for the development of secret oral transmission literature, or kuden 口傳. Japanese Tendai doctrine developed a distinctive hongaku 本覺 “original enlightenment” theory wherein all beings are recognized as fundamentally

always-already awakened (“originally awakened” would be a more literal translation). The ideas that scholars regard as expressing hongaku thought developed in tandem with, and certainly often overlap with (but are not necessarily synonymous with) Japanese Esoteric Buddhism and ritual culture. In addition, Jacqueline Stone has also noted that some of the earliest hongaku literature is focused on the Pure Land and the Buddha Amitābha, and many of these texts are attributed to Genshin. What would eventually become hongaku took Zhiyi’s thought as its basis, but was also created in part by Kūkai’s non-dual Mahāyāna theories from his commentary on the

Shimoheyenlun, wherein he employs both Avataṃsaka and Esoteric theories of interdependence and non-differentiation to argue for an all-inclusive Mahāyāna. Taking these various strands as its foundation, hongaku thought seems to have evolved organically. Continental precedent for hongaku thought arose as an extension of what we might call “nondual” Mahāyāna thought. In particular, the Avataṃsaka, Vimalakīrti Sūtra, Benevolent King Sūtra, Vajra-samādhi Sūtra, and the confluence of Tathāgatagarbha, Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra theories converged in a variety of panjiao systems to produce a broader context in which the relationship between “provisional” and “true” teachings, and between phenomena (shi 事) and principle (li 理), was collapsed. Zhiyi argued that li and shi maintain neither a vertical nor horizontal relationship. Rather, they are mutually interpenetrating, and non-dual. He made a similar argument regarding essence 體 (C. ti, J. tai) and function 用 (C. yong, J. yō), and nature 性 (C. xing, J. shō) and form, or aspect 相 (C. xiang, J. sō).1014

As oral transmission had emerged as a common mode of transmitting specialized knowledge,1015 hongaku doctrinal thought was transmitted through kuden literature throughout many lineages. Jaqueline Stone argues that several features of hongaku kuden exerted a significant influence upon early-medieval (post-11th century) Japanese Buddhism, more broadly.

These influences may be summarized as follows: • First, as with earlier “non-dual” Mahāyāna, the relationship between conventional and ultimate realities was re-imagined, and in some sense collapsed. • Second, the traditional (gradual) basis for practice was undermined through the recognition that if Buddhas and sentient beings are non-dual, then practice itself is an instantiation of awakening (sudden), thus “cause” and “effect” are collapsed. • Third, a “mandalic reconceptualization” of reality, wherein beings of differing capacities were recognized as they are (in their current form, from their current position) to possess the capacity for awakening. As a result many different forms of practice were promoted depending on capacity: contemplation of suchness or emptiness, sutra, nenbutsu or mantra chanting, dedication of effort, etc. • Fourth, traditional goals of practice, such as rebirth in Sukhāvatī or Tuṣita, or the descent of Amitābha or Maitreya at the moment of death, while logically collapsing the boundaries between “this” world and “that” world, were nevertheless understood to maintain their objective/external reality. The seemingly external nature of Buddhas

1014 Stone, Original Enlightenment, 7-10. 1015 101, 109, 150, etc.

and Bodhisattvas as agents in the world was allowed to stand in productive tension with the idea that that they are expressions of one’s own reality. Thus, dualist and non-dualist perspectives functioned together in a broader system. In other words, hongaku reinterpreted and integrated the whole of the Mahāyāna tradition into a unified non-dual paradigm. Many of these concepts were developed in close dialogue with the Esoteric ritual corpus, especially those associated with Annen and Amoghavajra, but did not necessarily overlap. These issues will be explored in further detail in Chapter V, Part I.

Stone notes that scholars typically have dismissed the importance of kuden because hongaku thought seems to deny the importance of Buddhist practice. However, in response to this criticism, she notes, “One reason why many medieval kuden texts do not give detailed instructions for practice is that they are not ritual or meditation manuals but are instead concerned primarily with doctrinal interpretation; thus there is no particular reason why they should explicate practice.”1018 In other words, whereas discussions of ritual and meditative practice were more prevalent in giki, the kuden records were more concerned with a deeper understanding of doctrinal matters. It simply was not their “role” to comment on practice, but rather to reimagine why practice “worked.” We might therefore think of the development of a “kenmitsu kuden” culture wherein ritual and doctrinal theories were transmitted separately, but still as part of a dynamic and diverse early medieval system.

Ryōnin (1073-1132) was one of the most important “hongaku/Esoteric Pure Land” thinkers, and his approach to the Buddhist path is illustrative of the Tendai contribution to 11th and 12th century Japanese Buddhism. Ryōnin is regarded as the founder of the Yūzū nenbutsu 融

通念佛 tradition, and the revitalizer/systematizer of the Tendai science of chanting 天台聲明 (J. Tendai shōmyō). He is also connected with growth of nenbutsu hijiri and the Tendai lineages centered at Onjōji and Ōhara. Ryōnin became a monk at the age of 12 on Hieizan, and studied both Mohezhiguan and Mahāvairocana-sūtra curricula. With the monks of the Eastern Pagoda, he practiced the jōgyō sanmai and the fudan nenbutsu. Like Gyōki and Kūya before him, Ryōnin is associated with the ecstatic singing of the fundraising hijiri, and like his predecessors straddles the divide between official and unofficial monks. In 1117, at the age of 45, while practicing the nenbutsu samādhi, he received a vision in which Amida spoke to him, saying “One person, all people, all people, one person; one practice, all practices, all practices, one practice 一人一切人、一切人一人、一行一切行、一切行一行.” This now famous line clearly draws upon the Annen and the “three realms in a single thought moment” concept outlined by Zhiyi. Ranging from Ryōnin to Ryōgen, then many different kinds of religious professionals in this early medieval era were involved with the secret oral transmission of Esoteric Buddhism and Original Enlightenment ritual and doctrinal knowledge (hongaku-kenmitsu-kengaku-kuden 本覺・顯密・兼學・口傳). The dynamic environment of their creation and sustenance was woven throughout various institutions and regions, within which Hieizan loomed large. The reemergence of Kōyasan and Kūkai studies, to be examined in the next section, must be understood in this context.

Chapter III

Part IV

“Esoteric Pure Land” in the Southern Capital and Southern Mountain

Perhaps in response to the growth and dominance of Hieizan based institutions, or perhaps through participation in the broader (mikkyō-hongaku-kuden-kengaku-kenmitsu) culture of the early-medieval period, the institutions of Nara and Heian-kyō became increasingly intertwined and developed a variety of strategies to remain competitive in this new environment. In the section that follows, I will examine the thought of key “Esoteric Pure Land” thinkers in Nara and Heian-kyō, as well as the role that “Esoteric Pure Land” thought played in the revival of Kūkai studies, the cult of Kōbō Daishi, and the emergence of Kōyasan as a major site of devotion and scholarship.

“Esoteric Pure Land” in Nara

One early notable example of Nara based “Esoteric Pure Land” activity is the Shōkai mandara 淸海曼荼羅, named after Shōkai 淸海 (? – 1017), a Yogācāra scholar at Kōfukuji and Chōshōji 超昇寺. In addition to organizing large nenbutsu assemblies at the temples where he resided, Shōkai is also known to have employed images of the Pure Land in his worship of the Kongōkai and Taizōkai mandala. Alongside the Taima mandara 當麻曼荼羅, and the Chikō mandara 智光曼荼羅, the Shōkai mandara is one of the most famous hensōzu 變相圖, painted two-dimensional depictions of the Pure Land, in Japanese history. These Pure Land “mandara” have served a variety of purposes in East Asian Buddhist history. In some cases, images may be used to teach the unlettered laity. In other cases, such as the paintings and statuary in the Dunhuang and Longmen caves, these depictions serve as an immersive environment wherein one seemingly experiences the Pure Land in this world. These concrete encounters with the Buddhas may impart to lay and monks alike the idea that this world is not so far removed from that other world. In other cases, worshiping these images may serve to purify past karma, and aid Buddhists in establishing ties (J. kechien 結緣) with Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. We as scholars might differentiate between hensōzu and mandala, but as the use of the term mandara demonstrates, the example of Shōkai might suggest to us that such distinctions may not always be useful in the study of Buddhism in practice.

Another important Nara based “Pure Land Buddhist” theorists was the monk Eikan, who referred to himself as “Eikan of the Nenbutsu-shū 念佛宗永觀.” Inagaki notes that Eikan promoted the recitative nenbutsu as a particularly effective method to attain Pure Land rebirth. While Eikan is often studied from a Pure Land sectarian perspective as a predecessor to Hōnen and Shinran, his career unfolded as part of the broader kengaku and kenmitsu context, and Esoteric thought (as well as Madhyamaka and Yogacara) played an important role in his perspective on the Pure Land. Eikan began his career under the tutelage of Jinkan 深觀 (1001-1050) at Zenrinji 禪林寺 in Heian-kyō in 1043. Jinkan would later serve as zasu of Kōyasan and chōja 長者 (the Tōji rank equivalent to zasu) of Tōji, respectively. At this time, Zenrinji in Heian-kyō was a bettō of Tōdaiji in Nara. Eikan also studied mikkyō under Jingaku Hōshinnō 深覺法親王 (955-1043), a former student of Jinkan, who retired to the Muryōju-in 無量壽院 on Kōyasan. Pure Land oriented practices appear to have been part of his mikkyō training. Esoteric ritual training had already been systematically integrated across Nara lineages as the kenmitsu culture flourished in early medieval Japan. Eikan studied Pure Land under Chōyo 重譽 (d. ca. 1139-1143) at Kōmyōsan 光明山 in Yamato, a bessho 別所 of Tōdaiji’s Tōnan-in 東 院, and from this period on he was known as a Madhyamaka-Pure Land scholar. At the age of 40 he moved to Zenrinji, where he lectured on Pure Land rebirth. In 1079, composed the Ōjō kōshiki 往生講式 (T. 2725).

Perhaps his most famous work is the Ōjōjūin 往生拾因 (T. 2683). In this text, he examines ten ways in which the simple practice of the nenbutsu may lead to meritorious rebirth,1027 and explains that this practice has ten causes. Additional practices for Pure Land rebirth include the Senjukannonsetsuenman darani 千手觀音説圓滿陀羅尼 (T. 1060, or 1061). He was also a practitioner of the Uṣṇīṣa dhāraṇī, and discusses the rituals for Pure Land rebirth in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra’s as well. In addition to various dhāraṇī, Eikan notes that the myōgō 名號, the name, of Amitābha contains within it the virtues of the great dhāraṇī.

After discussing the various facets of mantra, shikan, Madhyamaka, and Yogacara, Eikan states that, the nenbutsushū is the highest path because it is appropriate for monks and laity alike. In fact, Eikan argues, in the Pure Land Gate, all are one, there is no high or low, and therefore, given the karmic predicament of most, and the difficulties inherent in the philosophical schools, why would one not practice the nenbutsu? Eikan seems to have been a pioneer exponent of the idea that the Pure Land path was a vocation unto itself. However, since his understanding of Pure Land practice unfolded comfortably within the orthodoxy of his time, perhaps an “Esoteric-

Sanron-Pure Land” perspective, this suggestion was met with no resistance at this time. Another important Nara based “Esoteric Pure Land” thinker was the famous painter Chingai. Like Eikan before him, and Hōnen after him, Chingai promoted the recitative nenbutsu for those of lower capacities. Like Eikan, and unlike Hōnen, he emphasized the importance of bodhicitta 菩提心 (J. bodaishin), and perhaps saw the nenbutsu as a way to give rise to the mind that seeks enlightenment. At Tōdaiji’s Tōnan-in 東 院 he studied Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Logic 因明 (J. inmyō), and at the Sanbō-in 三寶院 at Daigoji 醍醐寺, he studied mikkyō under Jōkai 定海 (1074-1149). In addition to being a famous painter, Chingai composed numerous works on a wide variety of topics spanning the world of Mahāyāna scholasticism.

In the Ketsujō ōjōshū 決定往生集 (T. 2684), Chingai discusses a variety of practices and paths that lead to rebirth in the Pure Land. Like Eikan before him, Chingai seems to have regarded Pure Land as an important area of disciplinary specialization, referring to the jōkyō no shū 淨教之宗. However, he does not appear to have regarded it as in any sense distinct from the dhāraṇī and mantra “Esoteric” path. Moreover, when placing this work in the broader context of Chingai’s intellectual life, we can suggest that his Pure Land thought fit within a broadly conceived kenmitsu Mahāyāna intellectual enterprise. For example, as was common in the late Heian period, Chingai drew upon texts that take for granted the difficulty of attaining Buddhahood in this world. Kakehashi notes that for Chingai, assurance of rebirth in the Pure Land can be realized at the moment of shinjin 信心, known as the mind of true entrusting. Chingai suggests that it may be difficult or impossible to attain Buddhahood in this world, but that in the Pure Land one is able to practice dhāraṇī to

accelerate one’s progress along the path. Again, the purpose of Pure Land rebirth is established in relation to the cultivation and mastery of dhāraṇī. Chingai discusses various paths to Pure Land rebirth, including meditative practice with a statue of Amitābha; taking refuge in the Lotus Sūtra and other Mahāyāna sūtras, and the Amitābha spell 彌陀之呪 (J. mida no ju) and the Pure Land rebirth spell, purportedly preached by Nāgārjuna, found among the Mahāyāna corpus of spells. Chingai also mentions Wŏnhyo’s 元曉 (617–686) description of “charging” sand with the power of the Kōmyō Shingon mantra as a way of purifying ones past karma. On the basis of these and other passages in the context of Chingai’s prolific scholastic output, we can suggest that for Chingai, Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhism were simply facets of the broader Mahāyāna tradition, representing resources to be drawn upon in one’s pursuit of salvation. Having established a few notable examples of the thinkers most characteristic of the Nara stream of “Esoteric Pure Land” thought, we will now turn to the “revival” movements that led to the establishment of the Kōyasan stream thought, which may to some extent be considered as arising from the confluence of Nara, Heian-kyō, and Hieizan “streams.”

Kūkai Studies Revivals and the Rebuilding of Kōyasan

Beginning in the 11th century, lineages based in Nara and the Heian-kyō capital began to resurrect the image of Kūkai as a center of gravity around which an Esoteric Buddhist “orthodoxy” could be reoriented. These events are commonly discussed as “revival” movements, as if after Kūkai, the Shingon School had fallen on hard times and needed to be revived.

The reality is, of course, far more complicated. The research surveyed in the previous sections suggested that by the 11th century, Hieizan had come to dominate the intellectual and ritual environment of Japan. Factors contributing to this situation include, first, Saichō’s efforts to create an independent Hieizan institutional and educational system in close proximity to the Heian-kyō capital; second, the ongoing successful importation and systematization of Esoteric ritual paraphernalia and ritual texts by figures like Ennin, Enchin, and Annen in the 9th century; and third, Ryōgen’s successful “aristocratization” of the sangha in the 10th century. In this section, I propose that perhaps in response to the rise of Hieizan, Nara and Heian based institutions endeavored to reintegrate Kūkai’s doctrinal writings as a “center of gravity” in the developing Esoteric orthodoxy/orthopraxy, and revive Kōyasan as a site of pilgrimage and devotion. While it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to prove that this explanation accounts for the increase in interest in Kūkai during in this period, it is nonetheless clear that “Esoteric Pure Land” thought and practice was central to this revival effort.

To think of the events to be discussed here as efforts for a “revival” is problematic, not the least of which because Kūkai’s teachings were functioned as a panjiao polemical strategy for introducing Indian and Chinese ritual practices and doctrines into the Nara and Heian-kyō Buddhist establishment, not the founding of a new school of Buddhism. The works of the socalled Kūkai-gaku revivalists all shared several important characteristics. First, the environment out of which they sought to craft a Kūkai-centric Esoteric orthodoxy was so wholly dominated by Hieizan that they could not afford to neglect Tendai doctrine and ritual theory. Second, by the time of the “revival,” both the correct performance of “Esoteric” rituals and the aspiration for rebirth in Sukhāvatī had emerged as the dominant concerns common to elites and commoners alike. As a result, the revivalists needed to respond to these requirements. From the 10th and 11th century, “Esoteric Pure Land” had become fundamental to kenmitsu culture. Some of the most important “revivalists” included Shōshin 性信 (1005-1085) of Ninnaji, his student Saisen 濟暹 (1025-1115), as well as Kyōjin 教尋 (d. 1141), Jōson 定尊 (ca. 1118), Jitsuhan, and Kakuban. This section will focus on Saisen, Jitsuhan, and Kakuban.

Saisen and the Mitsugon Jōdo

Saisen was a Ninnaji monk and a student of Shōshin, from whom he received denbō kanjō in 1084. Saisen was well known for his scholarly achievements, the most significant of which was the editing of the Zoku henjōhokki shōryōshū hoketsu shō 続遍照発揮性霊集補闕抄 (3 fasc.), a section from Kūkai’s Henjōhokki shōryōshū 遍照発揮性霊集 (10 fasc.) which had previously been lost. Saisen also wrote a number of important works systematizing the thought of Kūkai. For example, building upon Kūkai’s commentary on the Shimoheyanlun,

Saisen composed “sub-sub-commentaries,” including Shakumakaenron ketsugihanan eshakushō 釋摩訶衍論決疑破難會釋抄 (T. 2286), Shakumakaenron ryūgi bunryakushaku 釋摩訶衍論立義分略釋 (T. 2287), and Shakumakaenron kenhisshō 釈摩訶衍論顕秘鈔 (10 fasc.). These and other works, including the Dainichikyō jūshinbon shoshiki 大日經住心品疏私記, established Saisen as an early authority in “Kūkai studies.”

In addition to his promotion of the study of Kūkai’s doctrinal works, and the study of Siddhaṃ, Saisen is particularly important for his articulation of the Mitsugon jōdo concept, or the “Pure Land of Mystical Adornment.” The Mitsugon jōdo is essentially the “Pure Land” of Mahāvairocana, and would become an influential idea in later Shingon thought. However, because Mahāvairocana is not a Buddha in the traditional sense, the Mitsugon is not a Pure Land in the traditional sense. Rather, just as Mahāvairocana could be understood as an anthropomorphized Dharmakāya—the “Buddha” of/as all of reality and the sum total of all Buddhas, Bodhisattva, and ultimately, all beings—his “Pure Land” as well may be seen as a totalizing construct, representing the sum total of all Pure Lands. To attain rebirth in the Mitsugon Jōdo, in some sense, corresponds to the normative Mahāyāna goal of attaining rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions, though functioning as a rearticulation of that goal in an evolving Mahāvairocana-centric system articulated by Kūkai, and later Annen. However, the Mitsugon possesses an omni-centric immanentalist nuance that may perhaps be seen as an amplification of the idea that along the Bodhisattva path one acquires the ability to travel to all of the Pure Lands of the ten directions. According to Mitsugon thinkers, in this very moment, in this very place, this very body, all levels of the Cosmic Buddha’s awakening, and all Buddha Lands are fundamentally present and attainable. Through the efforts of Saisen and others, the Mitsugon concept emerged as a “generalized goal” for some medieval “Esoteric” thinkers, encompassing, but not necessarily replacing, Sukhāvatī as the default post-mortem destination. On the one hand, this may be seen as a Mahāvairocana-centric approach to the more general question of the Pure Land, but it is also an elaboration on well-established constructs whereby universalistic “eka-yāna” polemical strategies were employed in early Mahāyāna sūtra literature.

Jitsuhan and the Letter ‘A’

Whereas Saisen was based in Heian-kyō, Jitsuhan was a Nara based Vinaya revivalist, who was also important or the reestablishment of Kūkai studies, and “Esoteric Pure Land.” Jitsuhan studied Yogācāra at Kōfukuji, received initiation into ritual lineages at Daigoji, and in the Yokawa district of Hieizan, he studied Tendai as well. Jitsuhan employed Madhyamaka and Tendai ideas in his development of “Esoteric Pure Land” deathbed practice in the Byōchū shugyō ki 病中修行記. Jitsuhan’s Ajigi 阿 義 (T. 2438) was also important for medieval Shingon theorists. The Sanskrit letter ‘A,’ written in the Siddhaṃ script, symbolizes the originally un-born/non-arising 本不生 (J. honpushō) nature of things. It is the fundamental origin of all things, yet, that “origin” is a non-origin. Jitsuhan’s writing was widely cited in later times, and appears to have been extremely influential upon later thinkers such as Kakuban and Dōhan.

Rebuilding a Mountain: Kōyasan Revivalists and “Esoteric Pure Land”

The end of the 11th century marked a turning of the tide for Kōyasan. In Japan, the year 1052, was believed to have marked the beginning of the final age, mappō. In response to this event, and continued economic, political, and environmental problems, more and more aristocrats and emperors came to take interest in how Buddhist ritual technologies might aid in their attainment of rebirth into the Pure Land of a Buddha or Bodhisattva. Gishin Shōnin Jōyo 祈親上人定譽 (958 - 1047) (hereafter Jōyo) was one of the most important contributors to the effort to revitalize Kōyasan. Jōyo was a fundraising monk 勸進僧

(J. kanjinsō) associated with Kōfukuji, and a jigyōsha 持經者, a member of a class of monks hired by the laity for their sūtra recitation abilities to heal the sick, casting out demons, and aid beings in the attainment of better future rebirth, etc. Jōyo was a scholar of Yogācāra and Esoteric Buddhism, a devotee of the Lotus Sūtra, and, like his Yogācāra predecessors Xuanzang and Dōshō, Jōyo was also an aspirant for rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita Paradise. So, not only was Jōyo’s Maitreya connection not without precedent, but indeed, it is possible (and indeed likely)

‘Byōchū shugyō ki’ no shinshutsu shahon ni tsuite 実範『病中修行記』の新出写本について,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 56.2 (2008): 521-525. that Joyō’s interest in Kōyasan may have derived in part from Kūkai’s own Maitreya devotion and Kōyasan’s reputation as a practice site conducive for rebirth in Tuṣita.

Jōyo belonged to a class of monks not strictly bound to their home institution. Interestingly enough, despite having lost official recognition by the tenth century, jikyōsha seem to have grown in influence among the populace. It appears that there was a continuum that ranged between high ranking monks with official titles to the wandering peripatetic ascetics of legend. Monks like Jōyo should be approached in this way, with full recognition that major institutions were not bound to their “ivory towers,” as it were.

Jōyo’s interest in Kōyasan was purportedly inspired by a vision. One night, while Jōyo was residing in Hasedera Temple, around the age of sixty, he had a dream in which a figure (possibly Kūkai) took him on a journey to a mountain in the southwest, and showed him the unfortunate state of the temple there. In this vision, Jōyo cleared the mountain, and established a stūpa. In order to ask for guidance in completing this task, he performed a ritual dedicated to the massive, 30-foot tall image of Avalokiteśvara enshrined at Hasedera. This resulted in a second vision in which Avalokiteśvara revealed to Jōyo his place in Tuṣita if he completed his mission to revitalize Kōyasan.

In 1016, Jōyo began his efforts to raise funds to rebuild Kōyasan, which was then under the jurisdiction of the Kōya mandokoro 高野政所 office located at a temple at the base of the mountain named Jison-in 慈尊院. Londo notes that it appears, however, that while this office assisted and supported Jōyo’s efforts, it was unable to provide sufficient funding. However, because Jōyo was uniquely positioned to draw upon both official and non-official channels for support, this lack of institutional support posed no major obstacle. On the one hand, he had studied at top ranking institutions and was able to draw upon his connections in that world. On the other hand, his lifetime as a jikyōsha connected him with a far more diverse and dynamic network of fundraisers who were able to simultaneously tap into the devotion of the ordinary commoner. Jōyo’s efforts to promote Kōyasan seem to have been met with enthusiasm by the high and low of society, as devotion to Kūkai had been spreading throughout the populace in the region. Using this two-pronged approach, Jōyo was within only a few years able to rebuild the infrastructure necessary to repopulate the mountain with priests engaged in rituals for state protection, meditation, and other activities.

Ninkai and Kūkai Revivalists in the Heian Capital

Following in the Ninnaji tradition of Shōshin and Saisen, Ninkai appears to have cultivated a strong interest in the revival of Kūkai studies, and to have responded favorably to Jōyo’s efforts. Ninkai was one of the most powerful monks in the capital at this time, in part due to his prowess in rainmaking and divination. Ninkai had attempted to start a Kōyasan revival ten years before Jōyo, but he had been unsuccessful. It therefore seems that that once he realized that Jōyo’s efforts were actually working, he added his own efforts to the revival.

Ninkai was a well-known court “wizard,” of sorts, and had gained fame as a ritualist and mountain ascetic. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that with his clout at court and as a practitioner of the Esoteric arts, Ninkai would have been able to draw upon a range of interested parties in his efforts to support Jōyo’s work. Ninkai is commonly credited as having inspired Fujiwara no Michinaga to travel to the mountain in 1023. Though it remains unclear precisely who led Michinaga to Kōyasan, from this period on, the Fujiwaras and other aristocrats regarded the mountain as an important site for pilgrimage. It is well known that Michinaga was particularly devoted to the Buddha Amitābha, but his catholic devotion to Maitreya and Avalokiteśvara was characteristic of his time. Michinaga was aware of Kūkai’s connection to Maitreya, and he took the opportunity to pay homage to Kūkai as a bodhisattva on Kōyasan. Michinaga’s daughter Fujiwara no Shōshi 藤原彰子 (988-1074) became a nun on Kōyasan in 1026, and she received the title Jōtōmon-in 上東門院.

Thanks to the efforts of Jōyo and Ninkai, along with others such as Meizan 明算 (10211106), Yuihan 由維範 (1011-1106), and Ryōzen 良禪 (1048-1139), Kōyasan was brought back from the brink of destruction and neglect, and fully reanimated. Moreover, with the assistance of Fujiwaras and emperors, not only did Kōyasan reemerge as a dominant center of Buddhist devotion and practice, but the Kii region as a whole experienced renewed economic vitality.

Kakuban: Between Court and Kōyasan

In the wake of the growing popularity of Kōyasan, in 1088, Emperor Shirakawa 白河上皇 (1053-1129; r. 1073-1087) ascended the mountain, and began the work or rebuilding the Great Stupa 大塔. As Kōyasan reemerged as one of the most important religious sites in Japan, it also came to be a site for the contestation of influence and prestige between the capital and regional seats of power. Kōyasan’s positionality should be viewed in the context of the broader struggle at court to control the provinces, which, by this time, were beginning to slip into the hands of regional warlords. The history of Kōyasan is largely a history of the contestation of center and periphery. Even today, travel to Kōyasan from any of the major urban centers of Kansai takes several hours by train. In the 11th and 12th centuries, it would have taken weeks. This is precisely what Kūkai intended: to establish a site where monks could practice their meditation and cultivation free from the constraints he had begun to feel in his life as a successful bureaucrat and court ritualist. Other temples established by Kūkai, especially Tōji, often contested Kōyasan’s autonomy, and with the revival of the temple largely completed by a joint effort by various Nara and Heian-kyō institutions, that contestation only intensified. This is the context in which Kakuban, regarded by the Shingon School as the second founder after Kūkai, began his career.

When Kakuban was a young monk he pursued many different areas of study (shū 宗) at many different temples, as was common at the time. In 1107, Kakuban entered into the Jōju-in temple, administered by the monk Kanjo 寛助 (1057-1125), within the Ninnaji complex. Van der Veere notes that Kanjo was a student of Shōshin, and that both of these monks were part of a movement to revitalize the study of Kūkai’s doctrinal writings and the denbōe ritual, and that under their tutelage Kakuban was well positioned to exert considerable influence upon the development of Kūkai’s Shingon thought. Kakuban also studied Avataṃsaka and Madhyamaka at Tōdaiji, and Yogācāra at Kōfukuji. Perhaps based on the connection established between Kōyasan and Kōfukuji by Jōyo, Kakuban eventually decided to train on Kōyasan. However, toward the end of his time at Kōfukuji, traditional biographies of Kakuban report that the Kasuga shrine deity 春日明神 appeared to him and begged him not to abandon his Yogācāra teachings while he studied on Kōyasan. The training regime established by Kūkai presupposes a period of time studying either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka. Kakuban was not exceptional in this regard.

Kakuban received initiation into the Hirosawa lineage through Jōkai 定海 (1074-1149) of Daigoji’s Sanbō-in, and Genkaku 賢覺 (1080-1156) of Daigoji’s Rishō-in 理性院, and the Ono lineage through Kanjin 寛信 of Kanjūji 勸修寺. In addition to these two major “Tōmitsu” lineages, Kakuban received abhiṣeka from Kakuyū 覺猷 (1053-1140) of Miidera, which is regarded as a Taimitsu lineage. Therefore, in Kakuban, one of the most important “Shingon” monks, the great reviver of “Kūkai studies” and the denbōe kanjō on Kōyasan, we see a vision of “mikkyō” that is more complicated than contemporary sectarian narrative necessarily impart. Kakuban’s educational experience appears to be a microcosm of the forces that led to the revival of Kōyasan. Kōyasan and Kakuban both represent the confluence of Nara, Hieizan, and Heian-kyō based lineages.

In 1115, Kakuban ascended Kōyasan, where he received still further important initiations, and grew to become a prolific author. In 1130, with the help of Emperor Toba 鳥羽天皇 (11031156; r. 1107-1123), Kakuban established the Daidenbō-in 大傳法院 on Kōyasan. There he revived the denbōe, or Dharma Transmission ritual, which Abe notes was an act that revitalized a key component of Kūkai’s vision of what his “Shingon Mikkyō” system truly entailed: placing the shingonja in direct contact with the preaching of the Dharmakāya itself. Abe’s analysis of this event establishes that the denbōe ritually reenacts the founding event of Mahāvairocana’s preaching. Through the ritualized recreation of this event, Dharma transmission displaces the seeming gulf in history between this founding act, and the initiate. Esoteric literature is meant to be performed, not merely studied. The primal event described in the sūtras is meant to be enacted through the rituals described. However—and Abe suggests this is a defining feature of Kūkai’s mikkyō tradition—in each instance of the transmission, the event is fully recreated, not as a facsimile, but as a full recreation of the founding event of Mahāvairocana’s preaching. Abe contends that Dharma transmission writ large signifies Buddhism’s ability to transmit

“diachronically” the ultimate (Dharma) to the conditioned (saṃsāra-bound sentient beings). With each transmission, that of Śākyamuni to his first disciples, and Mahāvairocana to Vajrasattva, the forms may change but the content of awakening never changes. In other words, with each transmission, nothing is left out. Manifestations of the Dharma in the form of sutras, physical relics, the teachings of those who have awakened to the Dharma, and the various practices said to lead to this realization all have the potential to lead beings to this same realization. In fact, according to Kūkai’s traditional interpreters, not only are there limitless Dharma gates, but the Dharmakāya itself has the capacity to teach beings through all of them, as all of them.

In 1134, the emperor made Kakuban zasu of Denbō-in and inshu of Kongōbuji. Through Kakuban’s successful and highly popular ritual performances, and academic reputation, he ascended the ranks of the Kōyasan ecclesiastical hierarchy with the help of Emperor Toba. However, his atypical rise to power met with resentment and suspicion from conservative factions, and Kakuban was forced to relinquish his post in 1135. The favor Kakuban received from the emperor seems to have led to violent factionalism on the mountain. In 1140, the Kongōbuji temple sent priests to attack the Denbō-in, burn down the temples, and kill Kakuban. During the night of the attack on Denbō-in, while the raiders were looking for Kakuban, it is said that Fudō magically transfigured Kakuban so that when the raiders happened upon the room where Kakuban was meditating, they only saw two statues of Fudō.

Even before this incident, Kakuban’s disciples had already come to see a strong affinity between Kakuban and Fudō-myōō. This relationship was so strong, and Kakuban so accomplished, that at night when Kakuban would enter into samādhi, it is said that students witnessed the Fudō statue climb down from its pedestal and bow to Kakuban. These stories convey the delicate “Madhyamaka-esque” tension between Fudō as a separate agent in the world, and the non-dual “always-already” present unity of the practitioner and the object of devotion. After the attack on Kakuban’s life, he established the Negoroji 根來寺 with over sevenhundreds of his loyal followers.1070 Indeed, Kakuban was an outsider, and had attained his position with the help of Emperor Toba. However, Kakuban was also a highly prolific and learned scholar, and his ascent through the ranks may be regarded as a rare example of meritocratic social mobility, exceptional in an era in which power was typically acquired through family ties alone. It should also be noted that most versions of Kakuban’s life come down to us through the accounts of his faithful followers, so the conservative faction on the mountain is depicted quite negatively.

Kakuban and the Secret Nenbutsu: Amitābha and/or/as Mahāvairocana

Before Kakuban’s untimely death in 1143, he had already left a lasting impact upon the scholastic and ritual traditions of Kōyasan. Of particular interest to this project is Kakuban’s contribution to Kōyasan’s unique nenbutsu culture, which will be examined in greater detail in the following chapter. Scholars have noted three distinct, but often overlapping, streams of nenbutsu thought and practice: Nara, Hieizan, and Kōyasan. Here I suggest a different view. I propose three geographic/lineage based “Esoteric Pure Land” streams: Nara Tōmitsu (Kōfukuji, Tōdaiji, etc.), Heian-kyō Tō/Taimitsu (Zenrinji, Ninnaji, Daigoji, Byōdō-in, etc.), and Hieizan Taimitsu (Enryakuji, Onjōji, etc.). What scholars have referred to as the Kōyasan stream should be viewed in the 11th and 12th centuries as a confluence of all three streams, and not as a distinct stream unto itself (though for the purposes of provisional analytical distinctions, it may be useful to regard it as a distinct area of inquiry).

Kōyasan had been a site for devotion to Kūkai, envisioned as a bodhisattva either in close contact with, or as an emanation of, Maitreya. Wandering ascetics (Kūkai being an early example) had long used Kōyasan as a site for their practices, and as nenbutsu practice continued to grow in popularity, Kōyasan became an extremely popular site for the various forms of nenbutsu developed on Hieizan (yama no nenbutsu, fudan nenbutsu, jōgyō sanmai, etc.) discussed above. As monks like Kakuban endeavored to reintegrate Kūkai’s doctrinal works into the diverse and heterogeneous Kōyasan “Esoteric Pure Land” culture, the negotiation of an “orthodox” position on nenbutsu emerged as a potent area for contestation and dialogue across differences in class and religious vocation.

Scholars argue that Kakuban’s engagement with Kōyasan Pure Land thought arose in response to the religious diversity of the early medieval hijiri culture, wherein peripatetic ascetics gathered at various centers on the mountain to aspire for Pure Land rebirth, often with the assistance of Kūkai. Kakuban’s Gorin kujimyō himitsu shaku 五輪九 明祕密釋 (T. 2514) employs Chinese theories of the five viscera 五臓 (C. wuzang, J. gozō) and Indian theories of the gorin 五輪 (C. wulun), or chakras, and so on, to explicate the meaning of the Amitābha mantra: oṃ a mṛ ta te se ha ra hūṃ (J. on a miri ta te ze ka ra un). In this way, Kakuban presents the Buddha and ordinary beings as abiding in a complex non-dual relationship that may be understood by an inquiry into the very building blocks of reality and the human body. Jacqueline Stone has argued that Kakuban’s writings on Pure Land establish a productive tension between devotee and object of devotion, without necessarily defaulting to either a dualist or absolute non-dualist position. In other words, the idea Amitābha and the Pure Land abide “within” does not preclude their existence “without.” As will be discussed in Chapters IV-VI, this appears to be a major feature of “Esoteric Pure Land” more broadly speaking, and is not an innovation within Kakuban’s work.

In the Amida hisshaku 阿彌陀祕釋 (T. 2522), a shorter text, comprising only a single page of the Taishō canon, Kakuban presents multiple interpretations of the name of Amitābha, arguing ultimately that Amitābha is but a facet, an aspect, of the Cosmic Buddha, Mahāvairocana. This text has been translated into English language several times.

One of the most interesting features of this text is its portrayal of tension between this world and the Pure Land. While Kakuban does argue that the aspiration for Pure Land rebirth as an objective reality apart from one’s own being is foolish, he does not necessarily negate the existence of the Pure Land itself. Rather, he optimistically presents the goal of rebirth as immanently attainable. According to Kakuban, seeking rebirth in a faraway Pure Land is unnecessary. In the Gorinkuji, the nature of embodied reality itself is so infused with the light of the Buddha (of which the light “Amitābha/Amitāyus” is but one refraction) that rebirth may be achieved via this very body. While working to establish a renewed interest in the works of Kūkai, Kakuban also engaged the tension between Pure Land rebirth and sokushin jōbutsu. While certainly blurring the lines supposedly dividing these “two,” the tension between this world vs. the Pure Land is never fully resolved in his works. Kakuban’s writings on Pure Land drew upon scholar-monks such as Amoghavajra, Kūkai, Annen and other Taimitsu thinkers, Chingai, Eikan, Jitsuhan and other Nara based thinkers, Saisen and other Heian-kyō thinkers, and was extremely significant for the work of many later thinkers, including Dōhan and Raiyū.

Scholar often credit Kakuban with having “syncretized” Pure Land Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism. These scholars suggest that Kakuban’s so-called himitsu nenbutsu 秘密念仏, or “secret (Esoteric) nenbutsu” emerged as he blended together Pure Land Buddhism (a “kind” of Buddhism recently emerging in the 10th century in which the faithful aspire for postmortem rebirth in the Pure Land of a Buddha), and Shingon Buddhism (a “kind” of Buddhism transmitted/founded by Kūkai and systematized as the Shingon School in which the attainment of Buddhahood in this very body is the ultimate goal). Some scholars of this persuasion believe that Kakuban was responding to the formation of a (pre-Hōnen) Pure Land “movement.” Other scholars, however, have suggested that Kakuban did not so much blend two unlike things but as articulate the orthodox Shingon Buddhist stance on Pure Land rebirth: that the Pure Land is this very body and mind, and that Amitābha is part of our very reality. These scholars argue that Kakuban’s views on the nenbutsu should be viewed essentially as the orthodox “Esoteric” position on the nenbutsu. This view has emerged as the most common response to Kakuban, Dōhan, and others, and it is not entirely without merit, as it recognizes the importance of Pure Land within Shingon thought and practice, and nuances our understanding of the relationship between Pure Land and Shingon Buddhisms.

However, up to this point, this dissertation has examined compelling evidence that fundamentally undermines both approaches. First, Shingon Buddhism was not a “kind” of Buddhism distinct from Pure Land Buddhism, but rather, the Mahā/Vajrayāna ritual culture from which Kūkai crafted his panjiao always-already included countless references to “Esoteric” technologies appropriate for attaining rebirth in the Pure Land. Moreover, while Kūkai’s early works certainly argued for a more clearly defined division between ken and mitsu, he never established a set institution tasked with enforcing orthodoxy. Rather, Kūkai ultimately employed the existing dhāraṇī ritual culture to articulate his position, and this culture always-already included Pure Land thought and practice. In other words, whatever “Shingon” (Tōmitsu, Taimitsu, Kōmitsu, Zōmitsu, and even Junmitsu) might have meant at any given time, there was considerable diversity, and within that diversity, there flourished a variety of perspectives on the Pure Land. Second, once “Exo/Esoteric Buddhism,” or kenmitsu thought, emerged as the dominant ritual paradigm in Japan, numerous Nara, Heian-kyō, and especially Hieizan, Buddhist thinkers articulated Pure Land rebirth as a goal attainable through the use of Esoteric ritual technologies. It might be argued that with Genshin, and later thinkers like Chingai and Eikan, we see a more clearly demarcated “Pure Land Buddhist” vocation within that “system,” but that new mode of practice and identity articulation was never established in contradistinction to the culture within which it emerged. In other words, however “Pure Land Buddhism” might have been conceived at this time, “Esoteric” ritual was how that idea was concretely enacted in the world. Ritual practice was said to bridge the gap between this world and the next, revealing that distinction to be provisional (“exoteric”) at best.

Chapter III

Conclusion

Building upon Chapters I and II, this chapter has argued that “Esoteric Pure Land” is a useful heuristic for rethinking how Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism functioned, not as two distinct “kinds” of Buddhism, but as features of a broader engagement with the heterogeneous cosmopolitan Mahā/Vajrayāna ritual culture of the 7th to 12th centuries. In order to lay the groundwork for Parts II and III of this dissertation, this chapter has investigated the place of the Pure Land within the early importation of “(proto-) Esoteric” dhāraṇī and spell culture, Kūkai’s kenmitsu discourse and ritual systems, the establishment and dominance of the Hieizan Tendai tradition, and the later emergence of Kōyasan and Kūkai studies as a center of gravity in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. Having established the “always-already” coterminous nature of Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhisms (“Esoteric Pure Land”) in East Asia, in the following chapters, I will investigate the life and thought of the medieval Kōyasan scholar-monk Dōhan, thus shedding light on an extremely important, but underrepresented, perspective on medieval Japanese religion.

PART II: CHAPTER IV

DŌHAN AND MEDIEVAL KŌYASAN PURE LAND CULTURE

Introduction

Dōhan 道範 (1179-1252) was most likely born in 1179 in Izumi kuni 和泉國, in present day southeastern Osaka. Though his lay name is not known, his style was Kakuhonbō 覺本房. Dōhan was an influential systematizer of the doctrinal and ritual works of Kūkai 空海 (774-835) and Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-1143), and his broad erudition led him to influence the development of Zen and Pure Land thought as well. As a result, he was regarded by pre-modern chroniclers as one of the most important thinkers in the history of Kōyasan 高野山. While Dōhan was active, high-ranking monastics affiliated with Kōyasan successfully established key alliances with powerful families and monasteries in the old capitals in Kyoto and Nara, as well as the newly established warrior government in the eastern city of Kamakura.1082 Acquisition of patronage was a fraught endeavor, often leading to armed conflict between competing factions. As a result of his participation in one such conflagration, Dōhan spent a period of time in exile, just like many of the great “founders” associated with the Kamakura period.1083 Through the study of Dōhan and his political and ritual environment, his exile and much lauded return to the Kōyasan mountain monastery he once called home, scholars may come to better understand the emergence of Kōyasan as a key “center of gravity” in Japanese religion, and Kūkai devotion as a major feature of the Shingon School. Moreover, by investigating the vibrant “Esoteric Pure Land” culture of Kōyasan as but a single node in a much broader net of ritual traditions, we will see the

正智院, Kii zokufūdoki 紀伊続風土記, fasc. 4, ZSZ 37; Kitamuroin rekidai keifūsshi 北室院歴代系譜写, Kongōbuji shoinke sekihushū 金剛峰寺諸院家析負輯, fasc. 10, ZSZ 34; Kongōchō mujōshū dendōroku zokuhen 金剛頂無上正宗伝燈広録続編, fasc. 6, ZSZ 33; Kōsō gōjō Shōchiin Dōhan den 高僧行状正智院道範伝, Kii zokufudōki 紀伊続風土記, fasc. 10, ZSZ 39; Honchō kōsōden 本朝高僧伝, fasc. 14, DNBZ 102; Kōya shunjū hennen shūroku 高野春秋編年輯録, fasc. 8, DNBZ 131, KS; Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo seikyō chōsa han 密教文化研

究所聖教調査班, “Kōyasan Shinnōin seikyō monjo chōsa gaiyō ichifu, shiryō kaishō Dōhan nikka rinjū higi 高野 山親王院聖教文書調査概要一付 史料紹介道範日課臨終秘儀,” Kōyasan Daigaku Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 高野山大学密教文化研究所紀要 16, (2003): 79-92. Nanzan chūin shingon hihōshoso denpu 山中院真言秘法諸祖伝譜, fasc. 2, ZSZ 32; Shōchiin ruiyō senshi meibo 正智院累葉先師名簿, in Kongōbuji shoinke sekihushū 金剛峰寺諸院家析負輯, fasc. 1, ZSZ 34; Yahō meitokuden 野峯名徳伝, fasc. 2, DNBZ 106. 1082 Throughout Dōhan’s life monks on Kōyasan were either dispatched to Kamakura or the capital, or consulted by monks in Kamakura regarding the proper performance of rituals. KS, fasc. 7, 8, and 9. In 1215 (Kenpo 5), Dōhan’s teacher Kakukai traveled to the capital, and Jōgyō 貞暁 (1186-1231) traveled to Kamakura. Monks like Jōgyō not only helped establish strong ties between Kōyasan and the elites in the Kamakura government, but also worked to promote devotion to the Buddha Amitābha atop Kōyasan. See, KS, 137-140.

Members of the Minamoto 源 clan and the Hōjō 北条 clan in particular appears to have been especially interested in Kōyasan, See: KS, fasc. 7-8. Hōjō Masako 北条政子 (1186-1231), for example, took tonsure under Jōgyō and dedicated a stupa to her late husband, Minamoto Yoritomo 源頼朝 (1147-1199), the founder of the Kamakura samurai government, on Kōyasan in 1211 at the Zenjō-in 禅定院, which was later renamed Kongōsanmai-in 金剛三昧院 in 1219. This temple was later presided over by Gyōyū, a student of Zen and a disciple of Dōhan, who will be examined in greater detail below. See: MD, 690. 1083 Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212) the founder of the Jōdoshū 浄土宗 was exiled to Sanuki 讃岐 (present day Kagawa Prefecture 香川県) in 1207, while Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1263) was exiled to Echigo 越後 (present day Niigata 新潟). Nichiren 日蓮 (1222-1282), the founder of the Nichiren-shū 日蓮宗, was exiled to Sado Island 佐渡, off the coast of Niigata. Dōhan’s relationship to the “Kamakura Founders” will be considered in greater detail in the following chapter. diversity of medieval Japanese approaches t o embodying the “mystery of speech” (kumitsu 口密, gomitsu 語密) as a technology for bridging the gap between this world and the realm of the Buddhas. This presentation of Dōhan and “Esoteric Pure Land” both benefits from and departs significantly from traditional scholarship on Dōhan and the Shingon tradition.1084 This scholarship has tended to emphasize either the normative Shingon view of Dōhan’s Pure Land thought as essentially a reiteration of Kūkai’s doctrinal positions. In other cases, scholars inspired by later sectarian polemical writing have emphasized Dōhan’s relationship to the later heterodox Tachikawa-ryū 立川流, a Shingon lineage that purportedly promoted a form of sexual yoga as a vehicle for rebirth in the Pure Land.1085 That Dōhan may be viewed as either orthodox or heterodox should indicate to us the fluidity of orthodoxy as an ever-changing construct, as

1084 For traditional scholarship on Dōhan, see: Ueda Shinjō 上田進城, “Hairyū no Ajari Dōhan 配流の阿闇梨道範,” Misshū gakuhō 密宗学報 161 (1912): 617-642; Hasuzawa Jojun 蓮沢浄淳, “Kakkai sonshi no monka 覚海尊師の門下,” Mikkyō bunka 密教研究 10 (1922): 151-166, 167-228; Ōyama Kōjun 大山公淳, “Dōhan daitoku no Kōya hiji 道範大徳の高野秘事,” Mikkyō bunka 11 (1923): 116-135; Toganoo Shōun 栂尾祥雲, Nihon Mikkyō gakudōshi 日本密教学道史 (Wakayama 和歌山: Kōyasan Daigaku Shuppanbu 高野山大学出版部, 1942). What little scholarship on Dōhan in English largely draws upon, Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田 良洪, “Himitsu nenbutsu shisō no bokkō 秘密念仏思想の勃興,” Taishō daigaku kenkyū kiyō tsūgō 大正大学研究紀要 通号 48

(1963): 43-80, which may also be found in Kushida’s classic study, Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 真言密敎成立過程の研究 (Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房佛書林, 1965), 181-232. See for example: James H. Sanford, “Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nenbutsu,” in Esoteric Buddhism in Japan (1994), repr. in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. Richard K. Payne (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 161-189; George Tanabe, “Kōyasan in the Countryside: The Rise of Shingon in the Kamakura Period,” in Revisioning “Kamakura” Buddhism, ed. Richard K. Payne (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998), 43-54; and, Jacqueline Stone, “The Secret Art of Dying, Esoteric Deathbed Practices in Heian Japan,” in The Buddhist Dead: Practices, Discourses, Representations, ed. Bryan J. Cuevas and Jacqueline I. Stone (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007a), 134174. 1085 For scholarship that connects Dōhan to the Tachikawa-ryū, see: Kōda Yūun 甲田宥吽, “Dōhan ajari no jagisōden nit suite 道範阿闍梨の邪義相伝について,” Mikkyōgaku kaihō 密教学会報 19/20 (1981a): 36-47(L); “Chūin-ryū no jaryū wo tsutaeta hitobito 中院流の邪流を伝えた人々,” Mikkyōbunka 密教文化 135 (1981b): 19- 37. See also:

Nobumi Iyanaga, “Secrecy, Sex and Apocrypha: Remarks on Some Paradoxical Phenomena,” in The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, ed. Bernard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 204-228; “Tachikawa-ryū,” in Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia , ed. Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 803-814. Though interest in Dōhan’s thought flourished in the13th and 14 centuries, as well as 17th and 18th centuries, it is possible that Dōhan’s appropriation by Tachikawaryū proponents may have been a major factor contributing to his contemporary obscurity. This issue will be considered in greater detail in the following chapters.

well as the complexity and breadth of Dōhan’s thought. Scholars of Shingon history (whether ordained members of the Shingon clergy or not) generally focus on Kūkai’s doctrine of “attaining Buddhahood in this very body” 卽身成佛 (sokushin jōbutsu), and it is often assumed that this has been the main focus of Buddhist practice on Kōyasan. This chapter will build upon the research presented in the previous chapters to demonstrate that for Dōhan, whatever else the “Shingon” may have entailed, it also always-already included a deep engagement with Pure Land oriented thought and ritual practice, and dual-devotion to Kūkai and the Buddha Amitābha 阿彌陀如來 (C. Amituo Rulai, J. Amida Nyorai) were prominent (and fluid) features of religious life on Kōyasan. This chapter is divided into four parts. Part I provides a sketch of Dōhan’s early life and education, noting in particular the prominent place of Pure Land thought and practice in virtually every stage of his “Shingon” education. This section draws upon recent work by several scholars who have been investigating Dōhan’s place in medieval Japan, making the case for Dōhan as a significant and unfairly overlooked contributor to the vitality of medieval Japanese Buddhism and Kōyasan Shingon. Nakamura Honnen 中村本然, a Shingon priest and professor at Kōyasan University, is the leading authority on Dōhan’s doctrinal thought, and has written numerous articles examining Dōhan’s doctrinal works. Professor Nakamura’s work has examined the diversity of Pure Land practices and devotion in medieval Kōyasan, and through his work on Dōhan’s many contributions to medieval Shingon thought, one is lead to believe that perhaps, Dōhan was in fact the great “Kamakura thinker” of the Kōyasan Shingon tradition.

Other scholars who have begun to carve out a niche for “Dōhan studies” include Satō Mona 佐藤もな, 1088 who has written several articles approaching Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō from an intellectual-historical and text-critical perspective. Satō has also explored the problems confronting any reconstruction of Dōhan’s biography by noting the conflicting and incomplete information in the available biographical resources. Also, Ōshika Shinō 大鹿真央1089 has

bunka 密教文化 203(1999): 1-20. “Dōhanki Bodaishinron dangi ki ni tsuite 道範記『菩提心論談義記』について,” in Mandara no shosō to bunka: Yoritomi Motohiro hakase kanreki kinen ronbunshū マンダラの諸相と文化 : 頼富本宏博士還暦記念論文集, ed. Yoritomi Motohiro hakushi kanreki kinen ronbunshū kankōkai (Kyoto: 京都: Hōzōkan, 2005), 395-430; “Dōhansen Kongōchō kyō kaidai kanchū ni tsuite 道範撰『金剛頂経開題勘註』について.” Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 密教文化研究所紀要 21 (2008a): 29-52; “Sentaku hongan nenbutsushū ni tokareru gogyaku jūzai nit suite 『選択本願念仏集』に説かれる五逆重罪について,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 116 (2008b): 129-136(R); “Shingon kyōgaku ni okeru shōshikan 真言教学における生死観,” Nihon Bukkyōgaku nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 75 (2010): 169-184(R). 1088 Satō meticulously outlines key events in Dōhan’s life, and demonstrates that in many cases precise dating of even key events in his life are impossible to know because of conflicts in the primary sources in, Satō, Mona 佐藤もな, “Dohan ni kansuru kisoteki kenkyū.” Other works by Satō include: “Dōhan cho Himitsu nenbutsu shō inyō

bunken shutten chūki 道範 『秘密念仏抄』引用文献出典注記,” Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronshū 仏教文化研究論集 4 (2000): 130-141(L); “Dōhan no himitsu nenbutsu shisō myōgokan wo chūshin toshite 道範の秘密念仏思想名号観を中心として,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 49.2 (2001): 108-110; “Chūsei Shingonshū niokeru jōdo shisō kaishaku: Dōhan Himitsu nenbutsu shō wo megutte 中世真言宗における浄土思想解釈道範 『秘密念仏抄』をめぐって.” Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū インド哲学仏教学研究 9 (2002a): 80-92; “Shingon kyōgaku niokeru jōdo kan, Dōhan no baai 真言教学における浄土観道範の場合.” Shūkyō kenkyū 宗教研究 331.75-4 (2002b): 214-215; “Dōhan cho Jōōshō in kansuru ichikōsatsu Tōji Kanchiin shozōhon wo chūshin toshite 道範 『貞応抄』に関する一考察 東寺観智院所蔵本を中心として.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印 度学仏教学研究 102.51-2 (2003): 131-133; “Dōhan no kyōshugi ni tsuite 道範の教主義について,” Nihon Bukkyō sōgō kenkyū 日本仏教綜合研究 5 (2006): 67-78(R). 1089 Ōshika Shinō 大鹿眞央, “Chūsei Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru sankōdan kaishaku: Dōhan ni okeru daisankōdan kaishaku wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における三劫段解釈: 道範における第三劫段解釈を中心に,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 60.1 (2011): 115-118. “Tōmitsu ni okeru shochisokugyokusetsu no tenkai 東密における初地卽極説の展開,” Tōyō no shisō to shūkyō 東洋の思想と宗教 29 (2012a): 71-89; “Chūsei

Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru shohōmyōdō no hensen: daihachi jushin to no kankei wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における初法明道の変遷: 第八住心との関係を中心に,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 61.1 examined Dōhan’s work in the broader context of medieval Shingon thought, noting in particular the many important intellectual currents in the early-medieval Tōmitsu Shingon monastic scholarship. Building upon the work of these scholars, this chapter will closely examine key features of the ritual environment in which Dōhan trained. By placing his thought in its material context, I demonstrate that Dōhan’s doctrinal interest in Pure Land thought developed out of a Shingon practice environment that featured prominently Pure Land oriented ritual, and a ubiquitous devotion to images of the Buddha Amitābha. In the case of Dōhan, doctrine developed out of the material reality, and not necessarily the other way around. By examining the various threads composing Dōhan and his early educational context, this section will seek to undermine the idea of Dōhan the individual as a singular entity and the depiction of Shingon as a tradition based in a univocal doctrinal perspective.

Part II investigates the diversity of so-called hijiri lineages atop Kōyasan. While recent scholarship has significantly nuanced our understanding of the diversity of the many groups often anachronistically grouped under the label “hijiri,” the lineages of wandering and settled ascetics that populated Kōyasan were major contributors to the fundraising and proselytizing efforts of the growing temple complex, and helped establish important ties with other major temples in Heian-kyō and Nara. This section will note that, like Kōyasan itself, it is precisely the marginality of hijiri that led to their initial success. From the 11th to 14th century, there was a thriving “spiritual economy” made all the more vibrant by the tensions that developed from the interaction of different kinds of ordained and semi-ordained religious professions who all flocked to Kōyasan. However, beginning in the late-

(2012b): 40-43; “Chūsei Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru shukuzen kaishaku no tenkai: Dōhan no shukuzen kaishaku wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における宿善解釈の展開 : 道範の宿善解釈を中心に,” Chizan gakuhō 智山學報 63 (2014): 131-149.

medieval period (14th to 16th century) several edicts issued by the central monastic administration on the mountain sought to curtail non-sanctioned activities. Scholars have noted that the formation of discourses of exclusion and belonging in the construction of Kōyasan as an institution entity often came to focus on debates on the nature of Pure Land practice. Part III examines Dōhan’s rise and fall within the highly politicized monastic hierarchy of Kōyasan, and considers his time in exile in Sanuki 讚岐 (present day Kagawa Prefecture 香川県, on the island of Shikoku 四国) through an examination of his diary-travelogue, the Nankai rurō ki 海流浪記.1090 Dōhan’s diary reveals that while suffering through seven years in his own personal saṃsāra, he ached for a return to the monastic “Pure Land” of Kōyasan. In some sense, Dōhan’s separation from Kōyasan mirrors the medieval awareness of the gulf between sentient beings and the Pure Land. While Dōhan at times preached the immanence of the Pure Land within the corporeal body, his dual devotion to Amitābha and Kūkai might lead one to imagine that Dōhan’s aspiration for a return journey to Kōyasan paralleled the longing felt by medieval Japanese Buddhists striving for rebirth in the Pure Land. Dōhan’s travelogue records his sadness and longing for the place where he spent his youth, and in this way problematizes the simplistic and often repeated assumption that men’s diaries typically did not convey emotion. Dōhan also composed poetry in this diary and his journey parallels in some ways the well-known poet-monk Saigyō 西行 (1118-1190), whose peripatetic activities also led him to spend time on Kōyasan as well as Shikoku. Finally, this section will also consider Dōhan’s efforts to articulate an “orthodox” Shingon identity through pilgrimage to various sites in Sanuki associated with Kūkai’s birth and early life.

1090 Dōhan 道範, “Nankai rurōki 海流浪記,” in Gunsho ruijū 群書類從, ed. Haniwa Hokinoichi 塙保己一, vol. 18, (Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruijū Kanseikai 続群書類従完成会, 1959-60), 468-476. Part IV describes Dōhan’s triumphant return to Kōyasan, where he spent the remainder of his days performing rituals and composing treatises on various topics. This section will also provide a discussion of Dōhan’s impact upon later Kōyasan and Shingon Buddhist thought, and consider medieval Japanese debate culture and the political nature of the mastery of doctrine. While it has been argued that the study of doctrine is of limited use in understanding what happened “on-the-ground,” this section argues for a contextual reading of the importance of simultaneous master of multiple areas of study 兼學 (J. kengaku).

Chapter IV

Part I

Dōhan’s Early Education and the Pure Land within Kamakura Shingon

Dōhan, like Kakuban, is often said to have “syncretized” Pure Land and Esoteric Buddhism. In this section, I will further undermine this essentialist understanding by emphasizing the heterogeneous, composite, nature of each institution where Dōhan trained (noting the connections that each temple had to other institutions, as well as the diverse range of training options open to monks at these temples), as well as the place of “Pure Land” thought and practice at each location. For example, Shōchi-in 正智院, Hōkō-in 寶光院, Zenrinji 禪林寺, and Ninnaji 仁和寺, all have as their honzon 本尊 (main objects of devotion) the Buddha Amitābha. Additionally, monks at Daigoji 醍醐寺 and Keō-in 華王院 focused their intellectual and ritual energies on the Pure Land. In other words, at each stage of Dōhan’s “Shingon” education he would have had the opportunity to witness diverse forms of Pure Land practice. As was common among elite monastics of in early-medieval Japan, Dōhan was broadly educated, and his later work demonstrates his proficiency in Tendai 天台 doctrine, Shingon ritual, Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T. 278, 279) exegesis,1091 as well as Madhyamaka 三論 (J. Sanron), and Yogācāra 法相 (J. Hossō) thought. In contemporary Japanese Buddhism, when one becomes a monk (or a scholar), one tends to remain in a single doctrinal-ritual lineage (or “sect”) throughout ones career, but in premodern Japan it was common to study the whole spectrum of Buddhist thought. This is known as shoshū kengaku 諸宗兼學, or the simultaneous study of all shū. While the term shū has often been translated as “sect” in contemporary scholarship, in premodern contexts the term meant something closer to field of study, lineage, disciplinary specialty, etc.1092 Though it may appear that Dōhan trained at “Shingon” institutions (Kōyasan, Daigoji, Ninnaji, Zenrinji), in fact, each of these temples was a site for the whole range of Buddhist study, with particular lineages emphasized over others as political currents changed. In other words, though Dōhan was a great scholar of the works of Kūkai, and studied at many famous temples with strong Shingon training regimes, we must be mindful of how the term Shingon is used in reference to the medieval period, as it had a different connotation than is necessarily implied by contemporary usage.

1091 C. Huayan jing, J. Kegon kyō.

1092 The emerging concensus on the various problems arising from the term shū has been conveniently summarized in Jimmy Yu, “Revisiting the Notion of Zong: Contextualizing the Dharma Drum Lineage of Modern Chan Buddhism,” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 113-151. Of the sources Yu lists, I would regard the following as the most foundational, see for example: T. Griffith Foulk, “The Ch’an Tsung in Medieval China: School, Lineage, or What?” The Pacific World, New Series, 8 (1992): 18-31; John McRae, “Buddhism, Schools of: Chinese Buddhism,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Lindsay Jones, et al. (Detroit, MI: Macmillan, 2005), 1235-41; Stanley Weinstein, “Schools of Chinese Buddhism,” in The Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade et al. (New York, London: Collier Macmillan, 1987), 2:482-487; cited in Yu, 116 (notes, 2-3). Regarding the early development of sectarianism as the defining characteristic of Japanese Buddhist institutional and intellectual development, see:

Jacqueline Stone, Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), 217-33; cited in Yu, 117 (note 9). Myōnin of Shōchi-in Most sources indicate that Dōhan began his monastic career at the age of fourteen (ca. 1193) under the tutelage of Myōnin 明任 (1148–1229) of Shōchi-in, under whom he also later completed his ritual training in 1216. In the Shōchi-in temple’s storehouse there are many texts written by and attributed to Dōhan, and to this day the temple is closely associated with Dōhan. For example, during the Obon お盆 festival in August, Shōchi-in lines the walls of the hondō 本堂 (main sanctuary) with memorial portraits of all past abbots. While on a research trip to Japan in the summer of 2012, I had the privilege of looking at the portrait of Dōhan by candle light. According to this portrait, purportedly based on his student’s description, Dōhan was tall, with a round face, strong jaw and neckline, with a thick brow, and a long rounded nose.

Among the many famous images and texts extant at Shōchi-in, many important images of the Buddha Amitābha and texts regarding Pure Land oriented practices remain. One of the most remarkable of these resources is a Kamakura period image of Guharishoku Amida nyorai 紅頗梨色阿彌陀如來, or “Crimson Crystal Body Amitābha Tathāgata.” This depiction of Amitābha may appear to be stereotypically “tantric” to the contemporary observer. This image exhibits bright crimson skin, a luxurious golden crown similar to Mahāvairocana 大日如來, and is engulfed in flames like a wrathful deity. Another important Shōchi-in image from this time is an

Amitābha image with his two attendant Bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara 觀音菩薩 and Mahāsthāmaprāpta 大勢至菩薩 by Kaikei 快慶 (dates unknown). Because Amitābha has traditionally been the honzon of Shōchi-in, Dōhan would have likely taken tonsure before a statue of Amitābha. Throughout his career, Myōnin ordained many students, and while serving as the 47th zasu of Kōyasan in 1225 (Karoku 嘉祿 1), and the 39th kengyō 撿挍 in 1226 (Karoku 2), he traveled to the capital on numerous occasions as part of his duties. Indeed, while we are correct to regard Kōyasan as in some sense at the margins of medieval court culture, perhaps it is precisely this “marginality” that led to its popularity as a place of retreat among the aristocracy. Kōyasan’s “liminal” positionality (neither center nor periphery) allowed it to benefit from a constant flow of pilgrims from various stations in society. Early-medieval Japanese Buddhists regarded Kōyasan as a paradise on earth, the Pure Land in our midst. As the Kyoto based emperor and aristocracy came to lose control of the country, beginning in the 10th century, and increasing somewhat in the late-12th to early-13th centuries, numerous battles ensued throughout the realm, which eventually led to the establishment of the Kamakura regime, led by Minamoto Yoritomo 源頼朝 (1147-1199). Elites on both sides of the Heian/Kamakura temporal and geographic divide regarded Kōyasan as a potential refuge from the instability that was (purportedly) so characteristic of that era. And as Heian-kyō and Kamakura emerged in what has been called a system of “dual-rule,” Kōyasan monks seemed especially adept at adapting quickly to this shifting geography. Various elites came to Kōyasan in the search for salvation. Warriors seeking absolution, and aristocrats aspiring to flee the “burning house” of saṃsāra, sought solace in Kōyasan’s peaks. For this reason, Kōyasan emerged as a key site where practices oriented toward purification of karma and rebirth in the Pure Land thrived. Through the 11th and 15th centuries, various emperors, such as Emperor Shirakawa 白河天皇 (1053-1129) and Emperor Toba 鳥羽天皇 (1103-1156) traveled to the mountain on pilgrimage. Poets such as Saigyō 西行 (11181190), courtiers such as Fujiwara no Michinaga 藤原道長 (966-1028) and Fujiwara Yorimichi 藤原頼通 (992-1074), warriors such as Saitō Takiyori 齋藤時賴 (dates unknown), Kumagai

Naozane 熊谷直実 (1141-1208), Ashikaga Yoshimitsu 足利義満 (1358-1408), and Ashikaga Takauji 足利尊氏 (1305-1358), seemingly disaffected by their warrior lifestyle, came to the mountain seeking absolution. In fact, Taira no Kiyomori 平淸盛 (1118-1181) assisted in the rebuilding of the Great Stupa 大塔, and Minamoto Yoritomo’s wife Hōjō Masako 北条政子 (1157-1225), prayed for the repose of her husband by dedicating a stupa on Kōyasan. Famous priests such as Myōhen 明遍 (1142-1224) and Chōgen 重源 (1121-1206) developed a deep reverence for Kōyasan and participated in the growing hijiri 聖 ascetic culture. The gravity of Kōyasan was so strong that it drew in Buddhists from a variety of backgrounds, and once in orbit, they established Kōyasan as a center for Buddhist learning and devotion. It was in this flourishing environment that Dōhan’s early education took place.

Jikken of Daigoji

Given the frequency with which Myōnin and other monks traveled between Kōyasan and the capital, it is difficult to assess how much of Dōhan’s education actually took place on Kōyasan, and how much took place in the capital. As Satō has suggested, documents yet to be discovered in temple archives throughout Japan may yet hold the key to piecing together the chronology of the major events of Dōhan’s life.1100 For example, it is known that Dōhan studied with Jikken 實賢 (1176–1249) of Daigoji, but until recently, the exact date and location of that interaction was unknown.1101 However, a document recently found in the Daigoji archive by Brian Ruppert in 2014 gives the date 1193 (Kenkyū 建久 4) for Dōhan’s reception of the oral transmission of Jikken’s

Sanbō-in 三宝院 lineage, the principle lineage at Daigoji.1102 If Dōhan was born in 1179 as Nakamura has suggested then he would have been around 14 in 1193 (not much younger than Jikken himself). Therefore, it appears that soon upon receiving tokudo from Myōnin, Dōhan then traveled from Kōyasan to Daigoji to continue his studies. Daigoji was founded by Shōbō 聖寶 (Rigen Daishi 理源大師, 832-909) in 874. Shōbō is regarded as the patriarch of the Ono-ryū 小野流1103 lineage of the Shingon tradition, which developed alongside, in competition with, and in dialogue with the Hirosawa-ryū 廣澤流.1104 It should be noted that just like the problematic term shū, lineage, or ryū, is often constructed retroactively as later groups seek to differentiate themselves from their neighbors as the stakes for patronage grow higher. Just as the so-called “Shingon-shū” remained a fluid signifier until

1100 Satō, “Kisoteki kenkyū,” 86-87. 1101 Daigoji MBD 4:3218-3222; Jikken, also pronounced “Jitsugen” MD, 983-984; Premodern textual resources for Jikken’s life include the Dentōkōroku 伝燈広録, fasc. 2, ZSZ 33; Honchō kōsōden, fasc. 54, DNBZ, 103; Kechimyaku ruishūki 血脈類聚記 fasc. 10, SZ 39; Shoshū shōshoroku 諸宗章疎録 , fasc. 3, DNBZ 95; Tōji chōja honin 東寺長者補任, fasc. 3, ZGRJ 2; Taira Masayuki 平雅行, “Kamakura chūki ni okeru Kamakura Shingon-ha no sōryo—Ryōyu, Kōhō, Jitsugen 鎌倉中期における鎌倉真言派の僧侶--良瑜・光宝・実賢,” Machikaneyama ronsō 待兼山論叢 43 (2009): 1-27; Kobayashi Naoki 小林直樹, “Muju to Kongōōin sōzu Jitsugen 無住と金剛王院僧正実賢,” Bungakushi kenkyū 文学史研究 49 (2009): 55-64.

1102 Daigoji monjo 醍醐寺文書 144.3.1 Title: 秘鈔団 十一団. 建久四年六月廿日、於三宝院伝受了、 合点ハ道範受実賢ニ口決云々本ハ裏付也云々、/一校了、花押[（憲深）]. I would like to thank Brian Ruppert for this reference. Personal communication, 8/31/14. 1103 Ono-ryū, MD, 188-190. While Shōbō is traditionally regarded as the Ono-ryū patriarch, it is likely that the idea of the Ono-ryū was established later by Ninkai 仁海 (950s-1046) in response to the growth of the Hirosawa-ryū 広澤流. 1104 Hirosawa-ryū, MD, 1891. Yakushin 益信 (827-906) is taken as its founder, a third generation descendent from Kūkai’s lineage. the Tokugawa period (and even after), terms like Hirosawa and Ono lineage in fact encompassed many heterogeneous competing sub-lineages. Shōbō began his career in Nara, where he studied the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Yogācāra, and Madhyamaka. He established the Tōnan-in 東 院 at Tōdaiji, where he was especially known for his scholarship on Madhyamaka. After Shōbō, Tōdaiji and Daigoji would maintain close institutional relations, and even share abbots. As noted in the previous chapter, Kūkai and his immediate disciples established Shingon as a major area of study at the largest and most powerful temples in Nara, Heian-kyō, and on Hieizan. In fact, it is now common to regard Kūkai’s “mantra teachings” not as a school unto itself, but rather as a ritual theory established throughout the curricula of major temple complexes. As a result, even into the medieval period, these Nara/Heian-kyō based institutions continued to compete and forge relationships with each other through ritual training and doctrinal scholarship. Shōbō studied the Ryōbu daihō 兩部大法 (rituals for the dual-mandala system) under Shinzen 眞然 (804-891), who was also the teacher of Mukū 無空 (? – 916), the famous abbot of Kōyasan and Pure Land aspirant. Shōbō also studied under Shinga 眞雅 (801-879), from whom he received initiation into the Muryōju hō 無量壽法, a ritual invocation of Amitābha Buddha. Shinzen and Shinga were both disciples of Kūkai. We can see here that Shōbō’s Shingon education featured both mandala based practice as well as rituals centered upon the Buddha Amitābha as part of a broader Mahāyāna system. Shōbo also engaged in mountain based ascetic activities at Kinbusen 金峯山 in Yamato 大和 (Nara Prefecture 奈良県), and he came to be regarded as an early Shugendō 修 道 master.

Daigoji is built on Mt. Kasatori 笠取山 in what is now southeastern Kyōto, and takes its name from the Emperor Daigo 醍醐天皇 (885-930; r. 897-930) who entered the cloister and was buried there in 930. As a major temple associated with the imperial family, Daigoji monks specialized in a variety of fields. It appears that under the influence of Shōbō’s legacy, Daigoji was especially well known as a center for Sanron and mountain based activities. At Daigoji, many different areas of Buddhist scholarship flourished, as did devotional traditions to many different Buddhist deities commonly associated with Pure Land rebirth. For example, Daigoji’s honzon is the Medicine Buddha 藥師如來 who is worshiped not only for his this-worldly medicinal prowess, but also for rebirth into his Eastern Pure Land of Lapis Lazuli, as well as Sukhāvatī, the Western Pure Land of Amitābha. Shōbō installed images of so-called “esoteric” emanations of Kannon, the Cintāmaṇi-cakra Avalokiteśvara 如意輪觀音, and Cundī

Avalokiteśvara 准胝觀音, which remain popular objects of pilgrimage and devotion today. Avalokiteśvara and her many “Esoteric” emanations have often been employed for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth, and across genres of Esoteric literature, Avalokiteśvara is often associated with the Buddha Amitābha (See Chapter II, Part II). The building dedicated to Cundī Avalokiteśvara currently houses many diverse Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and gods from China, Korea, and Japan. Behind the two foot tall Cundī image stands a statue of Amitābha built in the Heian period that reaches almost to the ceiling. Here, and throughout East Asian Buddhism, the Buddha Amitābha looms large. This particular ritual environment at contemporary Daigoji mirrors in some respect the ritual environment of Japanese religion. While Avalokiteśvara and many other beings hold a place of prominence, the Buddha Amitābha and the Pure Land ideal are always in the background. Jikken received the denbō kanjō from Seiken 勝賢 (1138-1196), the zasu of Daigoji, at Sanbō-in in 1196 (Kenkyū 7), and from Kenkai 賢海 (1162-1237, MD, 462) at Kongōō-in 金剛王院 in 1200 (Shōji 正治 2). Jikken also studied Yogācāra with monks from Kōfukuji 興福寺, and studied on Kōyasan for a time. Jikken was appointed to the position of zasu of Daigoji in 1236.

From Jikken, Dōhan received the Sanbō-in lineage. Sanbō-in is a major Daigoji sublineage and institution that is regarded as the seat of the Ono lineage and the Daigoji Shugendō tradition. The honzon of Sanbō-in is Maitreya, which was constructed by Kaikei in 1192 (Kenkyū 建久 3). Like Kōyasan, Sanbō-in attracted ascetics aspiring for rebirth in the “Pure Land” of Maitreya. One of the principle goals for mountain ascetics has been the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. In the following section we will examine the lineages of Kōyasan hijiri who aspired for rebirth in the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī. That Daigoji was also a thriving center for hijiri activity may indicate that during the time that Dōhan may have spent at Daigoji, he would have had the opportunity to at least witness both “popular” hijiri and “elite” monastic activities concerned with Pure Land rebirth. Jikken also studied under Jōhen 靜遍 (1166-1224) of Zenrinji, a monk who would later possibly serve as the inspiration for Dōhan’s Pure Land writings. One of the central concepts in

Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō is the notion that the “vital breath” or “breath of life” (myōsoku 命息) possessed by all beings is in fact itself the compassionate activity of the great Cosmic Buddha Mahāvairocana in the world. According to this idea, the very life breath of beings is said to itself be an expression of Buddha’s compassion. For Dōhan, the activity of the Buddha Amitābha was identified with this life force. Kameyama Takahiko 亀山隆彦 has recently traced this idea back to the Daigoji Sanbō-in lineage.1117 It is therefore possible that this was the transmission that Dōhan received from Jikken, as well as Jōhen. The early systematizers of this teaching included Jitsuun 實運 (1105-1160), Shōken, and Seigen 成賢 (1162-1231). Nakamura and Kameyama have examined its development in the Shūkotsushō 宗骨抄 (SZ 22) by Kenjin 憲深 (1159–1263). In this way, Dōhan of Kōyasan became well known for delving into an idea he initially encountered at the Sanbō-in of Daigoji.

Chapter III, Part II, and Hayami Tasuku 速水侑, Miroku shinkō—mō hitotsu jōdo shinkō 弥勒信仰―もう一つの浄土信仰 (Tokyo: Hyōronsha 評論社, 1971). 1117 Kameyama Takahiko 亀山隆彦, “Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru myōsoku shisō no tenkai—Shūkotsushō wo chūshin ni 中世真言宗における命息思想の展開--『宗骨抄』を中心に,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 59 (2011): 651-654. For recent examinations of Dōhan’s views on the “breath of life,” see; Sanford, “Breath of Life,” and Nakamura, “Shingon kyōgaku ni okeru shōshikan.” This concept in particular will be examined in more detail in Chapter VI of this dissertation.

Shukaku of Ninnaji

Dōhan is also said to have studied under Shukaku Hōshinō 守覺法親王 (1150-1202) of Ninnaji 仁和寺.1118 Shukaku conferred upon Dōhan initiation into the Hirosawa-ryū, and the secret teachings of yoga 瑜伽 (J. yūga), which is another name for mikkyō.1119 Shukaku resided on Kōyasan in 1177, a few years before Dōhan was born, and thereafter conducted numerous rituals in Heian-kyō. It seems possible that if Shukaku maintained close relations with Kōyasan monks or periodically returned to the mountain, Dōhan could have studied under Shukaku on the mountain, but it is also possible that Shukaku only spent a short time on Kōyasan and later returned to the capital, where he was a very well-known and powerful ritual master. Ninnaji is also known as Omuro Ninnaji 御室仁和寺. The title omuro signifies that this temple is connected with the imperial family. Temples where members of the imperial family resided were known as monzeki 門跡. Ninnaji was founded by Emperor Uda 宇多法皇 (867-931; r. 887-897), and until 1869, sons of the imperial household dominated the abbacy. Due to space restrictions it is not possible to provide a full description of the close relationship between temples with strong Shingon lineages and the imperial family (though this would indeed make for a fascinating future project), but our discussion of Shukaku brings an important issue to light.

1118 Shukaku, MBD, 3:2428; For a concise introduction to Shukaku, see also: Brian Ruppert, “Dharma Prince Shukaku and the Esoteric Buddhist Culture of Sacred Works (Shōgyō) in Medieval Japan,” EBTEA, 794-800; Ninnaji Konbyōshi Kozōshi Kenkyūkai 仁和寺紺表紙小双紙研究会, ed. Shukaku hosshinnō no girei sekai:

Ninnajizō konbyōshi kozōshi no kenkyū 守覚法親王の儀礼世界 : 仁和寺蔵紺表紙小双紙の研究, 2 vol. (Tokyo: Benseisha 勉誠社 , 1995); Tsuchiya Megumi 土谷恵, “Chusei shoki no Ninnajji omuro 中世初期の仁和寺御室,” Nihon rekikishi 日本歴史 451 (1985): 46-63; Abe Yasurō 阿部泰郎, “Shukaku hosshinnō to inseiki no bukkyō bunka 守覚法親王と院政期の仏教文化,” in Inseiki no Bukkyō 院政期の仏教, ed. Hayami Tasuku 速水侑 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1998), 118-142; Abe Yasurō and Yamasaki Makoto 山崎誠, eds., Shukaku hosshinnō to Ninnaji goryū no bunkenteki kenkyū, ronbunhen 守覚法親王と仁和寺御流の文献学的研究, 論文編. 2 vols. (Tokyo: Benseisha, 1998);

1119 NBJT 6888, MD 1666, etc., suggest that Dōhan did indeed study in Kyoto at various locations, as does the Honchō kōsōden and Yahō meitokuden. However, the Honchō kōsōden states that Dōhan studied under Kakuhō 覚法 (1091-1153) of Ninnaji, however, Kakuhō passed away 26 years before Dōhan was born. This mistake has been repeated by several scholars who have not read all of the resources against one another. The Yahō meitokuden is regarded as the most authoritative, and earliest, record and it correctly lists Shukaku. Emperors, empresses, and princes like Shukaku, and many aristocrats, had by this time come to participate more fully in monastic administration. The monastic lifestyle had become a path dominated by the successful and powerful. As Stone, Groner, and others have noted, from the Nara period until the mid-Heian period, the monastic vocation was one of the few avenues for social mobility within Japanese society. This, however, had changed drastically by the end of the Heian period as high ecclesiastical office came to be dominated by aristocrats such as Shukaku. The honzon of Ninnaji is the Buddha Amitābha, which is placed in the main hall, or Golden Hall (kondō 金堂). Next to this building is a smaller hall dedicated to Kūkai. It should be clear by now that it is quite easy to establish a broad standing precedence for the simultaneous, mutually inclusive devotion to Kūkai and the rigorous study of his ritual lineages, and the aspiration for rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land. This will be examined in greater detail in the following section.

Like Kōyasan and Daigoji, Ninnaji’s geographical position made it a natural place for mountain based practitioners to congregate. This may in part be attributed to the monk Ninkai 仁海 (951/955-1036), who was examined in some detail in the previous chapter, a well-known ritual master and wonder-worker who was especially proficient at rain-making. Through Ninkai’s efforts, Ninnaji was established as a major center for Shingon ritual practice, much of which must have taken place before an image of the Buddha Amitābha. It seems possible that Dōhan began his monastic career on Kōyasan under Myōnin, then traveled to Kyoto to study under (or alongside) Jikken at Daigoji and Shukaku at Ninnaji, after which he returned to Kōyasan in 1202. Shukaku, Jōhen, Jikken, as well as Jikken’s teachers Shōken and Seigen, all interacted with one another on the mountain, and Ninnaji, Daigoji, and Kōyasan lineages were deeply intertwined. Whether or not Dōhan studied in the capital and Kōyasan, or Kōyasan alone, he would have received roughly the same broad education.

Lineage charts from Ono-lineage sources indicate that Dōhan also studied under Sonnin 尊任 (dates unknown) of Zuishin-in 随心院, but almost nothing is known about him. The principle image of worship at Zuishin-in is the Cintāmaṇi-cakra-Avalokiteśvara 如意輪觀音, another important Esoteric emanation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion. Also held at Zuishin-in is a statue of the Buddha Amitābha dating from the Heian period.

Kenchō of Hōkō-in

In 1202 (Kennin 建仁 2), Shukaku died, and Dōhan entered the Hōkō-in of Kōyasan. At the Hōkō-in, Dōhan studied under Kenchō 兼澄 (? - 1202), who, like Dōhan, was from Izumi and began his career at Shōchi-in.1123 Kenchō was also in the same cohort as Dōhan’s teacher Myōnin. Therefore it is perhaps reasonable to speculate that because Kenchō and Myōnin would have had comparable educations, Dōhan would have studied similar things under their tutelage (before an image of the Buddha Amitābha at both places). At Hōkō-in, Kenchō is known to have emphasized purification of the karmas for the purposes of Pure Land rebirth, and according to Nakamura, at Hōkō-in Dōhan is said to have studied so hard that he often forgot to sleep or eat. However, Kenchō passed away the same year that Dōhan arrived. In other words, after departing from Ninnaji after the passing of his teacher Shukaku, Dōhan’s new teacher passed as well. In one year, at two temples with Amitābha as the honzon Dōhan may have witnessed two funerals for high-ranking monks. This is pure speculation, but I would like to suggest that this series of events, as well as Dōhan’s many interactions with Amitābha as the honzon of the temples where he trained, may have inspired Dōhan to pursue his Shingon course of study with a particular Pure Land orientation for the rest of his career. Shortly after Kenchō’s passing, Dōhan took over leadership at Hōkō-in, and later in life, after having spent seven years in exile, Dōhan would return to the Hōkō-in. Clearly, Dōhan had developed an affinity for this place.

Chū-in Lineage Initiation

In 1216 (Kenpō 建保 4) Dōhan received the gusoku kanjō 具足灌頂 from Myōnin, the same monk under whom Dōhan had taken tonsure. Under Myōnin’s tutelage, Dōhan was initiated into the Chūin-ryū 中院流, one of the principle ritual lineages of the medieval period, and the central lineage of Kōyasan. The monk Meizan 明算 (1021-1106) is regarded as both the founder of the Chūin-ryū, and a key figure in the 11th century revitalization of the dilapidated Kōyasan monastic training center. Meizan’s Chūin-ryū may in some sense be seen as an attempt to establish an orthodox lineage as the center of Kōyasan’s heterogeneous (or “unorthodox” according to some) ritual community. The honzon of the Chūin-ryū is the Buddha

Mahāvairocana, whereas other lineages may take Avalokiteśvara, or Śākyamuni as their honzon. Dōhan’s initiation under Myōnin would have included the shido kegyō 四度加行, a fourfold preparatory ritual regimen that allows a monk to take the denbō kanjō 傳法灌頂, wherein one attains the rank of ācārya 阿闍梨, a title that signifies that a student has completed their training and is now certified to teach others. To this day, the shido kegyō, is an important basic component of the Shingon School monastic curriculum.

The first of four stages of the shido kegyō is an eighteen step preparatory ritual known as the jūhachi dōhō 十八道法. Following mastery of these rituals, the student is then initiated into the Vajra Realm Mandala, Kongōkai hō 金剛界法. Next the student is initiated into what is often termed the Matrix, or Womb, Realm Mandala, Taizōkai hō 胎藏界法. Sharf has noted that mandala are not merely “visualization” guides, but are themselves living deities just like other Buddha images, and they are understood to be both reservoirs of power and actors in the world. Finally, the student is instructed in the fire ritual, goma hō 護摩法. This fire ritual may be traced back to ancient India, and is regarded as one of the defining characteristics of tantric practice. Through this process the student purifies their three sources of karmic action 三業 produced of the body, speech, and mind. In this way, the student is prepared to realize the three mysteries 三密 of the Buddhas via mudra (body), mantra (speech), and mandalic practice (mind). As the student is initiated into the lineage, they discover their tutelary honzon from the mandala, as well as a secret mudra and mantra that the student may use to invoke the powers of that being. Historically, in preparation for this four-fold ritual curriculum, monks typically first studied either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka for several years. The four-fold mikkyō initiation ritual is predicated upon a monk having mastered a broad curriculum of doctrinal study. Medieval Japanese Buddhist learning was based on a kengaku style of learning in which monks would spend their years of training, travelling to learn at the feet of many different teachers. Monks who acquired these lineages were not understood to have crossed over to another tradition, but on the contrary, were viewed as having gained mastery of a new ritual technology that would make more effective agents for wielding Buddhist power in the world.

Kakkai of the Keōin: This World as the Pure Land Perhaps Dōhan’s most famous teacher on Kōyasan was Kakkai 覺海 (aka. Kakukai, or Nanshōbō 勝房) (1142–1223) at the Keōin 華王院, the 45th zasu of Kongōbuji in 1216 (建保 4 年). Thanks to the scholarship of Robert Morrell and George Tanabe, Kakkai’s immanentalist Pure Land thought is not unknown in English language scholarship on Shingon Buddhism. Kakkai has in some sense come to be regarded as the default spokesperson for the Shingon perspective on Pure Land rebirth. There were in fact a number of competing Pure Land perspectives within Shingon lineages, and Kakkai seems to have assumed a rather hardline, absolute non-dualist position, arguing that that this body-mind is itself the Pure Land, and that seeking rebirth in the Pure Land as a post-mortem destination should not be a major goal. Instead, Kakkai promoted concentration on the “Pure Land of Mystical Splendor” 密嚴淨土 (J. mitsugon jōdo), an idea promoted by Annen, Saisen, and Kakuban. The mitsugon concept signifies a unified vision of Buddhist cosmologies wherein all realms (including all Pure Lands) interpenetrate, are ultimately collapsible, and are all constituted by/as Mahāvairocana Buddha. There is nothing outside of “it,” and this enlightened realm is understood to be fundamentally identical with this seemingly defiled realm. Kakkai seems to have promoted a rather narrow interpretation, or a one sided interpretation in which the resolution of the polarity between “this” world and “that” world is absolute. They are fundamentally one. Other thinkers such as Kakuban and Dōhan, according to Jacqueline Stone, took a more nuanced view, and allowed the polarity to stand without being fully collapsed. In Chapter VI, I will examine Dōhan’s position on this matter and note that for Dōhan, somewhat in contrast to Kakkai, the “difference” between this world and the realm(s) of the Buddha(s) is not necessarily wholly collapsed, and a certain “creative tension” allows both realities to stand without necessarily resolving. In fact, it truly seems that this emphasis on difference (allowing two realities to stand without necessarily being resolved) is essential for understanding Dōhan’s view on the Pure Land. The concept of the interdependence, if not full interpenetration, of this realm and the Pure Lands of Mitsugon, Sukhāvatī, Tuṣita, and so on, was for Kakkai based in, among other things, Kūkai’s notion of the non-duality of the “six elements” (rokudai 六大). According to this theory, the realm of the Buddhas is not composed of fundamentally different “stuff” than the realm of beings. Rather, the realm of beings emanates from the realm of the Buddhas, they are not separate, but rather, they are “non-dual.” According to Kūkai’s Sokushin jōbutsu gi 卽身成佛義 (T. 2428), the six elements (earth 地, water 水, fire 火, wind 風, space 空, and consciousness 識) are understood to be corporeally, fundamentally, non-dual with the Dharma-body 法身 (S. dharmakāya, C. fashen, J. hosshin), or ultimate reality. Moreover, both Buddhas and sentient beings are composed of these same elements, but ordinary beings are unaware of the nature of their corporeal union with (or, participation in) this reality. This is the nature of delusion. While this idea is not absent from general Mahāyāna doctrine, Kūkai’s emphasis on the “effability” of ultimate reality was distinctive. Whereas most other Mahāyāna thinkers viewed the ultimate truth as necessarily ineffable, Kūkai emphasized the ritual arena as a place for the orchestrated performance/realization of Buddhahood.

It is known that under Kakkai, Dōhan studied this rokudai funimon shisō 六大不二門思想, or “six elements, nondualist thought.” The monk Chōgaku 長覺 (1340-1416) of Muryōjuin 無量壽院 (a temple associated with Dōhan in later life, and the place where he was later buried) studied in Dōhan’s rokudai funi lineage, and helped to establish it as the dominant position in the Muromachi period. In autumn of 1221 (Jōkyū 承久 2), Tōji sent Buddha relics to be installed at the Okuno-in. They were received by Kakukai, who retired from his post after winter that year.1145 Kakkai passed away in 1223 (Jōō 貞應 2). Due to his attainment of siddhi, or miraculous powers, his disciples believed him to have attained rebirth in heaven, and a non-dual realization of union with the Cosmic Buddha.1146

Dōhan and Jōhen of Zenrinji: This World and the Pure Land Sometime around 1221, Dōhan forged an important relationship with the famous Zenrinji monk Jōhen.1147 Jōhen was the son of Taira no Yorimori 平頼盛 (1133-1186), who was the son of Taira no Tadayori 平忠盛 (1096-1153), who was also the father of Taira no Kiyomori 平淸盛

1145 KS, 141. 1146 KS, 144. 1147 Jōhen, MD, 1195.

Ōshika Shinō, “Shukuzen,” “Shochi soku gyoku setsu,” and “Sankōdan kaishaku;” Matsuzaki Keisui 松崎惠水, “Kakuban to Jōhen no Jōdo ōjō shisō 覚鑁と静遍の浄土往生思想,” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 53 (2010): 1-18; Satō Mona 佐藤もな, “Dōhan no kyōjugi;” Nasu Kazuo 那須 一雄, “Myōhen kyōgaku to Jōhen kyōgaku 明遍教学と静遍教学,” Shūkyo kenkyū 宗教研究 363 (2010): 359-360(R); “Hōnen to sono monka ni okeru ‘senju’ ‘zasshu’ rikai—tokuni Ryūkan, Shōkū, Jōhen nit suite 法然とその門下における「専修・雑修」理解--特に隆寛・証空・静遍について,” Shinshū kenkyū 眞宗研究 52 (2008): 42-62; “ Jōhen to Hōnen Jōdokyō 静遍と法然浄土教,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 106 (2005): 80-85; Ito Shigeki 伊藤茂樹, “Jōhen no shūkyō katsudō 静遍の宗教活動,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 117 (2009): 55-59(R); “ Jōhen no shōgai nitsuite 静遍の生涯について,” Jōdokyō kenkyū 浄土宗学研究 34 (2008): 93-94(R); Kumata Junshō 熊田順正, “Jōhen ‘Zoku sentaku mongi yōshō’ ni okeru Amida no busshin butsudokan nit suite 静遍『続選択文義要鈔』における阿弥陀仏の仏身仏土観について,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 106 (2005): 8689; “ Jōhen kyōgaku no tokuisei nit suite—shoshi o hihan wo tooshite 静遍教学の特異性について--諸師の批判を通して,” Tōyōgaku kenkyū 東洋学研究 (2008): 97-121; “Jōhen Jōdokyō ni mieru shichi hachi kushiki setsu nit suite kōsatsu 静遍浄土教に見える七八九識説についての考察,” Bukkyōgaku 仏教学 48 (2006): 69-92;

“ Tōkoku no genshi Shinshū kyōdan e no himitsu nenbutsu shisō no eikyō nit suite 東国の原始真宗教団への秘密念仏思想の影響について,” Ryūkoku kyōgaku 竜谷教学 (2004): 9-25; Nakamura Honnen 中村本然, “Zenrinji Jōhen no sōmokuhihō jōbutsu nit suite 禅林寺静遍の草木非情成仏説について,” Nihon Bukkyōgakkai nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 68 (2003): 281-304; Nakamura Shōbun 中村正文 (pre-ordination name of Nakamura Honnen), “Jōhen sōzu no shinkō no ichi sokumen nit suite 静遍僧都の信仰の一側面について,” Mikkyō gakkaihō 密教学会報 31 (1992): 1-49; “Zenrinji Jōhen no teishōshita kyōgaku nit suite 禅林寺静遍の提唱した教学について,” Kōyasan daigaku ronsō 高野山大学論叢 26 (1991): 73-97; Ishida Mitsuyuki 石田充之, “Mikkyōkei Jōdo ganshōsha Jōhen sōzu no Jōdokyō tachiba 密教系浄土願生者静遍僧都の浄土教的立場,” Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 336 (1949): 36-62.

(1118-1181), the famous warrior aristocrat. Jōhen studied under the Daigoji zasu Shōken (one of Jikken’s teachers, and a Pure Land aspirant) who initiated him into the Ono-ryū, and Ninryū 仁隆 (1144-1205) of Ninnaji from whom he received initiation into the Hirosawa-ryū. After the death of Shōken, Jōhen studied under Gedatsu Shōnin Jōkei 解脱上人貞慶 (1155-1213), the famous Kōfukuji 興福寺 monk. Zenrinji was founded by Shinshō 眞紹 (797–873), one of Kūkai’s main early disciples. Shinshō began his career in Nara, studying at Daianji and Tōdaiji, and later studied under Jichie 實惠 (786-847), another important disciple of Kūkai. Traditional Shingon historiography regards

Shinshō as the third Shingon patriarch. Zenrinji was also an especially important site for the development of early-medieval Pure Land thought, and can provide valuable insight into the fluid range of Pure Land cultivation. As examined in the previous chapter, according to Igarashi, the “three streams” of Japanese Pure Land thought (Mt. Hiei, Shingon, and Nara) are present within the Zenrinji lineages. However, there is little upon which we can clearly differentiate the Shingon and Nara streams from one another, as the main “Shingon” temples (Daigoji, Tōji, Ninnaji, Zenrinji, Kōyasan, and others) were intimately tied to, and at times explicitly subordinate to, institutions in Nara such as Tōdaiji and Kōfukuji. Moreover, though Hieizan lineages were dominant during the early-medieval period, Tendai was not a monolithic entity, but was rather composed of a porous amalgam of competing doctrinal and ritual lineages and sub-lineages, many of which drew upon and interacted with the “Tōmitsu” Shingon lineages of Nara, the capital, and Kōyasan.

For example, the well-known Nara Pure Land aspirants Eikan 永觀 (1033-1111) and Chingai 珍海 (1091-1152) were important teachers at Zenrinji, and helped to deepen connections with Tōdaiji and the Nara Buddhist establishment. Genshin’s student Yoshishige no Yasutane 慶滋保胤 (933-1002), the famous poet and author of the Nihon ōjō gokuraku ki 日本往生極樂記, studied in the Zenrinji kangakue 勸學會, a common type of lay religious educational association in which the nenbutsu recitation was emphasized, thus helping to establish the connection with Hieizan. In the Kamakura period, Zenrinji was affiliated with Tōdaiji, a Nara based temple, but later on it eventually became a Jōdoshū temple (which were often technically administered by Hieizan based “Tendai” institutions). In any event, while many dictionaries and other sources refer to Zenrinji as a “Shingon” temple, the situation was actually far more complicated. Additionally, Kakuban’s thought, itself drawing upon Tendai, Nara, Heian-kyō, and Kōyasan based lineages, greatly influenced Jōhen.

It is known that Jōhen acquired a copy of Hōnen’s Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū 選擇本願念佛集 (T. 2608), probably from Hōnen’s disciple Ryūkan 隆寛 (1148-1227) in 1218, and wrote his own commentary on the text, entitled Zoku senchaku mongi yōshō 續選擇文義要 鈔. Jōhen was profoundly impressed by Hōnen’s thought, and rather than view his commentary on the Senchakushū as a critique of Hōnen, we should rather view it as a “continuation” (zoku) or elaboration on ideas within Hōnen’s thought that Jōhen found compelling. In fact, Jōhen was so impressed with Hōnen’s thought that even though he never met Hōnen in person, after reading the Senchakushū he made a pilgrimage to Hōnen’s grave, and upon his arrival, he paid obeisance to Hōnen’s memory and changed his name to Shin’en 心圓.1157 Jōhen also appears to have spent a considerable amount of time with Hōnen’s other famous disciples. In addition to Ryūkan, Jōhen had particular affinities with Shōku 證空 (1177-

1247) (who is often regarded as the most “Esoteric” of Hōnen’s disciples), and may have even known of Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1262), though there is no evidence that they ever met. In any case, Zenrinji is based in a part of Kyōto known to have been frequented by Hōnen’s major disciples. Whether or not they ever met one another, both Jōhen and Shinran would have known many of the same people, and were certainly participants in a thriving Pure Land intellectual and ritual culture in the Higashiyama 東山 area of eastern Heian-kyō. Finally, once Jōhen retired to Kōyasan, he also interacted with Myōhen 明遍 (1142-1224), another important disciple of Hōnen.

Dōhan is known to have accompanied Jōhen to Ninnaji where he recorded Jōhen’s lectures on Kūkai’s Benkenmitsu nikyōron 辯顯密二教論 (T. 2427), commonly known as Nikyōron, in a text entitled Nikyōron tekagami shō 二教論手鏡抄. Jōhen also drew upon Kakuban, and other interpreters of the works of Kūkai, and even wrote a work summarizing the basics of the “Esoteric School” in the Hishū 祕宗文義要. While many scholars who work on Jōhen state that his perspective on Pure Land was fundamentally “Shingon” in orientation, I would caution us from essentializing Jōhen’s identity in this way. Zenrinji was a site where numerous lineages converged, and Jōhen’s own thought appears to reflect this fluidity. Through this dissertation I have endeavored to demonstrate that a more nuanced appreciation of the diversity of Buddhist thought allows us to look beyond the tendency to anachronistically relegate premodern Buddhist identities to the sectarian categories that currently comprise the Japanese Buddhist landscape. In the summer of 1221 (Jōkyū 3), the same year as the Jōkyū War, Jōhen ascended Kōyasan, visited the Okuno-in, and resided at Byōdoshin-in 平等心院 (or possibly the Shaka-in 釋迦院). In autumn of that same year, Dharma Prince Dōjo 道助法親王 (1196-1249), who would study under Dōhan in 1224, established the Kōdai-in 光台院 on Kōyasan for the practice of the nenbutsu samādhi 念佛三昧. Myōhen, who is regarded as the founder of the Rengesanmai-in 蓮華三昧院 lineage, also took up residence on Kōyasan that year as well. It appears that there was something of an exodus from the capital at this time in response to the unrest following the Jōkyū War.

Jōhen passed away in 1223, the same year that Dōhan’s teacher Kakkai passed away.

Again, Dōhan lost two important teachers in the same year, just as in 1202 when Shukaku and Kenchō passed. When we take into account the fact that Dōhan composed the Himitsu nenbutsu shō the very next year, which is coincidentally the same year that Shinran is said to have produced a version of the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信證 (T. 2646), we can certainly speculate that having so many of his teachers, all of whom were keenly interested in the Pure Land, die so close to one another twice in his life, would have had an impact upon his growing interest in Pure Land thought.

Jōhen, Kakkai, Kenchō, Jikken, and Myōnin each contributed to Dōhan’s early education in diverse ways. Myōnin led him to practice in the Chūin-ryū ritual lineage, the lineage established by Meizan, a pioneer in the movement of seeking Pure Land rebirth on Kōyasan. Under Jikken at Daigoji Sanbō-in lineage, a powerful Kyoto based lineage with deep connections to Nara’s Tōdaiji, Dōhan learned of the “mystery of breath,” the idea that Amitābha is the lifebreath of beings leading them to awakening. It is possible that under Kenchō and Kakkai, Dōhan studied two very different perspectives on Pure Land, one more oriented toward the purification of karma for post-mortem Pure Land rebirth, and one emphasizing the immanence of the Pure Land within ordinary reality. Finally, from Jōhen, Dōhan encountered a perspective on Pure Land that allowed both immanentalist and post-mortem conceptions of the Pure Land to stand together as one system. As examined previous chapters of this dissertation, this perspective is not uncommon throughout East Asian Mahāyāna history. While continuing to develop his own approach to Pure Land thought, Dōhan drew upon these many influences and made a name for himself as a prolific scholar of the doctrinal and ritual texts to Kūkai, many of which will be examined in the following chapter. Like Kakuban and Kakkai before him, scholars have speculated that Dōhan may be understood as in some sense responding to the so-called hijiri lineages that proliferated on Kōyasan. The following section will present a brief overview of the main lineages of ascetic wanderers, noting the importance of Pure Land thought and practice among these lineages, as a way to paint a broader picture of the flourishing environment in which Dōhan pursued his studies.

Chapter IV

Part II

Hijiri and Kōyasan Pure Land Culture

Long before Dōhan’s career, Kōyasan had been developing a unique and diverse Pure Land culture of its own. The beginnings of Kōyasan’s own “Esoteric Pure Land” culture was addressed in the previous chapter along with its connection to the 11th century rise of Kūkai studies as a major concern in Japanese Esoteric thought. This section will examine the major sites for Pure Land practice and the official and unofficial lineages that further established Kōyasan as a key site for Pure Land aspirants to congregate. Shortly after its founding, Kōyasan’s significant distance from the capital became an almost insurmountable obstacle, and the mountain fell into ruin and disuse. However, beginning with Jōyō Kishin in the early 11th century, Kōyasan was rehabilitated around the cult of Kūkai’s mausoleum. When Jōyō first ascended the mountain, he found that there were numerous groups practicing around the Okunoin. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the withdrawal of official support, hermits and ascetics had taken up residence on the mountain, and to the best of their abilities were maintaining key facilities. In ancient sources and contemporary scholarship, these unofficial monks are often grouped under the umbrella term hijiri. Hijiri, are somewhat of a mystery to modern scholars, and it appears that to pre-modern Japanese Buddhists they were both a potential source of irritation and reverence. While on the one hand, establishment Buddhism often employed hijiri for fundraising and proselytizing, on the other hand, however, due to their unorthodox practices and influence among commoners, hijiri were looked upon with suspicion. The term hijiri has often functioned as a catch-all category for practices and lineages not otherwise specified. Londo has noted that the term hijiri is one of the most problematic terms used (and misused) in the study of Japanese religion. Indeed, the various groups often subsumed under this label include troubadours, sūtra chanters (jikyōsha like Jōyo), “mountain wizards,” hermits, and renunciants of various kinds. It is therefore with caution and a sense of prudence that we proceed to sketch briefly the Kōya hijiri 高野聖 tradition.

Scholars of the medieval period have identified many different kinds of hijiri. For example, the nenbutsu hijiri 念佛聖 preached rebirth in the Pure Land through reliance upon the nenbutsu, likely in addition to other ecstatic or thaumaturgical rites and incantations. Closely related were the Amida hijiri 阿彌陀聖, who preached sole reliance on the Buddha Amitābha and took the whole name or merely a single character of the name of the Buddha into their own name. There were also kanjin hijiri 勧進聖, who were usually more closely related to and employed by temple offices for the purpose of “kanjin,” or fund raising. Yugyō hijiri 遊行聖 wondered widely around the country, living a largely peripatetic lifestyle. Somewhat in contrast to the ichi hijiri 市聖 who concentrated their efforts on merchants and commoners in the marketplace. While these “types” are commonly listed, it should be noted that they were by no means mutually exclusive categories. Gorai Shigeru’s seminal study on the hijiri of Kōyasan, though regarded by contemporary scholars as somewhat outdated in terms of methodology and deployment of the term “hijiri,” remains a wealth of information, and is the most useful overview of the diverse groups that settled on Kōyasan in pursuit of Pure Land rebirth. What follows is a brief overview of Gorai’s presentation of the main hijiri lineages.

Kyōkai and Odawara After Jōyō’s successful revitalization efforts, Gorai suggests that the earliest major hijiri group was founded by Kyōkai 教懷 (1001-1093) in the Odawara 小田原 area of Kōyasan in 1073. Kyōkai’s practices were centered upon the Buddha Amitābha and various “Esoteric Pure Land” technologies. For example, in addition to the Kongō and Taizōkai mandalas, he practiced the Amida hō 阿彌陀法, Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī 尊勝陀羅尼, the Amida shingon 阿彌陀眞言, and others. Through cultivating a relationship with Emperor Shirakawa, who made pilgrimage to the mountain in 1088 and 1091, Kyōkai was able to greatly expand the facilities and landholdings of Kōyasan temples. Moreover, Kyōkai’s relationship with the emperor allowed his group to assume a particularly influential role. After Kyōkai, Kakuban established the Mitsugon-in 密嚴院 as a nenbutsu practice site to which hijiri flocked. It has long been thought that the primary audience for Kakuban’s Pure Land writings were the hijiri around the Mitsugon-in. Moreover, groups in and around the Ōjō-in dani 往生院谷 region of Kōyasan regarded Kakuban as the founder of their lineage. Around 1114, Kakuban began to interact with Aba Shōnin Shōren 阿波上人靑蓮 (ca. 1114). Shōren traveled around Kumano 熊野 and later settled in the Bessho 別所 of Kōyasan, and took up lodging at the Ōjō-in at Henshōkō-in. Shōren’s disciples were especially prevalent in the Kayadō 萱堂 associated with Kakuban’s Mitsugon-in. Later, Kakuban’s student Kenkai 兼海 (1107-1155) established Kakkō-in 覺皇院 as a nenbutsu practice site.1171 Gorai has suggested that like Kyōkai’s Odawara hijiri, groups associated with Kakuban were hermits and ascetics who employed Pure Land practices for thaumaturgical ends as well as the purification of karma.

Butsugon and Mitsugon-in

Butsugon bō Shōshin 佛嚴房聖心 (late-12th-early-13th cent.) may in some sense be regarded as the inheritor of Kakuban’s “himitsu nenbutsu” lineage, and stands between Kakuban and Dōhan both chronologically and intellectually. Alongside Kenkai and Daijō bō Shōin 大乘房證印 (1105-1187), Butsugon was a descendent of Kakuban’s Negoroji Denbō-in. After Kakuban’s rapid rise through the monastic ranks, he fled Kōyasan and established the Denbō-in on Mt. Negoro. While many of Kakuban’s loyal disciples followed him to Negoro, latter Butsugon worked to reestablish ties with Kōyasan, taking up residence at Mitsugon-in. Butsugon studied under Kyōjin 教尋 (?-1141), who is mentioned in the Kōyasan ōjōden 高野山往生傳. Butsugon wrote the Jūnen gokuraku iōshū 十念極樂易往集 at the behest of Go-Shirakawa 後白河法皇 (1127-1192) around 1176. This was an important treatise on the “ten thought moments” said to be essential for rebirth in the Pure Land. This text promotes the Mitsugon Pure Land as but another name for Sukhāvatī. Wada notes that the final section entitled Ichigo taiyō rinjū mon 一期大要臨終門, is virtually identical to Kakuban’s Ichigo taiyō himitsu shū 一期大要祕密集, suggesting that Kakuban’s “Esoteric Pure Land” writings continued to circulate after his death. Further study of Butsugon may help fill in the gap between Kakuban and Dōhan’s Kōyasan “Esoteric Pure Land” thought.

Kumagai Naozane and Samurai Hijiri

The end of the 12th century was an increasingly tumultuous time, and as a result, many elite monks and aristocrats took solace in Buddhist practice on Kōyasan, aspiring to leave this defiled realm for the Pure Land. As well, warriors disaffected with the violence that was spreading across the country made the journey to the mountain as well. One of the most famous examples is Kumagai Naozane 熊谷直実 (1141-1208). Kumagai studied the nenbutsu under Hōnen, and according to the Kōya shunju, established a stupa in his honor near the Okuno-in, the tomb of Kūkai. Today a temple on Kōyasan named Kumagaiji is dedicated to Kumagai Naozane, whose monastic name was Rensei 蓮生. At this temple, in addition to a large statue of the Buddha Amitābha, an even larger statue of Hōnen takes the central position as the temple’s honzon. To the right of Hōnen are the major “patriarchs” of the Japanese Pure Land tradition including Shinran, Ippen, and Rennyō as well as Shinran’s wife, Eshinni. There remains much work to be done on the ways in which Kōyasan’s medieval Pure Land culture was repackaged and molded in response to the growth of Jōdo and Jōdoshinshū traditions.

Chōgen and Tōdaiji

Tōdaiji was burned down by Taira no Shigehira 平重衡 (1157-1185) during the Genpei wars from 1180-1185. Revitalization efforts were spearheaded by a monk named Chōgen 重源 (1121-1206), who spent some time practicing austerities on Kōyasan. Chōgen is a rather famous example of a much broader kanjin hijiri layer of the Buddhist clergy similar to Jōyō and others. Chōgen first took ordination at the Daigoji, and later interacted with Hōnen. Though initially a critic of Hōnen, Chōgen came to practice the senju nenbutsu 專修念佛, or exclusive practice nenbutsu. Gorai suggests that with Chōgen, and later Myōhen, a new phase of Hōnen inspired nenbutsu practice grew in popularity on Kōyasan.

Myōhen and Rengesanmai-in

Like Kumagai Naozane, Jōhen, and others, the monk Myōhen, seems to have been one of many elite monastics who sought solace on Kōyasan, fleeing the embattled capital. In 1185, Myōhen ascended the mountain to worship an image of Kūkai at the Okuno-in. Myōhen had studied Madhyamaka and Shingon, and after reading the Senchakushū, came to greatly revere Hōnen. According to one tradition, Myōhen had initially been a critic of Hōnen, but upon reading the Senchakushū, he had a dream in which he witnessed Hōnen feeding the starving beggars outside the city gates. At that moment, Myōhen purportedly came to realize the importance of Hōnen’s teachings. Myōhen appears to have interacted with Jōhen, so it is possible that he was part of the same social circles as Dōhan. Myōhen entered Rengesanmai-in 蓮花三昧院 and pursued practices aimed at the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. Following Myōhen, the Rengesanmai-in emerged as a major center for hijiri activity, and exerted significant influence upon surrounding lineages and institutions.

Kakushin and “Esoteric” Zen

Alongside Pure Land practice (and in many cases as Pure Land practice), Zen meditation flourished on Kōyasan. There are some on Kōyasan today who believe that Kūkai actually traveled to China to study Zen. Shinji Kakushin 心地覺心 (aka, Muhon Kakushin 無本覺心, or Hottō Kokushi 法燈國師) (1207-1298) was an important student of Zen who received the Bodhisattva precepts 菩薩戒 (J. bosatsukai) from Dōgen and was associated with the Kayadō lineage of the Mitsugon-in. Kakushin ascended Kōyasan in 1225 (Karoku 1), having previously studied at Tōdaiji 東大寺 in Nara. On Kōyasan Kakushin studied Esoteric ritual under Dōhan, and Zen under Gyōyū 行勇 (1163-1241) at the Zenjō-in 禪定院 of Kongōsanmai-in 金剛三昧院.

Gyōyū was a senior disciple of Eisai and was instrumental in establishing the Kongōsanmai-in with the patronage of Hōjō Masako. Gyōyū studied on Kōyasan for nine years and also received secret initiations from Dōhan. Gyōyū continued his ritual studies under a monk named Kakubutsu 覺佛 of the Denbō-in. Gyōyū later travelled to Kamakura in 1241 (Ninji 仁治 2). Early Kamakura Zen was an integral part of the Kōyasan environment, and its proponents contributed both to the vibrant “Esoteric Pure Land” culture.

Jishū and Kōyasan

Alongside Kayadō and the Rengesanmai-in, the Senju-in dani 千手院谷 lineages associated with Ippen’s 一遍 (1234-1289) Jishū 時宗 were especially influential in earlymedieval Kōyasan. Ippen practiced a form of ecstatic, some have said “shamanic,” nenbutsu known as odori nenbutsu 踊念佛, or “dancing nenbutsu.” While Ippen is often studied within the same “Pure Land Buddhism” rubric as Hōnen and Shinran, he was arguably more closely aligned to the Shingon and Tendai perspectives on the Pure Land. Moreover, Ippen also received inka 印可, or official recognition of Zen awakening, from Kakushin, Dōhan’s former disciple. Ippen is well known as a distributor of fuda 札 (slips of paper or silk) inscribed with the nenbutsu as a way of helping ordinary people establish connections with the Buddha Amitābha. It is possible that this popular practice that Ippen became so famous for may have been part of the common culture of the area around Kumano and Kōyasan. According to Gorai, it is known that during the Kamakura period, nenbutsu fuda purportedly written in Kūkai’s hand were distributed as being particularly efficacious for the attainment of Pure Land rebirth. In other words, the Kūkai of Kamakura period Kōyasan was also regarded as a nenbutsu preacher in some circles, and it is possible that this feature of Kōyasan’s nenbutsu culture contributed to the early development of Jishū as the largest Pure Land tradition in late-medieval Japan.

Hijiri Suppression

The Kamakura Kōyasan hijiri lineages with which Dōhan certainly had some interaction, accomplished three key tasks: raising the funds necessary to rehabilitate Kōyasan’s institutional infrastructure, establishing Kōyasan as a major regional center of devotion and a “this-worldly” Pure Land, and promoting the practice of the nenbutsu as a major form of practice on the mountain. However, beginning in the 14th century, the central bureaucracy established a three tier hierarchy, with scholar-monks 學侶 (J. gakuryo) on top, orthodox practitioners 行人 (J. gyōnin) second, and the miscellaneous hijiri (nenbutsu pracitioners) on the bottom, which resulted in the reorganization of Kōyasan culture.

In particular, monks like Yūkai 宥快 (1345-1416) and Chōkaku began to enforce a Kūkai-centered Shingon orthodoxy upon the heterogeneous Kōyasan environment, thus reigning in the disruptive ecstatic activities of some hijiri bands. In 1413, an edict entitled Kōyasan gobanshū ichimi keijō 高野山五番衆一味契狀, banned certain activities associated with nenbutsu practice, such as loud communal chanting, ecstatic dancing, and so on. Later, a similar edict was issued in 1606 in which the Tokugawa Shōgun ordered all hijiri bands to officially affiliate with either Jishū or Kōyasan Shingonshū via sectarian initiations or ordination. Gorai notes that after this point, references to hijiri seem to have been removed from the historical record in order to produce the illusion of homogeneity. The nature of these edicts reveals a few things: First, continued efforts to suppress hijiri may indicate that these bans were only marginally successful (at first). Second, that latemedieval and Tokugawa period Shingon was so closely related to Jishū Pure Land that monastics could easily choose between them. This should indicate to us the “Shingon” qualities of medieval Pure Land practice, as well as the importance of “Pure Land” practice within Shingon. Through this brief presentation of the most influential monastic, semi-monastic, and lay organizations in early-medieval Kōyasan, this section has endeavored to convey the centrality of Pure Land thought and practice in the environment preceding and surrounding Dōhan’s career.

Chapter IV

Part III

Dōhan in Exile

In 1234 (Bunryaku 文曆 1) Dōhan took up residence in the lecture hall, hōen 法筵, of Shōchi-in. In 1237 (Katei 嘉禎 3), assuming the position of shugyō 執行, or head administrator, of Kongōbuji. The shugyō was responsible for the management of the temple complex as a whole, and at this time Kongōbuji was virtually synonymous with the whole of Kōyasan itself. Despite this administrative role, Dōhan maintained an active ritual and scholarly agenda. According to the Nanzan denpu, in 1239, Dōhan lectured on the Bodaishinron at the request of Dōjo Hōshinnō of Ninnaji, and wrote the Bodaishinron dangiki 菩提心論談義記. In 1240 (Ninji 仁治 1), Dōhan composed the Hizōhōyaku mondanshō 秘蔵宝鑰問談鈔 (2 fasc.) and erected a stupa at Muryōju-in. The life a high ranking monks was not all paperwork and study, there were serious stakes at hand in the management of a major temple complex like Kōyasan. At this time, along with the aristocratic and warrior classes, the elite class of monastics to which Dōhan belonged represented what is often referred to as the kenmon 権門, or gates of power. As temples endeavored to gain and balance power with the other two legs of the kenmon tri-pod, serious competition within and between different factions and lineages often led to violence. In 1242 (Ninji 3, 11th month, 18th day) Dōhan was called to Rokuhara 六波羅 as part of an investigation into recent unrest on the mountain. While the details are somewhat difficult to pin down, and because Dōhan’s own journal is one of the main sources on this incident, it is with a healthy dose of skepticism that we now examine the lead up to Dōhan’s exile and expulsion from Kōyasan.

Conflict with the Denbō-in

At the beginning of the year 1243 (Kangen 寛元 1), a monk named Myōken 明賢, who had been appointed the role of zasu in 1240 (Ninji 仁治 1), was appointed to the dual role of kengyō and shugyō, and by the end of the month, outright fighting had erupted between Denbōin and Kongōbuji, wherein Denbōin was burned down. The next month, Kongōbuji monks and Denbōin monks pursued suits against one another at Rokuhara 六波羅. In autumn of that same year, Myōgen was forced to step down, and replaced by Keigen 慶源. Shortly thereafter (ninth month, fifth day), Dōhan and a large number of senior monastics were exiled from the mountain.

According to Dōhan’s own account, one night the Denbō-in mysteriously caught fire. Dōhan contended that there was no wrong doing on his part, nor on the part of the Kongōbuji faction. Dōhan claimed that the real culprit was lightning, or “fire that naturally erupted from the sky 天火自然出.”1191 Dōhan also notes that the Denbō-in had long overstepped their position as a subordinate temple within the Kōyasan order, perhaps implying that the fire was a form of karmic retribution. Dōhan further laments that the evil of the Denbō-in faction was so profound that the officials tasked with hearing the case were confused by their wicked rhetoric, and that his people were unjustly implicated. Nevertheless, as a result of the conflict, Dōhan was banished, or zairyū 罪流, to Sanuki.

Nankai rurōki 海流浪記

Starting in 1243 (Kangen 寛元 1) Dōhan’s travelogue records his time in exile. While this alone would make Dōhan’s diary worthy of note, the text itself is quite interesting as a piece of literature. The Nankai rurōki is a mixed kana-kanbun zuihitsu 仮名漢文随筆, or wakan konkōbun 和漢混交文. In other words, it is a running diary, written with a mix of Chinese and Japanese prose, with sentences that may begin or end in either language. In addition, the text is peppered with Classical Chinese poetry, kanshi 漢詩, and Classical Japanese poetry, or waka 和 歌. While the text is quite short, it fills in many important details about Dōhan’s time in exile, and is one of the most important sources for the study of his life.

After the initial kanbun introduction, wherein Dōhan recounts the details of the court case resulting in his exile, the Rurōki relates the various places that Dōhan stayed, following the Yodo river 淀川, and lodging near Kanzaki bridge 神崎橋, in present day Osaka, and other places. Scholars of the history of Sanuki prefecture prize this diary as an important source on medieval geography and Buddhist culture on the island, as Dōhan continually notes the distance travelled between each place he visits. The poetry in particular seems to convey some features of Dōhan’s interiority and personal reflections on his time “abroad.” It is often assumed that diaries written by men tend to be less concerned with conveying feeling and emotion. Therefore it is often the diaries of women that we look to for emotional content and depth. This surprising feature of Dōhan’s diary was in fact not uncommon for Kamakura period travel diaries. In the Rurō ki, Dōhan employs poetry to mark key events in his seven years in Shikoku. For example, the first poem expresses Dōhan’s lament at leaving the court:

都をは Oh, the capital! 霞の余所に To the mists of this faraway place, かへり見て I look back. いつち行らん Where am I going?

淀の川な み --the waves of Yodo River.

This is a standard literary convention that can be seen in virtually all literary tales in which the protagonist leaves the capital, whether under exile, or for leisure. Later on, while on the boat to Awaji 淡路, Dōhan is informed that from that particular juncture, the peak of Kōyasan may be seen. Dōhan was certainly aware that for someone of advanced age such as himself, the likelihood of dying while in exile was fairly high. In other words, this point in the journey would not merely be the last time on this particular trip that Dōhan would see Kōyasan, but it may well have been the last time in his life that he would get to see Kōyasan at all.

When he first arrived in Sanuki, Dōhan resided with a local lord who expressed sympathy for his predicament. The Rurōki intimates that the shugo of Sanuki, the Miura family 三浦氏, was not in the capital at that time of Dōhan’s trial, so Dōhan’s care was overseen by members of the Naganuma family 長沼氏 at the behest of the Miuras. It was common at this time that when “exiled,” such high ranking monks as Dōhan were not simply thrown out on the street, but rather, wealthy patrons oversaw their travel arrangements and lodging needs enroute.

The flow of events as recorded by Dōhan are punctuated by numerous miraculous encounters and ecstatic visions produced by long ritual performances. Scholars of previous generations might have edited out these “magical” or “mystical” episodes, preferring instead to focus on deep philosophical concepts or historical facts. Thankfully, by now, the pendulum has swung in the other direction such that miraculous events are valued for what they might tell us about the beliefs and practices of a particular time, and are understood to be at least as important as detailed explanations of titles or patronage networks. To strip away Dōhan’s reported magical events in search of an exclusively “historical” recounting of events would be to rewrite the story according to modernist criterion not shared by the subject. Clearly, for Dōhan, erudite scholarship, visionary encounters with the “mystical realm,” and ritual proficiency were all interwoven in the tapestry of his life. To neglect any single component would greatly hinder our understanding of Dōhan’s activity. In this treatment of Dōhan’s diary, I hope to render explicit the content that Dōhan seems to have wanted to share with the reader. For example, toward the beginning of his travels through Sanuki, Dōhan encounters a strange rock formation. When he goes to investigate, suddenly a voice appears out of the mist. Dōhan states: 即絵嶋ノ明神詣シテ法施法楽。 Thereupon I paid obeisance to the Ejima Myōjin, and gave a Dharma teaching so that he may rejoice in the Dharma (hosse hōraku 法施法楽).

Not only was it common for monks to teach local gods (kami), but Dōhan was especially well known for his engagement with the protector deity of Kōyasan, Kōya Myōjin 高野明神.

Certainly, one of the defining features of Buddhism across Asia (and now the world) is a willingness to engage in dialogue with gods. Buddhists have interacted with all varieties of deity wherever they go. Once a monk interacts with a god, that being is seemingly integrated into a Buddhist cosmic vision, the mandala. For Dōhan, the gods of the Japanese islands were clearly beings in need of Buddhist teaching, if not themselves Buddhist divinities destined to lead beings to the Dharma. That Dōhan composes waka is also worthy of note due to the close connection between waka and mantra. Arguably, one of Kūkai’s greatest contribution to the early Japanese Buddhist tradition was his mantra based theory of ritual efficacy. Kimbrough suggests that earlymedieval Buddhist poetics was so influenced by Buddhist thought that, in some cases, we might understand waka as dhāraṇī. Dhāraṇī differ from mantra in that they are usually longer, but these two vocal-ritual technologies are similar in many ways, and it appears that Dōhan did not clearly differentiate between them. In general, both dhāraṇī and mantra are regarded as a distillation of a larger texts or body of knowledge, and accordingly, they are also understood to be quite powerful. Indeed, just like dhāraṇī, poems are often used in prose works to supplement, enhance, or simply summarize events. In the medieval context, waka, renga 連歌 (linked-verse poems), dhāraṇī, and mantra were all used as social and ritual “technologies,” employed to effect change in the world. When it is said that poems may have so much power as to pacify a demon, or in Dōhan’s case, teach a god, this is not a euphemism.

The sacralization of waka in fact arose as Japanese Buddhists came to view Japan as a Buddhist realm unto itself, and the Japanese language as a tool for accessing Buddhist power. Kūkai for example viewed all of existence as an emanation of the primordial speech act of Mahāvairocana, and therefore, even the speech of a seemingly peripheral country like Japan could fully express the essence of the Dharma. Monks such as Nichiren 日蓮 (1222-1282) and Saichō 最澄 (767-822) argued that the people of Japan themselves were especially well suited to receive the Dharma. Kūkai and Annen 安然 (841-915?) argued that even the islands and mountains themselves were embodiments of the mandala. Dōhan and Raiyū 賴瑜 (1226-1304), among others, are known to have argued that even the trees and grasses possessed the potential to become Buddhas 草木成仏 (J. sōmoku jōbutsu).

Dōhan eventually took up residence at Zentsūji temple 善通寺 in 1244 (year two of Kangen 寛元), a temple built at the birth place of Kūkai. Snatched as he was from his great mountain, Dōhan yearned for the peaks of Kōyasan. We can see throughout the Rurōki that Dōhan was able to make the best of a difficult situation, as he frequently visited sites associated with Kūkai’s life on Shikoku. To this day, statues carved by Dōhan at these sites may still be viewed. In addition to his pilgrimage style wandering, he also lectured and taught at Zentsūji. Sources record the names of several disciples, and frequently state that Dōhan was known for preaching to the common people. A short Dharma-lecture about A-character meditation, ajikan 阿 觀, entitled Dōhan shōsoku 道範消息 survives to this day, and has been translated into English by Pol van den Broucke. This is the first text written by Dōhan that has been translated into English. Like Kakuban, Dōhan’s works on this form of meditation are frequently quoted in premodern and contemporary ajikan meditation guides.

Yamamoto notes that in 1248, Dōhan constructed a statue of Kūkai at the request of a monk at the Zentsūji temple.1206 While he was banished from Kōyasan, the place of Kūkai’s eternal meditation, he seems to have coursed deeply in the place of Kūkai’s birth. At this time, the Shingon tradition was not a clearly defined sectarian institutional entity. Rather, Shingon was composed of many different lineages spread over many different institutions, some associated with Kūkai or his direct disciples, some not. Unlike today, Kūkai was not necessarily the assumed center of the tradition, and therefore we cannot, simply reduce Dōhan’s efforts to simple sectarian interest in a founder. Rather, perhaps we might speculate that these efforts to track the life of Kūkai on Shikoku, the construction of statues of Kūkai, and his deeply engaged study of Kūkai’s works may have been Dōhan’s way of reclaiming his identity as a Kōyasan monk. Kōyasan was peripheral, but Shikoku was even more peripheral. Kōyasan was the place of Kūkai’s death, but Zentsuji was the place of his birth. Was Dōhan seeking to reclaim his Kōyasan identity at Zentsuji via engagement with Kūkai’s biography? If we may take this to be the case, then we may also perhaps recognize Dōhan as one more figure central to the emergence of Kūkai as the primary force of gravity within something called the Shingon tradition. Today, one of the fundamental practices of both lay and monastic Shingon adherents is the chanting of the myōgō 名號 of Kūkai; “Namu Daishi Henjō Kongō 無大師遍照金剛.”

While there have been many different versions of this chant, the earliest recorded instance of the version currently used today first appears in Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō. Should we take it as merely a coincidence that many of the great architects of the Shingon tradition (Ninkai, Saisen, Jippan, Kakuban, Dōhan, etc.) were keenly interested in the Buddha Amitābha as a central object of worship? Should it come as a surprise that the myōgō of Kūkai was perhaps derived from the nenbutsu of Amitābha? Probably not. Rather, we should recognize the importance of Kūkai and Amitābha as closely related cultic objects, and that objects of veneration may occupy the same space, conceptual as well as spatial. Therefore, we can construct a model for our understanding of Japanese Buddhism in which a monk like Dōhan might build a statue of Kūkai at the behest of a student, and then proceed to perform a fifty-day long fire ritual for the Buddha Amitābha, Amida goma 阿彌陀護摩. Just as the Himitsu nenbutsu shō is a site for the kengaku simultaneous cultivation of Kūkai and Amitābha worship, the life of Dōhan provides ample evidence that Amitābha and Kūkai often came to inhabit the same space in the medieval period.

Chapter IV

Part IV

Dōhan’s Return to Kōyasan

In 1245 (Kangen 3), Dōhan’s former associate, the monk Shōso 尚祚 (d. 1245), experienced a peaceful death with the mantra of Amitābha on his lips, his hands in the Amitābha mudra, contemplating the statue of Amitābha. Dōhan’s former student Dōjo is also recorded as having attained rebirth in the Pure Land while residing at Kōdai-in, also chanting and contemplating a statue of Amitābha.

That same year, while still in exile, Dōhan recorded the names of his Zentsūji students in Sanuki who received the kanjō initiation from him: Nōhen Hōshinbō 能遍法信房, Shōen 淸圓, Ryūben 隆辯, and Yūnin 祐仁. In 1249, (Kenchō 建長 1) the monks who had been banished were allowed to return to the mountain. Hosshō had passed away while in exile, but Dōhan was able to return, taking up residence at Hōkō-in in the 8th month, 17th day. Soon after Dōhan’s arrival he established a Mieidō 御影堂, or portrait hall, and enshrined an image of Kūkai. In the 10th month of that year, Dōhan resumed regular performance of initiation ceremonies at Shōchiin on behalf of a monk named Zenkaibō 禪戒房. In the 12th month he performed the denbō kanjō at the Kanjō-in 灌頂院 at the request of Kenjō 賢貞, and that same year, Dōhan’s former student Kakushin traveled to Song China. In 1250 (Kenchō 2, summer, 5th month, 23rd day), Dōhan conferred the ryōbu kanjō to students at Shōchi-in. In the winter (11th month, 8th day), Dōhan performed the ryōbu kanjō at Shōchi-in for Myōchō Sonshinbō 明澄尊信房. In 1251 (Kenchō 3, 11th month, 13th day), Dōhan and several other monks are mentioned in an 80 article long proclamation made by the Kōya myōjin, as recorded by a monk named Kakuson 覺尊 at Henmyō-in 遍明院. 1252 (Kenchō 4, summer, Fifth month, 22nd, or 25th day), Dōhan passed away peacefully at the Hōkō-in 寶光院, the temple where he had resided since his return to the mountain. He was 75 years old at the time of his death. One of the last things Dōhan did before he died was edit a manuscript attributed to Kūkai. This text, an edition of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, was completed in the fifth month of Kenchō 4 (1252), the same month that Dōhan died. In the colophon of this text, Dōhan mentions Kūkai’s eternal meditation and his waiting for the descent of Maitreya from the Tuṣita heaven, a topic he addresses numerous times in his writing. The Avataṃsaka is chiefly concerned with a synthetic vision unifying the whole of Buddhist cosmology, and playing into the sudden/gradual tension of the bodhisattva path. This same tension appears to have influenced Dōhan’s engagement with nenbutsu thought and practice. Regarding Dōhan’s own death-bed practice, Yamaguchi notes that while there is no clear evidence for Dōhan’s explicit aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land, there is one account in which it states that Dōhan died in seated meditation in deep contemplation and chanting a mantra. Is it reasonable to suspect that this final practice, like so many other moments of Dōhan’s life, was centered upon the Buddha Amitābha? Dōhan’s grave was located at Muryōjuin 無量壽院. As discussed above, along with Shōchi-in and Hōkō-in, this temple’s lineage appears to have been especially influenced by Dōhan’s intellectual and ritual legacy.

Chapter IV

Conclusion

In his day, Dōhan was an extremely prolific and well-known writer, a teacher of many monks, as well as a high-ranking and able monastic administrator, and yet many of the key events in his life are difficult to pin-down. As this degree of “fluidity” is sometimes unavoidable in the reconstruction of the lives of historical figures who lived so far in the past, rather than vesting all value in the specifics of detail, emphasis has been placed rather on examining the context within which Dōhan developed his approach to “Esoteric Pure Land” Buddhist doctrine and ritual practice. For example, while we know the names of many of Dōhan’s teachers on Kōyasan and in Kyoto, we do not have a clear picture of when or where exactly he studied with them. Dōhan’s travelogue is one of the few windows into his life and personal thoughts, and through it we are able to gain some insight into his personality and interests, even if the exact chronology will likely forever remain tenuous. Therefore, we must “pull the camera lens back” so that the contours of Dōhan’s life may come into sharper relief. One of the key points that have arisen from the examination of Dōhan’s early years, is that it is impossible to assert from whom he acquired his interest in Pure Land thought. Many scholars have suggested that his interests were derived from encounters with Hōnen’s Pure Land doctrine via Jōhen, but enough evidence has been provided by now to suggest that Dōhan’s early educational environment was always-already well enmeshed in a diverse soteriological environment that favored devotion to, and ritual engagement with, the Buddha Amitābha, and aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī.

Another key feature of Dōhan’s monastic upbringing was the diversity of doctrines and rituals he had the opportunity to learn and practice. This kengaku style of simultaneous study starkly contrasts with the contemporary Japanese Buddhist environment, as contemporary scholars and practitioners have tended to assume the immutability of contemporary sectarian identities as an organizational heuristic for examining pre-modern monks, institutions, and doctrines. Dōhan’s dual engagement with Kūkai and Amitābha represents a form of devotion and practice that, despite being quite common within the Shingon School of the medieval period, is not necessarily recognized or affirmed within the contemporary sect-based rubric. It is important not only to be critical of received traditional wisdom, but it is also essential to turn the skeptical lens of the scholar on idea and practices that arise within the academy. By taking a new look at the life of Dōhan, and those like him, we may open new and surprising avenues for inquiry that may be useful in nuancing our approach to premodern Buddhist culture (perhaps allowing us to reimagine contemporary Buddhist culture in the process). What is the purpose of religious biography? Moreover, what is the purpose of engaging religious biography and autobiography in the context of academic non-sectarian writing? To study the life of an individual presumes that an “individual,” in the form of a singular being, exists. One might argue that this is not necessarily a worthwhile premise.

Many of the life stories transmitted down to the present must be reconstructed from various sources written hundreds of years after the event or life in question, and even then, it is rare that a clear picture emerges. Rather, it appears that in some cases all a scholar or a traditional biographer has to work with is a synthetic view, a composite, an unstable image of an historical individual. In the case of Dōhan, by whom many doctrinal works written in his own hand have survived to the present, comparatively little has survived that can be used to fill in his life story. As a result, the approach used in this chapter has been to fill in the detail of his context, thus painting in “negative space.” In response to a situation like this, many scholars may throw their hands up in despair, choosing instead to merely outline every single contradiction, and take comfort in the realm of positivist social history and philology. We cannot begin from a position that assumes that there exists a singular individual “Dōhan” to which one can attain unmediated access. Rather, each source upon which one might draw should be seen as one of many attempts to construct a singularity, which is by its very nature fleeting. Certainly, even in a person’s own lifetime, they may be understood in a variety of ways. The individual, the Great Man, fetishized in post-Enlightenment historical writing, is composite at every turn. Individuality is composed through the development of relationships, encounters with teachers and mentors, choices made throughout one’s life, random events, and other local influences. An individual is a composite being even to those around them, and certainly to those who write years, generations, or centuries later. Therefore, one may find it especially appropriate in the context of Buddhist studies to acknowledge individuality as a kaleidoscopic, ephemeral, reality that cannot be perfectly grasped any more than can a handful of sand or water. However, that the individual is “empty” does not mean that the individual does not exist, nor that rigorous attention to detail is not essential.

Now, to say that unmediated access is not a realistic possibility is not to say that academic writing is just story telling. Rather, the context within which academic writing takes place is one in which everything that one writes is subject to scrutiny. Indeed, this is one of the merits of the academic mode of writing. The scrutiny and rigor to which academic writing is subjected renders it useful to many different audiences, and, at least in theory, comparatively free of bias. At the very least, this is the ideal after which we strive. Buddhist Studies academic writing may be useful to scholars in disciplines such as Religious Studies, East Asian Area Studies, Art History, and other areas of Buddhist Studies. In addition, people participating in the modern day descendants of the traditions under investigation may be able to gain a different perspective than that presented in popular religious literature. As a scholar, one must recognize that these different groups, scholars, religious (both, neither) may read one’s work for different reasons, and each may take away different meanings. However, often enough the privileged position of academics allows one to exert control over their object of study. This becomes particularly problematic when the object of study is religious activity, which (if we may make an overgeneralization) tends towards the ineffable, or at the very least, the ancient, and thus unverifiable by traditional historical standards. The necessary resolution of academic writing needs to include careful and respectful handling of sources and subjects, seeking objectivity where it can be found, acknowledging when it cannot, and recognizing one’s own positionality and limitations. With these simple ideals as guidelines, one might argue, conscientious and rigorous scholarship that transcends mere story telling can be achieved. This is my goal in my pursuit of Dōhan as a partner in historical dialogue, and an object of academic inquiry.

CHAPTER V

DŌHAN AND “KAMAKURA BUDDHISM”

Introduction

Building upon the biography presented in the previous chapter, in this chapter I will approach Dōhan 道範 (1179-1252) as a “Kamakura Buddhist” thinker, and seek to lay a foundation for “Dōhan studies” as a new and vital area of academic inquiry. In particular, the study of Dōhan’s thought will provide new insights into the state of “Kūkai studies 空海學,” the study of the doctrinal works of Kūkai 空海 (774-835), in the early-medieval period, the relationship between hongaku 本學 doctrinal thought and mikkyō 密教 ritual practice, and the importance of Pure Land thought and practice in medieval “Esoteric Buddhism.” In the previous chapter, through an investigation into Dōhan’s educational and ritual environment, I demonstrated that Pure Land thought and ritual were “always-already” pervasive features of the heterogeneous religio-political life of Kōyasan 高野山 and medieval Shingon 眞言, and that centuries after Dōhan’s death the construction and contestation of Shingon was an ongoing enterprise. Furthermore, despite the wealth of scholarship on the Kamakura period in general, as well as scholarship on Esoteric Buddhism in Insei period 院政期 (1086-1192) and mid to latemedieval periods (14th to early-17th cent.), both the history of Kōyasan and early-medieval

Esoteric traditions (the context of Dōhan’s life) remain largely unexplored in English or Japanese. In order to lay the groundwork for bridging this gap, this chapter will “pull the camera back,” as it were, from Dōhan’s immediate environment to examine Dōhan’s broader oeuvre in the context of “Kamakura Buddhism” 鎌倉佛教 (J. Kamakura Bukkyō). The Kamakura Period 鎌倉時代 (1185-1333) saw the advent of dual-rulership on the archipelago, with the aristocracy and imperial family living in Heian-kyō 平安京 (present day

Kyoto), providing “symbolic capital” necessary for the legitimation of rule, while the warriorbureaucrats (usually described in English as “samurai” サムライ・侍, but perhaps more correctly as bushi 武士 ) in the eastern city of Kamakura controlled the administration of taxes, lawsuits, and military matters. The Buddhism of this period is usually depicted from the point of view of the so-called Kamakura founders: the Pure Land Schools, including Hōnen’s 法然 (1133-1212) Jōdo-shū 淨土宗, Shinran’s 親鸞 (1173-1263) Jōdo Shinshū 淨土眞宗, and Ippen’s 一遍 (1239-1289) Ji-shū 時宗; the Zen Schools, including Eisai’s 榮西 (1141-1215) Rinzai-shū 臨濟宗, and Dōgen’s 道元 (1200-1253) Sōtō-shū 曹洞宗; and the Lotus School of Nichiren 日蓮 (1222-1282), known as Hokke-shū 法華宗 or Nichiren-shū 日蓮宗. To some extent, this is to be expected. After all, the modern day descendants of the communities established by these figures constitute the largest sectarian institutions in Japan, and thus, have exerted significant influence upon the historiography of this period. However, as is now commonly argued, casting late-12th - early-13th century Japanese Buddhism around the ideas and practice of monks who in their own time were regarded as heretical and marginal has produced a myopic view of history, whereby one person or tradition is examined in great detail, and everything else blurs out of focus.

Kamakura Buddhism, or rather, the received image of Kamakura Buddhism, has in some sense served as a dominant center of gravity within the academic study of East Asian Buddhism. In fact, it is often the case that in textbooks and lectures, as well as cursory overviews in monographs on related topics, otherwise critically minded scholars will habitually reiterate uncritically the key points around which this image has been constructed: Kamakura Buddhism, we are told, emerged on the fringes of the dominant Buddhist institutions, which had grown decadent and out of touch with the “common man.” As part of a revivalist critique of the oppressive social structure, revolutionary (proto-democratic?) “New Buddhist” 新佛教 (J. shinbukkyō) thinkers established new forms of Buddhism more in tune with the needs of ordinary Japanese. Incidentally, we are also often told that this was the era, in which Buddhism in Japan became truly “Japanese.” Over the last several decades, however, new scholarship has helped to re-center the debates in the field around lineages and institutions who actually dominated and shaped the early-medieval politico-religious environment, the so-called “Old Buddhism” 舊佛教 (J. kyū-bukkyō), noting that the “New Schools” only emerged as key players on the national stage in the mid- and late-medieval period. This scholarship has demonstrated that whatever else “Kamakura Buddhism” may have entailed, it was most certainly crafted by the monks working in the major landholding institutions in Nara 奈良, Heian-kyō 平安京 (present day Kyoto), and Hieizan 比叡山.

The neglect of Nara based institutions and thinkers has improved significantly. For example, James Ford’s investigation into the life and thought of Jōkei 貞慶 (1155–1213) reveals that elite monks participated in what we might think of as “eclectic” devotion to a variety of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, his study reveals the importance of Pure Land thought and practice and the mastery of Esoteric rituals as basic features of ritual life that functioned in close proximity to other areas of concern: Yogācāra 法相 (C. Faxiang, J. Hossō),

Madhyamaka 三論 (C. Sanlun, J. Sanron), Avataṃsaka studies 華嚴 (C. Huayan, J. Kegon), and so on. Similarly, dissertations by Mikael Bauer and David Quinter have further refined our understanding of how elite Nara institutions and revival movements influenced the Kamakura period.1223 Mark Unno and George Tanabe’s work on Myōe 明惠 (1173–1232)1224 has revealed the close relationship between the study of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and “Esoteric Pure Land” ritual. As well, John Rosenfield’s recent work on Chōgen 重源 (1121-1206),1225 and Mark Blum’s work on Gyōnen 凝然 (1240-1321),1226 reveal the heterogeneity of Nara Buddhist culture and the importance of Pure Land therein. Janet Goodwin’s work on patronage networks has demonstrated the close relationship between the major institutions and the diverse economic and religious worlds of the early medieval period.1227 Other scholarship by Grapard, Meeks,

in Medieval Japan,” The Eastern Buddhist 39.1 (2008): 11-28; “Exploring the Esoteric in Nara Buddhism,” EBTEA, 776-793. 1223 David Quinter, “The Shingon Ritsu School and the Mañjuśrī cult in the Kamakura Period: From Eison to Monkan” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 2006); Mikael Bauer, “The Power of Ritual: An Integrated History of Medieval Kōfukuji” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2011). 1224 Hayao Kawai, and Mark Unno, The Buddhist Priest Myōe: A Life of Dreams (Venice: Lapis Press, 1992); George J. Tanabe, Myōe the Dreamkeeper: Fantasy and Knowledge in Early Kamakura Buddhism (Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1992); Unno, Mark “As Appropriate: Myōe Kōben and the Problem of the Vinaya In Early Kamakura Buddhism,” (PhD, diss., Stanford University, 1994), and Shingon Refractions: Myōe and the Mantra of Light (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2004). 1225 John M. Rosenfield, Portraits of Chōgen: The Transformation of Buddhist Art In Early Medieval Japan (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 1226 Gyōnen, and Gishin, The Essentials of the Vinaya Tradition (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995); Gyōnen, and Saichō, The Essentials of the Eight Traditions (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1994); Mark L. Blum, The Origins and Development of Pure Land Buddhism: A

Study and Translation of Gyōnen's Jōdo Hōmon Genrushō (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 1227 Janet Goodwin, Alms and Vagabonds: Buddhist Temples and Popular Pilgrimage in Medieval Japan (Honolulu; University of Hawai’I Press, 1994). Adolphson, etc., has further revealed the institutional vitality and devotional diversity of this period. There has also been much work on the institutional basis for Buddhism at this time, revealing that instead of a decadent tradition in decline, the “Old School” institutions against which the “New School” Kamakura reformers were reacting, in fact, remained active and quite vital. However, in response to this emerging consensus, scholars such as Ford, Stone, and Quinter have noted that the shift away from individuals to institutions, as part of the shift from “New” to “Old,” has left unchallenged the assertion that “Old” schools are reducible to elitist institution, and that they were in fact out of touch with ordinary people. Moreover, Quinter also notes the dangers posed by simply studying the “Old School” institutions, which may ultimately allow the sectarian framework for the study of premodern Japanese religion to remain unchallenged.1229

…whether from Marxist orientations, postmodern methodologies, Protestant influences, or a distinctively American emphasis on pioneers and individualism—the ‘new,’ reform,’ ‘heterodox,’ and ‘anti-establishment’ classifications of Buddhist schools continue to lend themselves to positive valuations and their counterparts to negative valuations.

Quinter notes as well that this “Old School” institution-centric perspective introduces new problems of its own, and this emerging consensus in some sense allows the Old/New divide to stand unchallenged. Quinter’s examination of Eison 叡尊 (1201-1290) and his Shingon-risshū lineage 眞言律宗 (including Nishō Ryōkan 忍性良觀 (1217-1303), Shinkū 信空 (1229-1316), and Monkan 文觀 (1278-1357) demonstrates that the emerging academic consensus will continue to require adjustment as new information is brought to light. Quinter further undermines the Old/New dichotomy, for example, by examining an “old” school that is also a “new” school, and actively involved in social welfare and popular preaching. Having benefitted greatly from Quinter’s summaries of existing scholarship, and groundbreaking work opening up new areas of inquiry, this project on Dōhan seeks as well to employ an “Old School” thinker who is teaching on a “New School” practice, to move beyond and further undermine the supposed Old/New divide. Moreover, this examination of Dōhan’s thought endeavors to present him as a non-essentialized agent in a complex heterogeneous environment, and not merely as a member of a faceless “Old School” institution, nor simply as a charismatic genius standing apart from his intellectual or institutional context.

Furthermore, while the call for more attention to “Old School” institutions has shifted scholarly attention in important directions, Tanabe notes that both Kōyasan and medieval Esoteric Buddhism have been unfairly neglected. Kōyasan was a vibrant outpost where elites and commoners alike, monastics, non-monastics, and “semi-monastics,” as well, gathered to pursue Buddhist practice. Despite the dearth of scholarship in English or Japanese, during the early medieval period, Kōyasan continued to gain adherents and land. Kōyasan of the early-medieval period was not simply an “Old School” institution, but was in fact continuing to build upon the successes of the 11th and 12th century revitalization movements, and may in some sense even be considered a “New School” unto itself.

Moreover, as discussed in the previous chapter, Kōyasan administrators executed a dynamic response to the emergence of dual-rule. Records from this time reveal that monks were dispatched on a regular basis to perform rituals in both the Heian-kyō and Kamakura capitals. Tanabe also notes that regardless of social or economic position, “Esoteric” Buddhist ritual performance was well attended by people from various social stations, and as Abe has shown, by the medieval period, mikkyō had emerged as the dominant mode for the transmission of knowledge in Japan. This institutional and intellectual vitality extended beyond the realm of elite ritual specialists, and included a vibrant spiritual economy. In this way, the study of Dōhan may help shed light on these neglected and potent areas of study.

This chapter is divided into two parts. Part I examines current debates in the field of early-medieval Japanese religious studies. However, rather than simply rehearsing the now common Pre-/Post-Kuroda narrative that has become so common, this section will emphasize key issues that have emerged in recent scholarship that have inspired the formation of this particular project. In this way, I hope to acknowledge my debt to previous scholarship as well as show how this project has been specifically tailored to respond to issues in the field. Part I outlines a two-pronged approach to Dōhan as a “Kamakura” thinker: First, by focusing on specific sites and networks, rather than simply on institutional machinations, scholars may achieve a more dynamic engagement with the flow of ideas and practices over time. Second, rather than simply focusing on a single individual as an isolated entity, this study of Dōhan will employ his thought as a starting point for thinking about broader trends in the Kamakura period. This study of Dōhan and Kamakura Buddhism seeks to follow Brian Ruppert and James Dobbins by focusing on place, practice, and discourses of legitimation, thus moving beyond both the deterministic study of faceless institutions and essentialist study of charismatic individuals. Next, this section considers the relationship between the hongaku and kenmitsu doctrinal and ritual context of the early-medieval world, thus establishing a framework by which to place Dōhan and other Kōyasan and Shingon thinkers in dialogue with those thinkers commonly assumed to represent “Kamakura Buddhism.” Building upon Stone’s argument for a “shared paradigm” (See: Chapter III, Part III) for medieval religion, this section will consider in particular the importance of “Esoteric” thought and practice as a feature of the medieval Buddhist world.

Part II will examine Dōhan’s major works, and focus in particular upon the social and intellectual context within which his writing functioned. There are several key themes that emerge consistently throughout Dōhan’s corpus: First, Kūkai studies had emerged as an important topic of interest, and certainly by the Kamakura period had emerged as a major site for dialogue, forging ties between Kōyasan, Daigoji, Ninnaji, and other major temple complexes. Second, Dōhan’s mastery of this area of doctrinal and ritual study was very much in demand, and his extant works reveal that he often marshalled his mastery of various fields of knowledge at the behest of numerous elite monks, some with ties to the imperial family. Dōhan did not compose his works in isolation, but often wrote for lectures, debates, and to promote the study and practice of the Shingon path. Third, based on this examination of Dōhan’s thought I will demonstrate that Dōhan’s works reveal that early-medieval “Shingon” monks participated deeply in Stone’s “shared paradigm.” In this way, this section will open up new ways to explore Dōhan’s “Esoteric Pure Land” thought that move beyond the purported division between Old and New Schools, Heian and Kamakura Buddhism, and even “Exoteric” and “Esoteric”

as discrete spheres of activity

This chapter is intended as a bridge between the previous chapter and the following chapter. While Chapter IV focused on Dōhan’s historical and ritual context, and Chapter VI will focus in particular upon Dōhan’s Pure Land thought through a close reading and philosophical analysis of various issues present in the Himitsu nenbutsu shō 祕密念佛抄, this chapter, Chapter V, focuses on Dōhan’s broader intellectual context. It is hoped that this chapter will provide the necessary context for establishing why Dōhan’s “Esoteric” Pure Land 密教淨土教 (J. mikkyō jōdokyō) thought was both a unique reaction to his time, but also constructed in dialogue with broader themes from the period.

Chapter V

Part I

“Re-visioning” Early Medieval Religion

It is well known by now that that until the mid-1960s, in Japanese scholarship, “Kamakura Buddhism” was virtually synonymous with the reform movements of the Pure Land, Zen, and Nichiren schools. Earlier scholarship established the European Reformation as a dominant interpretive model for understanding developments in Japanese religion, wherein charismatic founders critiqued the established institutions. Moreover, scholars tended to frame the “Old School” vs. “New School” divide in terms of decadent faceless elitist institutions vs. pure individualistic proto-democratic egalitarian reformers. Moreover, Old Buddhism was associated with Chinese and Indian “magic” and “superstition,” whereas the medieval reformation movements were said to be more modern and rational. Scholars who built upon this foundational model included Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎, Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞, and in the United States, Joseph Kitagawa, Alicia and Daigan Matsunaga, and so on. Ford notes that even today, this remains a prevalent and easy way to present Kamakura Buddhism. Building upon scholars who had become dissatisfied with this meta-narrative, from the mid-1970s, Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄 demonstrated that the Kamakura period was largely dominated by those traditions and institutions that had previously been known as the “Old Schools.” Whatever else “Kamakura Buddhism” might have been, it was fundamentally rooted in the so-called Nara and Heian schools. In particular, Kuroda promoted two foundational concepts, the kenmitsu taisei 顯密體制 and the kenmon taisei 權門體制. First, the kenmitsu taisei, or “exo-esoteric system,” was said to be the doctrinal and ritual foundation upon which temple complexes at the elite level of society forged relationships and competed with one another. The kenmon taisei, or “gates of power,” were constituted by three power-blocs, the temples, warriors, and courtiers. The kenmitsu and kenmon systems were mutually influential and depended upon one another for legitimation, as Buddhist and secular law grew mutually dependent, ōbō buppō sōi 王法佛法相依. Kuroda Toshio reframed the Old/New dichotomy in terms of orthodox kenmitsu-kenmon Buddhism vs. marginal heterodox 異端派 (J. itanha) traditions.1240

Beginning in the 1980s, and reaching something of a crescendo in the mid-to-late-1990s, Anglophone scholars of East Asian Buddhism began producing a number of articles, monographs, journal volumes, and edited volumes that endeavored not only to bring Anglophone scholarship up to date with recent developments and debates within Japanese scholarship, but also ultimately established Kuroda’s kenmitsu taisei as a new foundational paradigm in the field of premodern Japanese religious studies. Almost twenty years later, James Ford notes that today there are two basic approaches to the study of Kamakura Buddhism: First, the “foundercentered” approach which implicitly or explicitly draws upon the pre-Kuroda sectarian reformer model, and second, the Kuroda-centered socio-historical approach.

While still acknowledging that there remains considerable utility in Kuroda’s theory, various Anglophone and Japanese scholars have leveled critiques or amendments. For example, Abe offers three critiques of Kuroda: First, Kuroda did not critically evaluate the categories “Exoteric” or “Esoteric,” and seems to have regarded them as inherent objective categories. I would also argue that most scholars who have critiqued Kuroda on this issue have not gone far enough in their own reevaluation of these categories. This issue will be explored in greater detail below. Second, while Kuroda focuses on mikkyō, he simply seems to have regarded hongaku as a kind of Tendai 天台 mikkyō discourse. Certainly, we may regard hongaku thought as a development within an “esotericized” Tendai environment, however, as Sueki, Abe, and Stone point out, hongaku is not simply reducible to mikkyō. Third, Abe notes that mikkyō was especially important in the Nara schools, and while Tendai reform resulted in the “new schools,” mikkyō based reform movements were expressed through/as the Nara schools.

Stone, followed by Ford and Quinter, have also summarized recent responses to Kuroda. Taira Masayuki 平雅行 has noted that the kenmitsu “system” was not an institutionally unified force, and should therefore not be regarded as somehow representative of the third leg of a kenmon taisei tri-pod power bloc. Rather, as Kuroda would likely agree, the kenmitsu system worked in the service of established power, and was not distinct from it. Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士 in particular has emphasizes hongaku as a Buddhist discourse distinct from mikkyō. Sueki critiques Kuroda’s use of the term mikkyō, suggesting that his use was overly vague, and that by implication, Kuroda was reducing kenmitsu to mikkyō as such. Quinter notes that Sasaki Kaoru 佐々木馨 proposes distinctions between establishment Buddhism 體制佛教 (J. taisei Bukkyo), anti-establishment Buddhism 反體制佛教 (J. han-taisei Bukkyō), and transestablishment Buddhism 超體制佛教 (J. chō-taisei Bukkyō). Quinter suggests that we might look to monks like Saigyō 西行 (1118-1190), Chōgen, and Ippen as representatives of chō-taisei Bukkyō. Matsuo Kenji 松尾剛次, in a similar vein, establishes a dichotomy between reclusive monks 遁世僧 (J. tonseisō) and official monks 管僧 (J. kansō), using this division as a new way to analyze developments throughout Japanese Buddhist history. An especially interesting effort toward nuancing the kenmitsu dichotomy has been offered by Ōtsuka Norihiro 大塚紀弘, who suggests that it would be more appropriate to view the Kamakura period as a Zen-Kyō-Ritsu 禪教律 (Meditation, Teaching, Precepts) system instead.

Despite these many developments, Ford has suggested, like Stone and Quinter, that many later interpreters have often over-emphasized institutionalism to the expense of other dimensions of the medieval world. Furthermore, many Marxist historians have cultivated an especially “antireligion” bias far beyond Kuroda’s general critique of religion as working in service of power. Meanwhile, others may be simply appropriating certain features of Kuroda’s argument while reverting back to an “Old vs. New” dichotomy. Ford suggests that Taira and Matsuo are particularly guilty of this.

Having carefully considered the critiques of Kuroda, I have yet to find an objection that identifies a fatal flaw in his theory, and so I continue to draw upon Kuroda, making clarifications and adjustments as the particular context I am studying requires. For example, Kuroda argued that rather than viewing Pure Land Buddhism as a reaction against Esoteric Buddhism, scholars should regard “Esoteric Pure Land” Buddhism as a fundamental feature of mid- to late-Heian religion. Drawing upon Kuroda’s views on these developments, and Ruppert and Ford’s suggestion that Kamakura developments should be understood as an extension of developments emerging in the mid-Heian period, when scholars consider the pervasive Esoteric spell culture within which early-medieval nenbutsu practices developed, the Esoteric nenbutsu thought of Dōhan and those like him should be understood not simply as an “Esoteric” approach to nenbutsu, but as kenmitsu nenbutsu. In other words, Pure Land oriented practice were common across the medieval kenmitsu culture, and should be viewed in that context, and not as something inherently separate from it.

In order to establish a framework within which to understand “Esoteric Pure Land” in the Kamakura period, features of that environment that have been looked at as if they were disconnected must be looked at together, and other features that have been assumed to follow from one another must be teased apart. Kuroda further suggests that Shin Buddhist (Jōdo Shinshū) dominance of the scholarship on the Kamakura period has divorced Pure Land from Esoteric Buddhism, which was a dominant feature of the environment within which it developed. By connecting nenbutsu with non-esoteric Tendai, Kuroda suggests, Shin historiography has been able to erase mikkyō from Pure Land history. James Dobbins has argued as well that through the close study of the letters of Eshinni, the wife of Shinran, scholars are better able to appreciate the place of the early Pure Land Buddhist traditions within the broader kenmitsu culture. Ultimately, by looking beyond the Old/New divide, we may be able to perceive a broader conversation within which “Esoteric Pure Land” is not the exception, but perhaps in some cases, the rule.

Stone and Ford suggest that one way to move beyond assumptions about Old/New Schools, is to look toward features shared in common across traditions in the Kamakura period. Stone has identified several characteristics arising from hongaku doctrinal discourse that may be viewed as a “shared paradigm” for early-medieval religion. As this shared paradigm was examined in some detail in Chapter III, Part III, of this dissertation, I will briefly summarize the key points for the reader’s convenience: First, the relationship between practice and awakening was conceived as “nonlinear.” As unenlightened beings and Buddhas were understood to abide in a fundamentally non-dual relationship, the cause and effect relationship assumed between practice and the achievement of awakening is collapsed. Second, it was widely believed that a “single condition,” such as a single moment of faith or the recitation of a mantra, was all that was required to render this inherent potential for awakening a reality. Third, this single condition was understood to be “all-inclusive,” and contain within it the whole of the Buddhist path. Rather than requiring three kalpas of strenuous practice, Buddhahood could be achieved here and now. Finally, within this framework, one’s evil karma was “non-obstructing,” as the inseparability of nirvana and samsara was read in a radical way, the wickedness of beings was no longer seen as an impediment to the attainment of awakening. As will be seen in Part II, Dōhan’s works clearly share all of the characteristics that Stone has identified.

How might we understand kenmitsu ritual and hongaku doctrine within this “shared paradigm?” Scholars should view them as overlapping discursive strategies common across the Kamakura Buddhist world to greater or lesser degrees depending on context. Moreover, given the prevalence of hongaku thought in Dōhan’s work, it appears that the kenmitsu system for Dōhan was a kenmitsu-hongaku system, wherein the dominant traditions of Nara and Hieizan each influenced the broader environment in overlapping but ultimately different ways. In this way I can confirm Ford’s suggestion that Stone’s “shared paradigm” likely extended to Shingon and Nara circles, and was not limited to “Tendai” traditions (Old or New). I would also say that Kōyasan and Dōhan’s thought seem to rest somewhere in the middle of these two worlds, and it is therefore important to consider both in the evaluation of Dōhan’s thought. In other words, Kōyasan thinkers like Dōhan seem to have stood between, and drawn upon Hieizan, Nara, and Heian-kyō spheres of influence.

In order for the conversation to move forward, I would suggest that two things need to happen: First, scholars should actively read Kuroda. One gets the impression that despite the fact that scholars regularly reference Kuroda, he is not read closely. I have found that Kuroda’s scholarship remains quite relevant to contemporary debates in the field, and that in his footnotes he reveals a more sophisticated knowledge of Mahāyāna doctrine than he is usually given credit for. Second, scholars should not hesitate to branch out and draw upon other scholars, some Kuroda’s contemporaries, who also established compelling ways to study the Kamakura period in their own way, without simply reacting to Kuroda. In particular, in addition to the work of Abe, Sueki, Stone, Ford, Ruppert, Payne, and Dobbins, I have been especially intrigued by the work of Tanaka Hisao 田中久夫. Tanaka, like Dobbins, has suggested that in order to move beyond sectarian and Old/New school models, scholars should emphasize place, regionalism, and specific cultic centers.

In addition to the perseverance of the Old/New dichotomy, the still pervasive sectarian rubric in the field prevents scholars from thinking dynamically about the heterogeneous medieval environment. In order to undermine the sectarian bias in the study of medieval religion, we must look to the complex machinations of Tokugawa and Meiji Japan that led to the development of the contemporary sectarian framework. As discussed elsewhere in this dissertation, schools as discrete hierarchical institutions, as they are commonly understood, is a Tokugawa period construct that is not particularly helpful for understanding the highly fluid early-medieval period.

For example, Abe notes that in 1611 the Tokugawa government designated Kōyasan, Ninnaji 仁和寺, Jingoji 神護寺, Tōji 東寺, and Daigoji 醍醐寺 as “Shingon-shū” 眞言宗 head temples, and required certain temples to submit to their authority. As discussed in the previous chapter, this arose as a result of factional strife on the mountain between the elite scholar monks and meditators, as well as the “unorthodox” bands of nenbutsu practitioners in Kōyasan. Following the early Tokugawa edicts, monks were suddenly required to affiliate with a particular organizations, and propagate only the teachings defined by their particular hierarchical sectarian organization. Abe notes that this sectarian discourse was systemic and served as the basis for Meiji era 明治時代 (1868-1912) Buddhist studies as an academic field, often housed in the modern version of Tokugawa-establishment sectarian seminaries.

However, it is easy to overstate this situation, as the Tokugawa period still possessed a diverse and fluid religious culture alongside the new institutional infrastructure. The medieval period should be characterized, like the Heian and Nara periods, as a time of fluid interaction and contestation between cultic centers, temple networks, itinerant preachers, and elite and common devotion and participation, while the Tokugawa period should be understood as establishing a hierarchical systematic pyramidization of institutions, with official affiliations and bureaucracy as an additional layer. On the one hand, this completely altered the way business was done, but at the same time still allowed for a degree of fluidity between the letter of the law and its actual execution.

In any case, Dobbins suggests that rather than think of the medieval period in terms of school or sect, which are largely a Tokugawa and later Meiji construct, we should focus on cultic centers. Grapard and Moerman have made similar points. For example, Dobbins notes that perhaps rather than focus on sectarian entities, scholars would benefit from researching cultic centers such as Chion’in 知恩院 (associated with Jōdo-shū), Honganji 本願寺 (associated with Jōdo Shinshū), Shōjōkōji 淸淨光寺 (associated with Jishū), Eiheiji 永平寺 and Sōjiji 總持寺 (associated with Sōtō-shū), Daitokuji 大德寺 (associated with Rinzai-shū), Minobusan 身延山

(associated with Nichiren-shū). As locations commonly associated with the “New School,” these institutions also maintained complex relationships with the “Old Schools.” In focusing on a particular place, we have the opportunity to examine the complex relationships between temples as sites for the flow of ideas and practices. Furthermore, cultic centers had varying degrees of power and influence depending on such concrete things as landholding and political support, where the priests took tonsure, to whom they paid taxes (or who paid taxes to them), who were their important patrons, etc.. For example, Dobbins notes that as Shinshū emerged as an active movement, it continued to have a complex relationship with Tendai institutions, “throughout most of the medieval period the Honganji of the Shinshū was linked to the Shōren’in, one of the monzeki temples of Mt. Hiei”1260 Shōren’in 靑蓮院 was the landlord stepping in on Honganji’s behalf in legal disputes, and the place where many Shinshū priests received tonsure, while others took tonsure in Nara temples. In this way the Shin “New School” was concretely tied to the “Old School” in important way that fundamentally undermine our ability to separate them out as inherently distinct. However, Dobbins notes that emphasis on the local may lead to deterministic institutional social histories that neglect to include the more abstract dimensions, such as charismatic ritual professionals, popular lore, word of mouth, compelling doctrine, auspicious relic or other object, popularity of pilgrimages and other practice, and stories concerning the efficacy of engaging deeply with the story of a community ancestor or founder. As the study of Dōhan will illustrate, the association between Kōyasan, Kūkai, and mikkyō ritual abided in a fluid relationship, and Dōhan’s “Shingon” identity articulated in specific localized terms. In this way, as noted earlier in this dissertation, rather than describe Dōhan as a “Shingon monk,” I have come to view Dōhan as a “Kōyasan scholar-monk,” setting aside the more common designation because of its potentially anachronistic connotations.

Tanaka Hisao’s approach is to the Kamakura period has received, as far as I can tell, very little attention from Anglophone scholars, and I think that some of his strategies for nuancing the

Kamakura period are highly instructive. In his 1980 publication, Kamakura Bukkyō 鎌倉仏教, Tanaka sought to fundamentally undermine the sectarian rubric for the study of Kamakura Buddhism, and his method for doing so employed an interesting and innovative strategy. First, he changes the names of the objects of study so as to seemingly destabilize the reader’s expectations. For example, rather than referring to the “Tendai School” 天台宗, an abstract, monolithic, and sectarian designation, he refers to Hokurei 北嶺, meaning “the Northern Peak.” Here he refers to the location where, various distinct lineages of scholar-monks studied, among many other things, the works of the Tendai tradition (itself a place name referring to the Tiantai mountain range in China). Instead of the “Nara Schools,” he refers to Nanto 都, the “Southern Capital.” Instead of Kōyasan,

he refers to Nanzan 山, the “Southern Mountain.” In this way, place takes precedent over doctrine as a way of demonstrating that each location actually contained a diverse range of traditions and areas of study and practice. Furthermore, when he discusses doctrine and practices, he again performs something of a “bait and switch.” For example, in his chapter on Shingon mikkyō, he discusses Zen, the Southern Capital, and Pure Land, and so on. In other words, by first using a term associated with a particular sectarian division, and then reinscribing or redefining the object of study, he encourages the reader to focus on these locations and labels as sites for the flow of ideas and practices. The “Northern Peak,” “Southern Capital,” and “Southern Mountain,” saw the whole range of Buddhist practices, and are not reducible to Tendai, Shingon, or Sanron or Hossō sectarian or doctrinal identities. Similarly, “Zen” is not reducible to the biography of Dōgen or Eisai, but rather, the monks who contributed to the vitality of Zen in the early medieval period came from a variety of backgrounds, and brought their extensive kengaku and kenmitsu educational experiences to bear in their participation in the construction of what we look back upon and label “Zen.” In the sections that follow, I will endeavor to employ similar strategies to nuance what we might mean by Zen, or Pure Land, or Shingon in the Kamakura period. By looking at something familiar in a new way, we might be able to productively engage with the aspects of our object of study that are unfamiliar to us. In other words, studying something new in the same old way, ultimately produces nothing new, whereas studying something more familiar in a new way, may end up producing results that could not have been anticipated.

Unifying Paradigms: Hongaku and Mikkyō

Dōhan has typically been examined within the confines of contemporary Shingon School sectarian orthodoxy and historiography. The regimentation of belief and practice that we see in the contemporary articulation of sectarian identity today, simply had not yet occurred in Dōhan’s time. Therefore, there is considerable utility in reconsidering the textual horizons of Dōhan’s thought, and rather than simply comparing his thought to other approved “Shingon” thinkers of his time, it would be heuristically useful to examine his thought in relation to his more famous and prominent (unorthodox and orthodox) contemporaries. In order to accomplish this goal, first I will here examine scholarship on hongaku and mikkyō doctrinal and ritual discourse as overlapping features of the early medieval world shared in common across institutions and lineages (“Old,” “New,” and so on). Issues to be examined in this section will draw upon the framework established in Chapter III. First, mikkyō should not be regarded as a “kind” of Buddhism separate from a kengyō 顯教 “kind” of Buddhism, but rather, kenmitsu should be regarded as a dialogic (and perhaps dialectical) paradigm and common ritual language that is not simply reducible to the Shingon or Tendai Schools. Second, hongaku kuden thought and literature exerted influence far beyond the Tendai School, and as Stone has noted, served as a shared paradigm across the socalled Old School/New School divide. In this section I will emphasize as well the fact that many of Stone’s observations about the Tendai and Pure Land traditions, for example, could easily apply to Dōhan. While many of Dōhan’s extant works may be focused upon Kūkai’s interpretation of mikkyō, many important kuden are attributed to Dōhan, and though Dōhan regarded scholars of Zhiyi’s Tendai doctrine as doctrinal “literalists” (kengyō), his Buddhist identity clearly developed in relation to the dominant Tendai tradition. Furthermore, in addition to hongaku thought derived from the Tendai tradition, Dōhan appears to have been one of the medieval thinkers to promote Kūkai’s non-dual hongaku thought. This will be examined in Part II in more detail. Therefore, Dōhan’s thought appears to be a microcosm of the broader Kamakura world, and like Kōyasan itself, encompasses Lotus, Zen, Pure Land, and Esoteric perspectives as part of a broader cultural context.

Hongaku as Shared Paradigm

It is often noted that the “Kamakura reformers” studied in the Tendai tradition of Hieizan. As a result, there has been an ongoing inquiry into what exactly about the Tendai tradition inspired or compelled these reformers into action. Stone identifies three common theories on the relationship between Tendai hongaku thought and the New Kamakura Buddhist schools. According to the first theory, the “Tendai as matrix” theory, the Kamakura reformers took the hongaku worldview for granted. However, Stone notes that some Meiji era scholars regarded the hermeneutical fluidity of the Tendai kanjin and kuden style of reading (which may be said to favor more “mystically” inclined revelations rather than linear argumentation) as proof of a profound and pervasive academic laziness and decline. As a result, many scholars influenced by modernist linear logic, have come to dismiss early-medieval texts as unsystematic and uninteresting. This style of writing is pervasive through Dōhan’s works, and could be one factor contributing to his neglect. Theory two may be defined as the “radical break” theory.

According to this theory, the Kamakura reformers developed fundamentally different systems designed to revitalize the Buddhist tradition. However, this theory seems to draw inspiration from the earlymodern movement towards the systematization and editing of texts associated with the doctrine of the founders. This seems to have led to a prioritization of the thought of founders over other factors in their environment. For example, Stone notes that Nichiren-shū and Sōtō-shū scholars have drawn upon the writings of Nichiren and Dōgen, respectively, to demonstrate that they fundamentally rejected hongaku thought. Theory three regards hongaku as a fundamentally anti-Buddhist heresy that not only undermines the impetus for Buddhist practice, but actually serves as an affront to basic human morality. The Kamakura reformers, according to this theory, endeavored to reorient Buddhism to its true roots. Stone also suggests that Kuroda, Taira Masayuki, and Satō Hiroo 佐藤弘夫 fall into this camp to some extent, by arguing that hongaku thought fundamentally supported the oppressive status quo and devalued monastic precepts. Stone regards all three theories as flawed in some sense. For example, she argues that hongaku is not a denial of practice, nor as an uncritical world affirmation and support of status quo. Moreover, she notes that all of these theories presuppose the qualitative superiority of the “New Schools,” and the idea that they were more in touch with the common people.

Another theory about the relationship between hongaku thought and Kamakura Buddhism, which Stone terms the “dialectical emergence” theory, was first promoted by Tamura Yoshirō 田村芳朗, and it appears that this theory (with some reservations) is favored by Stone and some other scholars of early medieval religion. According to this theory, hongaku antecedents are clearly detectable across the East Asian Buddhist world, and the Kamakura reformers developed novel approaches through a “dialectical” engagement with different features of the broader hongaku culture. For example, Hōnen’s thought proposed a dualistic perspective on Buddhism (this world is not the Pure Land), but does not ultimately reject the “non-dual” relationship between the Buddha Amitābha and the practitioner of nenbutsu. After Hōnen, Shinran based his thought in the dualistic perspective of ordinary beings to argue for a fundamentally non-dual reality between the Buddha and bonbu 凡夫 (foolish beings). Shinran’s “non-duality” is in fact grounded not in a conscious critique of hongaku, as such, but rather in his existential conception of human nature as dependent upon an illusory (though not absolutely insurmountable) duality. Dōgen argument for the unity of practice and realization, and Nichiren’s argument that the power of the Lotus may transform this world into a Pure Land (or aid beings to perceive the Pure Land that is this world), clearly drawn upon the hongaku perspective. Ultimately, Tamura regarded Tendai hongaku nonduality as the “thesis,” Hōnen’s radical embrace of duality as the anti-thesis, and Shinran, Dōgen, and Nichiren as the

“synthesis.” It seems that Stone prefers Tamura’s approach, with some reservation, and seeks to improve upon it. For example, Stone argues that the kenmitsu taisei theory may hinder our understanding of the relationship between hongaku and mikkyō and the relationship of the thought of thinkers such as Hōnen and Dōgen to that broader context. In other words, while the kenmitsu taisei ron has helped shift focus to the powerful institutions during the early-Kamakura period, it has inadvertently “contributed to the picture of the two [Old and New Schools] as standing in opposition.”1272

Stone notes that hongaku kuden thought should be understood as one aspect of the context out of which medieval doctrinal innovations evolved. Stone notes that hongaku theorists and the Kamakura founders, “…may be seen as participating in the articulation of an emerging paradigm of Buddhist liberation:” First, the linear progression of the path found in traditional Buddhist thought was collapsed to a single moment (One Moment). This can be seen in the thought of Kōsai 幸西 (1163-1247) and Shinran, disciples of Hōnen who emphasized a single moment of faith; while Dōgen referred to an eternal now wherein cultivation and “result” were collapsed; Nichiren argued that Buddhahood was achieved the moment the Lotus was embraced. Second, the “new paradigm” emphasized that awakening was achieved through a single act (One Practice). Shinran and Hōnen emphasized the nenbutsu, Dōgen zazen 坐禪 (C.

zuochan), Nichiren the daimoku 題目 (meaning “title,” and referring to the title of the Lotus Sūtra: Namu myōhō rengekyō 無妙法蓮華經, also pronounced: Namyōhō rengekyō). Not only was this soteriologically reassuring in a turbulent historical period, but this emphasis could also be viewed as having political significance, as there could be no mediation between the act of awakening, and the attainment of awakening.

Third, the first stage of engagement with the Dharma was taken to be wholly inclusive of the attainment of Buddhahood, to “…encompass the entire path.” Within the hongaku paradigm, the problem of “bad karma” is neutralized. The single-practice/single-condition was promoted as being so effective, that the traditional prerequisite for attainment, namely purity, was relinquished in favor of a theory of immediate (always-already present) salvation.1275 However, this point is often taken to mean that the Kamakura period founders responded to popular dissatisfaction with normative Buddhist practice which, we are told, was out of touch with common people. This could not have been further from the truth, as even (if not especially) the major temples developed their own simple practices, of which the new schools may be seen as an extension.

In addition to hongaku thought, mikkyō practice was another fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the medieval religious world. However, this essential component has been neglected because it has been assumed to be a “kind” of “Heian” Buddhism. As established in Chapter III, mikkyō discourse emerged as a new channel to the continent. The idea that there existed a ritual modality of superior efficacy gave those at the political center license to fund expeditions to the continent in search of this “new” mode. Power brokers on the archipelago did not conceive of “Japan” as an isolated nation, but rather as the eastern side of the Sino-sphere. For them, the water surrounding the islands was a highway, not a barrier. Therefore, we may perhaps understand the construction of mikkyō discourse as an imperative for further interaction with monks on the continent. The goal was to become more culturally proficient, and these Buddhist “rhetorics of immediacy” not only conveyed power in a traditional Buddhist sense, but Buddhism was also a vehicle for cultural advancement and prestige.

This mikkyō culture has been argued by later interpreters to have been fundamentally elitist and out of touch with the needs of commoners. It is often claimed that the New Schools developed out of a perceived need for a Buddhism that could touch the hearts and minds of the Japanese more effectively. It is commonly implied that during the Kamakura period, the “old” Heian schools were on the decline, and that they were too foreign (Chinese), elitist, and out of touch with the lives of the average person.

However, a number of problems with this view have been noted by more recent studies. First, as Tanabe has noted, Kōyasan mikkyō was thriving during the Kamakura period. As Quinter, Ford, and Unno have shown, Nara based traditions employed various strategies in teaching, and mikkyō was a prominent feature of that effort. Similarly, as will be examined below, the so-called “new school” thinkers as well drew upon a variety of technologies that have commonly been associated with mikkyō.

Second, the claim that mikkyō was not applicable or relatable because of its foreignness is simply a modernist ethno-nationalist fantasy that has no bearing upon how the inhabitants of the archipelago would have understood themselves. Abe notes that mikkyō lineages stemming from Kūkai and others, were highly innovative and original contributions to the Buddhist traditions on the archipelago. New schools continued this process of innovation and localization, and the emergence of “Shintō” in the medieval period may be directly tied to the flourishing of mikkyō ritual practice, both within established Buddhist institutions and without. The development of an autonomous Shintō in later ages may well be a testament to the continued growth and popularity of mikkyō discourse and ritual activity among the general populace. Abe notes that the periodization scheme that has led to the misconception that mikkyō belongs to a “kind” of Buddhism known as “Heian Buddhism,” was partly created as a strategy to render Shintō as independent from Buddhism, and the emperor’s spiritual authority as emanating from Shintō, not, as it had since the 7th century, from Buddhism.

Third, in reconsidering the place of mikkyō in the early-medieval period, I find that Kuroda Toshio’s kenmitsu theory has been critiqued in some rather unhelpful ways. I would rather suggest that scholars look to what Kuroda was actually describing, rather than continuing to argue about whether or not he described “it” exhaustively or precisely. I would like to say at the outset that I find Kuroda’s theory highly compelling, as it is based in a close reading of contemporary “secular” and “religious” documents from the medieval period, as well as an attentive awareness on how Mahāyāna Buddhism functioned in East Asia. What I mean by this is that through close readings of texts conveying not only what Buddhists were saying, but what they were actually doing, Kuroda seems to have stumbled upon something that scholars have really only begun to arrive upon in the last ten years or so: the way “Tantric/Vajrayāna/Esoteric Buddhism” has been conceptualized (roots to branches) relies upon a taxonomic and essentialist decontextualized reading of Buddhist practice divorced from political, economic, ritual, and socalled popular cultural contexts.

I would argue that the main problem with Kuroda’s theory (and perhaps this was not his intent) is that it has yet to be fully explained in terms of the broader East Asian or Mahāyāna Buddhist context. Various scholars have focused in on micro-contexts or particular texts to point out exceptions or examples of Kuroda’s theory, but few have taken a step back to attempt to paint a broader picture. For example, kenmitsu Buddhist thought is not uniquely “Japanese.” By all accounts, Japanese thinkers in the early-medieval period likely saw themselves as participating in a broader East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhist culture, wherein the idea of revealed and secret levels of engagement with the Buddhist Law was a sophisticated, and assumed, rhetorical-polemical (and political) strategy for dealing with the inherent diversity of the Mahāyāna literary tradition.

It is possible that the reason scholars have been unable to find an alternative to Kuroda is that Kuroda identified a facet of medieval “Japanese” religion that extends far beyond what we now imagine as constitutive of “Japan.” When scholars regard the kenmitsu system as a fundamentally “Japanese” invention, they are cutting off the potential for dialogue across provisional academic boundaries that may well help us find solutions to problems we have not even identified yet. The reason Kuroda was not “exact” in his definition of the kenmitsu system, nor his definition of mikkyō is that, as has been established by Part I (Chapters I-III) of this dissertation, “mikkyō” is not a coherent concept or term that can be used to designate one thing. Whether reading pre-modern Buddhist scholastic writing, contemporary “secular” scholarship, modernist sectarian scholarship, or colonial era Buddhist studies scholarship, the contours imagined for “Esoteric/Tantric/Vajrayāna” Buddhism have been formulated in a variety of contradictory and incoherent ways. Scholars cannot be exact in their definition because the

“thing” we are looking at is not “a” “thing,” but rather resembles some-“thing” closer to goal posts that shift depending on one’s perspective. Medieval Japanese, and premodern East Asian Buddhists also used terms like exo/esoteric or other terms associated with “Esoteric Buddhism” in a variety of ways, many of which are not mutually intelligible. In all cases, we are witnessing (and to some sense participating in) the refraction of refractions of refractions. There is no “Esoteric Buddhism” apart from “Exoteric Buddhism,” and neither is a marker for a “kind” of Buddhism, but is rather a classical Mahāyāna way of framing polemical engagement: exo/esoteric, Maha-/Hina-, sudden/gradual, self-/other-power, easy/difficult, and so on. Kenmitsu should therefore be treated as a fluid discourse tied to specific power relations and not a “thing” that can be more clearly defined or not.

In other words, as established in Chapters II and III, kenmitsu strategies may be found throughout East Asian Mahāyāna literature. The term “Esoteric Buddhism” is in some sense redundant because Mahāyāna Buddhism is Esoteric. In East Asia, developers of the various panjiao systems employed particular texts to orient all other texts to claim a privileged access to the “big (Maha-) picture” or the “inside (secret) scoop.” Scholars of the Avataṃsaka claimed that their text presented the unadulterated, unedited, vision of reality that Śākyamuni encountered under the Bodhi tree before he “accommodated” the teachings to the needs of his audience. Scholars of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (T. 374) claimed that their text represented the “last word,” as it were, as this text purported to be the Buddha’s final teaching wherein he revealed the essential truth of Buddha-nature. The Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra 妙法蓮華經 (T 262) was used by Buddhists, most notably in the Tiantai mountain region of China, to argue for a unified “One Vehicle” 一乘 (Skt. ekayāna, C. yisheng, J. ichijō), wherein all Buddhist paths ultimately converged on the eons long bodhisattva path to full Buddhahood. Later, the architects of the Chan mythistory, claimed special access to the deepest truth via the mind-tomind transmission passed from teacher to disciple all the way back to Śākyamuni himself, bypassing the scholastic theories just outlined. In this way, even without the introduction of the so-called “Esoteric” tradition, Indo-Sino-Japanese Buddhism was always-already infused with a rhetorical inclination toward the dynamic dialogical construction of orthodoxy and heresy around the idea of special insider access and/or a unified perspective. As will be examined below, the Zen and Pure Land “new school” drew upon both the Esoteric Mahayana perspective outlined above, as well as the ritual traditions more commonly associated with mikkyō, as such.

The Pure Land Schools

The Pure Land schools, often referred to as Pure Land Buddhism, look to the charismatic Hieizan monk Hōnen as founder. While Stone has noted features of Hōnen and Shinran’s thought that may be read in dialogue with the hongaku culture, by looking to Hōnen and his disciples, we may also see how mikkyō discourse also fit into the early Jōdo-shū (which should not necessarily be regarded as fundamentally separate from Tendai administratively or culturally.) As noted in Chapter I, Part II, of this dissertation, it is useful to differentiate between “Pure Land Buddhism,” as such, and Pure Land as a ubiquitous feature of Mahāyāna cosmology and soteriology. Far too often, Pure Land Buddhist sectarian orthodoxy has subsumed the latter within this former, but here, a conscious effort has been made to emphasize the place of Pure Land thought and ritual in the kenmitsu Buddhist culture of early-medieval Japan and East Asia. According to traditional historiography, the Pure Land schools endeavored to give solace to the downtrodden masses by preaching an essentially egalitarian Buddhism open to women as well as men, unlike the male dominated abstruse “Esoteric” schools based in and around Nara and Heian. Traditionally, scholars have emphasized Hōnen’s rejection of all forms of practice other than the nenbutsu, but as noted above, Hōnen may also be productively studied within the hongaku kuden and kenmitsu culture of his time. To some extent, it might be appropriate to imagine Hōnen’s early community as a self-selected group of monastics for whom, among the many possible vocations across the kenmitsu- Tendai curriculum, the Pure Land path seemed most efficacious.

In the Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū 選擇本願念佛集 (T. 2608, hereafter Senchakushū), Hōnen endeavors to both establish precedence for his proposed Pure Land shū, while also arguing for the nenbutsu as not merely a basic form of Buddhist practice, but as the fundamental logic behind Buddhist practice. Therein, Hōnen draws an explicit comparison with the kenmitsu dichotomy of Kūkai. In a sense, for Hōnen, it would seem, the Pure Land path is the “mikkyō,” or secret and essential teaching of the Buddha. Furthermore, in the Kurodani Shōnin gotōroku 黒谷上人語燈録 (T. 2611), Hōnen notes the dichotomy between jun 純 and zō 雜 in the mandalic traditions of medieval Hieizan, and suggests that Shandao’s 善導 (613-681) understanding of the Pure Land path may be regarded similarly. Later, Hōnen describes the Pure Land aspiration among Lotus and Mantra scholars, who, through rigorous practice, claim to be able to attain Buddhahood in this very body, but often aspire for rebirth in the Pure Land. In the Shūi Kurodani Shōnin gotōroku 拾遺黒谷上人語燈録 (T. 2612) Hōnen notes that among the exo/esoteric traditions, the high and low born, monastics and non-monastics, the aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha is extremely widespread. As explored in Chapter II, the “easy path” of the Pure Land was often articulated in terms quite similar to the sudden/gradual or exo/esoteric distinctions made by some thinkers.

Hōnen’s disciples as well may be productively examined in relation to their kenmitsu Kamakura context. Shōkū 證空 (1177-1247) is regarded as the founder of the Seizan-ha 西山派 branch of Jōdoshū. The Seizan-ha is often anecdotally regarded as perhaps the closest in outlook to its parent Tendai tradition, and emphasizes mikkyō ritual and doctrine as part of its basic practice. Benchō 辯長 (1162-1238) is regarded as the founder the Chinzei-ha 鎭西派. This branch of the Jōdoshū emphasized the attainment of rebirth via various practices, shugyō ōjō 諸行往生, including “Esoteric” ritual practice, a concept first promoted by Genshin 源信 (9421017) in his Ōjōyōshū 往生要集 (T. 2682), and examined in detail in Chapters II and III of this dissertation. Chōsai 長西 (1184-1266) who is the patriarch of the Kuhonji lineage 九品寺 promoted the shogyō hongan gi 諸行本願義, the notion that the salvific power of the Buddha Amitābha may be accessed through various practices. According to this theory, the object of the primal vow is not simply the mechanism of the nenbutsu, but the benefits of Amitābha’s vow to liberate all beings may be accessed through a variety of actions. (Dōhan in contrast seems to have emphasized the vocal act as the primary object of the primal vow.)

Kōsai (1163-1247) promoted the idea of once-calling nenbutsu, ichinengi 一念義, the idea that a single sincere utterance of the nenbutsu was sufficient to lead to rebirth. This perspective has notable parallels to the ichimitsu perspective of Kakuban, and later Dōhan. Meanwhile, Ryūkan 隆寛 (1148-1228) who founded the Chōrakuji lineage 長樂寺 of the Jōdoshū, emphasized the tanengi 多念義 doctrine, a lifestyle centered on the continual recitation of the nenbutsu. According to this model, the nenbutsu takes on the form of a constant practice that, perhaps as Hōnen intended, eventually becomes the basis for all Buddhist practice. This notion draws upon the Tendai fudan nenbutsu 不斷念佛, or ceaseless nenbutsu, practice that had by this time spread to all mountain monastic centers (See Chapter III, Part III). Genchi 源智 (1183-1239) is remembered as the reviver of the Chion-in in 1234, which had been burned down by hostile Hieizan monks in 1227. As discussed in the previous chapter, Ryūkan and Genchi were important partners in dialogue with the “Esoteric” thinker Jōhen 静遍 (1166-1224), who was possibly one of Dōhan’s main teachers.

Though likely marginal at the time, Hōnen’s most famous disciple has come to be Shinran who is regarded as the founder of Jōdoshinshū. It appears that Shinran emphasized the Other Power aspect of nenbutsu recitation, arguing that the event of the recitation of the nenbutsu was not strictly a willed act, as such, but rather, the activity of the Buddha Amitābha within/through/as sentient beings mind of awakening. As will be examined in the following chapter, this idea bears some similarities to Dōhan’s interpretation of the himitsu nenbutsu 祕密念佛, a concept which itself appears to traverse the Tendai-Shingon divide. Moreover, the idea that a mantra or the nenbutsu (between which Shinran appears to have distinguished) functions because of an “other power” draws upon the notion that these powerful words are the words of the Buddha, and not the words of ordinary beings. As was examined in Chapter II, this has a long precedent throughout East Asian history. As examined in the previous chapter, Hōnen’s less well known disciples such as Myōhen 明遍 (1142-1224) and Rensei/Kumagai no Naozane 熊谷直實 (1141-1207), and Ippen’s Jishū all have important and interesting connections to the Kōyasan Shingon mikkyō tradition.

The Zen Schools

During the 12-13th centuries, missions to China grew in number, and Song-style Chan/Zen emerged as a major force in Japanese Buddhism led by Eisai and Dōgen, regarded as the founders of Rinzai and Sōtō Zen, respectively. This newly imported and reformulated Zen doctrine, we are told, purported to perfect the path of direct pointing to the mind of the Buddha via the arts and meditation, bypassing the decadent ritualism and scholasticism of the “Old” schools. Zen Buddhism is likely one of the most widely studied and researched dimensions of the East Asian Mahāyāna world, and yet, the role of mikkyō in the early establishment of Zen has largely been ignored. In addition to Eisai and Dōgen, other important medieval Japanese Zen masters may be shown to have drawn upon the pervasive mikkyō culture of their time, such as Enni Ben'en 圓爾辯圓 (1202–1280), and Mujū Ichien 無守一圓 (1226-1312), as well as Shinchi Kakushin 心地覺心 (1207-1298), and Keizan Jōkin 瑩山紹瑾 (1264-1325). However, following the popularizing efforts of D. T. Suzuki, and others, a very narrow version of “Zen” has been packaged for consumption by the international modernist audience. This version of Zen is largely devoid of ritual, soteriology, cosmology, or anything else that might not fit in with secular capitalist society. This version of Zen is greatly at odds with the religion as lived by premodern and contemporary Buddhists. It is to this “other side” of Zen that demonstrates the prevalent role of mikkyō in the early transmission of Japanese Zen, and the largely unknown connection Dōhan had to this growing movement. There is considerable debate amongst sectarian and non-sectarian scholars alike regarding the relationship between Zen and Esoteric Buddhism during the early reception of Song-style Chinese Chan lineages in early Kamakura Japan. As William Bodiford has noted, some scholars have distinguished between pure and mixed Zen (junsui zen vs. kenshu zen 兼修禪, or mikkyō zen 密教禪), but contends that these are modern analytical categories. Zen and Shingon priests often interacted with one another and borrowed from one another. Bodiford notes as well that in the medieval period they would often criticize each other for lack of rigor or breadth of knowledge or lack of efficacy in their opponent’s dhāraṇī practices. It appears, then, that while there was a clearly some sense of opposition, the importance of dhāraṇī ritual proficiency was a major shared area of concern.

Bodiford notes that if rituals for this-worldly benefits are a defining feature of Esoteric Buddhism, then Zen “has become one type of esoteric Buddhism.” In addition to talismans and charms, some Zen temples also perform homa rituals and hungry ghost feeding rituals (which culminate in deliverance to the Pure Land) that are nearly identical to those in Tendai or Shingon temples, and early Japanese Zen practitioners often boasted greater ritual thaumaturgical prowess than their contemporary ritual competitors.

Zen transmission rituals in Japan borrowed heavily from the broader Esoteric culture of secret transmission and a certain “shared body of esoteric lore,” such as the Kōmyō Shingon 光明眞言, which both Dōhan and Myōe promoted as well, among many others. Bodiford suggests that the prominence of “developed” Esoteric Buddhist elements in Zen could lead one to consider it an Esoteric rival to Japanese Esotericism, or as a participant in a larger Esoteric Mahāyāna tradition. As noted in Chapter II, Orzech has made a similar argument about the development of post-Tang Chan Rinzai as well.

Eisai as Mikkyō Ritual Master

In Chapter III, I noted that Lucia Dolce has argued for the reexamination of Taimitsu 台密 (Tendai mikkyō) masters who have largely only been studied for their “exoteric” works. Building upon Dolce, Mano suggests, for example, that it does a great disservice to merely regard Eisai as only the founder of Rinzai Zen. This received image appears to have been created after the fact to serve specific institutional interests that were at odds with Esoteric Buddhism, as such. In Eisai’s numerous writings on unambiguously “Esoteric” topics (mandalas, the Mantra Gate 眞言門 (J. shingonmon), secret lineage 祕宗 (J. hishū), Vajrśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (T. 374),1294 and the visualization of mystical Sanskrit seed syllables 種子 (S. bīja, C. zhongzi, J. shūji) in one’s body, etc.) he draws extensively upon Annen 安然 (841-889?), the great

“Taimitsu” Esoteric theorist. Following his example in some sense, later Rinzai thinkers as well drew upon mikkyō ritual technology. Eisai’s Zen lineage and mikkyō lineages appear as well to have overlapped considerably, as can be seen from the careers of Ben’en Enni, Mujū Ichien, and Gyōyū 行勇 (1163-1241) and Kakushin. As discussed in the previous chapter, both Gyōyū and Kakushin trained under Dōhan on Kōyasan.

While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to provide a full account for the “Esoteric” nature of all Kamakura traditions. Other scholars have noted, for example, the importance of Esoteric culture in the works of Nichiren, and in the previous chapter, I noted the importance of Kōyasan Esoteric practice and the cult of Kūkai in the early environment of Ippen’s Jishū, and as noted above, other scholars have noted as well the importance of mikkyō in the works of major Nara thinkers of this period, including Chōgen, Jōkei, Myōe, and others. With this in mind, the following section will outline Dōhan’s major extant works, noting not only the basic features of his scholarship, but demonstrating that he as well fits many of the basic features commonly said to define “Kamakura Buddhism.”

Chapter V

Part II

Dōhan’s Major Works

Just as the previous chapter established an historical and biographical context within which we might understand Dōhan’s contributions to medieval Japanese Buddhism, this section is intended to paint the contours of Dōhan’s thought, his academic agenda, whereby scholars might better appreciate how Pure Land thought fit within his broader oeuvre, and how his intellectual life fits into the Kamakura milieu. First and foremost, Dōhan was a scholar of Kūkai’s major works. Today, scholars take for granted the idea that Mikkyō = Shingon = Kūkai. However, this is certainly a recent construct. As Chapters III illustrated, Kūkai’s doctrinal writings and Kōyasan were all but forgotten until the 11th century, and throughout the Heian period, the most influential Esoteric ritual and doctrinal specialists were associated with Hieizan. Moreover, rather than founding a new school or sect, Kūkai’s Shingon tradition was largely expressed through the established temples in Nara, Heian-kyō, and Hieizan. Hieizan continued to dominate the scene until the Warring States period 戰國時代 (1467-1603) when Oda Nobunaga 織田信長 (1534-1582) razed the mountain in 1571, ever since regulating Tendai to a significantly reduced stature in the Japanese Buddhist world. Because Kōyasan and other nonTendai Shingon institutions survived this era, they have been able to write the history of mikkyō from a Kūkai centered perspective.

The institutional basis for Shingon Mikkyō was initiated as a trans-sectarian ritual technology within Nara and Hieizan institution and lineages. Chapter III suggested that later, perhaps in response to the rise of Hieizan, monks like Saisen 濟暹 (1025-1115), Kanjo 寬助 (1057-1125), and Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-1143) laid the foundation for “Kūkai studies,” drawing upon a variety of other areas of Buddhist study such as Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, Avataṃsaka studies, Pure Land, and Tendai to establish the legacy of Kūkai as a major center of gravity in mikkyō culture. In other words, mikkyō and Shingon/shingon were not necessarily reducible to Kūkai’s works, as it is often assumed today.

In the 12th century, the Japanese Buddhist landscape was devoid of “sects,” and was rather constituted by a heterogeneous, and at times highly contentious, institutional setting where different lineages employed the performance and mastery of ritual and doctrine across a broad range of fields of Buddhist knowledge. According to Abe, early-medieval Shingon: …was a loose affiliation of monasteries, in which Shingon was one of several disciplines practiced. The Shingon Schools at these monasteries were connected through diverse master-disciple lineages, some based on doctrinal studies, others on ritual training, and yet others on the transmission of meditative secrets. The resultant primary-branch relationship between monasteries had no hierarchical structure and was fluid, to say the least.

One of the most important things that Abe points out in the above quote is that “Shingon” was at this time articulated through particular places in a particular educational and ritual context. Abe ultimately suggests that this diversity has been obscured by the standard sectarian narrative that focusses on drawing a straight line from the great founder to the contemporary institution, thus, masking the “sect’s recent origin.”1299 Therefore, while we might recognize Daigoji, Tōji, Ninnaji, and Kōyasan as major “Shingon” institutions, their mutual participation in the construction of the legacy and legend of Kūkai must be understood in relation to the other Nara,

Kyōto, and Hieizan based “Shingon” lineages with which they were connected. The teachings of Kūkai, who was known by Dōhan’s time as Kōbō Daishi, featured prominently in Dōhan’s mikkyō. For example, Dōhan composed an important Kamakura period devotional commentary on the Kōbō Daishi ryaku joshō 弘法大師略頌鈔,1300 an 18 verse poetic retelling of the major events in Kūkai’s life by Enmyō’s 圓明 (d. 851) (one of Kūkai’s ten major disciples). Beginning with Saisen of Ninnaji, a Kūkai centric vision of mikkyō began to emerge among lineages historically connected with Kūkai’s career, especially in Heian-kyō and Nara. As argued in the previous chapter, this was one significant contributing factor in the resurrection of Kōyasan as a major cultic site. As will become clear, from Saisen, Kakuban, and Dōhan’s careers, Ninnaji in particular figured prominently in this Kūkai centered Shingon movement, a fascinating issue that deserves more attention. Except for the career of Kakuban, who is now regarded as having reunited the doctrinal and ritual paths Kūkai established, very little attention has been paid to the period between the 9th and 14th century development of Shingon, and it seems that the nuances of what exactly “Shingon” entailed, and how “it” was constructed (or not) in relation to Kūkai during his time has thus far eluded critical inquiry. This is likely a result of

1299 Abe, Weaving of Mantra, 413. 1300 1 fasc. (1234), Available editions include: printed editions produced from 1658 (Manji 万治 1); See also: Hase Hōshū 長谷宝秀, ed., Kōbō Daishiden zenshū 弘法大師伝全集 vols. 10, (Tokyo: Pitaka, 1977), Vol. 3; Kōbō Daishi ryakujo 弘法大師略頌 (治田七兵衛, 1658); Kōbō Daishi ryaku joshō 弘法大師略頌鈔 (Tokyo: Kōyasan shucchō sho 高野山出張所, 1882); and online: http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/819290 ; See also: Kōdenryaku 弘伝略頌鈔, BKD 2:355d; Kōbō Daishi ryakuju narabini gyōjō ki 弘法大師略頌並行状記, BKD 3:330; NBTD 164.

the “focus on the founders” approach that is still prevalent in the study of Japanese religion. Dōhan’s era has likely received little attention because it is sandwiched between the careers of Kakuban and Raiyu 賴瑜 (1226-1304), both of whom are regarded as “founders” in their own way. Furthermore, Conlan has suggested that Shingon lineages dominated imperial ritual in the 14th century, and I would argue that this is another reason that Dōhan and “Shingon” monks of his time have received little attention. In this way, Dōhan and early-Kamakura Shingon are sandwiched between two major academic “centers of gravity.” The factors that created this lacuna are easy enough to see, but given the entrenched nature of academic fields of inquiry, may not be so easy to fill. Further inquiry into Dōhan’s environment will shed light not only on the machinations that preceded this rise in prominence of Shingon lineages, as well as the bricolage nature of the construction of orthodoxy that would smooth over the fact that Heian-Kamakura “Shingon” is not reducible to the contemporary Shingon School (which even today is a highly diverse entity), but may also allow mikkyō as a major feature of the Japanese Buddhist environment to reenter the conversation on the Kamakura period. One of Dōhan’s most important students and patrons was Dōjo of Ninnaji. Because Dōjo and Dōhan’s relationship was examined in some detail in the previous chapter, I will mention only a few relevant details here briefly. Dōjo was an imperial prince, and as had increasingly become the custom, he was placed in charge of Ninnaji, one of the most powerful temples at the time. Dōjo later retired to Kōyasan where he purportedly experienced the auspicious signs associated with Pure Land rebirth (Chapter IV, Part IV). As identified in Chapters III and IV, Dōhan and Dōjo’s relationship reveals the importance of Ninnaji in the ongoing development of Kōyasan’s relationship with institutions in the capital, the development of Kūkai studies as a major area of concern, and the growing prevalence of dual-devotion to Kūkai and Amitābha.

Here I will focus on Dōjo’s interest in Kūkai studies. Dōjo seems to have employed Dōhan on several occasions to instruct him and/or his students on the finer points of Kūkai’s doctrinal and ritual texts, as well as the texts upon which

Kūkai drew inspiration in the establishment of his vision of Shingon mikkyō. The Jōōshō 貞応抄 (T. 2447), sometimes pronounced Teiōshō, contains Dōhan’s answers to Dōjo’s inquiries about various matters pertaining to Shingon thought. Topics addressed include Buddha-body theory, exo/esoteric views of the five organs 五臟 (C. wuzang, J. gozō), sudden and gradual enlightenment, and the attainment of awakening in this body. In addition to these and other topics, Dōhan examines the nature of Pure Land rebirth quite extensively in this text, which appears to have been written one year after his composition of the Himitsu nenbutsu shō. According to Dōhan, the raigō 來迎 that one experiences at the moment of death, the descent of Amitābha and his retinue from the Pure Land, is none other than the outer manifestation of sokushin jōbutsu. In other words, the mystical event of attaining Buddhahood, though occurring “in this body,” may be perceived and experienced in a variety of ways, including the vision of the Buddha’s descent from the Pure Land. Dōhan draws extensively upon the thought of Jippan/Jitsuhan 實範 (d. 1144), Jōhen, Kakkai/Kakukai 覺海 (1142–1224), and Yūgen 融源 (1120-1218), a monk from Kakuban’s Daidenbō-in 大傳法院.

Another text composed at the request of Dōjo includes the Yugikyō kuketsu 瑜祇経口決, in which Dōhan recorded the teachings of Jikken/Jitsugen 實賢 (1176–1249), his associate from Daigoji, at Hosshōji 法性寺. This text also contains Dōhan’s own teachings as well. This text appears to have been widely used, splintered somewhat, and fragments appear to have circulated independently. This text also contains numerous quotes from Kūkai, Annen, Ennin 圓仁 (794–864), Ninkai 仁海 (951–1046), Jōhen, and others.

In the Dainichi kyōsho joanshō 大日經疏除暗鈔, Dōhan provides a sub-commentary on Yixing’s 一行 (638-727) Darijing shu 大日經疏 (T. 1796), the famous commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經 (T. 848). Dōhan’s sub-commentary was quite influential in later generations and focuses on the first chapter of Yixing’s commentary, and contains a secret explication of the title of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra. Dōhan composed this work based on a lecture he gave at the request of Dōjo on Kōyasan. For this occasion, the Kōyasan kengyō (the top administrator or overseer) Shūzen 宗禅 gathered together a large assembly of students to hear Dōhan’s lectures on the topic. Dōhan was 47 at the time. As in Dōhan’s other works, the teachings of Jōhen and Kakkai feature prominently in this text.

Bodaishinron dangiki 菩提心論談義記 is Dōhan’s commentary on Amoghavajra’s Jingangding yujia zhong fa anouduoluosanmiaosanputi xin lun 金剛頂瑜伽中發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心論 (T. 1665), commonly known in Japan as the Bodaishinron 菩提心論. This text was compiled at the request of Dōjo, and like many of Dōhan’s other works, was composed in a question and answer format. In the context of medieval temple education, senior teachers would engage students in debate to test their knowledge, sometimes assuming an unorthodox view against which the student must do battle. These debates were recorded in a genre known as dangi 談義, and appears to have been one of Dōhan’s preferred styles of composition.

The Rishushaku hidenshō 理趣釈秘伝鈔 is Dōhan’s commentary on the Rishushakukyō (T. 1003), and was composed at the request of Dōjo, shortly before Dōhan passed away. Here, Dōhan emphasizes Jōhen’s notion that ri-chi-ji 理智事 (principle-wisdomphenomena) are fundamentally non-dual, a concept that was extremely influential upon Dōhan’s thought in general. According to this notion, the fundamental nature of reality (ri), the phenomena (ji) we perceive, and the wisdom (chi) necessary to penetrate these two are all three non-dual.

Shakumakaenron ōkyōshō 釋摩訶衍論應教鈔 (T. 2288), was also composed by Dōhan at the request of Dōjo Hōshinnō, and follows a question answer format. Though only one fascicle survives, this work was originally composed of three fascicles. The teachings of Kakkai and Jōhen feature prominently in this sub-commentary on Kūkai’s sub-commentary on the Shimoheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (T. 1668). Kūkai’s sub-commentary, as noted in Chapter III, actually contains the first instance of the term hongaku, and therefore constitutes an important source for hongaku thought even though many scholars of mikkyō are completely unaware of Kūkai’s connection to the Shimoheyanlun. In any case, while Dōhan was certainly influenced by the general hongaku kuden culture of early medieval Japan, he was also influenced by Kūkai’s radical non-dualist (“hongaku”) Mahāyāna thought. Dōhan’s commentary on Kūkai’s text contains an interesting section on the 48 Vows of Amitābha, and reiterates the idea found in the Himitsu nenbutsu shō that the concept of kimyō 歸命 (taking refuge) may be understood as returning (ki) to life (myō). In other words, to take refuge in the Buddha Amitābha, is to return to the source of life.

The Hizōhōyaku mondanshō 秘蔵宝鑰問談鈔 is a compilation of Dōhan’s lectures on Kūkai’s Hizōhōyaku 祕藏寶鑰 (T. 2426), composed at the request of Dōjo Hōshinnō. This text is based on the notes taken by Shōnagon Risshi Bōshin 少納言律師房信, and has been held in high esteem by Shingon scholar-monks ever since.

Kongōchōgyō kaidai kanchū 金剛頂經開題勘註, is Dōhan’s commentary on Kūkai’s Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂經開題 (T. 2221). While many scholars seem to assume that the Mahāvairocana-sūtra was more central to Kūkai’s thought, it appears that Kūkai and the later Shingon tradition have drawn extensively upon the Kongōchōgyō. Like Saisen before him, Dōhan appears to have drawn extensively upon both the Kongōchōgyō and the Dainichikyō.

Dōhan’s Sokushin jōbutsugi kiki gaki 卽身成佛義聞書 is composed of three sections. The first two sections of this text contain Dōhan’s commentary and lecture notes on Kūkai’s Sokushin jōbutsu gi 卽身成佛義 (T. 2428). The third fascicle, however, contains a series of dialogues between Dōhan and several interlocutors. For example, Dōhan’s friend and fellow student under Kakkai, Hōsshō 寶性, responds to Dōhan’s questions. Later, Dōhan responds to the questions of Shinshō 真性, and later Genchō 源朝 responds to questions posed by Dōhan. According to the Nihon Bukkyō tenseki daijiten, this text is especially important for providing insight into the state of early medieval Kūkai studies and Shingon doctrinal thought, as each interlocutor offers their own unique perspective.1312

Dōhan’s Shōji jissōgi shō 聲 實相義抄, contains Dōhan’s commentary on Kūkai’s Shōjijissōgi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429), which contains a presentation of Kūkai’s theory of language itself as possessing inherent power. This text is especially important for understanding Dōhan’s

own theory of language and mantra, and the nenbutsu as a particularly potent vocal-ritual technology. This topic will be examined in greater detail in the following chapter.

Finally, Dōhan’s Nanzan hiku 山秘口, may be viewed in connection to Dōhan’s scholarship on Kūkai, as it presents Kōyasan as the abode of the savior figure Kōbō Daishi Kūkai, and Dōhan’s view that Kōyasan itself is a Pure Land and/or a passage to the Pure Land. This text is important to consider alongside Dōhan’s works on Kūkai because, as a Kōyasan monk, Dōhan’s Kōbō Daishi shinkō 信仰 (often translated as “devotionalism”) was tied not only to doctrinal exegesis, but to the specific place of Kūkai’s tomb as a mystical site unto itself.

Dōhan as Scribe: Jōhen and Kakkai’s Shingon Thought

As noted in the previous chapter, and to be explored further in the following chapter, Dōhan’s most influential teacher was likely Jōhen of Zenrinji, an important early-medieval interpreter of the works of Kūkai as well as a major devotee and commentator on the works of Hōnen. Several of the works attributed to Jōhen come down to us from Dōhan’s compilations. For example, the Benkenmitsu nikyōron shukyō (tekagami) shō 弁顕密二教論手鏡抄 is Dōhan’s record of Jōhen’s lectures at Shōrenge-in 勝蓮華院 on Kūkai’s Benkenmitsu nikyō ron 辯顯密二教論 (T. 2427). The end of the text is composed of a dialogue between Dōhan and Jōhen over 69 points drawn from Kūkai’s work. The Hizōki shō 祕藏記鈔 is Dōhan’s record of Jōhen’s teachings on the Hizōki 祕藏記, a 9th-10th century text attributed to Kūkai, and purportedly containing Kūkai’s record of Huiguo’s teachings and Huiguo’s account of the teachings of Amoghavajra. Jōhen/Dōhan’s summary covers various topics, including the Womb Realm Mandala, the three truths, seed syllable-wheel contemplation (this section has a large number of illustrations concerning the five elements, five Buddhas, and Chinese wuxing, and likely served as a base text for many of the concepts explored in the first fascicle of the Himitsu nenbutsu shō). There also appears to be some discussion of Yogācāra, Mahāvairocana’s relationship to the three mysteries, and the idea that the three Buddha bodies and the vast ocean of Pure Lands may be found within the practitioner’s own body.

Dōhan is also regarded as an important transmitter of the thought of Kakkai, one of his main teachers. The Chō kaishō 聴海抄, is Dōhan’s record of the teachings of Kakkai. This text covers a variety of topics such as mantra practice, the meaning of the character A, the five Buddhas, etc. Most importantly, this text lays out what is known as “non-dualist six elements thought” which, as explained in the previous chapter, was through Dōhan’s Muryōju-in lineage highly influential in the Muromachi period. Though only two fascicles survive, this text may be especially important for understanding how Kūkai’s materialist philosophy (the notion that the physical elements that constitute all of reality are themselves Buddha) contributed to the medieval Shingon-Tendai notion of the Buddhahood of insentient beings.

Finally, the thought of Kakkai and Jōhen appear both explicitly and implicitly in the Himitsu nenbutsu shō 秘密念仏鈔, composed the same year that both of Dōhan’s two most important teachers passed away. As will be explored in the following chapter, in this text Dōhan draws upon Tendai, Shingon, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, and Avataṃsaka thought to provide a synthetic view of the various perspectives on nenbutsu practice, the nature of the Buddha Amitābha and rebirth in the Pure Land (and/or/as the attainment of Buddhahood in this body). For a full description and detailed analysis see Chapter VI of this dissertation. For an annotated translation of the first fascicle, see Part III of this dissertation.

Teaching in Exile

In 1243, as a result of a conflagration between Kongōbuji and Denbō-in factions on Kōyasan, Dōhan was exiled from Kōyasan to Sanuki province. While in residence at Zentsūji, he continued to teach and conduct numerous rituals. Many of the events from his time in exile are recorded in the Nankai rurōki 海流浪記. In addition to the events described in Dōhan’s journal, he also continued to compose scholarly treatises and commentaries while in exile.

For example, the Dainichi kyōsho henmyō shō 大日經疏遍明鈔, was composed by Dōhan following his exile while residing in Zentsūji, at the request of Zenkaku 禅閣 of Hosshōji. It is noted that this text is also a commentary on the initial section of Yixing’s commentary, but was written 22 years after the Jōanshō, and is almost four times longer. This text also features prominently the teachings of both Jōhen and Kakkai.

Many of Dōhan’s works were composed at an elite level, likely for the training of other elite scholar-monks like himself. However, his range of interests and teaching appear to have extended beyond this relatively small audience. The Dōhan shōsoku 道範消息, was composed by Dōhan while still in exile, and in contrast to most of Dōhan’s works, which are written in kanbun, this text is composed in vernacular Japanese. Though clearly addressed to someone who is an experienced meditator, it is written as if it were an introduction, or perhaps an elaboration, on Ajikan meditation.

It is not entirely clear to whom Dōhan addressed this letter. According to the colophon, Dōhan composed his letter in response to the request of someone referred to as Kōyasan Omuroyō Ren’i 高野山御室葉蓮以. While it is not entirely clear who exactly Ren’i is, Van den Broucke notes that Miyasaka points out that the only Kōyasan Omuro still alive during Dōhan’s time in exile was Dōjo. However, I would question this attribution only because Dōhan had for almost thirty years had numerous interactions with Dōjo, and this text reads as if the meditator in question has only recently encountered the Ajikan meditation. According to Dōhan’s explanation, the character A is ultimately all things. Good and evil, the Pure Land and samsara, and even Mahāvairocana are external functions of the character A. A passage describing the relationship between the waves out at sea, and those that arrive at the beach illustrates the originally non-arising mind of dharmas and the Dharma-realm as both cause and condition: Conditioned dharmas are of the Dharma-realm but of themselves are not equal to it, in the same way that the waves at the beach and the waves out at sea are of one substance, but one is not directly the cause or effect of the other.

Dōhan also composed the Gyōhō kanyō shō 行法肝葉(* alternate, 要)鈔 (T. 2502), while in exile. The date of the first fascicle is unknown, but the middle fascicle contains the date 1244 (Kangen 寛元 2), and the third fascicle 1248 (Hōji 宝治 2). The first two fascicles contain Dōhan’s secret oral transmissions and instructions on the key points of ritual practice, mudras, mantras, the adornments of the ritual arena, proper utilization of ritual implements, and so on. The third fascicle includes instructions on the Shingon fire ritual. This text was composed by Dōhan while still living in Sanuki, at the request of a monk named Shōnin Kanyū 上人勧誘 from Yataniji 彌谷寺 in Awaji. It is thought that this work was compiled by later disciples into a single work. Edo period Shingon theorists, including Jōgōn 浄厳 (1639-1702) held this text in high esteem.

Also, while residing in Zentsūji, the place of Kūkai’s birth, Dōhan continued to study the works of Kūkai. His Hannya shingyō hiken kaihō shō 般若心経秘鍵開宝鈔 is a commentary on Kūkai’s Esoteric explication of the Heart Sūtra, Hannya shingyō hiken ryakuchū 般若心經祕鍵略註 (T. 2203B). Dōhan’s commentary was likely composed as part of his lectures during his time in exile in Sanuki. This text also contains a joint presentation of the teachings of Jōhen and Kakkai, discussion of the Jūjūshinron, and the five wisdoms as manifested by Hannya Bosatsu 般若菩薩.

Simple Practice

Stone has noted that one of the defining characteristics of the Kamakura period was a general tendency toward simple practice. Dōhan was certainly a contributor to this general atmosphere. As noted above, he seems to have been quite interested in teaching Shingon practice to those who were not elite monastics. The Shoshin tongaku shō 初心頓覺鈔, for example, is another introduction to Shingon practice written in vernacular Japanese. As the title indicates, “The Compendium on Sudden Enlightenment of the Beginners Mind,” this text also contains some discussion of Zen. In the first fascicle, Dōhan addresses the identity of Mahāvairocana and Amaterasu, Amaterasu and Avalokiteśvara, Kōbō Daishi and Maitreya, Kūkai’s Jūjū shinron 十住心論 (T. 2425), and Amitābha’s Pure Land Sukhāvatī. In the middle fascicle he discusses the Shōryōshū 性霊集, and the Esoteric precepts. In the final fascicle, Dōhan discusses various issues pertinent to the differences between exoteric and esoteric approaches to Buddhism. He also states that the Shingon path is not limited to monks, but is a form of practice especially appropriate for laity as well. Furthermore, just as in the Compendium, he notes that in fact, the five great sins do not preclude one from attaining liberation. There are some who doubt the attribution of this text to Dōhan. In addition to simple practice, the non-obstruction of karma appears to have been another key feature of Kamakura popular preaching.

Another important simple practice text composed by Dōhan is his secret explication of the Mantra of Light, Kōmyō shingon shijū shaku 光明真言四重釈. While the date of composition is unknown, this four-fold exegetical strategy was a hallmark of Dōhan’s thought, and this text could easily have been based on, or perhaps the predecessor, to his exegesis of the nenbutsu in the Compendium. According to the first level, the shallow or abbreviated interpretation, this mantra is said to reveal the manifold virtues of the two Buddhas Amitābha and Mahāvairocana. According to the second level, the deep level, Dōhan provides a reading of each of the 23 letters of the mantra.

Mantra of Light (Kōmyō Shingon, 光明真言)

Oṃ amogha vairocana mahāmudrā maṇipadma jvāla pravarttaya hūṃ 唵阿謨伽尾盧左曩摩訶母捺囉麽抳鉢納麽入嚩攞鉢囉韈哆野吽 On abokya beiroshanō makabodara mani handoma jinbara harabaritaya un

The third level, the secret within the secret interpretation, reveals that this mantra encompasses the mantras of all of the five Buddhas. According to the fourth level, the deeper interpretation of the secret within the secret, it is revealed that this mantra embraces the fundamental basis for the six elements, and accordingly encompasses infinite dharmas, all mantras, etc. This relatively short text is one of the many texts Dōhan wrote for beginners on the mantra path. Dōhan was also involved in the Kamakura Zen movement, another “simple” practice growing in popularity during the Kamakura period. The Kakua mondō shō 覚阿問答鈔, records Dōhan’s ritual and doctrinal instructions to Kakua’s 覚阿 (1143-?), a famous scholar of Zen, and Kakua’s questions. While Dōhan appears at times to have drawn upon Zen concepts, and meditation, he was also somewhat critical of it at times as well. Dōhan seems to have emphasized the “sudden enlightenment” thought of Zen, and as detailed in the previous chapter, had a number of students who went on to be important Kamakura Zen thinkers, however, Zen appears for Dōhan to have been in a subordinate position to mikkyō ritual practice.

Dōhan’s commentary and exegesis on Kūkai’s Unjigi 吽 義 (T. 2430), the Unjigi shakukanchū shō 吽 義釋勘註抄, was compiled by Ryūgen 隆源 (1342-1426), purportedly based on texts left behind by Dōhan. This text appears to be one of many texts written by Dōhan for the edification of beginners to the Shingon path.

In the Aun gōkan 阿吽合観, Dōhan presents a short explication of the Sanskrit characters A and UṆ as part of a deathbed ritual. Dōhan suggests that just as the body and mind are none other than Mahāvairocana, so too are the in and out breath none other than the characters A and UṆ. Using A- UṆ as a dyad, Dōhan claims that they correspond to the Vajra and Womb World Mandalas. This section resembles Dōhan’s explanation of the three syllable (A-MI-TA) and the five-syllable (NAMU-A-MI-TA-BUḤ) nenbutsu in the Compendium. Moreover, after explaining the peace that will come upon one’s death bed from this practice, Dōhan suggests that A is in fact composed of three components, A, Ia, and Ua, and the UṆ is also composed of three elements, U, N, and M. These elements are said to represent the throat, tongue, and lips, the three bodies of the Buddha, the three divisions of the mandala (Buddha, Lotus, Vajra), etc. Here we see Dōhan employing his santen –triad strategy for organizing lists of three to “read in” (eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis) a deeper meaning wherein different thought systems implicate and envelop each other.

Additionally, the Dōhan nikka rinjū higi 道範日課臨終秘儀 describes Dōhan’s secret deathbed ritual, and Rinjū yōshin ji 臨終用心事 describe deathbed rituals for Pure Land rebirth. As noted above, Dōhan regarded the Pure Land elements of the deathbed experience to be but one level of what actually happens in the last moment of life. This Rinjū yōshin ji is divided into three sections: rituals for times when one is so sick that one cannot sit up, when one is sick for a period of time and cannot clean one’s body or mouth, and for periods of extended sickness. This text appears to be quite similar to the last section of the Himitsu nenbutsu shō, as will be described in Part I of Chapter VI.

Chapter V Conclusion

From this brief presentation of Dōhan’s intellectual context and oeuvre, I have identified a few key themes that may serve as a basis for future study of Dōhan and 12th-13th century Shingon. First, Kūkai’s major works were clearly being studied in great detail, and Dōhan’s knowledge of this material was in high demand such that even in his time in exile he was asked to continue teaching and commenting on a variety of texts associated with Kūkai. Second, Dōhan was clearly interested in distilling his knowledge for popular consumption, and though many regarded the early-medieval period as mappō 末法 (C. mofa), the end of the Dharma, Dōhan clearly promoted a variety of techniques, from the Mantra of Light, to the nenbutsu and Zen meditation, as part of a training program that would render anxiety over mappō pointless. In the following chapter, I will focus on Dōhan’s “Esoteric Pure Land” thought as presented in the Himitsu nenbutsu shō.

CHAPTER VI

MYSTERIES OF SPEECH AND BREATH

Introduction

Composed around 1223, The Himitsu nenbutsu shō 祕密念佛抄 (Compendium on the Secret Contemplation of Buddha) is comprised of three fascicles and provides a synthetic engagement with a diverse range of approaches to the practice of the nenbutsu 念佛 (C. nianfo), the relationship between this world and the Pure Land Sukhāvatī 極樂淨土 (C. Jile jingtu, J. Gokuraku jōdo), and the nature of the Buddha Amitābha 阿彌陀如來. This chapter is intended to serve as both a philosophical introduction to Dōhan’s Pure Land thought, and an introduction to the text as a whole. In this chapter I argue that Dōhan’s seemingly “postmodern” vision of the nenbutsu is not only a himitsu (or “Esoteric”) perspective, but is in fact a kenmitsu nenbutsu 顯密念佛, an approach to the nenbutsu that seeks to account for a diverse range of “revealed” and “hidden” meanings of the nenbutsu. Moreover, I argue that philosophical investigation into this “exo/esoteric” logic may establish an approach to engaging religious diversity and ethics that moves beyond the extremes of both universalism and exclusivism while also promoting dialogue and debate, allowing multiple and distinct perspectives to stand without being rejected or necessarily subsumed within a singular rubric. Dōhan employed the Compendium to promote a vision of Mahāyāna Buddhist practice centered upon his conception of the mantra practitioner 眞言行人 (J. shingon gyōnin) and devotion to the cult of Kōbō Daishi 弘法大師信仰 (J. Kōbō daishi shinkō). In addition, Dōhan draws upon insights gained from examining the works of Shandao 善導 (613-681) and other Chinese Pure Land thinkers, Zhiyi 智 (538-597), Yuanzhao 元照 (1048-1116) and other Chinese Tiantai 天台 masters, Annen 安然 (841-915?) and other Japanese Tendai Mikkyō 天台密教 (aka, Taimitsu 台密) masters, Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-1143), Jōhen 靜遍 (1165–1223), Jippan 實範 (d. 1144) and other Shingon Mikkyō 眞言密教 (aka, Tōmitsu 東密) masters. In this way, Dōhan’s engagement with the nenbutsu fundamentally confounds the sectarian taxonomic approach so common in the study of premodern East Asian Buddhism.

On the one hand, the Compendium affirms the perspective that all Buddhas are but expressions of the fundamental ultimate reality, the Dharmakāya 法身 (C. fashen, J. hōsshin), as represented and conceived anthropomorphically as the one universal Buddha Mahāvairocana 大日如來, and that all Buddha Lands are but dimensions of the Pure Land of Mahāvairocana, the mitsugon jōdo 密嚴淨土, or “Pure Land of Mystical Splendor.” On the other hand, beginning with an exegesis of the three- and five-syllable nenbutsu-mantra A-mi-ta and Namu-A-mi-ta-Buḥ (which is constructed in a mandalic form) written in the Sanskrit script known as Siddhaṃ 悉曇

(J. Shittan), Dōhan goes on to locate the potency of nenbutsu as arising from the mystery of speech 口密 (J. kumitsu) as the very body-mind 色心 (J. shikishin) of sentient beings. Therein, the nenbutsu is understood to be the mystical union of the organs of speech (throat, tongue, lips = body), and breath (both physical breath and/as the so-called “breath of life” = mind). Balancing the Shingon universalizing (or totalizing) vision of Buddhist practice with an emphasis on the impetus for awakening not in an elite gnosis, but in something inherent to the human condition (speech and breath). In other words, rather than simply replicating a common Buddhist interpretive strategy that subsumes (and thus negates) diversity in favor of a single unified vision of the Buddhist universe, the “secret” of Dōhan’s nenbutsu is the conceptualization of a discursive space wherein the binaries between buddha/being, awakening/illusion, self/other, and the Pure Land/sahā stand together in a productive tension. Based in this view, the heterogeneous perspectives on the efficacy of the nenbutsu are understood to stand as they are, all the while also abiding in a unified and interconnected relationship premised on one shared experience: life itself.

This chapter, the sixth and final chapter of this dissertation, is divided into four parts. Part I provides an analysis of the title of the text, and a basic summary of the key concepts presented in the Compendium. Part II analyzes key passages from the first fascicle of the Compendium to argue that Dōhan’s approach to the nenbutsu purposely subverts the reader’s expectations through a variety of exegetical strategies (comparison, conflation, inversion, “selective” quotation, etc.) to present a vision of the nenbutsu that, while promoting a particular polemical perspective, is nevertheless oriented toward a vision of Buddhist diversity that allows multiple (perhaps irreconcilable) perspectives to stand together as they are. Building upon Part II, Part III presents an exploratory philosophical investigation into some of the possible implications of Dōhan’s thought, focusing in particular upon Dōhan’s use of the metaphorical relationship between speech and breath, the question of ethics and religious diversity, and Buddhist universalism and exclusivism. Part IV considers a number of possible avenues for future research, in particular, an “esoteric” reading of the thought of Shinran 親鸞(1173-1263) and the potential for further inquiry into the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 華嚴經 (T. 278), as a productive avenue for engaging “Esoteric Pure Land” dimensions of East Asian Buddhism.

Chapter VI

Part I

“The Compendium on the Secret Contemplation of Buddha”

Some scholars have viewed the Compendium as an example of “syncretism” between Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism, while others have viewed the text as merely an articulation of the Shingon School’s own orthodox view on nenbutsu practice. It is the view of this author, however, that both of these perspectives are too narrow. In fact, it should by now be clear that in Dōhan’s time, the various ordination and practice lineages were deeply interwoven and highly competitive in a politico-monastic culture wherein it was essential to master multiple areas 兼學 (J. kengaku) of ritual and doctrinal knowledge. In this “kengaku-kenmitsu” context, knowledge was passed down via secret oral transmissions 口傳 (J. kuden), wherein the human condition was revealed to possess an inherent awakening 本覺 (J. hongaku), and that even simple meditative or “Esoteric” rites could be employed to accrue this worldly benefits 現世利益 (J. gense ryaku), purify one’s karma, and attain rebirth in the Pure Land of a Buddha.

In this context, Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism functioned not as two “kinds” of Buddhism, but two often overlapping areas of concern within a kaleidoscopic Buddhist environment. Moreover, as demonstrated in Part I of this dissertation (Chapters I-III), Mahā/Vajrayāna Buddhist doctrinal and ritual systems always-already included Pure Land aspiration, and many Pure Land aspirants in East Asia sought the skills of those who had mastered “Esoteric” ritual knowledge. When the Compendium is read within this context, rather than from the contemporary taxonomic-sectarian perspective, it may be recognized as but one node in a broader Mahā/Vajrayāna net, revealing but one approach to the diversity of nenbutsu perspectives in early-medieval Japanese Buddhism.

There are several printed versions of the Compendium, but according to the Nihon Bukkyō tenseki daijiten 日本仏教典籍大辞典, while it is not clear whether or not an original version is still in existence, manuscript versions 寫本 (J. shahon) may be found in the archives of Hōjō-in 寶城院 temple on Kōyasan dating from 1606 (Keichō 11), as well as printed editions 刊本 (J. kanpon) dating from 1645 (Shōhō 正保 2, *the first printed edition), 1686 (Jōkyō 貞享 3), and 1907 (Meiji 明治 40).

At present, the most authoritative edited kanbun 漢文, Classical Chinese, edition of the first fascicle is Takeuchi Kōzen 武内 孝善, “Dōhan cho, ‘Himitsu nenbutsu shō,’ honbun kōtei (ichi) 「道範 『秘密念仏抄』本文校訂(一)」,” Kōyasan daigaku ronsō 高野山大学論叢 20 (1985): 13-71, which was edited based on the Jimyō-in 持明院 edition, dating from the Muromachi Period 室町時代 (1392-1573), 1548 (Tenmon 天文 17), and the Hōjō-in (1606) versions. This kanbun edition was used to produce a Classical Japanese (J. kakikudashi 書き下 し) version by the Himitsu nenbutsu shō kenkyūkai 秘密念仏抄研究会, ed., “Dōhan cho ‘Himitsu nenbutsu shō’ no kenkyū—honbun kōtei to kaki kudashi gochū 道範 ‘秘密念仏抄’ の研究--本文校訂と書き下し・語註.” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 39 (1996): 105-131. Both Takeuchi and the Buzan-ha edition note the existence of a (partial?) early edition entitled Amidajō 阿彌陀帖 dating from 1391 (Meitoku 明徳 2). However, this edition is identified by the Buzan-ha Himitsu nenbutsu shō kenkyūkai as belonging to Hōbodai-in 寶菩提院, while Takeuchi identifies it as being held at Tōji Kanchi-in 東寺觀智院. More investigation is required on this matter.

Other versions may be found at the Eizan bunko archive 叡山文庫, dating from 1616 (Genwa 元和 2). The Kokusho sōmokuroku 国書総目録, vol. 6, indicates that numerous editions dating from early and mid-Tokugawa may be found in the archives of Ryūkoku University 龍谷大学, Ōtani University 大谷大学, Kōyasan University 高野山大学, Taishō University 大正大 学, Tōyō University 東洋大学, etc. One possible future area of inquiry will be into the matter of why exactly so many versions of this text exist from this period.

More recently published versions may also be found in: Dai Nippon Bukkyō zenshō 大日本佛教全書 (DNBZ) 70:51-82, Zoku jōdoshū zenshō 續淨土宗全書 (ZJZ), 15:79-110, and Shingonshū anjin zensho 眞言宗安心全書 (SAZ), 2:225-266. Among these, the SAZ edition has been recognized as most authoritative, as evidenced by its usage as the base text by the Buzan-ha kenkyūkai. For the translation that follows this chapter, I have employed the versions produced by Takeuchi, the Buzan-ha, SAZ, and DNBZ/ZJZ (which appear to be very close, or identical), but have largely followed the SAZ. In the future, I hope that this work will form the basis for future investigation into the other variant manuscripts, which I hope to use to eventually produce a critical edition of the entire work, noting all variant portions and passages, of which there are far too many to be accounted for in the space allotted for this dissertation.

The Compendium’s three fascicles are divided into a number of subsections. Below I have provided brief descriptions of each subsection so that the reader may acquire a general picture of the work as a whole, before reading the translation of the first fascicle in Part III. The Compendium is composed in a question/answer 問答 (J. mondō) format, with Dōhan engaging a hypothetical interlocutor. As the head of major temples on Kōyasan, it is possible that Dōhan employed this writing style in his work training students in debate contests on Kōyasan, and as examined in the previous chapter, many of his extant works were clearly composed for an educational context. Judging from the range of sources Dōhan draws upon, he was clearly well acquainted with the major texts now often associated with the Shingon tradition, as well as those of other systems including Tiantai/Tendai and Avataṃsaka. It is reasonable to speculate that his students would have received a similarly broad education in addition to a quite possibly Amitābha centric focus upon the works of Kūkai and the practice of Esoteric ritual.

An Analysis of the Title

It is common in traditional Buddhist scriptural commentaries to begin by explaining the inner and outer meaning of the title of a text. This approach has been adapted here in order to exemplify the ways in which the subject and object of academic inquiry participate in a mutually influential conversation. The Compendium has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, some bearing the title Himitsu nenbutsu shō (Compendium on the Secret Buddha Contemplation) or, Himitsu-shū nenbutsu shō (Compendium on the Buddha Contemplation of the Secret Teaching/Lineage). By examining the semantic range of meanings present in these two titles, this introduction to the text will suggest that it is possible that Dōhan intended the title to inform the reader (the reader who is in on the “secret”) of the basic intent of the text: to reveal that even the purportedly “shallow,” or literalist, interpretation of the nenbutsu is itself an expression of the “deepest” interpretation, and that the initial stage of aspiration for Buddhahood is equal to the final attainment of liberation.

Himitsu 祕密

Himitsu (C. mimi), often translated as “secret,” inner, hidden, profound, mysterious, etc., may be found throughout the East Asian Buddhist corpus as a translation of the Sanskrit term guhya, which may be taken to mean “to be covered or concealed or hidden or kept secret, concealable, private, secret, mysterious, mystical.” Guhya was translated into Chinese as internal 内, subtle 妙, deep or profound 深, dark 陰, inner 奥, secret 祕密, hidden 隱密, etc. As noted in Chapter II, there is nothing inherently Tantric, about the use of the term himitsu. For example, the Lotus Sūtra 妙法蓮華經 (T. 262), Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (T. 374), the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T. 1509), and many other texts use the term himitsu consistently to indicate not only the general tendency within Buddhism to differentiate between superficial and profound teachings, but in many instances, himitsu is synonymous with the Mahāyāna itself, as the highest (“secret”) teaching of the Buddha. The himitsu is therefore the Dharma as understood from the perspective of Buddhas and high-ranking Bodhisattvas, and of course, those who claim to speak for the Buddhas. As a result, the term himitsu was commonly used to refer simply to the superiority and authority of one’s own lineage or exegetical tradition.

The Mikkyō Daijiten 密教大辭典, the massive dictionary of the Shingon School, notes the prevalence of the term “himitsu” across Buddhist literature, but focuses on the ritual and doctrinal teachings of Kūkai. However, in listing Annen and Kūkai’s various definitions of himitsu, the compilers of this dictionary, like Dōhan himself, were seeking to argue for, on the one hand, a privileged position of access to the “secret” teachings, and on the other hand, acknowledging that himitsu discourse emerges within a broader exo/esoteric Mahāyāna discursive context. These two approaches are indeed not mutually exclusive. Himitsu, therefore, possesses a range of meanings, not simply reducible to one sectarian lineage or institution.

Himitsu-shū 秘密宗

The term himitsu-shū, is a relatively common synonym for mikkyō, or “Esoteric” Buddhism. In an often cited line in Yixing’s 一行 (683-727) Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796), the mimizong 秘密宗 is said to allow one to shorten the path to Buddhahood, transcending limitless kalpas. Several Shingon exegetes following Kūkai’s tradition, including Saisen 濟暹 (1025-1115), Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-1143), and Raiyu 頼瑜 (1226–1304) cite this text. While it would be tempting to assert that the himitsu-shū was simply a synonym for Esoteric Buddhism, by paying close attention to how it is used in the contexts in which it appears, it seems rather to signify something more subtle.

The himitsu-shū appears to be a term used to signify that a given teaching renders the early stage of the bodhisattva path equal to the final stage, or the potential for the teachings of the Buddha (the truths realized by Buddhas and the highest Bodhisattvas) to render the “lowest” stage equal to the highest. Ōshika Shinnō 大鹿真央 has suggested that a similar notion, shoji sokugoku 初地卽極, the idea that the first stage is none other than the final stage, was a central feature of Dōhan’s doctrinal thought more broadly. Based on this, and the numerous passages that implicitly and explicitly make this point throughout the Compendium, I would like to suggest that the title of Dōhan’s text may in fact inform us of its primary objective: to teach monks that the simple chanting of the nenbutsu, at its most basic, is itself inherently powerful, and equal to the highest teachings of the Buddha. It is therefore possible that this particular connotation was intended by Dōhan if, in fact, this phrase originally appeared in the title. Due to this doubt, however, I have not included it in my English translation of the title.

Shū 宗

The term shū has been examined in numerous places throughout this dissertation, therefore, I will simply reiterate that rather than indicating a “sect” or religious group 教團 (J. kyōdan), the term seems to carry the connotation of an area of study or concentration, or essence or lineage, which may overlap with, and often work in conjunction with others. This was especially true for the many traditions and institutions of medieval Japan.1352 The polemical implication of its (possible) usage here should be clear. Dōhan is suggesting that the practitioner of the mantra path is able to grasp a dimension of the nature of the nenbutsu that might be lost on others. Rather than promoting a distinct “kind” of nenbutsu, however, Dōhan appears to be suggesting that the mantra practitioner is capable of perceiving something deeper in the nature of nenbutsu practice than one who simply studies quotidian doctrine.

Dōhan often critiques those whom he seems to perceive as the “scholarly oxen” of Zhiyi’s doctrinal exegetical line, an area of study that Dōhan appears to have been very well acquainted. In this way, I find a certain harmony with Nietzsche’s criticism of the “scholarly oxen” of his day who studied Greek philology, but were uninterested in putting the Greek lifestyle into practice, balancing Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of the human condition. Indeed, the scholarly lifestyle poses certain problems and pitfalls that intellectuals of various traditions have struggled with. Following the career of Kakuban, a strong emphasis on the union

1352 Tanaka Hisao 田中久夫, Kamakura Bukkyō 鎌倉仏教 (Tokyo: Kōdansha gakujutsu bunko 講談社学術文庫, 2009 [reprint, 1980]), 14. of practice and scholarship emerged in the Kōyasan Shingon tradition. By Dōhan’s time, it appears that there was an emphasis placed on the importance of the body in (or as) the ritual arena. Rather than simply studying doctrine and ritual, performance and enactment were absolutely necessary. As a great scholar and ritual master, Dōhan’s view on “Buddha Contemplation” (nenbutsu) is a critique of those who focus their energies on the surface level, or literal interpretation of the sūtras 顯教 (J. kengyō), without experiencing first-hand the inner meaning 密教 (J. mikkyō) of the teachings through practice.

Nenbutsu 念佛

The term nenbutsu, at its most basic, means “buddha contemplation,” but in East Asia came to signify the vocal recitation of the name of the Buddha Amitābha, “Namu Amida Butsu 無阿彌陀佛.” For Dōhan, the nenbutsu possesses an expanded semantic range to include mantra/dhāraṇī, the act of speech, the organs of speech, the breath that renders both speech and life itself possible, the compassionate activity of the Buddha (Amitābha/Mahāvairocana) in the world, and ultimately, the very mind that seeks (and always-already possess/attains) awakening. For Dōhan, the true or “secret” nenbutsu encompasses all aspects of the universe (classical Buddhist cosmology), the human condition (virtues and defilements), and fundamentally undergirds all forms of practice.

Shō 抄

The term shō may be translated as compendium, excerpts, extracts, notes, collection, etc., and may be thought of as a synthetic genre wherein the author employs the words of others to arrive at a new idea. Shō, here translated as “compendium,” at times may remind one of a dissertation. In addition to quotes and passages designed to support and amplify the force of an argument (as well as “borrow” the prestige of the authority being quoted), there is a certain ambiguity between when a quote or passage is intended to convey the source text’s author’s words and intent, or the those of the compiler (or dissertator?). In some instances, the voices of the author of the text being quoted and the compiler begin to blur, and it may become difficult to disentangle whose voice is truly being projected. Throughout writing this dissertation I drew upon many sources from many traditional and contemporary scholars of the East Asian Buddhist tradition in order to support my argument, in some ways similar to Dōhan. Indeed, in the process of writing, not only is the voice of author and quoted authority blurred, but the voice of subject and object of inquiry too become blurred. Perhaps one of the most important ways that Dōhan has influenced me is through the genre of shō. As I have endeavored to follow Dōhan’s threads, ultimately confronting with the whole of the East Asian Mahā/Vajrayāna tradition, I have found that each node of the net reflects every other node, myself included.

Fascicle One

1.1 The Matter of the Name 名號事

Dōhan begins the Compendium by asking a rhetorical question: Why is it that virtually all monks in the present age rely upon the nenbutsu? His answer is outlined mainly in the first fascicle, and elaborated on in the second and third. Beginning with a four-fold secret explication 四重秘釋 (J. shijū hissaku) in which he examines four basic conceptions of the nature of the Buddha Amitābha, Dōhan suggests that ultimately the true nature of the Buddha Amitābha, as well as the nenbutsu and the Pure Land, is revealed in the body-mind of beings, and that the originally non-arising Buddha mind is itself the very heart of beings.

Following this declaration, Dōhan draws upon Jippan’s Byōchū shugyōki 病中修行記 in which the three letters of the name A-mi-ta are employed to both explicate the Contemplation of the Letter A 阿 觀 (J. ajikan), a central practice in medieval and contemporary mikkyō and the Shingon-shū, as well as the Amida-santai-setsu 阿彌陀三諦說, which both Sueki and Stone have noted as an important interpretive strategy for hongaku 本覺, original enlightenment thought, and “Esoteric Pure Land” thought in early medieval Japan. This exegetical tool uses the three syllables of the name of the Buddha to explain the relationship between the “three truths”: kū 空, ke 假, chū 中, or emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. Dōhan’s presentation emphasizes not the “A” which corresponds to emptiness, nor the “Mi” which corresponds to the synthesis of provisionality and emptiness, the so-called “middle path,” but rather, the “Ta” syllable, which corresponds to provisionality and the nirmāṇakāya 應身 (C. yingshen, J. ōjin), or embodied “response” manifestation of the Buddha. In this way, Dōhan begins his presentation of the nenbutsu by arguing that the simplest and most basic teaching, and the Buddha which one may actually physically encounter, is equal, and perhaps superior, to that which is commonly assumed to be the most profound. Throughout the text, Dōhan continually collapses binaries and undermines the reader’s expectations.

Next, Dōhan examines a five-syllable version of the nenbutsu in which each syllable, arranged in the form of a seed syllable mandala with Namu in the center, and A-Mi-Ta-Buḥ, in the four directions, A in the southern position, and progressing clockwise. Drawing comparisons between the five Buddhas, and the five forms of wisdom, Dōhan argues that the five hindrances of the human condition are themselves at their core, paths to the highest corresponding form of wisdom. In this way, the most basic (or, “base”) mode of human consciousness and behavior may itself be recognized as ultimately oriented toward, and not wholly separate from, a deeper wisdom.

1.2 The Matter of Calling the Name and the Primordial Vow 稱名本願事

In this section, Dōhan declares that the reason the Buddha Amitābha chose the nenbutsu as the object of his primal vow is because Amitābha (again drawing upon the santaisetsu) is the central Buddha, between mind and body, manifesting as the middle way of the mystery of speech. As such, Speech/Amitābha/Sukhāvatī abides in productive tension between Body/Śākyamuni/Sahā and Mind/Mahāvairocana/Mitsugon jōdo, encompassing both, but seemingly not necessarily reducible to either. This idea is revisited at the beginning of the second fascicle.

1.3 The Matter of the Buddha Contemplation Samādhi 念佛三昧事

Drawing upon Tendai and Avataṃsaka conceptions of Buddhas and Buddha bodies, Dōhan examines the nenbutsu samādhi 念佛三昧 (J. nenbutsu sanmai), an important form of contemplation designed by Zhiyi, and disseminated widely throughout Japanese mountain monastic centers, as examined in Chapters III and IV. This form of practice begins with a 90 day period of chanting and/or contemplation, at the end of which, the practitioner realizes nonduality with the Buddha Amitābha. By Dōhan’s time, the nenbutsu samādhi had developed for three hundred years as part of the traditional Japanese Tendai curriculum that also included mikkyō, and eventually produced several other kinds of nenbutsu practice that became popular among mountain monastic centers throughout Japan. As a result, by Dōhan’s time, the nenbutsu samādhi was not the exclusive property of the “Tendai School,” and it had emerged as a major “tantric” practice (See: Chapter III, Part III). In presenting the nenbutsu samādhi, Dōhan argues that the speech of the Buddha permeates all corners of the universe like wind. That wind is life, and because life is conscious, this wind-life itself is the act of contemplation. Ultimately, because the nenbutsu samādhi is the contemplation of the act of speech, it is necessarily the contemplation of the embodiment of Amitābha as breath-life.

1.4 The Matter of the Ten [Moments of Buddha Mindfulness] 十念事

The “ten moments of Buddha mindfulness” is a reference to the vow of Amitābha in the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, where it states that beings who nen the Buddha even ten times will certainly attain Buddhahood. This is a very well-known passage, and in East Asia debates arose regarding whether or not these ten were essential, whether they were vocal utterances, whether they were mental events, etc. Here, however, Dōhan is employing the ten thought moments to examine the idea that Buddhahood is a state arrived at after a set progression. The ten thought moments are one, the ever present now. Again, employing the idea of the ten bodhisattva stages, Dōhan argues that there is neither high nor low, and that the first stage, the first moment of Buddha contemplation, the most basic level of attainment, is the highest. This appears to be drawing upon Avataṃsaka readings of the bodhisattva stages, but more research is required on this point.

Fascicle Two

2.1 The Matter of the Lotus Samādhi 蓮華三昧事

At the outset of the second fascicle, Dōhan declares that the Buddha Amitābha is the lord of the lotus division of the mandala, and that he is in fact the heart-lotus 心蓮 (J. shinren) of all sentient beings. In Shingon meditation, many contemplative practices are carried out upon a perfectly clear and bright moon disk 月輪 (J. gachirin), visualized at one’s heart, which emerges from a blossoming lotus. Because the physical body is the locus of awakening, this “metaphorical” heart-lotus, possessing eight petals like the central lotus of the Womb World Mandala 胎藏界曼荼羅 (J. Taizōkai mandara), is conflated with the physical heart which, according to traditional medical theory was said to resemble a closed lotus blossom, possessing eight petals. In other words, the “heart” of awakening and the physical organ that pumps blood through the body, are revealed to be the same thing, the feature of the human condition that sustains life. Dōhan notes that the heart lotus of the man is said to point up, and the heart lotus of the woman points down. More investigation into the nature of gender and gendered language in medieval Shingon would be an extremely productive area for future research.

In this section, Dōhan employs Yogācāra 法相 (C. Faxiang, J. Hossō) concepts to consider the nature of consciousness as fundamentally pure. This section reiterates the notion that Amitābha abides in a central position between Śākyamuni and Mahāvairocana, and his Sukhāvatī Pure Land between Mitsugon Pure Land as the unified cosmos and the Sahā realm, thus encompassing them all. Moreover, Amitābha is also revealed to be the lord of the act of speech and breath, and embodied in the element of wind that renders life, breath, and speech possible. In addition, at the close of this section, Dōhan states that all rivers return to the great ocean, just as the manifold practices are all based in a fundamental Buddha nature. This idea is restated below

2.2 The Matter of the Great Compassion Samādhi 大悲三昧事

In this section, Dōhan suggests that the gate of the Buddha Amitābha is also known as the Great Compassion Samādhi. The in and out breath of the practitioner are one with the compassion of the Buddha’s speech and breath, which permeate the ten directions, opening the heart-lotus of beings. Ultimately, Dōhan adds, the mind, the Buddha, and beings are nondifferentiated.

2.3 The Matter of the Characters for the Name of Sukhāvatī 極樂名事

Here, Dōhan revisits his critique of the simplistic literal interpretations of the sūtras, which might contend that Amitābha/Amitāyus (the Buddha of Limitless Life and Light) possesses a limited lifespan, or is limited to a single place the Pure Land far away. For Dōhan, the Pure Land Sukhāvatī, translated into Sino-Japanese as 極樂 (C. Jile, J. Gokuraku), literally meaning “ultimate bliss,” refers to the “bliss” of awakening, and rather than this being limited to a particular western corner of the universe, it is omnipresent in all Buddha realms. Dōhan draws parallels between Sukhāvatī and the Lotus repository of the Avataṃsaka tradition (which he equates to the Womb Realm Mandala) and Tuṣita 兜率天 (C. Doushuo Tian, J. Tosotsu Ten), and Mitsugon (which he equates to the Vajra Realm Mandala 金剛界曼荼羅). Just as the Lotus and Womb mandalas are said to be non-dual, as are body and mind, ri and chi (principle and wisdom), and so on, so too are the realms of attainment non-dual with the very heart of beings. Beings may perceive divisions, but they are provisional.

2.4 The Matter of the Western Direction 西方事

The Pure Land is traditionally associated with the Western direction, which is commonly associated with autumn, love, desire, and compassion. Dōhan here employs a series of correspondences alternating between the different cardinal directions so as to explicate the relationality between the inner meaning of Sukhāvatī to other features of the realms of Buddhist wisdom and attainment. Here, and throughout, Dōhan employs the Contemplation Sūtra 觀無量壽經 (T. 365), and Yogācāra concepts.

2.5 The Matter of the Innumerable [[[Buddha]]] Lands 十万億土事

Considering the vast Buddhist cosmology, wherein the universe (or, rather, “multi-verse”) is composed of an infinite number of Buddha realms in all ten directions, Dōhan suggests, however, that rather than imagining them to abide far away, this infinite cosmology is revealed to abide within the very bodies of beings themselves. Here, and in other places, Dōhan seems to be drawing upon an assumed Avataṃsaka based vision of the interpenetrating nature of reality— unity in diversity, diversity in unity. In other words, while Dōhan does not deny the existence of this vast cosmos, he seems to emphasize the possibility of accessing all of it through the very body-mind of beings.

2.6 The Matter of the Forty-eight Vows 四十八願事

Here, Dōhan considers the idea that Amitābha created his Pure Land by way of the accomplishment of forty-eight vows. Drawing upon Nāgārjuna’s Shimoheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (T. 1668), which, as discussed in the previous chapter, was highly influential upon Kūkai, Dōhan intimates that the forty-eight vows are in fact virtues of the mind. Dōhan here regards Nāgārjuna as a devotee of the Buddha Amitābha. This was a common assertion in East Asia, as the Pure Land schools came to regard Nāgārjuna as a Pure Land patriarch.

2.7 The Matter of the Sixteen Contemplation 十六想觀事

The Sūtra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life is one of the most popular texts in East Asia, and is regarded as one of the three Pure Land sutras by the Pure Land schools. This text outlines a series of sixteen steps for contemplating the Pure Land. Here, Dōhan reinscribes these steps as the sixteen great Bodhisattvas, and uses Shingon theories of the five elements, Yogācāra nine consciousnesses, the various components of the dual mandala system, and other strategies to suggest that at the completion of these Pure Land contemplations, one realizes the light of Amitābha as radiating from within oneself.

2.8 The Matter of [The Buddha] Coming and Greeting [one at Death] 来迎事

In medieval Japan, a variety of deathbed practices were undertaken in order to attain a vision of the Buddha coming to greet one at the moment of death, or raigō 来迎. Dōhan begins this section by suggesting that the raigō that beings perceive at the moment of death is in fact the Buddha’s light, always-already present, reflecting in the heart of beings. This section is reminiscent of Chan theories of sudden awakening as well as Tendai theories of original enlightenment. That which is perceived as a raigō 来迎, a celestial retinue arriving to take one to a faraway land, is here said to be the realization of the Buddhahood always-already abiding at the heart of beings.

2.9 The Matter of the Twenty-Five Bodhisattvas 二十五菩薩事

Building upon the previous section on the raigō, Dōhan states that Amitābha possesses five wisdoms, which each possess five wisdoms, which he interprets as the five Buddhas of the mandala and their attendant Bodhisattvas of the four directions (5x5). The twenty-five Bodhisattvas said to accompany Amitābha’s descent from the Pure Land at the moment of death are further employed to envision the six realms, the six modes of envisioning Avalokiteśvara, etc.

2.10 The Matter of the Sahā realm revealing Avalokiteśvara and Sukhāvatī to be Named as Limitless Life 娑婆示現觀世音極樂稱爲無量壽之事

Elaborating on the preceding discussion of the various forms of Avalokiteśvara, Dōhan explores the relationship between the Bodhisattva of Compassion and the Buddha of Limitless Life, and suggests that of the vocal act of nenbutsu recitation within Sahā is connected with the fundamental vow of the Buddha.

Fascicle Three

3.1 The Matter of the Nine Level Lotus Dias 九品蓮台事

Here, Dōhan differentiates between the revealed and inner meaning of the nine levels of the Pure Land, which is reminiscent of the end of fascicle one. Again, suggesting that while hierarchies may appear to exist, and while the Buddhist path may appear to some to take innumerable kalpās, in fact, as realized by the practitioner of mantra, there is no hierarchy, and the initial level of attainment is equal to the highest. Moreover, rather than casting off of the body, the mantra path emphasizes the nature of awakening as a bodily act. Dōhan also notes that while some Pure Land thinkers may exclude those who commit the five evil acts from rebirth, the Dazhidulun states that the dhāraṇī piṭaka 陀羅尼藏 (C. duoluoni-zang, J. darani-zō) alone may expunge the sins of the five evil acts. In this way, the himitsu nenbutsu is revealed to be the highest technology of the “Secret Piṭaka” 祕密藏 (C. mimi-zang, J. himitsu-zō), the highest teaching of the Mahāyāna. As the reader may recall, in Chapter II it was noted that there is often a sense of ambiguity between mikkyō (“as such”) and the diverse genres of dhāraṇī literature and the highly polemical concept of a Secret Piṭaka. Here, Dōhan appears to be conflating them all as essentially indicating the highest teaching of the Mahāyāna. This issue deserves further attention.

3.2 The Matter of Exclusive Practice and Incessant Practice 專修無間修事

Drawing upon Shandao and Eikan’s perspectives on constant recitation, Dōhan suggests that the very in and out breath that sustains beings’ life is the true form of constant nenbutsu recitation. The breath is said to be the embodiment of Amitābha’s name. If the Buddha truly embraces all beings, Dōhan argues, then the activity of the Buddha cannot be limited to the conscious ritual act of chanting (speech), but must necessarily pervade one’s life (breath).

3.3 The Matter of the Common Manner of Ritual Comportment 尋常行儀事

This rather lengthy passage begins with an explicit critique of the distinction between the Pure Land path and the Path of Sages. Moreover, Dōhan rejects the proposition that the nenbutsu should be practiced to the exclusion of all other practices. While it remains difficult to determine whether or not Dōhan is directly criticizing Hōnen, or others who were inclined towards more exclusivistic forms of practice, this passage does seem to confirm the suspicion of some scholars that Dōhan’s intent in writing this text was done in order to respond to certain excesses present in the growing Pure Land “movement.”

Here, Dōhan argues for the utility in orienting one’s various practices, around the single practice of the nenbutsu and the single Buddha Amitābha, drawing upon the Dhāraṇīsaṃgrahasūtra 陀羅尼集經 (T. 901). Dōhan’s vision of the ideal practitioner of mantra may be divided into the ten contemplative gates 十種觀門 (J. jisshu kanmon) and six kinds of auxiliary practice 六種助行 (J. rokushu jogyō).

One, through the limitless heart, the shingon gyōnin acquires the ability to turn all things into the practice of Dharma because one’s own mind is itself Buddha. In this way, the idea of choosing a single practice and limiting one’s Buddhist practice to that act would make no sense, because everything can be Buddhist practice. Two, through the contemplation of equanimity 平等觀 (J. byōdōkan), the practitioner is able to see that their body-mind is non-dual with their object of devotion, which is itself equal to all Buddhas. In this way, the grandeur of the Buddhist vision of the cosmos is said to reside concretely in this very body. Three, the dual-mandala system allows the practitioner to realize the non-duality of a variety of supposed dualities: body/mind, man/woman, heaven/earth, etc. A note on this section discusses the attainment of samādhi in a dream, and the realization that mantra is but the breath of the object of devotion. Four, is the contemplation of the gorin 五輪, or five chakras (which can refer to the elements of earth 地, water 水, fire 火, wind 風, and ether 空; or the top of the head 頂輪, the face 面輪, heart 胸輪, stomach 腹輪, and knees 膝輪). Five, is the contemplation of the gachirin 月輪, or moon disc. Six, is the contemplation of A, said to ultimately signify the non-arising of all dharmas. Seven, is the counting of breath with contemplation/chanting of a single syllable, A,

Hrīḥ, etc. Here Dōhan makes an explicit reference to the practice of zazen 坐禪 (C. zuochan). Eight, is the cultivation of the inner homa 護摩 (J. goma) fire ritual. Nine, is the contemplation of the attainment of awakening in this very body. Ten, is the contemplation of the ten illusions arising from dependent origination 十緣生 (J. jūenshō), which Dōhan draws from the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大毘盧遮那成佛神變加持經 (T. 848). These ten levels represent the pure bodhi mind, and the mantra yoga path of visualization and contemplation.

The six auxiliary practices are as follows: One, the practice of the precepts; two, kaji 加持 (empowerment) and contemplation; three, preaching to the beings who have taken unfortunate rebirth as well as gods and spirits of Nippon-koku 日本國, such as Amaterasu Ōmikami 天照大神; four, is the cultivation of gratitude for encountering the Dharma (Here, Dōhan notes in particular, the importance of cultivating gratitude for the line of Ācārya’s who transmitted the secret teachings, and the various teachers who transmitted the ken and mitsu teachings.); six is the vow to remain within saṃsāra for the benefit of beings, and to teach the secret teachings. This is followed by a passage in praise of Kōbō Daishi Kūkai.

As mentioned in Chapter IV, Dōhan’s Compendium is the first appearance of the hōgō 寶號 of Kūkai: Namu Daishi Henjō Kongō 無大師遍照金剛 (Praise the Great Teacher, the Universally Illuminating Vajra), which is essentially a Kūkai nenbutsu that later Kōyasan ecclesiasts employed to supplement, and later supplant, the Amitābha nenbutsu. For Dōhan, however, they are employed together in the cultivation of faith.

Dōhan then argues that for the literalists (kengyō), the cultivation of faith is merely for beginners. However, according to Dōhan, the secret teaching reveals that the beginner’s mind of faith is itself sudden awakening. This section concludes with Dōhan suggesting that despite all the diversity of approaches to the Dharma, they are all fundamentally arising from the character A, and the upāya 方便 (C. fangbian, J. hōben) of the Buddha.

3.4 The Matter of Using One’s Mind upon the Moment of Death 臨終用心事

The Compendium (SAZ edition) concludes with a discussion of deathbed ritual in which one is instructed in a variety of Amitābha and Kōbō Daishi oriented practices (mudra, mantra, mandalic visualizations, and ritual altars), etc. Here, one is instructed in the cultivation of reverence for Kōbō Daishi as a path to rebirth in the Pure Land Sukhāvatī. As should be clear by now, this is not an anomaly in medieval Japan, and across Mahāyāna literature, one of the most common ways to indicate the potency of a particular practice or object of devotion was to promote it as a path to post-mortem rebirth in Sukhāvatī. The Medicine Buddha, the Lotus Sūtra, and here, Kōbō Daishi, have at various times been said to lead to Pure Land rebirth in Sukhāvatī. However, in the opinion of some scholars, it appears that this section may have been added on later, and may not be original to the text.

In the SAZ edition colophon to this text, edited in 1907 (Meiji 明治 40), it states that this text is intended to delineate shallow and deep, slow and fast, superlative and lower means by which Pure Land rebirth is attained. Here, the term kenmitsu nenbutsu is used. I would like to suggest that the term kenmitsu nenbutsu, suggesting an engagement with nenbutsu theories across a broad range, is the “secret” meaning of the term himitsu nenbutsu.

Different manuscripts often contain notes at the end of each fascicle. The four manuscripts consulted for the translation of Fascicle I, contain four different endings, with excerpts, notes, or elaborations appended to the end of each fascicle. The following do not appear in the SAZ edition, but may be found in the DNBZ version. By comparing these shorter sections/additions to other texts written by Dōhan, I believe we will be able to find other pieces that may have appeared in earlier editions of this text.

3.5 The Matter of the Pure Round and Bright Three Turnings 淸淨圓明三轉之事

In this brief note, which is not contained in the SAZ edition, Dōhan employs essence 性, lotus 蓮, and embodiment 體 to present different groups of three, to explain the nature of awakening.

3.6 The Matter of the Hundred Rivers Entering the River and are Purified 百川入海淸淨事

This brief line states that ultimately all things return to a single source. It is found in the DNBZ edition as a separate section, but appears to simply be a recitation of a passage found earlier in the work. Of particular interest is that the term shōjō 淸淨 is at times used as a synonym for Amitābha. In other words, Amitābha is the source of the rivers, but also the point upon which they all eventually converge.

It appears that a number of passages were added, deleted, or moved around in various editions. In some cases, key passages from a fascicle are reiterated at the conclusion, perhaps to intimate to students which passages are of greatest importance. It is also possible that these “additions” were notes written in the margins or on the back of a scroll as a reader of a particular manuscript took notes on the text, but when the text converted to printed editions, these notes were added to the end of each text. More investigation is required on this issue.

One of the most interesting additions is found only in the Hōjō-in and Jimyō-in edition of the text. Following a quote from Shandao on Pure Land rebirth, Dōhan quotes a passage from a texts entitled Seiryūji ōshō rinjū kengyō 靑龍寺和尙臨終觀行, which seems to indicate that, in the opinion of some, Huiguo 惠果 (746-806), the Chinese master Kūkai studied under in Chang’an, was an aspirant for rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Suffice it to say, Dōhan’s presentation of “Esoteric” Pure Land masters from Nāgārjuna, Huiguo, Kūkai, Annen, Eikan, Kakuban, (and maybe even Shandao?) and others, should indicate to us that in the Kamakura period (and beyond) Pure Land rebirth was a major topic of interest for elite Buddhist monks commonly associated with the “secret teachings.”

Chapter VI

Part II

The Secret Contemplation of Buddha

Dōhan’s himitsu nenbutsu might be referred to as the “mikkyō (esoteric) nenbutsu 密教念佛,” or perhaps the “Shingon-shū nenbutsu 眞言宗念佛,” or perhaps even the Tantric, or “Vajrayāna” nenbutsu. However, none of these labels is entirely sufficient to encompass the connotative range expressed by Dōhan’s vision of the nenbutsu as a practice, or as a source of

Buddhist power. Dōhan draws so extensively upon sources regarded as both “kengyō” and “mikkyō,” that we might consider his nenbutsu to be a “kenmitsu” nenbutsu, a view of the nenbutsu that is intended not only to encompass the diverse range of exoteric/esoteric practices and theories subsumed under the label “nenbutsu,” but also to grasp the underlying nature of reality that renders the nenbutsu, in all its manifestations, an efficacious practice. Now, the term kenmitsu is often used by scholars to signify a very particular religiopolitical ideology whereby Buddhist thought was employed to justify the dominant medieval Japanese political system. However, for Dōhan, this meaning is simply not present (at least, not explicitly). This is not to say that Dōhan was an apolitical figure. Far from it. Dōhan was a major Kōyasan temple administrator, and as examined in Chapter IV, became embroiled in a dispute over patronage and political prestige. While it is not my intention to deny the political nature of Buddhist thought, in this presentation of Dōhan’s nenbutsu, I will examine deeply one piece of the broader doctrinal system that, rather than being “reducible” to the political, will perhaps reveal why doctrine was actually important for elites in the Kamakura period. My use of the term kenmitsu nenbutsu is intended simply to denote that Dōhan’s vision of the Pure Land is an expression of a broader Mahāyāna kenmitsu discourse.

The Four-Fold Secret Explication 四重秘釋1383

First, I will present Dōhan’s four-fold secret explication of the nature of the Buddha Amitābha. While it may appear that Dōhan is simply presenting a hierarchy of views on the different “kinds” of nenbutsu, as will be revealed below, Dōhan is presenting something more complicated than a single exclusivistic or universalistic position over and above others: 名號事。問。廣聞當世。眞言止觀行人。多依彌陀稱名之行。期往生極樂 。是於念佛三昧。不簡時所諸緣。有無間修之德故。唯就易行。歸此本願家歟。稱名有淺深顯密之義耶。答。止觀學者。尤可依念佛三昧。摩訶止觀四種三昧。偏勤彌陀稱名故。眞言行人。於佛身名號國土等。皆以四重祕釋之意觀念修行。

1383 SAZ 2: 226-227; The following section is a significantly revised and expanded version of my discussion of this passage in: Aaron P. Proffitt, “Nenbutsu Mandala Visualization in Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō: An Investigation into Medieval Japanese Vajrayāna Pure Land,” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies (Third Series) 15 (2013): 153-170. This section of the Compendium is also examined in: James Sanford, “Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu,” in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. Richard Payne, 161–90 (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006); Satō Mona 佐藤もな, “Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru jōdo shisō kaishaku: Dōhan Himitsu nenbutsu shō o megutte” 中世真言宗における浄土思想解釈--道範『秘密念仏抄』をめぐって,” Indo tetsugaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū インド哲学仏教学研究 9 (2002b): 80-92; Endo Isami 遠藤伊左見, “Kamakuraki ni okeru Himitsu nenbutsu shisō wo kōsatsu—Jōhen, Dōhan wo chūshin to shite 鎌倉期における秘密念仏思想の考察― 静遍・道範を中心として,” Taishō daigaku daigaku-in kenkyū ronshū 大正大学大学院研究論集 38 (2014): 206-234.

Regarding the Name [of Amitābha]:

Question: It is widely known that these days among practitioners of mantra and [śamathavipaśyanā], there are many who rely upon the practice of chanting the name of Amitābha hoping to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. As for the [widely practiced] nenbutsu samādhi, it is a practice that does not depend upon the various conditions of time or place [into which sentient beings are born, and may thus be cultivated by all]. But why have so many taken refuge in the primal vow? Is it perhaps because [the nenbutsu] is an easy practice that possesses the virtues of uninterrupted cultivation? Or is it perhaps that the chanting of the name has superficial and profound, apparent and hidden meanings?

Answer: Practitioners of [[[śamatha-vipaśyanā]]] rely in particular upon the nenbutsu samādhi of the four-fold samādhi of the Mohezhiguan 摩訶止觀 (T. 1911), and their main practice is the chanting of the name of Amitābha. The practitioner of mantra employs the purport of the four-fold secret explication in their contemplative cultivation of the buddha bodies, names, and lands, etc.

其四重者。一此彌陀佛者。昔在因依。初爲無諍念王。於寶藏佛所。發無上道心。次爲法藏比丘。於世自在王佛所。發四十八願。果願成佛。名彌陀佛。此悲花雙觀等所説。是爲淺略。

The Four-fold [Secret Explication of the Buddha Amitābha]: One, long ago, before the Buddha Amitābha attained awakening, he first set out on the [[[Buddhist]]] path as King Araṇemin, giving rise to the mind that seeks enlightenment before the Buddha Ratnagarbha. Then, as the bhikṣu Dharmākara he made the forty-eight vows before the Buddha Lokeśvararāja. Having become a Buddha as a result of these vows, he is thus called Amitābha. These and other things are explained in the Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-sūtra 悲華經 (T. 157) and the Contemplation Sūtra 觀無量壽經 (T. 365), among others. This may be regarded as the shallow-abbreviated [meaning].

二此彌陀佛者。大日法身普門萬德中。金剛五智。妙觀察智。胎藏八葉。證菩提門也。此兩部大經所説。是爲深祕。凡顯教。十方諸佛。各別因人修行證果也。眞言十方如來。四重曼荼。皆是一行者。顯得萬德也。

Two, the Buddha Amitābha, is among the manifold virtues of the universal gate of the Dharmakāya Mahāvairocana. In the Vajra [[[Realm]] Mandala], he is recognized among the fivewisdoms as the wisdom of sublime discrimination, and within the eight petals of the Womb [[[Realm]] Mandala],1389 he is understood to be the gate of realizing awakening, as is explained in the two great sūtras [[[Mahāvairocana-sūtra]] 大日經 (T. 848) and Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (T. 874) ], this may be taken to be deep secret [meaning]. In general, within the revealed teachings, the Buddhas of the Ten Directions are produced of the bodhisattva’s practice and awakening. In the mantra path, the Tathāgata of the Ten Directions and the four-fold mandala are the infinite virtues of the practitioner that are revealed and attained.

三 此彌陀佛者。是大日法身。三世常住惠命。是云無量壽。故彌陀卽大日。一門卽普門也。是爲祕中深祕。

Three, the Buddha Amitābha, is the living wisdom of Mahāvairocana Dharmakāya, ever abiding in the three worlds [of past, present, and future]. This is called Limitless Life. Therefore, Amitābha is none other than Mahāvairocana. One gate is all gates. This may be taken to be the secret within the deep secret.

四 此彌陀佛者。卽一切衆生色心實相。性淨圓明 平等智身也。所謂衆生八辯心蓮卽彌陀三點曼荼 。 雖淪無明淤泥。非染非隱。雖開始覺佛光。非生非顯。 三際不變。 萬德凝然。是爲祕祕中深祕。名號國土等四重可淪思之。自下注釋 依此四重。隨應可見。此深 corresponds to Ratnasaṃbhava 寶生如來, the 7th consciousness, manas-vijñāna 末那識, or the consciousness that gives rise to the erroneous sense of self. (4) Pratyavekṣaṇā-jñāna 妙觀察智 (J. myōkanzatchi) is the wisdom of subtle discrimination, and corresponds to Amitābha 阿彌陀佛如來 in the West, the 6th consciousness of mind mano-vijñāna 意識, which unifies the five consciousness of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. (5) Kṛtya-anuṣṭhānajñāna 成所作智 is the wisdom to accomplish all things for the benefit of self and others, and corresponds to Amoghasiddhi 不空成就如來 in the north, the first five consciousnesses 五識 of eye 眼, ear 耳, nose 鼻, tongue 舌, and body 身. See also: Dreitlein and Takagi, Philosophy of Language, 361-362; NKBD, 493b-c and MD, 620c-621a, 1389 Vajradhātu-maṇḍala 金剛界曼荼羅 (J. Kongōkai mandara), or Vajra Realm Mandala, is one of two main mandala in the Japanese Shingon tradition, the other one being the Mahākaruṇā-garbhodbhava maṇḍala (sometimes rendered as Garbha-dhātu Mandala) 胎藏界曼荼羅 (J. Taizōkai mandara) (regarding this reading, see). These two mandalas are understood to represent two non-dual aspects of reality, the fundamental Buddhahood of reality (Taizōkai) and the wisdom through which this is reality is grasped (Kongōkai). See: Dreitlein and Takagi, Kūkai on the Philosophy of Language, 374, 401-402, 356: Dharmakāya of Truth and Dharmakāya of Wisdom. 祕名號。卽祕密眞言。故同雖云稱名。全不 同常途淺略也。

Four, the Buddha Amitābha is realized to be the true nature of the body-mind of all sentient beings, the essentially pure, perfectly bright, embodiment of the wisdom that sees all things as equal. That which is referred to as the eight-petaled heart lotus of sentient beings, is the three-point Mandala of Amitābha. Though submerged in the much of ignorance, [this enlightened mind] is neither defiled nor hidden. Though revealed by the Buddha’s light of initial awakening, it is neither arisen nor made manifest. In the past, present, and future, it is unchanging. The manifold virtues are thusly steadfast. This may be taken as the deepest secret within the deep secret.

When contemplating the name of Amitābha, his land, etc., one should immerse one’s thoughts deeply in the four levels. In the examination that follows, one should rely upon these four levels. In accordance with one’s capacities, one may see that this deep and profound name is in fact a secret mantra. Though it too is called “the chanted name” it is wholly different than the shallow understanding of the ordinary path.

First, Dōhan rhetorically inquires as to why it is that monks of Shingon and Tendai traditions (encompassing essentially the entire Japanese Buddhist world: Hieizan, Nara, and

Kyōto based lineages and institutions) universally rely upon the nenbutsu as the path to salvation. Answering his own rhetorical question he suggests that the nenbutsu is a practice that contains limitless merits, and transcend the particular capacities of beings. Next, Dōhan establishes the four levels of the Buddha (and by extension, the Pure Land and nenbutsu as well). The first level might be understood as the literal, or perhaps even “literary,” level. On this level, the sūtras may be taken at face value: there once was a king who renounced his kingdom and embarked upon the path of the Bodhisattva, accomplishing vows that established the most awesome of purified lands. That Dōhan regards this level of interpretation as seemingly insufficient does not distinguish him from other Pure Land thinkers. Virtually all Mahāyāna thinkers distinguish some teachings as provisional and others as essential. The second level might be regarded as the literal, or shallow, “Esoteric” interpretation. On this level, the practitioner of mantra realizes, perhaps on an intellectual level, that Amitābha is fundamentally one with Mahāvairocana, and an embodiment of all aspects of the dual-mandalic depiction of the universe (for Dōhan, perhaps, virtually synonymous with the Mitsugon Jōdo). This perspective by itself is also insufficient. Third, the practitioner realizes that Amitābha is the Dharmakāya, in other words, a basic facet of reality, the very life force of the universe itself. However, even this realization is not the whole picture.

At the fourth level, the practitioner realizes that Amitābha is to be found in/as the very body-mind of beings, as the capacity that enlivens and enlightens, rendering both the capacity for, and ultimate realization of, awakening as a fundamental feature of the human condition. As a result, though the mantra-nenbutsu is referred to as shōmyō 稱名, like the “ordinary” nenbutsu, it is not the same. However, because that which is called “Amitābha” is the body, mind, and bodaishin of all beings, even the purportedly shallow interpretation must contain within it the highest potential. Dōhan’s nenbutsu employs ken and mitsu to transcend that very distinction. Moreover, as is evident from the fourth level, which draws upon notions of sudden awakening, and Tendai notions of initial and original awakening, we may begin to perceive the catholicity with which Dōhan approaches the construction of his particular nenbutsu polemic.

According to Dōhan, that which is perceived to be the smallest, or the shallowest, may in fact encompass the greatest, or the deepest realization. Quoting a passage from Yixing’s 一行 (684-727) commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, the Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796), who draws upon the Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 as his proof text:

唱一佛名號。卽唱十方諸佛名號。故大日經。說觀世蓮華眼。卽同一切佛。隋取一名號。作本性加持。

…when one chants the name of one Buddha, [one is in fact] chanting the names of all the Buddhas of the ten directions. Therefore, the Mahāvairocana-sūtra states, “The lotus eyes of Avalokiteśvara are equal to all Buddhas.” And accordingly, the one name is taken up, and identified as the kaji of fundamental nature [which reveals the fundamental non-duality between Buddhas and beings and that the mind of the Buddha is none other than the mind of sentient beings].

In other words, the part is equal to the whole. From the perspective of the foolish, saṃsāra bound being, simplistic hierarchies and discriminations are perceived to be fundamentally real. From this perspective, Avalokiteśvara is below the Buddha, and ordinary beings are below the Bodhisattva of Compassion; the shallow nenbutsu is less profound than the purportedly deep nenbutsu. However, from the Buddha’s perspective, there is no distinction, there is no hierarchy. Perhaps drawing upon interpretive strategies connected to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, the truth of non-duality and thusness may be said to be realizable from all points in the proverbial net. Of course, Dōhan’s purpose is to promote the shingon gyōnin 眞言行人, a contested concept to which Nara and Hiei based lineages laid claim. This is likely the polemical-political intent of this text, to employ the popularity of Pure Land to promote a versatile vision of the Shingon practitioner. Indeed, the pursuit of the Shingon path was an important vocation for all elite institutions, and was essential to the acquisition of patronage and prestige. According to Dōhan:

眞言行人。卽淺解深祕。卽易知頓證。 故 順道俗同歸之佛號。付彌陀稱名本願者也。

For the mantra practitioner, it is precisely the shallow [[[understanding]]] that penetrates [and is not separate from the most profound secret, and it is precisely the easy [practice] that immediately attains [and is not separate from] awakening. Therefore, the Buddha name in which monks and lay alike have taken refuge is the none other than the primal vow of chanting Amitābha’s name.

According to Dōhan’s logic, all beings possess the potential to attain awakening through the mantra path. In some sense, if the speech of the Dharmakāya composes all of existence, up to and including the speech of all beings, perhaps all beings are already mantra pracitioners, unaware of the activity of the Buddha as part of their own reality. From one perspective, when that reality is realized, that potential is actualized, however, from another perspective, maybe even the shallow interpretation as it is, untransformed, is a manifestation of Buddhahood. In this way, through a form of practice as “easy” as the nenbutsu, beings are able to traverse the seemingly endless path of the Buddha in a single instant.

“Kanjin” Interpretation

Dōhan draws first upon Jippan’s ajigi 阿 義 based deathbed ritual, which uses the standard Amida santai setsu to employ the three syllables of the name A-mi-ta to explicate the interdependence of emptiness, provisional truth, and the synthesis of both, or “middle.” Therein, the relationship between ultimate and provisional truth is understood to be realized from the position of a hypothetical middle. In Japan, this idea was employed by Jippan, Dōhan, and others, all of whom drew upon Tendai thought in their interpretation of the nenbutsu. The Amida santai setsu first places ‘A’ as revealing the “ultimate truth” of emptiness, ‘MI’ the “provisional truth,” and the ‘TA’ the “middle” or the synthesis. Next, the three syllables are said to reveal the three bodies of the Buddha 三身 (Skt. trikāya; Jp. sanjin): dharma-kāya 法身 (Jp. hōsshin), saṃbhoga-kāya 報身 (Jp. hōshin), and nirmāṇa-kāya (Jp. ōshin 応身; or keshin 化身). This form of presenting the santaisetsu emerged within the early development of Japanese kanjin 観心 (Ch. guanxin) style of exegesis which grew out of the secret oral transmission 口伝 (Jp. kūden) culture of medieval Japan.

In one sense, these three letters are employed to practically encompass the whole of Buddhist truth. By the early medieval period, original enlightenment thought, which seems to have been developed chiefly among Hieizan lineages, came do dominate the way Buddhists conceived of the relationship between Buddhas and beings, between practice and awakening, between this world and the Pure Land. Just as mikkyō ritual had permeated early Heian Buddhist culture, as discussed in Chapters III and V, so too did kuden permeate the early medieval culture of the transmission of knowledge. The strategy Dōhan employs in his use of the santaisetsu certainly draws upon what we might regard as Tendai thought, but rather than view this as a simplistic “syncretism” of Shingon and Tendai, we must recognize instead that Shingon and Tendai were major areas of study throughout the medieval kengaku culture. This is not to deny the competitive nature of the appropriation of one’s opponent’s concepts, which is likely what we are actually seeing here; I simply hope to impart that the Buddhist environment was much more complex than is typically understood.

Dōhan employs the Amida-santai-setsu as a way to organize a variety of Buddhist philosophical concepts (grouped in threes), but also uses this series of comparisons and conflations to subvert the reader’s assumptions regarding the hierarchy of ideas. Of importance here is not simply the notion that the three syllables are so powerful that they encompass all, but rather, Dōhan rearranges the standard presentation to create a kind of productive tension, in which priority shifts from the letter A, associated with the popular Ajikan, to the letter TA, which is associated with the nirmāṇa-kāya. In this way, as noted above, the Buddha which one can actually encounter, the physical Buddha, is given priority over the abstract Dharmakāya. This inversion strategy appears throughout the text.

Shifting emphasis again, this time to the center, Dōhan recognizes Amitābha to be in the middle position between Mahāvairocana and Śākyamuni, the Pure Land Sukhāvatī between the all-encompassing Mitsugon and the all too familiar Sahā realm. These three are then likened to the three mysteries of body, speech, and mind. With Amitābha in the central position, he is assimilated to the mystery of speech. From here, Dōhan investigates the nature of speech further, identifying the letters A-MI-TA as corresponding to the physical throat, lips, and tongues of sentient beings. This strategy is one way for Dōhan to impart to the reader that the Buddha Amitābha is literally physically present within beings, and not simply an object of devotion far away. The body and mind (life/breath) arise together to create the nenbutsu (speech), which is the Buddha in the world. Amitābha, the act of speech, the organs of speech, and the life/breath all work together as one.1404

Table 1: Three Letter Nenbutsu: A-MI-TA

Three Letters A MI TA

Three Truths Emptiness 空 Middle 中 Provisional 假

Three Bodies Dharmakāya 法身 Sambhogakāya 報身 Nirmāṇakāya 応身

Three Buddhas Mahāvairocana 大日 Amitābha 彌陀 Śākyamuni 釋迦

Three Mysteries Body 身 Speech 口 Mind 心

Three Organs Throat 喉 Lips 唇 Tongue 舌

Next, Dōhan considers a five letter/character version of the nenbutsu, here written in the Siddhaṃ letters: Namu-A-mi-ta-buḥ (a Sansritized version of a common Japanese way of pronouncing the nenbutsu). Each syllable is presented starting with namu in the center. Dōhan explains that “namu” may be understood to be the same as the oṃ, used in numerous mantras, as well as the evaṃ mayā śrutam 如是我聞 (C. rushi wowen, J. nyoze gamon) which is may be found at the beginning of many sūtras. All of these, Dōhan claims, may be understood as the act of taking refuge 歸依 (C. guiyi, J. kie) in the Buddha. A, in the southern position, is understood as bodhi 菩提 (C. puti, J. bodai), or perfect awakening.1407 MI is the nature of self, and ultimately the dissolution of self and the arising of byōdō 平等 (C. pingdeng), which we might translate as “equanimity,” and it signifies the realization that all things are one, nondifferentiated. TA is thusness 如如 (C. ruru, J. nyonyo), the realization of things as they truly are. Buḥ is the true understanding of the nature of karma 業 (C. ye, J. gō).

Image 1: Mandalic Nenbutsu

This “mandalic” depiction of the nenbutsu is then assimilated to the five Buddhas of the mandala as well as the five forms of wisdom associated with each Buddha (see Table 3 below). Drawing upon two different Shingon theories of the five (or six) elements, South and East Asian theories of the body, and Yogācāra theories of the faculties of consciousness, Dōhan employs the Siddhaṃ syllables of the nenbutsu to encompass the whole of Buddhist reality: the Indian five elements 五大 (C. wuda, J. godai), and Chinese five phases 五行 (C. wuxing, J. gogyō), the five viscera 五臓 (C. wuzang, J. gozō), the five sense faculties 五根 (C. wugen, J. gokon), five objects of the senses 五塵 (C. wuchen, J. gojin), the five afflictions 五煩惱 (C. wufannao, J. gobonnō), and the five realms of saṃsāra 五道 (C. wudao, J. godō).

Table 2: Five Letter Nenbutsu: NAMU-A-MI-TA-BUḤ

 
Nenbutsu NAMU 無 A 阿 MI
彌 TA
陀 BUTSU 佛
 
Five Directions Center
中 East
東
South West
西 North 北
Five Buddhas Mahāvairocana
大日 Akṣobhya
阿閦 Ratnasaṃbhava
寶生
Amitābha
彌陀 Amoghasiddhi
不空
Five Wisdoms 法界體性智
dharmadhātuprakṛti-jñāna
大圓鏡智
ādarśajñāna 平等性智
samatājñāna 妙觀察智
pratyavekṣaṇā
-jñāna 成所作智
kṛtyānuṣṭhānajñāna
Chinese* and
Corresponding
Indian
Elements
 
Earth
地* /土 (空) Wood 木* (空) (風) Fire
火* Metal 金* (風) (水) Water 水* (地)
Five Viscera Liver
脾
 
Spleen
肝 Heart
心 Lungs
肺 Kidneys
腎
Five Faculties Body
身
 
Eye
眼 Tongue
舌 Nose 鼻 Ear
耳
Five Sense Objects Touch
触
 
Form
色 Taste
味 Scent
香 Voice
声
Afflictions
 
Hatred
瞋
 
Craving
貪 Delusion
痴 Doubt
疑 Pride
慢
Realms Hell 地獄
 
Preta
餓鬼 Animal
畜生 Human 人 Deva
天

Again, of prime importance here, is not simply that Dōhan uses the nenbutsu to encompass the whole Buddhist cosmological worldview, but rather, something more interesting and subtle is being accomplished. In this section, Dōhan locates the potential for Buddhahood within even the five defilements. Stating, for example, that the defilement of doubting the truth (the dharma) is at its core the very faculty that allows beings to differentiate between falsehood and the truth. Here again, the lowest is revealed to express the highest. Now, upon my first reading of this text, the simplicity, and repetitiveness of this exegetical strategy seemed needlessly tedious. However, when read in the context of the broader work, the intended meaning became clear.

An “Esoteric” Logic

Following this section, Dōhan quotes Kūkai’s Shōji jissō gi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429), a text that draws upon South Asian linguistic theory to present a view of language as exemplary of the relationship between the highest reality, and the most basic. Here, Dōhan uses Kūkai and Shandao together to consider the relationship between thusness and the simple act of chanting the nenbutsu:

又就聲 實相釋之。稱三 六 之聲名爲聲 此三 六 。彌陀如來。三身五智果名。是云 。名卽 故。此聲 所呼佛體爲實相。大師於聲 實相。作依主有財等五種釋。五種中持業爲深祕。持業者聲卽 。聲 卽實相也。是故稱六 之聲 。卽如來實相體也。以之 思之。善導念佛之氣中。感見化佛。是卽聲卽實相之眞容。勿作西方來之想。（矣）

Also, according to the explication in [[[Shōji]] jissō gi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429)], the voice that intones the three characters or six characters, this is called Voice. The three or six characters, Amitābha Tathāgata, the three bodies, the name [received by the bodhisattva upon the attainment of awakening], the five wisdoms, this is called Letter. This is because the name is letter. This VoiceLetter is the embodiment of the buddhas and may be taken as the Truth Aspect. [[[Kōbō]]] Daishi, in the Shōji jissō [gi] establishes the five levels of analysis for the tat-puruṣa and the karma-dhāraya [of the terms] [six types of linguistic compound analysis of Sanskrit] etc., and the five other levels of analysis. Within this analysis, the karma-dhāraya may be taken to be the deep and profound [meaning]. The karma-dhāraya is the [[[idea]] that] Voice is Letter. This Voice-Letter is Truth Aspect. This is because intoning the voice-letter of the six character is the embodiment of the Tathāgata’s Truth Aspect. Using this idea, [one can see that] the transformation Buddha that Shandao encountered within the breath (qi) of his nenbutsu is the true body/face [of the Buddha], the Voice that is Truth Aspect. For this reason, however, there is no sense in merely constructing a vision coming from the western direction.

Voice and Letter are non-dual. Voice-Letter and Truth Aspect are non-dual. Therefore, Voice and Truth Aspect are non-dual. In this way, the vocal act of nenbutsu should itself be considered not simply as a representation of the Buddha, but the Buddha itself. By extension, Dōhan suggests, in a seemingly off the cuff comment, that the manifestation/vision of the Buddha that Shandao may have encountered in the very breath of his uttered nenbutsu should itself be recognized as the Buddha fully, not merely as a representation or accommodated emanation. Buddha is present in the qi 氣 of the voice that chants the nenbutsu. It is not mistake that qi can mean power, essence, breath, and life itself.

Some scholars have come to regard Dōhan as virtually identical in orientation to his teacher Kakkai/Kakukai 覺海 (1142–1223), a critic of the literalist (ken) Pure Land view. I would argue that Dōhan’s presentation is more subtle, and rather than simply critiquing Shandao (who may be a stand in for Hōnen) or Zhiyi, or others not commonly thought of as Shingon patriarchs, Dōhan is using their thought in conjunction with the works of Kūkai—appropriating concepts and stories associated with these figures, and deploying them in service of a comprehensive “Esoteric” (here implying kenmitsu) approach to Pure Land.

Rather than view Dōhan as an opponent of the Shandao interpretive line, we might think of them as two of many partners in a broader East Asian dialogue over the purported chasm between this realm and the Pure Land. It has often been noted that contemporary Buddhist Studies scholarship is rather dismissive of Pure Land dimensions of the “Mahā/Vajrayāna” Buddhist experience. Thinkers like Shandao, Hōnen, etc., are often dismissed as simply preaching to the lowest of the low, and offering little in the way of philosophical insight or challenging argumentation. Dōhan, on the other hand, draws upon Shandao throughout the text, not simply as a straw man, but as a partner in dialogue. The fact that Dōhan found Shandao so useful should encourage scholars, who on the whole tend to be more interested in “Esoteric” thinkers like Dōhan, to follow Dōhan’s example and engage more fully with the more subtle points of Shandao and other Pure Land thinker’s thought.

According to Dōhan’s “Kūkai-studies” reading of Shandao’s nenbutsu, through cultivation of the nenbutsu, one may experience a mystical encounter with the Buddha. Correctly understood, however, even this mirage itself, the vocal act itself, the qi of this vocal act itself, is the Buddha wholly. This nirmāṇakāya is not a re-presentation of the Buddha, it is the Buddha. For this reason, there is no need to seek the Buddha far away, for that Buddha is already here. This seemingly immanentalist vision of the Buddha as the “qi/breath” of the nenbutsu might lead modernist readers of this text to suppose that Dōhan is in some sense dismissing classical cosmology. However, this is not quite right. That the Buddha is present within the “qi” of the nenbutsu does not mean that he does not also reside in Sukhāvatī, countless worlds to the West. As Stone has noted, monks who designed these kinds of kanjin systems seem, on the one hand, to have collapsed the distinction between this world and the Pure Land, and on the other hand, they seem to have regarded Pure Land rebirth as a “real” event. The point here is that there is no sense in pursuing the Buddha “there” when he is understood to be “here” as well.

Breath and Speech

Central to Dōhan’s vision of Amitābha is the concept of a “vital breath” 命息 (J. myōsoku), or “breath of life.” According to Kameyama Takahiko 亀山隆彦, this idea was likely developed by Dōhan in conversation with Daigoji monks, with whom he studied with for some time, either in Kyoto or on Kōyasan (as it is know that Daigoji monks were frequent visitors to Kōyasan). According to this theory, Amitābha as the dharmakāya is the eternally abiding life force of all beings, and may be understood as the very breath of life, the basis for the act of speech and life, and of course, the nenbutsu itself. 顯家於彌陀有補所故。約有量無量立名。是淺略也。又有甚深義趣。以一切衆生壽命。名無量壽。謂彌陀蓮華語密體故。六道四生語聲。迷悟十界言音。皆是彌陀法界體也。此言音六大中風大。是則一切衆生出入息也。此息風爲衆生命根。

Exoteric scholars regard Amitābha as having a [limited lifespan at the end of which he will be succeeded by his attendant Bodhisattvas], and therefore, as a result they establish names that have limit, or do not have limit. This is the shallow, abbreviated, view. There is also the deep and profound meaning, whereby Amitābha is taken to be none other than the life force of sentient beings, he is also called Limitless Life (Amitāyus). Amitābha is referred to as the essence of the Lotus of the mysteries of speech. Therefore, the languages and speech of beings born into the six realms that are born [through eggs, wombs, condensation, and transformation ] the sounds of the words of the enlightened and deluded beings of the ten realms, they are without exception the essence of the Dharma-dhatu of Amitābha. The sound and speech of [these beings], among the six elements, [may be taken to be] the element of wind, which is the out and in breath of all sentient beings. This breath-wind may be taken as the fundamental life-force of sentient beings.

大日經說命者所謂風。相應經宣根本命金剛。是皆以息風爲命根也。是故彌陀卽衆生壽命。以衆生界無量故。名無量壽。是則同體大悲之極理。音聲解說之實智也。留心深可思之。

The Mahāvairocana-sūtra explains, “life is that which is called wind (S. prāṇa).” The [Jin’gang fengluoge yiqie yujia yuqijing 金剛峯樓閣一切瑜伽瑜祇經 (T. 867) (hereafter, Sōōkyō 相応経)] declares, “the fundamental basis of life is vajra.” In all cases, the breath-wind is taken to be the basis of life. By means of this, Amitābha is the life of sentient beings, and taking the realms of beings to be without limit, he is called Limitless Life. The ultimate reason for Amitābha’s great compassion stems from the nature of his union with all beings. Sound and speech expound this truth and wisdom. Keep this in mind and think upon it deeply.

If Dōhan has a specific object of critique, it is those literalist interpreters of the sutras who believe Buddhas have a limited life span, those that suggest that the Buddha of Limitless Life and Light (Amitāyus/Amitābha) is somehow “limited” and not a facet of a deeper, eternal Buddhahood suffusing and constituting all of reality. This Amitāyus/Amitābha is Speech-Breath- Life.

This emphasis on the speech/breath aspect might remind one of certain other debates within Buddhism. Is the attainment of Buddhahood an achievement (initial/acquired awakening) arising of one’s own personal effort (self-power) over a long process lasting kalpas (gradual), or is Buddhahood an inherent quality (original/inherent enlightenment) of the seemingly conditioned reality of foolish beings, a power beyond the limited ego (other power) ever present and imminently attainable (sudden)? Is it revealed on the surface level interpretation (exoteric) or the inner, revealed level (esoteric)? The relationship between these binaries, reveal a rhetorical strategy within Buddhism whereby dualist constructs (self/other, beings/Buddhas, this world/the Pure Land, etc.) are deployed and resolved, or allowed to stand in a kind of creative tension wherein the mind must wrestle with the problem of how a conditioned being may attain an unconditioned state. Dōhan’s emphasis on breath and speech serves as a useful metaphor for a much broader Mahāyāna philosophical problem: Is awakening something that “I” “do” or something that “happens” to “me?” Breath is automatic, and while we may occasionally think about breathing, or even meditate upon it, in general, it is an unwilled, spontaneous, naturally arising event. Speech, on the other hand, is typically perceived as a willed act, and yet, this seemingly willed act is inherently dependent upon something that is beyond our control. Dōhan locates his theory of the nenbutsu, his theory of the nature of Buddhist awakening, fundamentally within the human body, as the body, but does this from a position that takes Buddhist cosmology and elaborate ritual seriously. Dōhan, one of the most prolific scholars of his day, takes the answer to the philosophical Mahāyāna problem of how nirvana and saṃsāra may be recognized as interpenetrating from the world of abstract doctrine, and moves it into the realm of Buddhist practice. Practice is then understood not simply as a representation of that problem, but an embodied response.

Chapter VI

Part III

Beyond Exclusivism and Universalism

I would like to suggest that Dōhan’s reimagining of life-breath-speech is worthy of further philosophical consideration and application. In this section I will inquire into possible strategies for placing Dōhan’s thought in a broader intellectual dialogue. Dōhan engages with themes that may be said to be of “universal” concern: the power of speech, the tension between the divine and the mundane, the nature of human agency in the world, etc. Therefore, further inquiry into Dōhan’s thought may provide an entry point into thinking about how the Shingon tradition might be placed in dialogue with other religious traditions in medieval Japan, and beyond. Moreover, by locating the fundamental basis of religious transformation in life itself (breath-speech), Dōhan’s theory of the nenbutsu may be useful in thinking about how religious diversity might be engaged by scholars and philosophers of the contemporary world more actively, moving beyond the extremes of universalism or exclusivism.

Many religious systems claim that there is a mysterious relationship between breath as the source of vitality and the divine realm. Moreover, it is often said that the power of speech may act as a conduit between these dimensions of reality. Indeed, in some traditions the act of creation is said to be a divine breath/speech act. In Greek, concepts like pneuma and logos are closely related. Of particular relevance for Dōhan are the Chinese and Indian religious and philosophical traditions in which breath and speech, spirit and language, and breath and life are closely related concepts.

The term qi in Chinese has the semantic range of air, wind, steam, energy, or pneuma. This term was used to translate the Sanskrit term prāṇa, which, according to the Monier Williams may mean “the breath of life, breath, respiration, spirit, vitality, life…vigour, energy, power,” and so on. Based on this connection between qi and prāṇa, moreover, Dōhan’s use of “vital breath” in relation to Amitābha may be placed in productive dialogue as well with later Indian and Tibetan Esoteric literature, wherein, “…the ‘natural’ (sahaja) joy (enlightenment, knowledge)… is the life (breath) of living beings, the universe is made of it….being and nonbeing occur because of it and likewise all consciousness, ‘man’ (puruṣa ‘spirit’), ‘God’ (Ivar), soul, life-principle, being, time, person and the own being of all beings.” That Dōhan makes similar moves as his Indian counterparts, and that Japanese tantric systems employ similar conceptual models, should at the very least suggest to us that scholars of Japanese and Indian Buddhism might have issues of common concern. Ultimately this suggests that we need not retreat to our narrowly defined disciplinary niches, but may benefit greatly from a participating in a broader dialogue.

Another example is the concept of sukha or “bliss.” Sukha- forms the root word of Sukhāvatī, the Land of Bliss where the Buddha Amitābha resides. Just like Dōhan, Tibetan commentaries on the tantras to suggest that the mahāsukha of awakening and Sukhāvatī are the same thing. Are we not led to imagine the utility of broader comparative work? Are we not led to pursue a larger conversation about Buddhism beyond our single nation-state defined disciplinary niches? The diverse features of Buddhist literatures seem to invite us to be more creative with how we might approach this material, how we imagine ourselves in relation to that material, and how we might continue to pursue new and exciting areas of investigation as cotravelers in Buddhist Studies. Based on this, I suggest that Dōhan’s thought is not only useful for thinking about the diversity of medieval Japanese Buddhism, but like the so-called “Kamakura Buddhist” reformers, may be usefully placed in dialogue with other systems of thought, Buddhist or otherwise.

Breath-Speech

From the time of Kakuban and before, there developed the notion that by way of a single “mystery,” one could enact the three mysteries of body-speech-mind. Kakuban, Dōhan, and others, believed that speech, as the middle, or “central” mystery, was the key to performing all three simultaneously. Speech is both a mental and physical act, and one reading of Dōhan might also see it as a spiritual (qi) act as well. Developing Kūkai’s Voice-Letter-Truth Aspect theory, Dōhan characterizes the nenbutsu as the union of breath (qi/Truth Aspect) and the organs of speech (the concrete form rendering speech possible/the “Letter”), which produce the Voice, all of which are here understood as the Buddha Amitābha (ultimate reality) working with/through/as something within this sahā realm.

In one sense, mikkyō is not just the proposition of a set of doctrines, but also a diverse conglomeration of Mahāyāna orientations taking as their modus operandi the pursuit of deepest “Esoteric” truth. While many Mahāyāna systems presuppose the idea that that ultimate truth is ineffable or inexpressible through speech, Kūkai emphasized the effability of awakening, that ultimate truth is always mediated through particulars of speech and time. In other words, difference is not negated in favor of a singular absolute, these differences are valorized as essential pieces of that absolute. It could be argued that one of the fundamental features of Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and thus mikkyō thought in particular, is an orientation toward situatedness, while also maintaining an orientation toward a bigger (the biggest) picture.

Elite scholars-monks like Dōhan regarded their era as a turbulent time when not only society, but being’s access to the dharma was in decline. Perhaps, one reason why the Kamakura period has remained such a popular area of study for both Japanese and Western scholars alike, is because the palpable anxiety of that era seems to resonate with the anxieties of modern society. Obviously, it is a mistake to say that they are the same, and I am not here suggesting that they necessarily bear similar features, but I am suggesting that for many historians, they seem to have points in common. Dōhan’s nenbutsu thought may be useful in thinking about religious diversity in an era seemingly permeated with religious violence and unrest. I am not simply talking about the Kamakura period, during which it was widely acknowledged that the Final Age had begun, but also our own world, removed from Dōhan’s by almost one thousand years.

During the Kamakura period, religious thinkers were responding to the perceived (if not entirely actual) unrest by questioning deeply the institutions of power and tradition. The nenbutsu was one of the most widely practiced forms of Buddhism, and as such, it was used as a tool to approach this age of anxiety. There were perhaps two basic approaches, exemplified by Dōhan’s two most important teachers. First, is the perspective we might see as belonging to Dōhan’s teacher Kakkai, who argued that there was one reality into which all perspectives ultimately resolve. Based on this, Kakkai asserts that this world and the Pure Land are One.

Second, is the perspective of Jōhen 靜遍 (1165–1223), arguably the most influential force in Dōhan’s intellectual life. Jōhen was a student of mikkyō, and thus oriented his religious life around the simultaneous recognition of the unity of beings and Buddhas. However, like Hōnen, who an extremely important source of inspiration and devotion, Jōhen also recognized that, from the perspective of foolish beings, this purported unity is virtually imperceptible. In this way, Jōhen endeavored to engage the absolute, while recognizing the provisional as really real also. This may perhaps remind one of the ongoing efforts in contemporary physics toward a “theory of everything” where in the laws that seem to govern the sub-atomic and the cosmic might be brought together. Both realities seem to exclude the other, and yet they clearly function together.

The Himitsu nenbutsu shō was completed around 1223, within one year of the death of both Kakkai and Jōhen. Could it be that this text was composed as a way for Dōhan to draw his teachers into conversation? Kakkai appears to have had very little sympathy for those who aspired for rebirth in the Pure Land. Jōhen, on the other hand, was deeply moved by Hōnen’s message of universal salvation for all. Rather than simply resolving the contradictions between his teachers, Dōhan drew upon his broad erudition to construct a position from which infinite diversity is possible precisely because all beings share at least one thing in common: the “breath of life.”

However, Dōhan’s approach to religious diversity does not simply affirm diversity for diversity’s sake. His is not a live and let live ethic, it is a polemic promoting a particular vision of the Buddhist universe. The structure of the Compendium, and Dōhan’s political conflagrations, should make that obvious. Rather, Dōhan recognized diversity while also embracing what Nietzsche would have acknowledged as the agonistic dimensions of the human all too human condition that drives the need to debate, discuss, disagree, and engage one another over topics of greatest concern. This drive to debate is premised on a recognition that all beings fit into a holistic cosmic scheme, Kakuban’s Mitsugon (or perhaps even Spinoza’s monistic “Nature”). In other words, rather than say ‘despite’ our differences all beings fit into the world, it would be more correct to assert that difference is immutable, and because beings share certain fundamental things, there is always a foundation from which dialogue may be initiated. Rooted in things fundamental (the desire to thrive, avoid suffering, to live), then, debate, disagreement, and impassioned engagement about passionate things is possible. Speech, perhaps the most human of all faculties is at the center of Dōhan’s view of humanity and the nature of salvation. Speech is an expression of the breath that animates us, and speech that is the basis for dialogue and human engagement.

In this way, Dōhan avoids the extremes of universalism and exclusivism. The universalistic ethic affirms diversity, but promotes non-engagement in favor of “peace” (or subjugation). There is also often an implicitly dominating view into which all things are forced to fit. Certain passages from the Compendium Dōhan may appear to establish yet another Buddhist “hierarchical universalists” perspective: all rivers return to the ocean and are purified. And yet, if the shallow is perceived to itself be the deep, then the shallow affirmed as the shallow allows for a position whereby simplistic hierarchies are destabilized. An exclusivistic perspective would negate the shallow in favor of the deep, deny the nirmāṇakāya in favor of the dharmakāya, and neglect the Voice and Letter in favor of the Truth Aspect. Yet Dōhan allows each of these to stand as they are without being resolved or negated.

Chapter VI

Part IV

Looking Towards the Future

This dissertation aspires to introduce to an English language readership the life and thought of Dōhan, as someone whose study may reveal long neglected features of the medieval Japanese world, the importance of Kōyasan for the study of early-medieval society, the diversity and ubiquity of nenbutsu practice, and “Esoteric Pure Land” as a new area of study and a productive area of future inquiry and academic dialogue. Here, I will address a few possible areas of research to which scholars of Dōhan’s thought might activity contribute. First, Dōhan lived his life at the top of the monastic hierarchy, and was a highly influential scholar in his day, taught and trained numerous students in the ritual arts and doctrinal debate and study. As such, his thought, though offering unique contributions, is also representative of broader trends in the medieval world. Dōhan’s contemporary, Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1263), on the other hand, rejected the monastic lifestyle, and was not widely known, or particularly influential in his own time. And yet, whole publishing companies are sustained by books about Shinran, and Dōhan is not widely known outside of a small group of scholars and monastics. Scholars investigating Shinran and the early Pure Land movement in Japan may benefit from the study of Dōhan and other “Esoteric” Pure Land thinkers. I would also like to suggest as well that scholars of mikkyō would benefit greatly from studying Shinran and the thought of other marginal Pure Land thinkers.

Before addressing ideas seemingly shared in common between Dōhan and Shinran, I would like to note one issue upon which they appear to have held diametrically opposed views: the possibility of attaining Buddhahood in this body, sokushin jōbutsu. Shinran possessed an extremely skeptical view of this central Shingon concept, and noted with some curiosity why exactly Buddhists purportedly capable of realizing awakening in this very body were ultimately aspiring for post-mortem rebirth in the Pure Land: オホヨソ今生ニヲイテハ煩惱惡障ヲ斷センコト。キハメテアリカタキアヒタ。眞言･法華 ヲ行スル淨侶。ナヲモテ順次生ノサトリヲイノル。Because, it is extremely difficult to cut off the ignorance and wickedness of this present life, the holy monks practicing Mantra and studying the Lotus Sūtra also strive for awakening in the life to come.

In response to the claims made in his time, that within the ritual arena one may see through the fog of saṃsāra to apprehend the light of the Buddha, Shinran appears skeptical.

For Dōhan, however, the potential to immediately apprehend the depths of reality from one’s own positionality was an a priori assumption, a basic feature of his worldview. For Dōhan, faith in the power of embodied Buddhist practice was absolutely central. Perhaps in reply to Shinran, we might consider the following passage from the Compendium: 問。何故此仏以称名為本願耶。答。此尊普門三蜜中語蜜仏也。…. 以称名為本願也。 Why is it that Amitābha chose the vocal nenbutsu as the object of his primal vow? Well, it is because this Honored One is the Buddha of the Mystery of Speech amongst the Universal Gate of the Three Mysteries.… he therefore takes the calling of the name as the object of his Primal Vow.

Dōhan’s reply (though Shinran and Dōhan never met) proposes that speech itself is somehow imbued with the power of Amitābha, and that there existed no contradiction between attaining

Buddhahood in this body, or in “that” land

One issue upon which Shinran and Dōhan seem to agree is the importance of faith, shinjin 信心, also commonly translated as “the mind of true entrusting.” Shinran believed that one who has attained the mind of faith was equal to the Buddhas (which is not the same as saying they are identical). Dōhan believed that the path of faith, rather than being reserved simply for those of lesser capacities, was itself equal to the stage of the attainment of awakening. Shinran viewed the mind of faith as in some sense “Vajra-like,” employing the term “vajra-like mind of true entrusting” 金剛信心 (J. kongō shinjin) consistently throughout his work, and even used the term shingon to mean “true words,” makoto no kotoba.

Dōhan also viewed the inherent capacity for the attainment of awakening as indestructible, or “vajra” like, and viewed all speech as having the capacity to convey makoto no kotoba. Moreover, the fundamental breath-life which moves in the world in order to bring beings to Buddhahood is also described by Dōhan as like a vajra. In this way, we might see that Dōhan’s Amitābha theory bears some resemblance to Shinran’s relatively well-known concept, jinen-hōni 自然法爾. This concept, articulated late in Shinran’s life, suggests that ultimately the Buddha always-already embraces beings. Both Dōhan and Shinran seem to have regarded “Amitābha” as an ever present (indestructible) force that permeates the universe and ordinary beings, transcending distinctions of self and other.

Both Shinran and Dōhan engaged deeply with the question of agency in the practice of nenbutsu. Is the nenbutsu something that “I” do, or is it something that the “Buddha” does? Shinran’s “other power” view emphasized Amitābha as the agent of salvation, and the act of the vocal recitation of his name not as an act performed by beings, but as the Buddha’s activity in the world, ultimately transcending the self/other binary. Dōhan, approaching this issue from a different perspective, emphasized the act of speech as the unified activity of Buddhas and beings. The words of the nenbutsu are not “my words” and are therefore an “other” power, and yet, the Buddha that expresses them is none other than the mind and body of beings. Therefore, a conceptual tension arises that invites further investigation.

Finally, both Shinran (perhaps following Zhiyi and Saichō) and Dōhan (following Kūkai) drew extensively upon the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. The influence of the Avataṃsaka upon Japanese mikkyō and Pure Land has been explored separately, but based on this preliminary sketch of “Esoteric Pure Land,” there may be great potential for studying Shinran and Dōhan as participants in a broader kenmitsu system actively informed by concepts drawn from the Avataṃsaka-sūtra.

The Avataṃsaka was extremely influential in the development of East Asian Buddhism, and was especially important for thinkers like Zhiyi and Kūkai, as well as Shinran and Dōhan. As was noted in Chapter IV, Dōhan’s last major undertaking before passing away in 1252, was to hand copy an edition of the Avataṃsaka purportedly composed in Kūkai’s own hand. Just as with Dōhan’s Amitābha devotion, his interest in the Avataṃsaka as well was articulated in terms of Kōbō Daishi devotion.

Pamela Winfield has recently employed the Avataṃsaka as a way of placing Kūkai and Dōgen in conversation. In comparing Kūkai and Dōgen’s respective iconic and iconoclastic approaches to conceptualizing awakening, she draws as well upon philosophical areas of interest shared in common by these two individuals. Given the importance of the Avataṃsaka for both Dōhan and Shinran, who were actually contemporaries, this text may serve a similar purpose in placing Dōhan and Shinran in dialogue.

Winfield discusses Fatsang’s Treatise of the Golden Lion 大方廣佛華嚴經金師子章 (T. 1881), in which the famous metaphor of Indra’s net is explored in great detail. Of particular interest for this discussion is a passage discussing “Esoteric” (C. mimi, J. himitsu) and revealed teachings, noting that the smallest teachings in fact reveal the greatest teaching. This passage may suggest that Dōhan’s presentation of the nenbutsu is in fact drawing upon an Esoteric tradition fundamentally undergirded by Avataṃsaka thought. This is an issue I look forward to exploring in greater detail in the future.

Furthermore, as noted in Chapter III, Avataṃsaka was highly influential in Japan beginning in the early Nara period, and as Tōdaiji 東大寺 continued to thrive through the medieval period (after having been burned down in the early medieval period), great thinkers like Myōe as well employed Avataṃsaka concepts in his mikkyō writings. Myōe’s writings on the Kōmyō Shingon and mikkyō Pure Land ideas also situate him as another possible dialogue partner for Dōhan.

Unfortunately, it was not until the very end of this project that I discovered the importance of the Avataṃsaka for Dōhan and Kūkai’s thought, and so it has only appeared sporadically in Chapters II and III. Dōhan’s nenbutsu thought does indeed appear to borrow significantly from a worldview imbued with an “Esoteric” Avataṃsaka logic: all nodes in the net reflect all others, therefore, the simple practice of chanting the nenbutsu abides in a fundamentally intimate relationship to the highest attainment. As this project moves forward, the recent publications in Avataṃsaka studies will likely serve as a foundation for investigating the philosophical and historical Avataṃsaka undercurrent in “Esoteric Pure Land” thought in East Asia.

Chapter VI

Conclusion

In this final chapter, I have proposed a reading of Dōhan’s thought based in the various threads Dōhan wove together to present his views on the nenbutsu, the Pure Land, and the Buddha Amitābha. I have suggested, based on references to the text, that Dōhan’s nenbutsu, though labelled as himitsu, might be better understood as kenmitsu, designed to encompass revealed and hidden teachings together, while allowing each to stand in a broader system. In Part I of this chapter, I outlined the basic contents of sub-sections of all three fascicles of the Compendium. In Part II, I presented a close reading of key passages from the Compendium, and argued that Dōhan’s approach to Pure Land recognizes even the simple act of chanting as it is to be an expression of the highest truth. This is perhaps the “secret” of Dōhan’s nenbutsu. In Part III, I pursued philosophical and ethical questions raised by Dōhan’s response to religious diversity and suggested that his nenbutsu theory moves beyond the extremes of universalism and exclusivism, promoting a theory of speech-breath that valorizes difference and the importance of dialogue and debate. In Part IV, I laid out a few avenues for future research including a brief comparative dialogue with the Pure Land thinker Shinran, and an investigation into the place of the Avataṃsaka in the establishment of mikkyō and Pure Land thought in medieval Japan. Finally, Dōhan studies is as of yet not an established field of inquiry. However, the number of articles on Dōhan has slowly begun to increase. Since the 1970s and ‘80s, scholars in Japan and abroad have been insisting that the study of “Old Buddhism” during the Kamakura period is essential, and it appears that younger scholars are not simply repeating this important observation, but are actually pursuing post-sectarian scholastic agendas, and building upon this new foundation. As this trend continues, more voices from the past that have fallen through the cracks will be brought back into the discussion, and premodern Buddhist studies will continue to evolve in new and exciting directions. It is my aspiration that this dissertation may inspire scholars to pursue the study of Dōhan’s thought and early-medieval Kōyasan as a heterogeneous religious site. Moreover, based on this research I hope to pursue projects that bring scholars of Esoteric Buddhism and Pure Land traditions to engage one another in dialogue.

CONCLUSION

Aspiration for rebirth in the “Pure Land” paradise of the Buddha Amitābha remains one of the most common goals of East Asian Buddhist practice, and yet, despite the ubiquity of Pure Land oriented art, thought, and ritual in Mahā/Vajrayāna Buddhist cultures, Pure Land rebirth remains one of the most under-studied, under-theorized, and misunderstood pieces of the Buddhist puzzle. Instead, the academic study of Buddhism has tended to emphasize philosophy, doctrine, and meditative traditions, which, in practice, were never separate from devotional or ritual practice. More recently, even as scholars have shifted their focus toward popular religion and material culture, this feature of the Buddhist world remains under-represented in scholarship on the Buddhist tradition, more broadly conceived. In some sense, my goal in writing this dissertation has been to contribute to the ongoing academic scholarship working to address this lack, by engaging with a dimension of the Pure Land tradition that has received very little attention: “Esoteric Pure Land.”

Through this dissertation I have argued against the prevalent taxonomic approach to the study of Buddhism (the ahistorical relegation of people, texts, and practices to essentialized “kinds” of Buddhism) by analyzing East Asian theories of the ritual speech act as a technology for bridging the gap between Buddhas and ordinary beings, proposing the life and work of Dōhan (1178-1252) and the Kōyasan monastic complex as an important “center of gravity” in the field of medieval Japanese Buddhist studies, and translating the first fascicle of his Himitsu nenbutsu shō (Compendium on the Secret Nenbutsu). By situating Dōhan’s thought in the ritual culture of medieval Japan and the broader East Asian cultural sphere, I demonstrated that “Esoteric Pure Land,” despite being virtually unknown in the Anglophone academy, was a defining characteristic of early Japanese Buddhism, and its roots reach deeply throughout the history of Buddhism in East Asia.

This dissertation was divided into three parts. In Part I (Chapters I-III) I worked to establish a framework whereby scholars might better recognize and engage the ubiquity of Pure Land thought and practice in East Asia. In Part II (Chapters IV-VI) I investigated the life and thought of Dōhan, situating him within the particular material and ritual Pure Land culture of Kōyasan, and the broader intellectual and devotional culture of the Kamakura Period (11851333). In Part III, following this Conclusion, I will present an annotated translation of the first fascicle of Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō. What follows is a brief summary of the six chapters that have comprised this dissertation, and a few concluding thought on potential future directions for this project. In Chapter I, I surveyed recent scholarship on the construction of Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna, Pure Land, and Early Buddhism as distinct areas of academic inquiry. I demonstrated that because many of the characteristics commonly assumed to define Mahāyāna and/or Vajrayāna Buddhism originated in presumably non-Mahayana Buddhist contexts, there is great interpretive potential for rethinking these categories as necessarily coherent boundary markers within the discipline. Next I proposed “Esoteric Pure Land” as a heuristic device useful for establishing a new area of study wherein scholars of “Pure Land” and “Esoteric” traditions, as well as East Asian and Indo-Tibetan area studies, may find common ground through a more dynamic study of Pure Land aspiration and soteriology in Buddhist cultures.

In Chapter II, I examined the place of the Pure Land within the transmission of a diverse range of South and Central Asian spell, dhāraṇī, and tantra literature into the East Asian cultural sphere. By rendering explicit the ubiquity of Pure Land imagery and aspiration across various genres of “Esoteric” Buddhist literature, and the many (often contradictory) ways that scholars have defined “Esoteric” Buddhism in East Asia, this chapter reconsidered the divide between what scholars have regarded as unsystematic spell and dhāraṇī literature and the systematic tantric literature of the Tang (618-907). In Chapter III, I inquired into the place of Pure Land thought and practice in the development of Japanese kenmitsu (exo/esoteric) ritual culture. First, I examined the early importation of texts and images later associated with the “Esoteric” tradition, beginning with the 6th to 7th century importation of “proto-esoteric” dhāraṇī literature. I then examined Kūkai’s 9th century establishment of Esoteric discourse as the primary ritual theoretical framework, and the place of Buddhist diversity and the Pure Land therein. Next, I turned to the 10th century and 11th century aristocratization of monastic institutions, and the domination of that environment by Hieizan (Mt. Hiei) lineages, noting in particular the place of Pure Land practice in the development of an “esotericized” hongaku Hieizan. Finally, I considered the “Esoteric Pure Land” context for the reemergence of “Kūkai-studies” and the revival of Kōyasan (the mountain mausoleum of Kūkai) in the 11th and 12th centuries.

Building upon Part I, I employed Chapters IV, V, and VI to investigate different aspects of Dōhan’s environment (IV), oeuvre and intellectual milieu (V), and “Esoteric Pure Land” thought (VI). In Part II of this dissertation I pursued the argument that Dōhan’s “Esoteric” approach to Pure Land was rather a kenmitsu, or “exo/esoteric,” approach to Pure Land, and that he may prove to be a potent new area of inquiry for several reasons. First, Buddhist studies as a whole has been significantly influenced by traditional

Japanese sectarian Buddhist scholarship which has been largely focus on the early-medieval “founders,” those monks who are credited with establishing the Pure Land, Zen, and Nichiren schools. Because these schools currently represent the largest schools of Japanese Buddhism, their founder’s critiques of the early-medieval environment has prejudiced generations of scholars (in China, Japan, and the West) against Esoteric traditions in particular (though very recently, the tide seems to be turning). As a prominent contemporary of these monks (who were in fact marginal and “heretical” in their own time) Dōhan may provide a counter view to this normative master narrative. Furthermore, Dōhan was a scholar of the doctrinal works of Kūkai at a time when the orthodox boundaries of the Shingon School were far more fluid than they are today, and may therefore provide a useful window into the history of the construction of Shingon orthodoxy throughout Japanese history (and how that orthodoxy has been employed to construct the very category “Esoteric”). In addition, Kōyasan was a major institution in the medieval period, but has received little sustained attention in English language scholarship. By reading an individual thinker, a particular site, and a particular text in their broader intellectual and historical context, I worked to challenge and engage multiple areas of study within the field of Buddhist studies.

In Chapter IV, I presented the life and career of Dōhan and the “Esoteric Pure Land” dimension of his early educational environment on Kōyasan and the capital in Heian-kyō, his rise through the monastic hierarchy, and his exile in Sanuki. This chapter demonstrates that dual devotion to Kūkai and the Buddha Amitābha were not only distinctive features of Dōhan’s thought, but were also dominant features of early medieval Shingon and Kōyasan more broadly. In Chapter V, I considered Dōhan in relationship to the mikkyō and hongaku culture of his time, and through a survey of his major extant works, employed Dōhan as a lens through which to view Kamakura Buddhism. Following an examination of recent scholarship on Kamakura Buddhism, I considered Stone’s “shared paradigm,” developed to problematize the purported divide between “Old” school Tendai and the Kamakura “New” schools, and suggested that Dōhan’s thought fit within this framework as well. In order to demonstrate this I examined several of his major extant works, noting the social context for the composition and transmission. For example, I discussed Dōhan’s understanding of the “beginners mind” as equal to the mind of the Buddhas, his focus on simple practices such as the nenbutsu and the kōmyō shingon, and his

balanced view of the Pure Land (engaging both dualist and non-dualist perspectives). In Chapter VI, I analyzed Dōhan’s understanding of the Pure Land, the Buddha Amitābha, and the nenbutsu (ritual chanting of the Buddha’s name), and presented a summary and general introduction to the Himitsu nenbutsu shō. Here I suggested that Dōhan constructs a Kūkai-centric polemical perspective from which to engage the diversity of perspectives on Pure Land rebirth wherein he argues that the “secret” nenbutsu is in fact the “breath of life” shared by all beings, as an aspect of the compassion of Buddha. Dōhan’s catholic engagement with Buddhist theories of ritual speech and beliefs concerning the relationship between “enlightened” Buddhas and “ordinary” beings, I argue, constitutes a kenmitsu nenbutsu perspective that may nuance our understanding of how “Esoteric” discourse functioned, not as a distinct “kind” of Buddhism, but as a polemical engagement with Buddhist discourse.

In this chapter I also considered the potential for engaging the thought of Dōhan in a broader philosophical and comparative framework, noting that Dōhan’s tendency toward ambiguity, inversion, and emphasis on difference may render his thought useful for thinking about problems arising from universalistic and exclusivistic conceptions of religious diversity and ethics. In conclusion, I briefly considered possible areas of future inquiry, including sustained comparative work considering Dōhan’s thought in relation to his more famous contemporary Shinran (1173-1263), and the potential for employing the Avataṃsaka-sūtra as a lens for thinking across “Esoteric” and “Pure Land” Buddhisms as discreet areas of academic inquiry. Part III consists of an annotated translation of the first fascicle of the Himitsu nenbutsu shō, focusing in particular on Dōhan’s utilization of a diverse range of “Mahā/Vajrayāna” sources in support of his own vision of Pure Land practice, wherein multiple perspectives are able to stand together without necessarily being resolved or negated. Ultimately, it is my aspiration that this dissertation will present a nearly forgotten text and thinker, and employ their analysis as a foundation upon which to craft new areas of inquiry, open up space for dialogue, and move beyond “orthodoxies” that would preclude the possibility of dialogue, Buddhist, academic, or otherwise.

PART III:

DŌHAN’S 道範 (1179-1252) HIMITSU NENBUTSU SHŌ 祕密念佛抄, AN ANNOTATED TRANSLATION OF FASCICLE I 秘密[[[宗]]]念仏抄 THE COMPENDIUM ON THE SECRET CONTEMPLATION OF BUDDHA

[未灌頂人不可披見] [This should not be shown to those who have not yet received abhiṣeka]

Śramaṇa Dōhan (1179-1252) 沙門道範 of Vajra Peak Temple 金剛峰寺名號事 。問。廣聞當世。眞言止 觀行人。多依彌陀稱名之行。期往生極樂 。是於念佛三昧。不簡時所諸緣。有無間修之德故。唯1428就易行。歸此本願家歟。稱名有淺深顯密之義耶。答。止觀學者。尤可依念佛三昧。摩訶止觀四種三昧 。偏勤彌陀稱名 故。眞言行人。於佛身名號國土等。皆以四重祕釋之意觀念修行。

Regarding the Name [of Amitābha]:

Question: It is widely known that these days among practitioners of mantra and [śamathavipaśyanā], there are many who rely upon the practice of chanting the name of Amitābha hoping to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. As for the [widely practiced] nenbutsu samādhi, it is a practice that does not depend upon the various conditions of time or place [into which sentient beings are born, and may thus be cultivated by all]. But why have so many taken refuge in the primal vow? Is it perhaps because [the nenbutsu] is an easy practice that possesses the virtues of uninterrupted cultivation? Or is it perhaps that the chanting of the name has superficial and profound, apparent and hidden meanings?

Answer: Practitioners of [[[śamatha-vipaśyanā]]] rely in particular upon the nenbutsu samādhi of the four-fold samādhi of the Mohezhiguan 摩訶止觀 (T. 1911), and their main practice is the chanting of the name of Amitābha. The practitioner of mantra employs the purport of the four-fold secret explication in their contemplative cultivation of the buddha bodies, names, and lands, etc.

其四重者。一此彌陀佛者。昔在因依。初爲無諍念王。於寶藏佛所。發無上道心。次爲法 藏比丘。於世自在王佛所。發四十八願。果願成佛。名彌陀佛。此悲花雙觀等所説。是爲淺略。

The Four-fold [Secret Explication of the Buddha Amitābha]: One: Long ago, before the Buddha Amitābha attained awakening, he first set out on the [[[Buddhist]]] path as King Araṇemin,1436 giving rise to the mind that seeks enlightenment before the Buddha Ratnagarbha.1437 Then, as the bhikṣu Dharmākara he made the forty-eight vows before the Buddha Lokeśvararāja. Having become a Buddha as a result of these vows, he is thus called Amitābha. These and other things are explained in the Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-sūtra 悲華經 (T. 157)1438 and the Contemplation Sūtra 觀無量壽經 (T. 365),1439 among others. This may be regarded as the shallow-abbreviated [meaning].

二此彌陀佛者。大日法身普門萬德中。金剛五智。妙1440觀察智。胎藏八葉。證菩提門也。此兩部大經所説。是爲深祕。凡顯教。十方諸佛。各別因人修行證果也。眞言十方如來。四重曼荼。皆是一行者。顯得1441萬德也。

Two, the Buddha Amitābha, is among the manifold virtues of the universal gate of the Dharmakāya Mahāvairocana. In the Vajra [[[Realm]] Mandala], he is recognized among the fivewisdoms as the wisdom of sublime discrimination, and within the eight petals of the Womb [[[Realm]] Mandala],1443 he is understood to be the gate of realizing awakening, as is explained in the two great sūtras [[[Mahāvairocana-sūtra]] 大日經 (T. 848) and Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (T. 874) ], this may be taken to be deep secret [meaning]. In general, within the

1436 Ujitani Yūken 宇治谷祐顯, “Hikekyō no Amidabutsu honjō setsuwa 悲華経のアミダ佛本生説話考,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 33.1 (1968): 74-80. 1437 Ratnagarbha is the Buddha who inspired both Amitābha and Śākyamuni (MBD, 72c). 1438 T. 157, C. Peihua jing, J. Hikekyō; T. 157, 3.185a24-186a24, and so on. 1439 T. 365, C. Guanwuliangshou jing, J. Kanmuryōju kyō. 1440 DNBZ mistake 沙. 1441 SAT mistake 德. revealed teachings, the Buddhas of the Ten Directions are produced of the bodhisattva’s practice and awakening. In the mantra path, the Tathāgatas of the Ten Directions and the fourfold mandala1446 are the infinite virtues of the practitioner that are revealed and attained.

三 此彌陀佛者。是大日法身。三世常住1447惠命。是云無量壽。故彌陀卽大日。一門卽普門也。是爲祕中深祕。

Three, the Buddha Amitābha, is the living wisdom1448 of Mahāvairocana Dharmakāya, ever abiding in the three worlds [of past, present, and future]. This is called Limitless Life. Therefore, Amitābha is none other than Mahāvairocana. One gate is all gates. This may be taken to be the secret within the deep secret.

四 此彌陀佛者。卽一切衆生色心實相。性淨圓明 平等智身也。所謂衆生八辯心蓮卽彌陀三點曼荼 。 雖淪無明淤泥。非染非隱。雖開始覺佛1449光。非生非顯。 三際不變。萬德凝然。是爲祕1450祕中深祕。名號國土等四重可淪思之。自下注釋 依此四重。隨應可見1451。1452 此1453深祕名號。卽1454祕密眞言。故同雖云稱名。全不1455同常途淺略也。

yuqie zhong lüechu niansong jing 金剛頂瑜伽中略出念誦經 (T. 866), by Vajrabodhi’s student Amoghavajra 不空金剛 (705-774) as Jingangding yiqie rulai zhenshi shedasheng xianzheng dajiaowang jing 金剛頂一切如來眞實攝大乘現證大教王經 (T. 874), and by Dānapāla 施護 (ca. early 11th cent.) as Yiqie rulai zhenshi shedasheng xianzheng sanmei jiaowangjing 一切如來眞實攝大乘現證三昧教王經 (T. 882). 1446 Four-fold Mandala 四種曼荼羅 (J. shishu mandara) could be conceived as reality seen from four differet perspectives: (1) Mahā-maṇḍala 大曼荼羅 (J. daimandara) is constituted by all embodied beings composed by the five elements including all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, gods, humans, etc., and the totality of all of the mandalas below.

(2) Samaya-maṇḍala 三昧耶曼荼羅 (J. sanmaya mandara) is composed of the mudras and handheld implements of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and other beings in the mandala, signifying their great vows. (3) Dharma-maṇḍala 法曼荼羅 (J. hō mandara) signifies the the inner realization of all buddhas and Bodhisattvas and is represented by the Sanskrit seed-syllables, bīja 種子 (J. shuji), encompassing all of the teachings of the buddhas up to and including all written and spoken speech. (4) Karma-maṇḍala 羯磨曼荼羅 (J. katsuma mandara) signifies the activities of buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the world working toward the benefit of all beings, but also includes the activities of all beings as well. (MD, 943b, 1024b-1026a; NKBD, 664b; Dreitlein and Takagi, Philosophy of Language, 363-4). 1447 DNBZ repeats 常. 1448 Emyō 慧命, signifies that Buddha nature and life itself are connected (NBD, 134a-b). 1449 DNBZ alternate 日. 1450 SAZ omitted.

1451 This passage is omitted in the SAZ edition: 常途念佛祖師。唯依初重意。立乘祕往生之義。大智律師等。雖立自性彌陀之義。是理性之一門。非事相之眞説。今眞言行人。具在四重祕意。顯密兼通。四身圓證。 [As for the common path of the nenbutsu patriarchs and teachers, they relying only upon the intent of the first level, and establish the vehicle of the doctrine of the secret of going for rebirth. Vinaya Master Dazhi 大智律師 [[[Yuanzhao]] 元照, the Great Wisdom Vinaya Master (Yuanzhao 元照/ Zhanran 湛然 (1048-1116) 大智律師)] and others, even though they establish the self-nature of Amitābha, this is the one gate of the essence of principle, but this is not the true teachings of phenomenon/ritual. The practitioner of mantra wholly inhabit the four-fold secret meaning, penetrate both the revealed and secret [teachings], and perfectly realize the four bodies [of the dharmakāya].] See: DNBZ 51b. 1452 DNBZ addition 是故. 1453 DNBZ addition 中. 1454 SAZ omitted. 1455 SAZ 2:227.

Four, the Buddha Amitābha is realized to be the true nature of the body-mind of all sentient beings, the essentially pure, perfectly bright, embodiment of the wisdom that sees all things as equal. That which is referred to as the eight-petaled heart lotus of sentient beings, is the three-point Mandala of Amitābha. Though submerged in the much of ignorance, [this enlightened mind] is neither defiled nor hidden. Though revealed by the Buddha’s light of initial awakening, it is neither arisen nor made manifest. In the past, present, and future, it is unchanging. The manifold virtues are thusly steadfast. This may be taken as the deepest secret within the deep secret.

When contemplating the name of Amitābha, his land, etc., one should immerse one’s thoughts deeply in the four levels. In the examination that follows, one should rely upon these four levels. In accordance with one’s capacities, one may see that this deep and profound name is in fact a secret mantra. Though it too is called “the chanted name” it is wholly different than the shallow understanding of the ordinary path.

實範上人。病中修行記云。可用三密加持得隨宜悉地事。應當結本尊根本印。誦本尊根本明。心觀其明 義。 其明體 A 。空有不生三義。 當觀三義一體。 爲本尊法身。 法身卽是我心1462。1463卽是三義一體。卽是不思議空故。所作罪障如說除減。卽是不思議有故。所求淨土如願成就。

[According to] Jippan Shōnin’s (d. 1144) Byōchū shugyō ki 病中修行記: “Employ the empowerment of the three mysteries1466 to attain [[[liberation]] through] siddhi.1467 One must assume the fundamental mudra of the object of devotion, recite the fundamental mantra of that object of devotion, and in your mind contemplate the meaning of the mantra’s characters. The essence of mantra is the character A.1468 The three doctrines [[[inherent]] in] the character A are emptiness, being, and original non-arising. You should contemplate the three meanings as [having] one essence, and take it to be the Dharma-body [[[the dharma-kāya]], ultimate reality] of the object of worship. That Dharma-body is not different from one’s very mind. That very mind is the essence of the three meanings. In accordance with the mystery of emptiness, the obstructions [to rebirth in the Pure Land] that arise from the sins one has committed are extinguished in accordance with the teaching [of the Dharma]. In accordance with the mystery of substance, the Pure Land that is sought after is attained in accordance with the vow.

言不生者。卽1469是中道。以中道故。無有罪障淨土之定相1470。無定相故。所行順理。最上悉地。遂得成就。（每日1471 四時或三時等。如是行之）亦其1472餘暇及羸劣之時。身作慇重儀以爲身密。 口稱本尊名以爲口密。 一切擧動無非契印。況慇重相。 一切語言無非眞言。況稱佛名。心依尊號義趣以爲心密。其義趣者佛號三 旣是眞言。若據句義。是甘露義。彼佛自能離於一切感障1473熱毒。證於一切涅槃淸涼。亦能令彼念持衆生。如我無異。是名甘露。

That which is referred to as ‘original non-arising’ is none other than the middle way. Because this middle way is employed, the fixed characteristics of both the Pure Land and the obstruction of sin are ‘non-existent.’ Because there are no fixed characteristics, the practice is in accordance with principle. Because the practice accords with principle, the highest accomplishment is thusly attained. (Every day, one should practice like this three or four times.) Whenever there is free time, or during a time when your body is weak [from illness], one should arrange one’s body in a respectful posture, this is regarded as the mystery of the body. The mouth intones the name of the object of worship, this should be regarded as the mystery of speech. Of all movements, there is not that which is not a mudra. How much more so those postures of respect? Of all speech, there is not that which is not a mantra. How much

mandala (mind). Through this form of practice one realizes that the body, speech, and mind of beings (the three sources of karma, sangō 三業 (MD, 788a), are in fact united with the body, speech, and mind of the particular object of reverence (such as Amitābha, or Śākyamuni) as well as the Dharma-body (ultimate reality) itself. (MD, 839b840b).

1467 “Accomplishment” 悉地 (S. siddhi, C. xidi, J. shijji) it has long been noted that certain powers arise from the mastery of deep states of concentration. These “powers” or accomplishments are referred to as siddhi. While often associated with magic or super-normal powers (avoidance of disaster, good luck, acquisition of wealth, success in love, etc.), it is often the case that the power attained is the power to attain awakening, rebirth in a Pure Land, heaven or the Realm of Mystical Splendor Mitsugon kokudo 密嚴國土, and ultimately, awakening (MD, 984b-c). 1468 The Sanskrit syllable A is an important object of reverence and contemplation in the Shingon tradition. A is the negative prefix in Sanskrit and the first letter of he alphabet. A thus represents the beginning as negation. Contemplation of the character A 阿 觀 (J. ajikan) is an important for of contemplative practive in Shingon Buddhism (Dreitlein and Takagi, Philosophy of Language, 344-45). 1469 DNBZ alternate, 則. 1470 In DNBZ, this four character phrase appears before the preceeding four character phrase as 定相浄土. Placement here seems correct when compared to following line. 1471 DNBZ, mistake 月. 1472 DNBZ omits the previous two characters and includes this character 若 instead. 1473 DNBA addition 之.

more so the intoning of the name of [[[Amitābha]]] Buddha? The mind, relying upon the [deep] meaning of the name is taken to be the mystery of mind. As for the [deep] meaning, the three characters of the Buddha’s name are all mantras. If you understand the word’s meaning, it means “nectar.” That Buddha is naturally capable of separating [[[beings]]] from all bile and poison of obstacles of confusion. [So that they] realize the cooling serenity of nirvana. Moreover, this Buddha causes sentient beings that keep this mantra in mind, to [realize that they are] the same as him. This is called amṛta.

若據 義。三 眞言。初 A 爲體。餘是轉釋。A1475不生義卽是中道。 彌吾我義及自在義。 陀如如義及解脱義。 彼佛不生中道萬德。離一切邊無此無彼。無我大我無不自在。能知無我得自在時。心1476證得如如。則是解脱。（ 義雖多。今據一隅 。彌 本惠加定。則表 自在德。定惠莊嚴。梵 雖用 mṛ 。依所稱聲。取省略故也。）將臨 瞑目之時。住本尊之 定印。稱本尊名號。一心歸命中道萬德。云云

If you rely upon the [inner] meaning of the characters, they constitute a three character mantra. First, A is taken to be the essence. The rest is a developed exegesis. ‘A’ is the doctrine of nonarising, and is none other than the middle path. ‘MI’ is the self, and the doctrine of jizai. ‘TA’ is suchness, and the doctrine of extinction. The manifold virtues of this Buddha’s middle path of the unborn are free from all extremes: there is not ‘this,’ there is not ‘that.’ In the greatself of no-self, there is not that which is not jizai. Upon being able to understand the jizai grasped by no-self, the mind is awakened and grasps thusness. This is none other than extinction. (Though there are many meanings to the characters, here I have presented but one corner. [For example] with the character MI, one can add ‘meditation’ to its fundamental meaning, which is ‘wisdom.’ Thusly, it also reveals the virtues of jizai. Meditation and wisdom are its adornment. Even though the Sanskrit employs the character mṛ, it is abbreviated in accordance with the [[[traditional]]] chanting pronunciation.) When the end has come, and one’s eyes are beginning to close, abide in the meditative mudra of the object of worship, intone the name, and with one mind, take refuge in the manifold virtues of the middle path. (End quote)

覺鑁 之五輪九 祕釋云。眞言行者。於 Namu Amita1482佛名號更勿作淺略思。若入眞言1483時。諸言語皆是眞言。何況 AMITA[[[佛]] ]云云

Kaku-VAṂ’s [[[Kakuban]]] [Gorinkujimyō himitsu shaku 五輪九 明祕密釋] (T. 2514) states: “Practitioners of the mantra path, as for the Buddha’s Name, “Namu Amita Butsu,” do not establish a shallow understanding. If one enters the Mantra Gate, all speech and all words are in all cases Mantra. How much more so the [[[mantra]]] AMIDA Buddha? [End excerpt]

大日經第七云。 金剛頂經説。 觀世音 蓮華眼。即同一切佛。無盡莊嚴身。或以世導師説 法自在者。隋取一名號。 作本性加持文。云云 （彌陀名號事。以此經文爲規模也）眞言行人。卽淺解深祕。卽易知頓證。 故 順道俗同歸之佛號。付彌陀稱名本願者也。

The Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Chapter Seven, states: “The Vajraśekhara [collection] explains that, ‘The lotus blossom eyes of Avalokiteśvara embody limitless adornments equal to that of all the Buddhas. Moreover, in accordance with the Dharma of perfect freedom taught by contemporary masters, you should employ this one name and establish the empowerment of one’s fundamental nature.” (Take this passage as a model for how to understand the name of Amitābha.) For the mantra practitioner, it is precisely the shallow [[[understanding]]] that penetrates [and is not separate from] the most profound secret, and it is precisely the easy [practice] that immediately attains [and is not separate from] awakening. Therefore, the Buddha name in which monks and lay alike have taken refuge is the none other than the primal vow of chanting Amitābha’s name.

問。其名號深祕義如何。 答。眞言者。一 含千理。卽身證法如故。三 名號卽具萬德。所謂 AMITA 三 。如次佛金蓮三部種子眞言也。A 本不生中道義卽佛部也。MI 吾我不可得義。 離吾我卽人法二空智故。是金剛部也。TA 如如不可得義。是性淨如如 理故。爲蓮華部也。

Question: What about the profound secret meaning of the name [of the Buddha]? Answer: A mantra is something that in, “one character can encompass one-thousand principles, and in its very form, realizes the thusness of dharmas.” Therefore, the name in three characters possesses countless virtues. That which is called the Three Characters of A-MI-TA, as described below, is like the bija mantras for the three sections of [the mandala] Buddha, Vajra, and Lotus. The character A is the fundamentally uncreated middle way, it is therefore the Buddha section. The character MI is the ungraspable meaning of the self. When the self is transcended, it becomes the wisdom that beings and dharmas are both empty, it is therefore the Vajra section. The character TA is the teaching of the ungraspable doctrine of suchness. This is the principle of thusness as fundamentally pure. It is taken to be the Lotus section.

凡三部者。 蓮華是自性淸淨理。金剛是不壞能斷智。佛部是理智冥合佛身也。理平等遍一切處故爲妙有。（五大）智斷人法二我有執故爲眞空。（職大）佛部是1494理智有空 總體故爲中道。是故此 AMITA 三 又三諦也。

In general, regarding these three sections, the Lotus is the principle of originally pure selfnature. The Vajra is indestructible wisdom. The Buddha is the Dharma-body in which principle and wisdom are mutually joined. Principle universally pervades all of existence, and is therefore taken to be wondrous being. (five elements ). Wisdom severs the attachment to the [mistaken view that] self and dharmas possess “self,” and is therefore taken to be true emptiness. (The element of consciousness). In the Buddha section [of the mandala], principle and wisdom, being and emptiness, are wholly embodied, and it may therefore be taken to be the Middle Way. For this reason, the three characters A, MI, and TA, are also the three truths.

問。常途 。以阿彌陀三 。如次爲空假中三諦。今爲中空假。其次第相違如何。答。空假中次第就 相。中空假約 義也。 A 相空也。 MI 相吾我。我卽 有也。TA 相如如。如如 卽 中也。 義三諦如上三部。

Question: According to the ordinary path, the three characters A-MI-TA correspond to the three truths of emptiness, provisional, and the middle. Just now, [you suggested], middle, emptiness, and provisional. What is the difference between these sequences?

Answer: The order of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, accords with the outer characteristic, while middle, emptiness, and provisional, approximates the letters inner meaning. The outer characteristic of the letter A is emptiness, MI to the self, self is being. The outer characteristics of the letter TA is thusness, thusness is the middle. The inner meaning of three truths is like the aforementioned three divisions.

問。 相 義相對。 相淺 義深。而1506今 TA 相 如如是 中故可深。 義 蓮華部有 有故可淺。其相違如何。答。 相 中 是相待 中故 爲始覺門義。 義有本有有故本覺門爲義也。始覺三諦空爲本。卽 顯經三諦也。本覺三諦有爲本。卽1508眞言門三諦也。是故三諦義門淺深重々而已。

Question: In comparing the outer characteristics and inner meaning, the outer characteristics are shallow, and the inner meaning is deep. And now, the outer characteristics of the letter TA is thusness, this is the middle, which may be taken as the deep. As for the inner meaning, that of the lotus section is being, and being is therefore taken to be shallow. Why is there this discrepancy?

Answer: The middle of the outer characteristics is interdependence, and therefore the middle may be taken to have meaning of the gate of initial enlightenment. The inner meaning of being is fundamental being, being may therefore be taken to have the meaning of the gate of fundamental enlightenment. When emptiness [as understood by] the three truths of initial awakening is taken as the basis, this is the three truths of the exoteric teaching. When being [as understood by] the three truths of original awakening is taken as the basis, this is the three truths of the mantra gate. Therefore, indeed, with regard to the doctrine of the three truths, there are certainly shallow and deep [levels of understanding]. 又此三部卽法報應三身也。佛部爲應身。定惠不二理智相應故。(A) 金部爲報身。生法二空智故。(MI) 蓮 部爲法身。自性淸淨理故。(TA) 又三 如次爲法報應。A 本不生理故爲法身。MI 大空惠故爲報身。TA 如如故爲應身。如是契應之義也。

Moreover, these three sections [of the mandala] are none other than the Three Bodies of Dharma-body, reward-body, and response-body.1511 The Buddha section may be taken to be the response body. This is because meditation and wisdom are non-dual, and principle and wisdom [or reality and knowing reality] are bound to one another. (A) The Vajra section may be taken as the reward-body. This is because of the wisdom of the emptiness of beings and dharmas. (MI) The Lotus section may be taken to as the Dharma-body. This is because of the principle of the fundamentally pure self-nature. (TA) Also, these three characters correspond to the dharma-reward-response [[[bodies]]]. The character A is the principle of original nonarising, and may therefore be taken to be the Dharma-body. The charter MI is the wisdom of great emptiness, and may therefore be taken to be the reward-body. The character TA is thusness, and may therefore be taken to be the response-body. In this way it possesses the meaning of establishing a connection with the response [[[body]]].

又此三 爲三點。A 爲法身。遍一切處理故。MI 爲般若。不壞金剛惠故。TA 爲 解脫。TA (SAZ 2:229)相卽1512如如解脫。謂解脫煩惱所知二障。證得菩提涅槃二如。是爲解脫佛體也。

Also, these three letters may be taken to represent the three-points [[[principle]], wisdom, and phenomena]. The letter A may be taken as the Dharma-body, this is because it represents the principle that universally [penetrates] every corner [of the universe]. The letter MI may be taken as wisdom, this is because it represents the wisdom that is indestructible like a vajra. The letter TA may be taken as liberation. The outer characteristic of the letter TA is awakening to thusness. That is to say, it may be taken as the liberation from the dual-hindrances of the kleśa and the mental hindrances, [and leads to] the realization of the dual reality of bodhi and nirvana. This is taken to be the liberation of the stage of Buddhahood (or buddha-body of liberation).

又此三 即 三密也。A 佛部故爲身密。MI 金剛1515部故爲意密。TA 蓮花 部故爲語密。

Also, the three characters are the three mysteries [of body, speech, and mind]. The character A, and the Buddha section, may therefore be taken to be the mystery of body. The character MI, and the Vajra Section, may therefore be taken to be the mystery of mind. The character TA, and the Lotus Section, may therefore be taken to be the mystery of speech.

又此三 卽三寶也。 A 身密故爲佛寶。MI 意密故爲僧寶。TA 語密故爲法寶。（此三密三寶相攝。四種曼荼羅義見。意爲僧。理智和通能所一味爲僧。心體遍中道寶義。中卽不二。不二卽理智和合故云僧也）

These three characters are also the three jewels [of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha]. The character A is the mystery of body, and may therefore be taken to be the Buddha jewel. The character MI is the mystery of mind, and may therefore be taken to be the Sangha jewel. The character TA is the mystery of speech, may therefore be taken to be the Dharma jewel. (The mutual relation between three mysteries and three jewels may be seen in the doctrine of the four-fold Mandala. That the mind may be taken to be the sangha, signifies the mutual interpenetration of principle and wisdom and may be taken to be the one taste of subject and object. The meaning of this jewel is that the essence of mind pervades the middle way. The middle is non-duality. Non-duality is the mutual harmony of principle and wisdom. For this reason, it is called sangha.)

又此三 卽三智也。A 爲無礙智。 無礙智是始本無二智也。（中）MI 爲一切智。 一切智是始覺 也。（空）TA 爲自然智。 自然智是本覺也。（有）

These three characters may also be taken to be the three [[[forms]] of] wisdom. The character A is unimpeded wisdom. Unimpeded wisdom is the wisdom of [[[realizing]]] that initial and inherent awakening are not two. ([This is the truth of the] middle.) The character MI is all wisdom. All knowing wisdom is the wisdom of initial awakening. ([This is the truth of] emptiness.) The character TA is the wisdom of spontaneous arising. The wisdom of spontaneous arising is inherent awakening. ([This the truth of] being).

又此三 卽喉舌脣三內聲也。A 喉內卽佛部聲也。MI 脣內卽金剛 部聲也。TA 舌內卽蓮華1521部聲也。

These three characters are also the three organs of speech: throat, tongue, and lips. The character A is the throat, which is none other than the voice of the buddha section [of the mandala]. The character MI is the lips, which are none other than the voice of the vajra section. The character TA is the tongue, which is none other than the voice of the lotus section. 問。付 三內聲言之。喉舌脣是聲依 出次第也。 仍大日經以 A-SA-VA 三 爲三部。 是如次喉舌聲故。 而今阿彌陀 三 。 喉內 A 在始。脣內 MI 在中。 舌內 TA 在後 。 其義 如何。答。 三內聲卽三部也。而 三部次第有二。 一依金界佛金蓮。 二依胎藏 佛蓮金也。 大日經依胎說次第故。喉舌脣 A-SA-VA 佛蓮金 也。今喉脣舌且依金次第。喉脣舌 A-MI-TA 佛金蓮 是證菩提門故。爲金大日之義有之（云云）

Question: Speaking of the three organs of speech, the throat-tongue-lips are [examined] in the order by which the voice flows out. In the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, the three characters of A-SA-VA are the three sections [of the mandala], in this way [these divisions] are the throattongue-lips, and the three characters of A-MI-TA. Throat-A is the beginning. Lips-MI is the middle. Tongue-TA is the end. How might we understand this teaching?

Answer: The three organs of speech correspond to the three divisions [of the mandala], and the three divisions have two orders: first according to the Vajra World [[[Mandala]]]: Buddha, Vajra, Lotus; second, according to the Womb World [[[Mandala]]]: Buddha, Lotus, Vajra. In the Mahāvairocana-sūtra the order is explained according to the Womb [[[World]] Mandala], wherein the order is: A (Buddha, throat), SA (Lotus, tongue), VA (Vajra, lips). However, here in accordance with the order of the Vajra [[[World]] Mandala], the order is taken to be: A (Buddha, throat), MI (Lotus, tongue), TA (Vajra, lips). [This order is chosen] because A-MITA is the gate of realizing awakening, and possesses the meaning of the Mahāvairocana of the Vajra [[[World]] Mandala].

又有甚深義趣。 先三內者聲出外始中終也。 A 1535在喉中。 未附邊之聲故爲喉內。 TA 附舌 上腭 呼之故爲舌內。 MI 合脣 呼之。故爲脣內。 是故喉舌脣如次內中外聲也。

This also has an extremely deep meaning. First, these three organs are the beginning, middle, and end of the voice’s outward production. The character A is the throat because it abides within the throat, having not yet arisen as speech. The character TA is the tongue because it is produced by the tongue touching the roof of the mouth. The character MI is the lips because it is produced by the meeting of the lips. In this way, the order of throat, tongue, and lips [correspond] to the inner, middle, and outer [components] of the voice.

內爲內證外爲外用。而 今脣內 MI 在有中。 舌聲 TA 在終者。從 A 出 MI 。則彌陀本地法身直爲觀音。來生死開衆生心蓮意也。 次從 MI 入 TA 。是衆生開心蓮。 歸本覺性蓮之意也。

Inner may be taken to be inner realization, and outer may be taken to be outer manifestation. And, Lips-MI is being-middle. Tongue-TA is the end. From A is produced MI, which is the fundamental Dharma-body of Amitābha as Avalokiteśvara. This is the opening of the heartlotus of sentient beings in saṃsāra. Next, the character MI enters the TA character, and this signifies the opening of the heart-lotus of sentient beings, and means the returning to the lotus of inherently awakened nature.

踈 勢至釋未敷蓮云1542。此未開蓮 如來寶篋。猶開敷已而 却合〔云云 〕 是故此三 次第。從本出（SAZ2:230）未。 從外入內 。卽從本垂迹。 從因至果二德顯

三 聲也。微妙不思議圓德。留心可思之1548。

The [Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796)] explains that, Mahāsthāmaprāpta interprets the unopened lotus, saying that, “This unopened lotus is the Tathāgata’s jeweled basket. It is like one that has already opened, and yet it is still closed.” Therefore, the order of these three characters [progresses] from the roots to the branches, and from outer to inner. From origin to trace manifestation, from cause to effect, these two virtues are revealed by the vocalization of these three characters, and is the profound mystery of perfect virtue. Keep this in mind and think about it deeply.

又此三 爲 印形三祕密身。A 爲種子。法身故。 MI 爲三昧耶。三昧耶卽本誓屬智故。 [報身也。 ] TA 爲尊形應身解脫點佛故。

These three characters may also be taken to be the three mysterious bodies of letter, mudra, and form. The character A is the bija (seed syllable), and therefore the Dharma-body. The character MI is samaya, which is the original vow that is dependent upon wisdom. This is the reward body. The character TA may be taken as the form of the object of worship, the response body, the Buddha who points to liberation.

此三祕密身。卽四種曼荼羅。胎說三祕密印。金說四種曼荼。四種曼荼羅者。大三法羯也。此中羯磨通上三密身。故四曼三[祕 ] 密身。開合異也。

These three secret bodies are the four-fold mandala. The Womb [[[World]] Mandala] explains the three secret mudras. The Vajra [[[World]] Mandala] propounds the four-fold mandala. The fourfold mandalas are as follows Mahā-mandala, Samaya Mandala, Dharma Mandala, and Karma Mandala. Among these, the Karma Mandala pervades the above three mysterious bodies, and is therefore the four-fold mandala three mysterious bodies. [The difference between the fourfold mandala and three mysterious bodies is that one is concise and one is detailed].

又此三 卽安養[界之 ] 三尊也。 A 卽法身[[[卽]] ] 彌陀佛。 MI 報身卽觀世音。 TA 應身卽大勢至。 故一佛卽三尊。三尊卽一體也。

These three characters are also the three honored ones of Sukhāvatī. The character A is the Dharma-body and Amitābha. The character MI is the reward-body and Avalokiteśvara. The character TA is the response-body and Mahāsthāmaprāpta. Therefore, one Buddha is three honored ones, and the three honored ones are of one body.

問。 前三部 TA 爲蓮部。蓮部是法身也。 今 TA 爲勢至。勢至是應身 。於一 TA 法身應身二義如何。答。 此三尊且有二義一彌陀爲本二菩薩 爲迹。 從 不二本源。現而二雙 翼。 此時佛部爲法身。二部爲報應。定惠二尊中。定是理。理遍一切處故有附 應義。仍勢至爲應身也。

Question: Before, when discussing the Three Divisions, it was said that the character TA is the Lotus Family, and that the Lotus family is the Dharma-body. Now you are saying that the character TA may be taken as Mahāsthāmaprāpta, and that Mahāsthāmaprāpta is the responsebody. How can this one character TA possess two meanings as Dharma- and response-body? Answer: These three honored ones also possess two meanings:

First, Amitābha is taken as the origin, and the two Bodhisattvas are taken to be the trace manifestation. From the non-dual original source, they will appear as the two wings [of a bird]. Here, the Buddha section is taken to be the Dharma-body, and the two other sections [[[Vajra]] and Lotus] are the reward- and response-body. Of the two honored ones who correspond respectively to meditation and wisdom, meditation is the principle, and principle pervades all of existence, and is therefore means that being is connected to response. And so, Mahāsthāmaprāpta is to be taken as the response body.

二二尊爲本一佛爲迹是 。 從 本有理智生修德 果海 。 此因 本覺本因爲法報。顯德 灌果爲應身。是故於 A・TA 二 。 隋義互有法應義也。三部三尊義。得此意可見。

Second, the two honored ones may be taken as the origin, and the one Buddha is the trace manifestation. From the origin, which possesses principle and wisdom, arises the cultivated virtues of the ocean like fruition of awakening. This cause is the original cause of original awakening, and may be taken as the Dharma- and reward-body. The resultant revealed virtues may be taken as the response-body. For this reason, the two characters A-TA possess together the meaning of Dharma- response-body. One can see that the doctrine of the three divisions and three objects of devotion [also] possess this meaning.

又此三 非唯爲涅槃菩提惣 體。 亦生死煩惱實相也。 所謂三 卽根本三毒之實相也。A 爲癡實相。 MI 爲嗔實相。TA 爲貪實相也。

These three characters not only wholly embody nirvana and bodhi. They are also the truth aspect of saṃsāra and the afflictions. That which is called three characters are fundamentally the truth aspect of the three poisons. The character A is the truth aspect of delusion. The character MI is the truth aspect of anger. The character TA is the truth aspect of greed. 貪對順境爲着 故有性。是如來大悲性故。與蓮華 部理同體。 嗔對違境欲亡其境故空性。卽如來大智性故。 與金剛 部智同性也。癡對諸境不着 不捨。唯闇 鈍性也 。故與佛部不二同性也。

Greed is the attachment to favorable objects, and is therefore the nature of being. This is the essence of the Tathāgata’s great compassion, and is of the same essence as the Lotus section and principle. Hatred is the rejection of unfavorable objects, and because it [expresses] the desire to do away with those phenomena, it is therefore the nature of emptiness. This is the nature of the Tathāgata’s great wisdom, and is of the same nature as the Vajra division and wisdom. Because delusion neither attaches to nor rejects the various objects of sense perception, being the nature of foolishness, for this reason it is of the same essence as the nonduality of the Buddha division [neither grasping nor rejecting].

是故此三 。卽三毒實相故。 此三毒卽三身同體故。 以三 稱念因緣。煩惱卽菩提 性得顯現。 依之衆生無始輪廻根本三毒。卽得自性淸淨。成（SAZ 2:231）本性心蓮之果德也。理趣經得自性淸淨1578 段曼荼羅。 三門置三毒形。此門置蓮華形。卽表三毒自性淸淨也。

For this reason, these three characters, are the truth aspect of the three poisons. These three poisons are of the same essence as the three bodies [of the buddha]. Therefore, by means of the causes and conditions [that give rise] to the chanting and contemplation of these three characters, the nature of “delusion is bodhi” is revealed. In this way, the fundamental threepoisons of sentient beings [afflicting them] throughout beginningless transmigration are none other than the attainment of pure self-nature, and the resultant virtues of the fundamental nature of the heart-lotus. According to the [Dale jin’gang bukong zhenshi sanmeiye jing banruo boluomiduo liqushi 大樂金剛不空眞實三昧耶經般若波羅蜜多理趣釋 (T. 1003) (hereafter the Rishushaku), drawing upon the Dalejin’gangbukong zhenshisanmoye jing 大樂金剛不空眞實三摩耶經 (T. 243) (hereafter, the Rishukyō)], ‘The attainment of pure self- nature is a level of the mandala. The three gates establish the form of the three poisons are established in the three gates of the mandala. This northern gate establishes the form of the Lotus. This indicates the originally pure self-nature of the three poisons.’”

又此三 卽煩惱業苦三道實相也。A 法身故爲苦道。 MI 般若故煩惱道。 TA 解脫故爲業道。

These three characters are also the truth aspect of the three [[[evil]]] paths of the afflictions, karma, and suffering. The character A, as the Dharma-body, is therefore taken to be the [[[truth]] aspect of the] path of suffering. The character MI, wisdom, is therefore the [[[truth]] aspect of the] path of the afflictions. The character TA, liberation, is therefore the [[[truth]] aspect of the] path of karma.

此三道卽三點之義。 與天台釋同。但彼約理性。此事相也。 此三道卽三 三 卽三點故唱三 名號之氣中。生死卽涅槃[之 ] 實德顯現。 觀經等逆罪[[[得]] ] 往 生之說。佛意如此。

The three paths have the meaning of the three points, which is the same as the Tendai interpretation. But theirs is concerned with the nature of principle [the doctrinal interpretation], the [outer] characteristics of phenomena. The three paths are the three characters, and the three characters are the three points, and therefore, within the Qi of the chanting of the name in three characters, the true virtue of “saṃsāra is none other than nirvana” is revealed. The Buddha’s intention in teaching about the attainment of Pure Land rebirth by those who have committed the [five] evil sins in the [Contemplation Sūtra 佛説觀無量壽佛經 (T. 0365), ] and others, is like this.

三 非唯遍衆生界。 亦遍非情草木。謂六大成四曼 三世間故。 器界聚 林亦六大所成。此六大卽三密也 。 地水火爲身密。 風空爲語密。 識大爲意密。 吽 義云。 法身三密入繊芥而不迮。亘 大虛而不寛。不簡瓦石草木。不擇人天鬼畜。 何處不遍。何物不攝。故名等持（云云 ）法身三密遍法界故 。阿彌陀三 無所不至 （云云）

Also, the three characters not only universally pervade the world of sentient beings, but also the non-sentient grasses and tree. That which is referred to as the six elements become the four-mandalas and three types of worlds [[[sentient]], insentient, enlightened]. Therefore, the collected aggregates and phenomenal world are composed of these six elements. [Moreover,] these six elements are the three mysteries. Earth, water, and fire may be taken to be the mystery of body. Wind and space may be taken to be the mystery of speech, and the element of consciousness may be taken to be the mind. According to the Unjigi 吽 義 (T.

2430): “The three mysteries of the Dharma-body may fit into something the size of a mustard seed, and yet they cannot be shrunken. They encompass the great void, and yet it cannot be expended. They make no distinction between clay tiles and grasses and tree, nor the human, deva, preta, or animal realms. What is not illumined by them? What do they not embrace? They are therefore known as “samādhi.” The three mysteries of the Dharma-body pervade the universe. There is not that which the three characters “A, MI, TA” do not reach. (End Quote)

[裏書云。三 印形爲身口意。口眞言身法印。意本尊。云三和合者身口意也。1594]身印口眞言意本尊也。

[The back of the [scroll] is written: “The three, character-mudra-form, may be taken as the body-speech-mind. Speech = mantra, body = Dharma mudra, and mind = the object of devotion. This is called the triple harmonious union of body, speech, and mind.] The body [employs] the mudra, speech the mantra, and mind, the object of devotion.

巳上三 相 義網要如此 。若具述者歷劫難盡。 抑此三 義。唯歸 A 一。 A1597是諸音 本。諸 之母。諸佛之 種。諸法 體故。三部三身等萬德。 唯攝 A 。而以順觀旋轉。逆觀旋轉。 一 攝多。多 攝一。等十六玄門之義言之。三互有三 義故各攝萬德。廣大無邊。 種種帝網不可窮盡。是故三身等義。只隋義便相對相攝。得意 忘筌。

This is the general outline of the inner and outer meaning of the three characters. If one were to explain in fine detail, even in the passing of a kalpa, it would be difficult to [explain] it fully. And so, the meaning of these three characters is solely to take refuge in the one character A. The character A is the basis for all sounds, the mother of all characters, the seed of all Buddhas, the essence of all dharmas, and therefore, it is the manifold virtues of the three divisions [of the mandala] and the three [[[buddha]]] bodies, and so on. Using only the character A, contemplate the sequential revolution [of the characters], and the inverse, the one character encompassing all characters, all characters encompassing, and so on. This is what is called the teaching of the sixteen mysterious gates.1602 The three character together possess three character meanings, and therefore each grasps limitless virtues. Vast and without border, like the multifarious layers of Indra’s net they cannot be exhausted. For this reason, it signifies the three bodies, and so on. Depending on the meaning they are sometimes in opposition and sometimes encompassing each other Grasp the meaning, and forget the net!

次付 無阿彌陀佛六 顯其義者。 此 卽1603 五智五佛等也。

Next, concerning the six characters of Na-mu A-mi-da-butsu, [I will here] reveal their meaning. These six characters [encompass] the five wisdoms and five Buddhas, etc.

Image 2: Mandalic Nenbutsu (II)

(SAZ, 2: 232) 以諸尊眞言作其曼荼羅時。以 OṂ 爲總體置中台。是觀作曼荼羅之通相也。 無與唵同是歸命句也。故 無置中總位也。又大日經開題云。一切經首。如是二上。皆有 NAMO 兩 。翻譯家略而不置。今准梵本。合有此 。歸命名無量壽佛。歸卽能依人也。無量壽者法身常恆不壞德是也。身遍虛空法界。心互性相理事。此身此心何處不有。誰物不攝。故名歸命。

In constructing this kind of mandala by means of the mantras of all objects of devotion, use OṂ as the central dais. This is a common aspect of all mentally constructed mandala. NAMO and OṂ both [serve as phrases for] taking refuge. Therefore, NAMO is to be established in the

1602 See Kūkai’s Hokkekyō kaidai 法華經開題 (T. 2190, 56.178a11-a16), which is also cited by Kakuban in the Hokkekyō hishaku 法華經祕釋 (T. 2191, 56.189a19-22) and Gorinkujimyō himitsushaku 五輪九 明祕密釋 (T. 2514, 79.0021c18-21), as well as again by Dōhan in the Gyōhōkanyōshō 行法肝葉鈔 (No. 2502, 78.886c18-19). 1603 DNBZ alternate 則. 1604 Mandala on SAZ 2:231-232, KK, 115-116, and contains a number of elements not included in DNBZ. central position. Moreover, in the [[[Dainichikyō kaidai]] 大日経開題, ] it says: “At the beginning of all sutras, before the two characters rushi, there are in all cases the two character NA-MO, and the translators abbreviate this. If we follow the Sanskrit text, then these two characters NAMO should be present.” Refuge [“return to life”] is called the Buddha of Limitless Life. Refuge is [also] the one who relies. Limitless Life has the virtue of the eternally indestructible Dharma-body, and his body pervades the infinite space of the Dharmarealm. His mind mixes in the essence and appearance of principle and phenomena. This body, this mind, in what place is it not present? What is not included in it? It is therefore named “refuge [“return to life”].”

是故今以歸命句。置中爲法身常壽總體也。四方四智。歸此中台本地。法身無量壽也。

For this reason one uses this refuge verse and establishes it on the central dais as the totality of the ever abiding life of the Dharma-body. The four wisdoms of the four directions return to this central, the fundamental basis for the Dharma-body of Limitless Life.

A 東方發菩提大圓鏡智也。 MI 方第七識我體。卽中東理智和合眞人。是平等性智也。 TA 西方如如蓮華智也。佛北方羯磨身作業智也。 方人內證。北方佛外應也。金剛頂經開題云。此五智佛名一切如來。聚一切諸法。共成五佛身。五佛諸佛之本體。諸法之根源也。（文）

The letter A, to the East [bottom position], gives rise to the bodhi mind and the wisdom [that is like a] great round mirror. The letter MI, to the South [left side], is the seventh consciousness, the self. East and Center are the harmonious unity of principle and wisdom, joined together in the “true person.” This is the wisdom of the nature of equanimity. The letter TA, to the West [upper position] is the wisdom of the lotus of thusness [the wisdom of subtle discernment ]. The character Buḥ/Butsu [[[Buddha]]] in the North [right side] as the wisdom of the karma-body that performs actions. To the South is the inner realization of a person, and to the North is the outer manifestation. The [[[Kongōchōkyō]] kaidai 金剛頂經開題 (T. 2221)] elaborates: “The Buddhas of the five wisdoms [may be referred to as] all Tathāgatas. Gathering together all dharmas, they collectively constitute the bodies of these five Buddhas, these five Buddhas are seen to be the fundamental essence of source of all the myriad Buddhas, and the primordial origin of all dharmas.”

二教論云。五智者卽五大所成智也。（文）五大爲五智有二說。一地爲中木（空）火金（風）水。如次爲東 西北。是五行次第也。木空精金風精也。（巳上土爲中曼荼羅者不空說也。）二空爲中。地水火風。如次爲北西 東。此四州次第也。（巳上無畏說也。）五智五佛配當。二說同中東 西北。如次大日阿閦寶生彌陀不空也。

The [Benkenmitsu nikyōron 辨顯密二教論 (T. 2427) (hereafter, Nikyōron)], says: “The five wisdoms are the wisdoms attained by the five great [[[elements]]].” There are two explanations for the way in which the five elements may be taken to be the five wisdoms. The first one takes earth as the middle, [followed by] wood (void) fire, metal (wind), water. The order is East, South, West, North [down, and clockwise]. This is the order according to five phases [[[Wikipedia:Chinese|Chinese]] five-phases (wuxing) theory]. The essence of wood is sky, and the essence of metal is wind. (This is Amoghavajra’s explanation, wherein earth may be taken as the center of the mandala.) And the second takes void as the center, [followed by] earth, water, fire, and wind. The order is North, West, South, and East [center, right, and counter-clockwise]. This is the order of the Four Continents. (This is Śubhakarasiṃha’s explanation.). The Five Wisdoms and Five Buddhas are positioned according to these two explanations, with the same Center, East, South, West, North [center, down, and clock-wise], in the following order: Mahāvairocana, Akṣobhya, Ratnasaṃbhava, Amitābha, and Amoghasiddhi.

五行五大。且一切衆生無始流轉五情根。卽五智五大也。眼耳鼻舌身。如次木水金火土也。卽如次 Hūṃ, Aḥ, Hrīḥ, Traḥ, Vaṃ 五智也。身中五藏。亦卽五佛也。謂肝心脾肺 腎。如次木火土金水。則如次東 中西北五佛也。所緣五塵。亦五智也。謂色聲香味觸如次木水金火土也。五智配屬。色東方大圓鏡。萬像影現故。聲北方成事智。天鼓商佉說法音故。香具風力有遍至能。是西方妙觀察智說法香風。薰一切之義也。故香風共在西方。味 方平等智。同如一味故。觸身根境。身具四根。觸有四大故。觸爲中央。（巳上五智五藏五行配屬摩訶止觀說也五智五佛眞言義也又加持身五所成五智等之義繁故不戴之）

The five phases, the five elements, and moreover, the five sense faculties of all sentient beings, coursing without beginning through saṃsāra, are the five wisdoms and the five elements. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body correspond, in order, to wood, water, metal, fire, and earth. These are the five wisdoms of Hūṃ, Aḥ, Hrīḥ, Traḥ, and Vaṃ. The five viscera within the body are also the five Buddhas: Liver, Heart, Spleen, Lungs, Kidney, corresponding, in order, to wood, fire, earth, metal, and water, which has the order of the Five Buddhas of the East, South, Center, West, and North, [respectively]. That which is bound to the five objects of perception is also the five wisdoms. The [[[perception]] of] form [or sight], sound, scent, flavor, and touch, correspond to Wood, Water, Metal, Fire, and Earth. The five wisdoms are distributed in the following way: the perception of form/sight in the eastern direction is the wisdom like a perfectly round mirror, because myriad forms are reflected therein. Sound in the northern direction is the wisdom of unencumbered accomplishment of all things, because it is the sound of the Dharma being preached like the heavenly drum and the conch shell. Scent employs the power of the wind to be able to reach everywhere. This is the western direction, the wisdom of the subtle discerning wisdom that has the meaning of preaching the Dharma, which is compared with fragrant wind. Therefore, fragrance and wind are together the western direction. Taste in the southern direction is the wisdom of equanimity [perceiving all things as being] the same and having one taste. Touch is the object of the bodily sense organs. The body employs the four faculties (site, sound, smell, taste), and feeling possesses the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind). Touch may be taken as the center.

(As outlined above, the five wisdoms, the five viscera, and five phases are distributed in accordance with the explanation in the Mohezhiguan. The five wisdoms, five Buddhas, according to mantra meaning. Also, kaji-shin, five accomplishments, and five wisdoms, etc., are not included because their meanings are manifold.)

五情所起五欲。則此五境上欲故。亦是五智性也。准境可知。又無始生死輪廻。苦因五根本煩惱。亦五智也。謂貪瞋癡三。如次中東 三點三智也。(如上。) 疑屬智。故爲西方。慢巳辯自在故爲北。有情所＊五趣 果。亦五智體也。謂瞋果爲地獄。貪果爲餓鬼。癡果爲畜生。疑果爲人。慢果爲天。五智配屬如上煩惱。如是五智果德。遍一切所故。六 名號。亦遍法界。是故稱六 之時。則得五智五佛等。萬德也。

The five sense fields give rise to the five desires, and are the desires related to the five objects of sense perception, which are moreover in essence the five wisdoms. They should be known in accordance with the realm of perception (referring to previous section). Moreover, the five fundamental afflictions of the five faculties that are the cause of the suffering of beginningless transmigration in samsara are also these five wisdoms. That which is referred to as greed, anger, and ignorance, in the order of center, east, and south, are the three points, and the three wisdoms. (like above) Doubt is based in wisdom, and corresponds to the Western direction (wisdom of subtle discrimination). Because pride is in its essence the ability to accomplish all things, it is in the North. The activities of sentient beings that result in the five rebirths, are also the embodiments of the five wisdoms. That is to say, the fruits of anger is Hell. Greed results in the preta realm. Ignorance results in the animal realm. Doubt results in the human realm. Pride results in the heavenly realm. The five wisdoms correspond to the above [mentioned] afflictions. In this way, the resultant virtues of the five wisdoms pervade all places, and therefore the six characters of the name also pervade the universe. This is because when these six characters are intoned, this is the attainment of the manifold virtues of the five wisdoms, five Buddhas, and so on.

生死則涅槃。煩惱則菩提。生德顯現等義。准上三 可知。 顯家雖有但能念號具包衆德之釋。未指其體相。密教總持之說。仰面可信。仰上三 三部者。是胎藏義。今六五智。是金剛義也。是兩部則行者身心也 自身三部事。自身五智事。更可尋之。是故今彌陀無盡法門。歷劫雖不可稱說。上三 擧十三義。表胎藏十三院之數。竝類經觀十三定善。此六 擧九種義。表金界九會之數。竝類觀經九品之說而已。

The manifestation of the innate virtues of ‘birth and death is nirvana,’ and ‘the afflictions are awakening,’ etc., should be understood in accordance with these three characters discussed above. Though in the Exoteric teaching, there is the interpretation that recitation of the name encompasses the manifold virtues, they are unable to point to its essential aspects. One should have faith in the secret teachings of dhāraṇī. The three characters and the three divisions [of the mandala] presented above are the doctrine of the Womb Realm [[[Mandala]]], and the six characters and five wisdoms are the doctrine of the Vajra Realm [[[Mandala]]]. This dualmandala is the body-mind of the practitioner. The three divisions of one’s body, the five wisdoms of one’s mind, and still more may be apprehended. This is because the inexhaustible Dharma gate of Amitābha could not be [fully] explained in countless eons. The three characters grasp the doctrine of thirteen, revealing the thirteen pavilions of the Womb [[[Realm]] Mandala]. They also correspond to the [first] thirteen virtuous meditations of the [Contemplation Sūtra.] The six characters grasp the doctrine of nine, revealing the nine assemblies of the Vajra Realm [[[Mandala]]], and the nine levels [of rebirth in the Pure Land] in the Contemplation Sūtra.

但色心不二。兩部一體故。三 六 。互具兩部理智萬德。是故唱三 。則五智也。稱六 則三點也。又此彌陀一佛名號。卽兩部法界曼荼。塵數者尊德號也。兩部曼荼。卽十方三世。諸佛菩薩。二乘八部等。十界輪圓。內證外用。法界圓壇故。唱一佛名號。卽唱十方諸佛名號。故大日經。說觀世蓮華眼。卽同一切佛。隋取一名號。作本性加持。天台止觀。述 唱彌陀。卽是唱十方功德等。專以彌陀。爲法門之主。

However [just as] body and mind are non-dual, the dual [[[mandala]]] is of one essence, and therefore, the three characters, and the six characters together employ the manifold virtues of the Principle and Wisdom of both Mandalas. For this reason, the chanting of the three characters is the five wisdoms. Intoning the six characters is the three points. Moreover, the name of this one Buddha Amitābha, is equal to the names of countless honored ones as numerous as grains of sand contained within the dual dharma-dhatū Mandala.

The dual-mandala is all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three times [[[Wikipedia:past|past]], present, and future], the two vehicles, eight [kinds of beings: devas, nāgas, yakṣa, gandharva, asura, garuḍa, Kiṃnara, mahoraga], etc., and the round wheel of the ten worlds, inner realization and outer application, the perfectly round altar of the dharma-dhatū. This is because, when one chants the name of one Buddha, [one is in fact] chanting the names of all the Buddhas of the ten directions.

Therefore, the Mahāvairocana-sūtra states, “The lotus eyes of Avalokiteśvara are equal to all Buddhas.” And accordingly, the one name is taken up, and identified as the kaji of fundamental nature [which reveals the fundamental non-duality between Buddhas and beings and that the mind of the Buddha is none other than the mind of sentient beings].

Tiantai [[[Zhiyi’s]]] Mohezhiguan states, “When one chants [the name of] Amitābha, it is equal in virtue to chanting the names of the Buddhas of ten directions, Solely take Amitābha to be the Lord of this Dharma gate.”

又就聲 實相釋之。稱三 六 之聲名爲聲 此三 六 。彌陀如來。三身五智果名。是云 。名卽 故。此聲 所呼佛體爲實相。大師於聲 實相。作依主有財等五種釋。五種中持業爲深祕。持業者聲卽 。聲 卽實相也。是故稱六 之聲 。卽如來實相體也。以之思之。善導念佛之氣中。感見化佛。是卽聲卽實相之眞容。勿作西方來之想。 矣）

Also, according to the explication in [[[Shōji]] jissō gi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429)], the voice that intones the three characters or six characters, this is called Voice. The three or six characters, Amitābha Tathāgata, the three bodies, the name [received by the bodhisattva upon the attainment of awakening], the five wisdoms, this is called Letter. This is because the name is letter. This Voice-Letter is the embodiment of the Buddhas and may be taken as the Truth Aspect. [[[Kōbō]]] Daishi, in the Shōji jissō [gi] establishes the five levels of analysis for the tatpuruṣa and the karma-dhāraya [of the terms] [six types of linguistic compound analysis of Sanskrit] etc., and the five other levels of analysis. Within this analysis, the karma-dhāraya may be taken to be the deep and profound [meaning]. The karma-dhāraya is the [[[idea]] that] Voice is Letter. This Voice-Letter is Truth Aspect. This is because intoning the voice-letter of the six character is the embodiment of the Tathāgata’s Truth Aspect. Using this idea, [one can see that] the transformation Buddha that Shandao encountered within the breath (qi) of his nenbutsu is the true body [of the Buddha], the Voice that is Truth Aspect. For this reason, however, there is no sense in merely constructing a vision coming from the western direction.

又付句義言之。阿彌陀翻名略有三種。一云無量壽。是法身常命也。二云無量光。是報身智明也。三云甘露王。是應身教藥也。又無量壽名。可有三身。如法華壽量品天台家釋。

Moreover, as for the meaning of the phrase, there are three levels of the translation of the name A-MI-TA. The first is called Limitless Life, this is the eternally abiding life of the Dharmabody. The second is called Limitless Light, this is the luminous [[[supernatural]] cognition] wisdom of the reward-body. The third is called Lord of Amṛta this is the response body, whose teachings are like medicine. Moreover, as for the name Limitless Life, this possesses three bodies. This is like the Tendai scholar [[[Zhanran’s]] 湛然 (711-782) Fahua wenjuji 法華文句記 (T. 1719)] explanations [based on Zhiyi’s Miaofa lianhuajing wenju 妙法蓮華經文句 (T. 1718) (hereafter, Hokke mongu 法華文句) commentary on the Tathāgata’s Lifespan 如來壽量品 chapter (T. 262, 9.42a29) in the Lotus Sūtra. ]

自家亦無量壽有內證外用義。大日經疎云。於西方觀無量壽。此是如來方便智。以衆生界無盡故。諸佛方便亦無終盡。故名無量壽。此約化他方便究竟。云無量壽。大日經開題云。無量壽者。法身常恆不壞德是。身遍虛空法界。心互性相理事。(文) 是約自證云無量壽。

Our tradition explains as well that Limitless life has the meaning of inner realization and outer application. The [Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796) (hereafter, Dainichikyōso 大日經疏)] says, “In the western direction, Contemplate [the Buddha of] Limitless Life. This is the upāya wisdom of the Tathāgata. Because the realms of beings are without limit, therefore, the upāya of Buddha is also without end. For this reason, it is named “Limitless Life.” This interpretation refers to the extent of the [[[Buddha’s]] ability] to convert beings. This is called “Limitless Life.” The Dainichikyō-kaidai states, “[The Buddha of] Limitless Life, is the eternally indestructible virtue of the Dharma-body, whose body pervades the space of the universe, and whose mind is mutually [inner] nature and [outer] characteristics of principle and phenomena.” According to this, inner realization is called “Limitless Life.”

顯家於彌陀有補所故。約有量無量立名。是淺略也。又有甚深義趣。以一切衆生壽命。名無量壽。謂彌陀蓮華語密體故。六道四生語聲。迷悟十界言音。皆是彌陀法界體也。此言音六大中風大。是則一切衆生出入息也。此息風爲衆生命根。大日經說命者所謂風。相應經宣根本命金剛。是皆以息風爲命根也。是故彌陀卽衆生壽命。以衆生界無量故。名無量壽。是則同體大悲之極理。音聲解說之實智也。留心深可思之。次無量光名。有十二光佛。其祕釋在覺 VAṂ 彌陀祕釋。次甘露名。有十甘露義。是等恐繁不載之。

Exoteric scholars regard Amitābha as having a [limited lifespan at the end of which he will be succeeded by his attendant Bodhisattvas], and therefore, as a result they establish names that have limit, or do not have limit. This is the shallow, abbreviated, view. There is also the deep and profound meaning, whereby Amitābha is taken to be none other than the life force of sentient beings, he is called Limitless Life. Amitābha is referred to as the essence of the Lotus of the mysteries of speech. Therefore, the languages and speech of beings born into the six realms that are born [through eggs, wombs, condensation, and transformation ] the sounds of the words of the enlightened and deluded beings of the ten realms, they are without exception the essence of the Dharma-dhatu of Amitābha. The sound and speech of [these beings], among the six elements, [may be taken to be] the element of wind, which is the out and in breath of all sentient beings. This breath-wind may be taken as the fundamental lifeforce of sentient beings.

The Mahāvairocana-sūtra explains, “life is that which is called wind (S. prāṇa).” The [Jin’gang fengluoge yiqie yujia yuqijing 金剛峯樓閣一切瑜伽瑜祇經 (T. 867) (hereafter, Sōōkyō 相応経)] declares, “the fundamental basis of life is vajra.” In all cases, the breathwind is taken to be the basis of life. By means of this, Amitābha is the life of sentient beings, and taking the realms of beings to be without limit, he is called Limitless Life. The ultimate reason for Amitābha’s great compassion stems from the nature of his union with all beings. Sound and speech expound this truth and wisdom. Keep this in mind and think upon it deeply. Next is the name Limitless Light. There are twelve light Buddhas. Their secret explication may be found in Kakuban’s Amida hisshaku 阿彌陀祕釋 (T. 2522). Next is the name Amṛta. This also has ten meanings. However, I fear [listing them all] may become cumbersome.

稱名本願事 問。何故此佛以稱名爲本願耶。答。此尊普門三密中語密佛也。名則語故。以稱名爲本願也。問。此語密有何功能。此佛殊爲出離入證之本尊耶。答語有中道功能。中道爲入佛位之正路之故也。謂語三業中居中。兼前後身意。發聲口業。動舌身業。經意意業。（嘉祥釋）實身有見有對。心無見無對。聲無見有體。仍兼有無。互奪兩亡。非有非無。是爲中義。

The Matter of the Primal Vow of the Calling of the Name: Question: Why does this buddha use the calling of the name for the primal vow? Answer: This revered one is the Buddha of the mystery of speech within the universal gate of the three mysteries. Name is speech, and therefore, [the Buddha] employs the chanting of the name for the primal vow.

Question: As for this mystery of speech, what efficacy does it possess? What efficacy does the nenbutsu possess that this particular Buddha’s name is taken to be the object of reverence for freeing yourself from birth and death and attaining awakening?

Answer: Speech possesses the efficacy of the middle way. This is because the middle way is the true road for entering the stage of the Buddhas. That which is referred to as speech, speech abides in the center of the three sites of karmic production [[[mental]], vocal, physical], and is also endowed with the body and mind, prior and subsequent. Vocal utterances give rise to speech-karma, the movement of the tongue gives rise to bodily karma, and mental karma relates to the cogitation of the mind. ([This accords with] Jiaxiang’s (549-623) (aka, Jizang 吉藏 the Madhyamaka scholar) interpretation). The body is something that can be seen and takes up space, and the mind is something that cannot be seen and takes up no space, and the voice cannot be seen and yet takes up space. Thus, the voice joins being and non-being, grasping both and yet ungrasped by either. It is non-being and yet not non-being. This is the meaning of the middle.

大師相應經注。謂不壞金剛者。歎者尊常住身。 光明心者。歎心之覺德。殿者明身心互爲能住所住。中者語蜜。亦離邊義。（文）

According to [[[Kūkai’s]] Nikyōron, where he quotes the Sōōkyō 相応経, aka, Yugikyō 瑜祇経 ] “That which is referred to as the indestructible Vajra is extolled as the eternally abiding body, and that which is known as the mind of brilliant light is praised as awakened virtue of the mind. And that which is referred to as the palace, is revealed to be the place where in turn the body and mind become both abode and that which abides [[[mind]] arising from body, and body arising from mind]. The middle, is the mystery of speech, which, moreover has the significance of being unattached to either extreme.”

理趣釋中。以語密爲中善。又今教意。三身身土。則三密也。釋迦爲身密。（穢土）彌陀爲語密。（淨土）大日爲意密。（密嚴）此中彌陀居穢土密嚴中間淨土。引生死淤泥衆生。入圓寂性淨蓮台。是則語有中道功能。通內證外用之故也。法花記釋住立門側云。圓中之機。當門正見。正空三昧。偏眞慧眼。傍窺法身。（文） 仍中道爲入證正 門故。語密彌陀爲出離證入之本尊也。胎藏曼荼羅。西方開出入通門。深意當此。（云々）

According to the Rishushaku, “Take the mystery of speech to be the virtue of the middle.” The intent of this teaching is that the Buddha-bodies and Buddha-lands of the tri-kāya, are the three mysteries. Śākyamuni is the mystery of the body (the ordinary world). Amitābha is the mystery of speech (the Pure Land). And Mahāvairocana is the mystery of mind (the Land of Mystical Adornment). This central Amitābha abides [between] this world and the Land of Mystical Adornment in the Pure Land, extracting sentient beings from the muck of samsara, entering the pure lotus dais of perfect quiescence. In this way, speech possesses the efficacy of the middle way, penetrating inner realization and outer application. In the [[[Hokke mongu]]], the notion of ‘abiding by the side of the gate’ is explained as follows, “The practitioner of the perfect middle [way], arrives at the gate and correctly see the samādhi of emptiness. The wisdom eye of the [[[path]]] of partial truth perceives but one side of the Dharma-body.” Accordingly, the middle way may be taken as the correct path to enter enlightenment, and therefore, the mystery of speech and/as Amitābha may be taken to be the object of devotion for liberating [[[beings]]] from [[[samsara]]] and entering nirvana. The Womb Realm Mandala opens the common approach to liberation through the western direction. This is the profound meaning.”

問。MITA 是語密佛故。以稱名爲本尊者。此界瘖瘂人。及餘無言說之類。無口稱故。非其開悟之分。及不得生彼土耶。答細論三業互有身口意。如殺業有身殺口殺心殺。如念誦有蓮華金剛三摩地等。故彼瘖瘂等類。若聞彌陀本願。深心信樂。心念誦 無阿彌陀佛者。卽是稱名。可攝口業。名以語爲本故。凡三密互具事。更可聞之。

Question: MITA is the Buddha of the mystery of speech, and therefore has taken the calling of the name as the primary object of devotion. However, what about those within this world who are deaf or unable to speak, and cannot call upon the name, can they not attain awakening, or attain rebirth in that land?

Answer: If one considers the details closely, each of the three actions have the aspects of body, speech, and mind. As with the karma accrued from the act of murder, there is [[[karma]] accrued in body, speech, and mind]. In contemplative chanting,1629 there is Lotus, Vajra, and Samādhi, and so on. Therefore, for those who lack the capacity to hear or speak, if they hear the Primal Vow of the Buddha Amitābha, and in their mind rejoice deeply in great faith, and contemplate NAMU AMIDA BUTSU in their mind, this is precisely [the intent] of the term “vocal recitation.” Because [[[Wikipedia:vocal|vocal]] recitation] can grasp the karma of speech, the name takes speech to be its basis. In general, the three mysteries are used together. You should inquire into this further.

念仏三昧事 念仏三昧有三種。一応身念仏三昧。多名顕句中。八萬四千法門隋一也。善財童子。於功徳雲比丘所。所得念仏三昧。一位法門是也。

The Matter of the Nenbutsu Samādhi: The nenbutsu samādhi has three levels. First is the samādhi of the response-body. This is the first among the 84,000 Dharma gates of the many [[[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] presented in the revealed teachings].1630 [In the Avataṃsaka-sūtra] Sudhana received the nenbutsu samādhi from Meghaśrī bhikṣu.1631 This was the initial Dharma gate [that he attained].

Attached to the truth of emptiness, they only see part of the truth, whereas those within the perfect teaching [correctly] see the nature of emptiness and substance. 1629 See MD nenju for Renge- Vajra- Samadhi- 1630 MD, 1562, explains that the revealed teachings present many words, discourses and concepts to establish a doctrine, whereas the secret teachings use a single letter to encompass all meanings. This entry cites the following passage Hannya shingyō hiken 般若心經祕鍵 (T. 2203A, 12b22-12c10). 1631 This passage may be found in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 大方廣佛華嚴經 (T. 278) 689c17 - 690b25, and the Dafangguangfo huayanjing souxuanfenqi tongzhifanggui 大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 (T. 1732) by Zhiyan 智儼 (602-668; J. Chigen) (J. Daihōkō butsu kegonkyō sōgen bunsei tsūchi hōki). (T. 1732, 91b10-97b21). Virtuous Cloud Bhikṣu is the first teacher that Sudhana encounters on the bodhisattva path. 二報身念佛三昧。謂念彌陀佛稱名三昧也。般舟三昧經所說。欲生我國者。當念我名。莫有休息。則得來生等是也。

Second is the nenbutsu samādhi of the reward-body. This is what is referred to as the samādhi of contemplating Amitābha and calling his name. In the [Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (T. 418-419)] it says, “Whoever desires to be born in my land, if they constantly contemplating my name without rest, they will attain birth there.”

三法身念佛三昧。所謂總持陀羅尼門是也。是名眞言。眞言有多種。或諸經陀羅尼。或以名號爲眞言。或以種子一 爲眞言。無量壽儀軌等。修三密門。證念佛三昧者。第三陀羅尼門也。云々）

Third is the nenbutsu samādhi of the Dharma-body. This is what is referred to as the allencompassing dhāraṇī gate. This is called mantra. There are many different kinds of mantra. [There are] the dhāraṇī in the sūtras, or the names [of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas] that may be used as mantras; or single bija (seed syllables) that may be used as mantra. In the [[[Wuliangshou]] rulai guanxing gongyang yigui 無量壽如來觀行供養儀軌 T. 930) (hereafter, Muryōju giki)], and others, [it says that]: “through cultivation of the gate of the three mysteries, one attains the nenbutsu samādhi.” This is the third: the dhāraṇī gate.

但如上三種。且教門不同。理實彌陀名號。則眞言故。稱名三昧。則祕密總持念佛三昧也。大日經疎云。由三業淸淨。平等能見諸佛相。淨菩提心。與念佛三昧相應。明了無礙。唯獨自明了。餘人所不見。(文)

However, the three kinds of samādhi of these three types are just a difference of teaching. In reality the name of Amitābha is in fact a mantra, and therefore, the samādhi of chanting the name is in fact the secret dhāraṇī nenbutsu samādhi. [Yixing’s Commentary on the Mahāvairocana-sūtra] states: “Through the purification of the three karmas [of body, speech, and mind], the practitioner perceives the marks of the buddha unobstructed. The pure bodhimind and the nenbutsu samādhi arise together, fully illuminated and unencumbered, [those with a pure mind are able to perfectly see the buddha before them even though others might not be able to].”

淨菩提心者。経云何菩提謂如実知自心。疏釈云。即是開示如来功徳宝所。如人雖開宝蔵発意勤求。若不知其所在無由進趣。故指言即是行者自心。若如実自心知。即是初発 心時。更成正覚。＊如長者家窮子。若自識父時。豈復客作賤人耶（文）

As for the pure bodhi mind, according to the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, “What is bodhi? It is to know correctly one’s own mind as it is.” The Dainichikyōso states, “It is precisely that which reveals the place of the treasure of the Tathāgata’s virtue. It is like if a person gives rise to the intention to open a treasure storehouse, but does not know where it is located, they will not progress [toward that goal]. For this reason, I will indicate again, it is none other than the practitioner’s very mind. If one truly knows one’s mind, it is none other than the attainment of awakening immediately upon first giving rise to the mind that seeks awakening. By way of a metaphor, it is like the prodigal son of the householder [in the Lotus Sūtra 妙法蓮華經 (T. 262, 16b25-19a11)], from the moment the son recognized his father, how could he have been an impoverished guest again?

如實知自心者。卽如實知自身 卽菩提。此自心者。今心蓮也。以蓮花三昧。開此心蓮時。卽顯得八葉九尊曼荼卽是證得自心本不生際是云菩提。故云淨菩提心與念佛三昧相應也。若行者深信此理趣。一念稱名時。卽開性德蓮台。故云初發心時更成正覺也。

“To truly know one’s mind” [means] to know that in fact one’s very own mind is none other than bodhi. “One’s [[[own]]] mind” is here the heart-lotus. By means of the Lotus Samādhi, when this heart lotus opens, the myriad virtues of the mandala of the eight petals and nine objects of reverence is revealed and attained. [And this] is the awakening to the originally unborn nature of one’s own mind, and this is called “bodhi.” This is because the pure bodhi mind and the nenbutsu samādhi are unified (yoga). If one believes deeply in this way, one moment of mindful recollection and intoning of the name [of the Buddha] is none other than the opening of the inherent virtue of the lotus dais. Therefore, it is referred to as the attainment of awakening immediately upon the initial arousal of the mind that seeks awakening.

問。稱與念同異如何。答。天台止觀云。口常唱阿彌陀佛名。心常念阿彌陀佛。身常體 阿彌陀佛。或唱念倶運。或先念後唱。或先唱後念。(文) 是稱念各別也

Question: What is the difference between shō (intoning the name) and nen (mindful recollection) Answer: Tiantai [[[Zhiyi’s]]] Mohezhiguan states, “…with the voice, constantly intone the name of the Buddha Amitābha, and with the mind constantly contemplate the Buddha Amitābha, [and with the body, constantly embody the Buddha Amitābha ], or alternate chanting and contemplating together, or first contemplate and then chant, or first chant and then contemplate.” This is the difference between shō and nen. 善導釋意。十念卽十聲也。常途義如常。今眞言教意。三密平等。各遍法界。互具三密故。云身三皆身。云語三皆語。云意三皆意也。故疏云。身等於語。語等於心。猶如大海遍一切處同一鹹味。故云平等。（文）

According to the intent of Shandao’s explication, ten thought moments are ten vocal acts. This is the ordinary common teaching. The intent of the mantra teachings is that the three mysteries are equal, and universally pervade the dharma-dhatū. Because the three mysteries are bound together, that which is referred to as the three of the body are all the body, that which is called the three of speech are all speech, and the three of the mind are all the mind. Therefore, in the Dainichikyōso, it says, “body is equal to speech, speech is equal to mind, thus, like the great ocean, they universally pervade all places, and together they all possess the same [oceanic] taste. Therefore, they are called equal.”

經云。命者所謂風。云々。疏云。風者想也。想者念也。云々。 裏書云。尊勝破地獄軌云。五陰中。相陰心持風想心從識生等。（文）實一心稱名身心屬聲。一性故聲念是一也。但此教三密齊等遍一切處故。三密相攝雜而不亂。是故稱與念或同或異。二義苑然。但然阿彌陀佛三昧念卽聲。彌陀是語聲體故。云々。

The [[[Mahāvairocana]]]-sūtra states, “Life is that which is called the wind.” Upon which the Dainichikyōso elaborates, “Wind is ideation, and ideation is contemplation.” (On a note on the back [of the scroll] it says that in the [Sanzhong xidi podiyuzhuanyezhang chusanjie mimituoluonifa 三種悉地破地獄轉業障出三界祕密陀羅尼法 (T. 905)] it says, “Among the five aggregates, the aggregate of ideation possesses the essence of wind, and this essence of ideation arises from consciousness.” In fact, when one [[[chants]] the name of the Buddha] with one mind, body-mind-speech are of one essence, therefore vocal recitation and contemplation are one. But, this teaching is that the three mysteries are equal and pervade all places, and therefore the three mysteries mutually embrace one another, they are mixed, but not disordered. Therefore, vocal recitation and contemplation are the same but different. It is like the two meanings of garden. But, with the Amitābha samādhi, contemplation is vocal recitation, this is because Amitābha is the embodiment of voice-speech.

十念事

祕藏記云。據密教十念成就。謂十波羅密圓滿也。或難云。經曰十念成就。得生西方淨土。西方淨土者。初地菩薩。所生之土也。十波羅密者。於十地中。地地修。地地圓滿也。故以十念成就。擬十波羅密論者。生淨土時。十地可究竟。何故云初地菩薩所生之土。答云。是密教所謂橫義也。初地與十地無高下故。今卿所難次第義。是顯教所說地地遷登之義。今密教所說言菩薩地者是心也。法文也。佛也。菩薩也。異餘乘如此。 （文）

On the Matter of the Ten Remembrances:

The Hizōki 祕藏記 says, “According to the secret teaching, the accomplishment of ten thought moments is [the same as] the full accomplishment of the ten perfections [of the bodhisattva path]. Or, to put it in more detail, the Sūtra states, ‘through the accomplishment of ten thought moments one may attain rebirth in the Western Pure Land. The Western Pure Land is the land into which Bodhisattvas of the first stage are born. The ten perfections are cultivated according to each stage, and completed according to each stage.

Therefore, taking the accomplishment of ten thought moments to grasp the ten perfections, when one is born into the Pure Land, one will surely realize the tenth stage. For what reason is this land referred as a place where Bodhisattvas of the first stage are born? The answer may be stated as follows: that which is referred to as the secret teaching is referred to as the horizontal teaching. This is because between the first stage and tenth stage, there is neither high nor low. Therefore, it is only the doctrine of progression [or gradual enlightenment] that you criticize. This is the exoteric [“literalist”] teaching of progression through stages. Now, according to the secret teaching, that which is referred to as the Bodhisattva stages is one’s mind. The literature of the Dharma, the Buddhas, the Bodhisattvas, in general other teachings differ on these matters.”

問。十念事出觀經。爾彼經十念。是下品下生之業也。今記極樂總爲初地菩薩所生土。以十念爲彼因。觀經九品上品爲菩薩。中品爲二乘。下品爲凡夫。仍經與記相違如何。答。眞言行者所生極樂。是唯初地。故儀軌云。依此教法。正念修行。決定生於極樂世界上品上生。護得初地。（文）

Question: Regarding the matter of the ten thought moments as it appears in the Contemplation Sūtra, therein, the ten thought moments are said to result in rebirth in the lowest of the lowest grade [of the Pure Land]. Now, in the Hizōki, Sukhāvatī is generally taken to be the land into which Bodhisattvas of the first stage are born. The ten thought moments are taken to be the cause of this. According to the Contemplation Sūtra, the nine levels [are as follows], the upper division [levels 7-9] is for Bodhisattvas, the middle division [4-6] is for those who believe in the two vehicles, and the lower division [1-3] is for ordinary beings. According to this, how [is one to understand] the similarities and differences between the Contemplation Sūtra and the Hizōki?

Answer: For the mantra practitioner, that which is born into Sukhāvatī, this is merely the first stage. In the [[[Wuliangshou]]] yigui, it says, “Through this Dharma teaching, if one practices diligently with a focused mind, one will certainly be born in the highest level of the realm of Sukhāvatī and assuredly achieve the first stage.” 此初地者自家佛乘本初初地。全非顯教所說歡喜地。故初地則佛地。是故理實極樂者。唯上品上生初地。而觀經於初地所開性德心蓮。豎開九品爲應土莊嚴。是開三福三乘世出世間一切善爲九品也。其下品下生十念者。此有三 意。一依淺略十念爲下品。二 下品下生人惡逆極故約祕密醍醐 十念。爲彼妙藥。如六度經說。（云々）

The first stage, in my tradition, is the first stage of the fundamental stage of the Buddha-yāna. This is different from the ‘stage of bliss’ which is referred to in the literalist teachings because the first stage is none other than the stage of Buddha. For this reason, in reality, in Sukhāvatī there is only the highest level of rebirth at the first stage. In the Contemplation Sūtra, at the first stage, that which opens is the inherent virtue of the heart lotus, all nine levels open [immediately] in vertical succession, and this may be taken as the adornments of the response land. The nine levels are [the opening of] the total goodness of all worldly and other-worldly things associated with the three virtuous deeds [as described in the Contemplation Sūtra] and the three vehicles. The ten thought moments of the lower birth in the lower level [may be understood to possess] the following three meanings. One, according to the superficial [reading], ten thought moments may be taken to be [the cause of] the lowest stage [of rebirth]. Two, the people who receive rebirth in the lowest stage of the lowest level are those who committed the extremely evil acts, and therefore, they enter the ten thought moments of secret ambrosia, and it is the precious elixir [they require]. This accords with the explanation in the Liuduji jing 六度經 (T. 152).

今記約祕密十念。爲初地因。但儀軌上品一生者。或對常途九品。眞言妙行爲上品。或上品者 無比無過上之義。非相對下之八品言上品也故。祕記云。最上妙樂在其中故云極樂。（文）卽此意也。

As explained in the [Hizō]ki, the secret [meaning] ten thought moments may be taken to be the cause of the first stage, and in the [[[Wuliangshou]]] yigui rebirth in the highest level in one lifetime, perhaps in contrast to the nine levels of the common interpretation, the subtle practice of mantra may be taken to be the highest level, or perhaps the highest level may be taken to be the teachings of the incomparable unsurpassable [[[truth]]]. This is not in opposition to the lower eight levels that it is called the highest level, and therefore, the Hizōki states, “abiding within the most wonderful bliss, and it is therefore called Sukhāvatī,” this is its intended [meaning]. 三觀經九品理實皆以十念爲正因。而上六品有除善故。不顯念佛下品就唯惡說故。只以稱念因。而開三福爲九品也。故下品亦有善。仍上中興下品互有陰顯說思之可知。觀經九品具有顯密橫竪意。祕藏記據橫義以十念爲極樂通因以安養爲初地也。觀經顯相。就竪義且於下品說十念也。

Three, the nine levels [as described in the] Contemplation Sūtra in reality are all the true causes of the ten thought moments. Moreover, the upper six level possess additional goodness, and therefore the nenbutsu is not revealed. This is because in the lower three, however, it is explained to evil [[[beings]]]. But, vocal recitation may be taken to be the cause [of rebirth], also of the nine levels that opened the three virtuous acts. As a result, even the lower three levels possess good. Accordingly, there are hidden and revealed explanations for the upper, middle, and lower levels, of which you are probably unaware. The nine levels of the Contemplation Sūtra possess exoteric and esoteric “horizontal and vertical” meanings. In the Hizōki, relying on the Horizontal (Esoteric) teachings, the ten thought moments may be taken to be the common cause of Sukhāvatī, possessing bliss, it may be taken as the first stage. The superficial aspects of the Contemplation Sūtra explain the ten thought moments to those of the lowest level in accordance with the Vertical (exoteric) teaching. (SAZ, fascicle 1 ends here) BIBLIOGRAPHY DŌHAN’S 道範 (1179-1252) MAJOR EXTANT WORKS (SELECTED) Aun gōkan 阿吽合觀. Mitsuun 密雲, Moriyama Kamon 守山嘉門, ed. Ajikan hiketsushū 阿 観秘決集. Jōkō-in 定光院, 1912 (reprint, Moriyama Kamon 守山嘉門, 2010), 19-20.

Translated by: Payne, Richard K. “Ajikan: Ritual and Meditation in the Shingon Tradition.” In Re-visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism. Ed Richard K. Payne, 232-233.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998. Benkenmitsu nikyōron shukyō shō 辯顯密二教論手鏡抄 (ZSZ 18:273-323), 3 fasc., Jōhen 靜遍 (1165–1223), comp. by Dōhan, ca. 1223-1224 (Jōō 貞應 2-3). Bodaishinron dangiki 菩提心論談義記 (ND 24 (1916 ed.), 47 (1975 ed.)), 2 fasc., comp. 1240

(En’ō 延應 2). Chō kaishō 聽海抄, 2 fasc., Kakkai/Kakukai 覺海 (Nanshōbō 勝房) (1142–1223), comp. Dōhan. Kanayama Bokushō 金山穆韶, “Chōkaishō (Dōhan ajari ki) 聴海抄 (道範阿闍 梨記),” Mikkyō kenkyū 密教研究 10 (1922): 167-228. Dainichi kyōsho joanshō 大日經疏除暗鈔 (BT 19, ZSZ 5:1-97) 7 fasc., 1224 (Jōō 3). Dainichi kyōsho henmyō shō 大日經疏遍明鈔 (ZSZ 5:99-444), 21 fasc., 1245 (Kangen 寛元 3). Dōhan shōsoku 道範消息 (NKBT 83:76-83), 1 fasc. Pol Van den Broucke, “Dōhan’s Letter on the Visualization of Syllable A,” Shingi Shingon kyōgaku no kenkyū 新義真言教学の研 究 10 (2002): 65-87. “Dōhan nikka rinjū higi 道範日課臨終祕儀.” Kōyasan daigaku mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 高

野山大学密教文化研究所紀要 16 (2003): 79-92. Gyōhō kanyō shō 行法肝葉鈔 (SZ 23:147-178), 3 fasc., comp. ca. 1243-1249 (Kangen 1 to Hōji

寶治 3). Hannya shingyō hiken kaihō shō 般若心經祕鍵開寶鈔 (ND 10 (1916 ed.), 20 (1975 ed.)), 2 fasc., 1247. Himitsu nenbutsu shō 祕密念佛鈔 (DNBZ 70:51-82; ZJZ 15:79-110; SAZ 2:225-266), 3 fasc., 1223 (Jōō 2); Himitsushū nenbutsu shō 秘密宗念佛鈔 (Kyoto: Nagata chōbee 永田長兵 衛, 1686; Himitsu shū nenbutsu shō 秘密宗念仏鈔 (Rokudai shinhōsha insatsubu 六大 新報社印刷部, 1907); Himitsu nenbutsu shō kenkyūkai 秘密念仏抄研究会. “Dōhan cho ‘Himitsu nenbutsu shō’ no kenkyū—honbun kōtei to kaki kudashi gochū 道範 ‘秘

密念仏抄’ の研究--本文校訂と書き下し・語註.” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 39 (1996):

105-130. Printed editions from 1645 (正保 2) relatively widely available. Hizōki shō 祕藏記鈔 (ZSZ 15:35-58), 1 fasc. Hizōhōyaku mondanshō 祕藏寶鑰問談鈔, 2 fasc., comp. ca. 1240; Mori Shigeki 森重樹, ed.

Toganō korekushon kenmitsu tenseki monjo shūsei 栂尾コレクション顕密典籍文書集

成, vol. 5. Tokyo: Hirakawa shuppansha, 1981. Joōshō (Teiōshō) 貞應抄 (T. 2447.77.697), 3 fasc., 1225 (Jōō 4). Kakua mondō shō 覺阿問答鈔, 3 fasc., 1252, Mori Shigeki 森重樹, ed. Toganō korekushon kenmitsu tenseki monjo shūsei 栂尾コレクション顕密典籍文書集成, vol. 1. Tokyo:

Hirakawa shuppansha, 1981. Kōbō Daishi ryaku joshō 弘法大師略頌鈔 (KDZ 3), 1 fasc., 1234; Kōbō Daishi ryakujo 弘法大 師略頌 (治田七兵衛, 1658); Kōbō Daishi ryaku joshō 弘法大師略頌鈔 (Tokyo:

Kōyasan shucchō sho 高野山出張所, 1882). Kongōchōgyō kaidai kanchū 金剛頂經開題勘註 (ZSZ 7:1-18), 1 fasc. Kōmyō shingon shijū shaku 光明眞言四重釋 (SAZ 2:74-81), 1 fasc. Nankai rurōki 海流浪記 (GR 18:468-476), 1 fasc. Nanzan hiku 山秘口 (ZSZ 41:99-102), 1 fasc., 1243 (Kangen 1). Nichi sotsu toba daiji 日率都婆大事, Kōyasan Hachiyō Gakkai 高野山八葉学会, ed., Chūinryū sakuhōshū 中院流作法集 (Kōyasan: 高野山八葉学会 1918), 27-29. Rinjū yōshin ji 臨終用心事 (SAZ 2:792-795), 1 fasc. Rishushaku hidenshō 理趣釋祕傳鈔 (ND 17), 2 fasc., 1250. Shakumakaenron ōkyōshō 釋摩訶衍論應教鈔 (T. 2288.69.584), 1 fasc., 1226 (Karoku 嘉禄 2). Shōji jissōgi shō 聲 實相義抄 (SZ 14:9-36), 2 fasc., 1240 (Ninji 仁治 1). Shoshin tongaku shō 初心頓覺鈔 (SZ 22:149-175), 3 fasc. Sokushin jōbutsugi kiki gaki 卽身成佛義聞書 (ZSZ 17:1-37), 2 fasc. Unjigi shakukanchū shō 吽 義釋勘註抄 (SZ 15:11-54), 3 fasc., Dōhan’s oral transmissions, later compiled by Ryūgen 隆源 (1342-1426). Yugikyō kuketsu 瑜祇經口決 (SZ 5:27-136), 5 fasc., 1224 (Jōō 3). Yoga sūtraṃ kuden 口傳 (ZSZ 7:91-134), 2 fasc., 1224 (Jōō 3).

PREMODERN SOURCES

Achufoguo jing 阿閦佛國經 (T. 313.11.751), Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖 (2nd cent.; C. Zhi

Loujiachen, J. Shi Rukashin) (S. Akṣobhyavyūha-sūtra, J. Ashuku bukkokkyō). Ajigi 阿 義 (T. 2438.77.521), Jitsuhan/Jippan 實範 (d. 1144). Aliduoluo tuoluoni alulijing 阿唎多羅陀羅尼阿嚕力經 (T. 1039.20.23) Amoghavajra 不空金剛

(705-774; C. Bukong Jin’gang, J. Fukū Kongō) (J. Aritara darani aroriki kyō). Amida hisshaku 阿彌陀祕釋 (T. 2522.79.48), Kakuban 覺鑁 (1095-1143). Amidashinjūgi 阿彌陀新十疑 (SEJ 2:221-258), Zenyu 禅瑜 (913?-990). Amituo gu yinsheng wang tuoluoni jing 阿彌陀鼓音聲王陀羅尼經 (T. 370.352.12) (S.

Aparimitāyur-jñānahṛdaya-dhāraṇī, J. Amida ku onjō ō darani kyō). Anleji 安樂集 (T. 1958.47.4), Daochuo 道綽 (562-645; J. Dōshaku) (J. Anrakushū). Anantuo muqunihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (T. 1013.19.685), 1 fasc., Guṇabhadra 求 那跋陀羅 (394-468; C. Qiunabatuoluo, J. Gunabaddara) (S. Anatamukhasādhāka dhāraṇī, J. Ananda mokukyanikarida kyō). Azuma no kuni kōsōden 東國高僧傳 (DNBZ 104). Bajikunantuoluoni jing 拔濟苦難陀羅尼經 (T. 1395.21.912), Xuanzang 玄奘 (602-664; Genjō)

(J. Bassai kunan daranikyō). Baming pumi tuoluoni jing 八名普密陀羅尼經 (T. 1365.21.883), Xuanzang (J. Hacimyōhumitsu daranikyō). Baoxidi chengfo tuoluonijing 寶悉地成佛陀羅尼經 (T. 962.19.335), Amoghavajra (J.

Hōshicchijōbutsu daranikyō) Baoxing tuoluonijing 寶星陀羅尼經 (T. 402.13.536), Prabhākaramitra 波羅迦頗蜜多羅 (564 633; Boluojiapomiduoluo, J. Harakaramittara) (S. Mahāsaṃnipāta-Ratnaketudhāraṇī, J.

Hōsei daranikyō) Banzhousanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (T. 418), Lokakṣema (S. *Pratyutpanna-buddha saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra, J. Hanjusanmai kyō). Bayiqie yezhang genben desheng jingtu shenzhou 拔一切業障根本得生淨土神呪 (T.

368.12.351), Guṇabhadra (J. Batsuissai gosshō konpontokushō jōdojinju). Beihua jing 悲華經 (T. 157) Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 (385-433; C. Tan Wuchen, J. Don Musen)

(S. Karuṇā-puṇḍarīka-sūtra, J. Hike kyō). Benkenmitsu nikyōron 辯顯密二教論 (T. 2427.77.374), Kūkai 空海 (774-835). Bukongjuansuo shenbian zhenyan jing 不空羂索神變眞言經 (T. 1092.20.227), Bodhiruci 菩提 流志 (d. 727; C. Putiliuzhi, J. Bodairushi) (S. Amoghapāśa-kalparāja, J. Fukūkenjaku jinpen shingon kyō) Bukong juansuo tuoluoni zizai wangshoujing 不空羂索陀羅尼自在王呪經 (T. 1097), Maṇicinta 寶思惟 (? – 721; C. Baosiwei, J. Hōshiyui) (S. Amoghapāśa- dhāraṇī, J.

Fukūkenjaku darani jizaiō kyō). Bukongjuansuo shenzhouxin jing 不空羂索神呪心經 (T. 1094.20.402), Xuanzang (S.

Amoghapāśakalpa-hṛdayadhāraṇī, J. Fukū kenjaku jushinkyō). Bukongjuansuo zhouxinjing 不空羂索呪心經 (T. 1095.20.406), Bodhiruci. Bukong juansuo zhuojing 不空羂索呪經 (T. 1093), Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 (523-600; C.

Shenajueduo, J. Janakutta) (S. Amoghapāśa-hṛdaya, J. Fukūkenjaku shukyō). Byōchū shugyō ki 病中修行記 (SAZ 2), Jippan/Jitsuhan. Chang ahan jing 長阿含經 (T. 1.1.1), Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 (5th cent.; C. Fotuoyeshe, J.

Buddayasha) and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (4th cent.; C. Zhu Fonian, J. Chiku Butsunen) (S.

Dīrghāgama, J. Jō agonkyō). Chishi tuolunijing 持世陀羅尼經 (T. 1162.20.666), Xuanzang (S. Vasudhārā-dhāraṇī, J.

Jisedarani kyō) Chusheng wubianmen duoluonijing 出生無邊門陀羅尼經 (T. 1009.19.675) Amoghavajra; (T. 1018.19.702) Zhiyan 智嚴 (early 5th cent.; J. Chigon) (S. Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī,

J. Shusse muhenmon daranikyō). Cishipusa lüexiuyu’e niansong fa 慈氏菩薩略修愈誐念誦法 (T. 1141), Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏

(637-735; C. Shanwuwei, J. Zenmui) (J. Jishibosatsuryakushū yuganenjuhō). Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (T. 374.12.365), Dharmakṣema, (T. 375.12.605), Huiyan 慧嚴

(363-443; J. Egon) (S. Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, J. Nehan gyō). Dabaojijing 大寶積經 (T. 310.11.1) Bodhiruci (S. Ratnamegha-sūtra, J. Daihōshakukyō) Dacheng fangguang manshushilipusa huayan benjiao yanman dejiafennuwang zhenyan

daweideyiguipin 大乘方廣曼殊室利菩薩華嚴本教閻曼德迦忿怒王真言大威德儀軌品

(T. 1215.21.76), 1 fasc., attr. Amoghavajra (J. Daijō hōkō manjushiribosatsu kegon pongyō enman tokkyahunnuō shingon daiitokugikihon); This text corresponds to Chapter 50 of the Sanskrit version of Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa and to Chapter 33 of the Tibetan version held at Otani University (No. 162). Dacheng yujia jingangxinghai manshushili qianbiqianbo dajiaowangjing 大乘瑜伽金剛性海曼 殊室利千臂千鉢大教王經 (T. 1177A.20.724) Amoghavajra (J. Daijō yuga kongōshōkai

manjushiri senpisenpotsu daikyōōgyō). Dafaju duoluoni jing 大法炬陀羅尼經 (T. 1340.21.661), Jñānagupta (S. Dharmolkadhāraṇī sūtra, J. Daihōko darani kyō). Dafangdeng dayunjing qingyupin diliushisi 大方等大雲經請雨品第六十四, 1 fasc., (T. 992.19.500), Jñānayaśas 闍那耶舍 (6th cent.; C. Shenayeshe, J. Shanayasha) (J. Daihōdō daiun kyō shōubon dairokujūshi). Dafangdeng tuoluoni jing 大方等陀羅尼經 (T. 1339.21.641), Fazhong 法衆 (J. Hōshu) (J.

Daihōdō darani kyō). Dafangdeng wuxiang jing 大方等無想經 (T. 387.12.1077), Dharmakṣema (J. Daihōdō musō

kyō). Dafangguangfo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (T. 278.9.395), Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 (early

5th cent.; C. Fotuobatuoluo, J. Buddabaddara) (S. Avataṃsaka-sūtra, J. Daihōkōbutsu

kegon kyō). Dafangguangfo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (T. 279.10.1), Śikṣānanda 實叉難陀, Yijing 義淨

(635-713; J. Gijō) (S. Avataṃsaka-sūtra, J. Daihōkōbutsu kegon kyō). Dafangguangfo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (T. 293.10.661), Prajñā 般若 (early 9th cent.; C.

Bore, J. Hannya) (S. Avataṃsaka-sūtra, J. Daihōkōbutsu kegon kyō). Daifangguangfo huayanjing jinshizi zhang 大方廣佛華嚴經金師子章 (T. 1881.45.667), Fazang 法藏 (643-712; J. Hōzō) (J. Daihōkōbutsu Kegonkyō Konjishishō). Dafangguangfo huayanjing souxuanfenqi tongzhifanggui 大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 (T. 1732.35.13), Zhiyan 智儼 (602-668; J. Chigen) (J. Daihōkō butsu kegonkyō sōgen bunsei tsūchi hōki). Dafangguang manshushili tongzhenpusa huayanbenjiaozhanyan mandejiafennuwang zhenyan

apizhelujia yigui pin 大方廣曼殊室利童真菩薩華嚴本教讚閻曼德迦忿怒王真言阿毘

遮嚕迦儀軌品 (T. 1216.21.77), attr. Amoghavajra (S. Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa, J.

Daihōkōmanjushiri dōshinbosatsu kegonhongyōsan enmantokkyahunnuō shingon abisharokya giki hon); this text corresponds to Chapter 51 of the Sanskrit

Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa, and Chapter 34-35 of the Tibetan. Dafangguang pusazangjing zhong wenshushiligenben yizi tuoluonijing 大方廣菩薩藏經中文殊 師利根本一 陀羅尼經 (T. 1181), Manicinta (J. Daihōkō bosatsu zōkyōchū monjushiri konpon ichiji daranikyō). Dafangguang pusazangjing zhong wenshushili genben yizi tuoluonijing 大方廣菩薩藏經中文殊 師利根本一 陀羅尼經 (T. 1181.20.780), Manicinta (J. Daihōkō bosatsu zōkyō chūmon jushiri konpon ichiji darani kyō). Dafangguang pusazang wenshushili genben yiguijing 大方廣菩薩藏文殊師利根本儀軌經 (T.

1191.20.835), Tianxizai 天息災 (?- 1000; J. Tensokusai) (S. Mañjuśrīmulakalpa, J.

Daihōkōbosatsu monjushiri konpon gikikyō). Dainichikyō kaidai 大日經開題 (T. 2211), Kūkai. Dainichikyō jūshinbon shoshiki 大日經住心品疏私記 (T. 2215.58.685), Saisen 濟暹 (1025-

1115). Daibirushanakyō shiki 大毘盧遮那經指歸 (T. 2212.58.12), Enchin 圓珍 (814-891). Daioshō hōi Heianjō taijōtennō kanjōmon 大和尚奉爲平安城太上天皇灌頂文 (T. 2461.78.1),

Kūkai. Dajinsekongquewang zhoujing 大金色孔雀王呪經 (T. 986.19.477), Śrīmitra (J. Daikonjiki kujakuōjukyō). Dajiyi shenzhoujing 大吉義神呪經 (T. 1335), Tanyao 曇曜 (5th cent.; J. Donyō) (J. Daikitsugi shinjukyō). Dalejin’gangbukong zhenshisanmoye jing 大樂金剛不空眞實三摩耶經 (T. 243.08.784)

Amoghavajra (J. Dairaku kongō fukū shinjitsu sanmaya kyō). Dalejin’gang bukong zhenshi sanmeiye jing banruo boluomiduo liqushi 大樂金剛不空眞實三昧 耶經般若波羅蜜多理趣釋 (T. 1003.18.607), Amoghavajra (J. Dairaku kongō fukū

shinjitsu sanmaya kyō hannya haramitta rishushaku). Dapiluzhena chengfo shenbian jiachi jing 大毘盧遮那成佛神變加持經 (T. 848.18.1), Śubhakarasiṃha and Yixing 一行 (683-787; Ichigyō) (S. Mahā-vairocanābhisaṃbodhi sūtra, J. Daibirushana jōbutsu jinben kajikyō). Dapiluzhena chengfo jingshu 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 (T. 1796.39.579), Yixing (J. Daibirushana jōbutsu kyōsho). Shidi jinglun 十地經論 (T. 1522.26.123), comp. Vasubandhu 世親 (5th cent.; C. Shiqin, J.

Seshin), trans. Bodhiruci (S. Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra, J. Juji kyō ron). Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 (T. 1666.32.575) Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴 (2nd cent.; C. Maming, J.

Memyō) (J. Daijō kishin ron). Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章 (T. 1851.144.465) Jingying Huiyuan 淨影慧遠 (523-592; Jōyō Eon)

(J. Daijō gishō). Da Song sengshi lüe 大宋僧史略 (T. 2126.54.234), Zanning 贊寧 (920-1001; J. Sannei) (J.

Daisō sōshiryaku). Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan 大唐西域求法高僧傳 (T. 2066.51.1) Yijing 義淨 (635-713;

Gijō) (J. Daitō saiiki guhō kōsō den). Datuoluoni mofa zhong yizixinzhoujing 大陀羅尼末法中一 心呪經 (T. 956.19.315),

Maṇicinta (J. Daidarani mappōchū ichiji shinjukyō). Daweide tuoluonijing 大威徳陀羅尼經 (T. 1341.21.755), Jñānagupta (S. Mahābala-dhāraṇī sūtra, J. Daiitoku daranikyō). Dayunjing qingyupin diliushisi 大雲經請雨品第六十四 (T. 993.19.506), Jñānayaśas (J.

Daiunkyō shōubon dairokujūshi). Dayunlun qinyujing 大雲輪請雨經, 2 fasc., (T. 991.19.493) Narendrayaśas 那連提耶舍 (517-

589; C. Naliantiyeshe, J. Narenteiyasha) (J. Daiunrin shōukyō). Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T. 1509.25.57), attr. Nāgārjuna 龍樹 (ca. 2nd cent.; C. Longshu, J.

Ryūju), trans. Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344-413; C. Jiumoluoshe, J. Kumarajū) (S.

Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra J. Daichidoron). Dentōkōroku 傳燈廣錄, ZSZ 33. Dizangpusa yigui 地藏菩薩儀軌 (T. 1158.20.652) Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Jizō bosatsu giki). Fahua sanmei jing 法華三昧經 (T. 269.09.285), Zhiyan (J. Hokke sanmaikyō). Fahua wenjuji 法華文句記 (T. 1719.34.151), Zhanran’s 湛然 (711-782; J. Tannen) (J. Hokke

monguki). Fanwangjing 梵網經 (T. 1484.24.997), attr. Kumārajīva (J. Bonmō kyō). Foding zunsheng tuoluonijing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經, 1 fasc., (T. 968.19.353) Du Xingkai 杜行

(late-7th cent.; J. Togyōgi) (S. Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī, J. Bucchō sonshō daranikyō). Foding zunshengxin podizhuan yezhang chusanjie mimisanshen fogou sanzhong xidi zhenyan

yigui 佛頂尊勝心破地獄轉業障出三界祕密三身佛果三種悉地眞言儀軌 (T.

906.18.912) Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Bucchō sonshō shinhajigoku tengosshōshutsusangai himitsusanjinbukka sanshushijji shingon giki) Foshuo Amituo sanyesanfo saloufotan guodurendao jing 佛説阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人

道經 (T. 362.12.300), Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 223-253; J. Shiken) (S. Sukhvativyuha-sūtra, J.

Bussetsu Amida sanyasanbutsu sarubutsudan kadonindō kyō). Foshuo anan tuomuquniheli tuolinnijing 佛說阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀鄰尼經 (T. 1015.19.692) Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 (early-6th cent.; C. Fotuoshanduo, J. Buddasenta) (S.

Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu ananda mokukyanikari darinnikyō). Foshuo bajixiang shenzhou jing 佛説八吉祥神呪經 (T. 427.14.72). Zhu Luyan 竺律炎 (late 3rd – early 4th cent.; C. Zhu Lüyan, J. Chiku Ritsuen) (J. Bussetsu hachikichi jōjinshu kyō). Foshuo chusheng wulianmen chijing 佛說出生無量門持經 (T. 1012.19.682) Buddhabhadra (S.

Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu shusshō muryōmon jikyō). Foshuo foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛説佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 971.19.361) Yijing 義淨

(635-713; J. Gijō) (J. Bussetsu bucchō sonshō daranikyō). Foshuo guanyaowang yaoshang erpusa jing 佛説觀藥王藥上二菩薩經 (T. 1161.20.660), Kālyaśas 畺良耶舍 (early 5th cent.; C. Jianglianggyeshe, J. Kyōryōyasha) (S.

Bhaiṣajyarāja-bhaiṣajya-samudgata-sūtra, J. Bussetsu kanyakuōyakujō nibosatsu kyō). Foshuo qijuzhifomu zhuntidaming tuoluoni jing 佛説七倶胝佛母准提大明陀羅尼經 (T.

1075.20.173) Vajrabodhi (J. Bussetsu shichikutei butsumojundai daimyō daranikyō). Foding zuisheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂最勝陀羅尼經 (T. 969.19.355), Divākara 地婆訶羅 (late 7th cent.; C. Dipoheluo, J. Jibakara) (J. Bucchō saishō daranikyō). Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經 (T. 967.19.349), Buddhapāla (aka,

Buddhapālita) 佛陀波利 (late-7th cent.; C. Fotuoboli, J. Buddahari); (T. 968.19.353), attr.

Du Xingkai 杜行 (S. Uṣṇīsavijayā-dhāraṇī, J. Bucchō sonshō daranikyō). Foshuo chiju shenzhoujing 佛説持句神呪經 (T. 1351.21.864), Zhiqian 支謙 (fl. 223-253; J.

Shiken) (J. Bussetsu jiku jinju kyō). Foshuo chusheng wubianmen duoluoni yigui 佛說出生無邊門陀羅尼儀軌 (T. 1010.19.679)

Amoghavajra (S. Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu shusshō muhenmon daranikyō). Foshuo dacheng shengwuliangshou jueding guangmingwang rulai tuoluonijing 佛説大乘聖無 量壽決定光明王如來陀羅尼經 (T. 937.19.85), Dharmadeva 法天 (973-981; C. Fatian,

J. Hōten) (S. Aparimitāyur-mahāyānasūtra, J. Bussetsu daijō shōmuryōju ketsujō kōmyō nyorai daranikyō). Foshuo dacheng zhuangyan baowang jing 佛説大乘莊嚴寶王經 (T. 1050.20.47) Tianxizai, Dānapāla 施護 (late-10th cent.; C. Shihu, J. Sego), Dharmadeva (S. Kāraṇḍavyūha, J.

Bussetsu daijōshōgon hōō kyō). Foshuo dabeikongzhi jingang dajiaowang yiguijing 佛説大悲空智金剛大教王儀軌經 (T.

892.18.587), Tianxizai (S. Hevajra-tantra J. Bussetsu daihikūchi kongō daikyōō gikikyō). Foshuo guanding qiwanerqian shenwang hubiqiuzhoujing 佛說灌頂七萬二千神王護比丘咒經

(T. 1331.21.495), Śrīmitra 戸梨蜜多羅 (d. ca. 343; C. Shilimiduoluo; J. Shirimittara) (S.

Abhiṣeka Sūtrạ, J. Bussetsu kanjō shichiman nisen shinnō gobiku jukyō). Foshuo huaji tuoluoji shenzhou jing 佛説華積陀羅尼神呪經 (T. 1356.21.874), Zhi Qian (J.

Bussetsu keshaku darani jinjukyō). Foshuo jiuba yankou egui tuoluoni jing 佛說救拔燄口餓鬼陀羅尼經 (T. 1313.21.464)

Amoghavajra (J. Bussetsu kubatsuenku gaki daranikyō). Foshuo jiumianran egui tuoluoni shenzhoujing 佛說救面然餓鬼陀羅尼神咒經 (T.

1314.21.465), Śikṣānanda 實叉難陀 (late-7th cent.; C. Shichananuo, J. Jisshananda) (J.

Bussekkumennen gaki darani shinshukyō). Foshuo moniluodanjing 佛説摩尼羅亶經, 1 fasc., (T. 1393), Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (late-4th cent.; J.

Donmuran) (J. Bussetsu maniradan kyō). Foshuo qijuzhi fomuxin dazhunti tuoluonijing 佛説七倶胝佛母心大准提陀羅尼經 (T.

1077.20.185), Divākara (S. Cundīdevī-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu shichi kutei butsumoshin daijuntei darani kyō). Foshuo renwang banruoboluomi jing 佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經 (T. 245.01.825), Kumarajiva (J.

Bussetsu ninnō hannya haramitsu kyō). Foshuo shierfoming shenzhou jiaolianggongde chuzhang miezuijing 佛説十二佛名神呪校量功 徳除障滅罪經 (T. 1348.21.860), Jñānagupta (J. Bussetsu jūnibutsu myōjin jukyōryō kudoku joshō metsuzai kyō). Foshuo suiqiu jide dazizai tuoluoni shenzhoujing 佛説隨求即得大自在陀羅尼神呪經 (T.

1154.20.637), Maṇicinta (J. Bussetsu zuigusokutokudaijizaidarani jinshukyō). Foshuo tanteluomayoushujing 佛説檀特羅麻油述經 (T. 1391.21.908), Tanwulan (J. Bussetsu dantokuramayujutsu kyō). Foshuo weimojie jing 佛説維摩詰經 (T. 474.14.519), Zhi Qian (S. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, J.

Bussetsu yuimakitsu kyō). Foshuo wenshushili fabaozang tuoluoni jing 佛説文殊師利法寶藏陀羅尼經 (T. 1185A.20.791;

1185B.20.798) Bodhiruci (J. Bussetsu monjushiri hōhōzō daranikyō). Foshuo wuliang gongde tuoluoni jing 佛説無量功徳陀羅尼經 (T. 0934.19.80), Dharmabhadra 法賢 (? – 1001; C. Faxian, J. Hōken) (J. Bussetsu muryōkudoku daranikyō). Foshuo wuliangshou jing 佛說無量壽經 (T. 360.12.265), Buddhabhadra (S. Sukhāvatī-vyūha sūtra, J. Bussetsu muryōju kyō). Foshuo wuliang qingjing pingdeng juejing 佛説無量清淨平等覺經 (T. 361. 12.279),

Lokakṣema (S. Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, J. Bussetsu muryōshōjō byōdō kakyō). Foshuo wulianmen weimi chijing 佛說無量門微密持經 (T. 1011.19.680), Zhiqian (S.

Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu muryōmon mimitsujikyō). Foshuo xuanshi futuosuoshuo shenzhoujing 佛説玄師颰陀所説神呪經 (T. 1378A.21.901) Tanwulan (J. Bussetsu genshi batta jinjukyō). Foshuo yiqie foshe xiangying dajiaowangjing shengguanzizai pusa niansong yigui 佛説一切佛

攝相應大教王經聖觀自在菩薩念誦儀軌 (1051.20.64), Dharmadeva (S. Samāyoga-

tantra, J. Bussetsu issai butsu jōsōō daikyōōgyō shōkanjizaibosatsu nenjugiki). Foshuo yiqie rulai jingang sanye zuishang mimi dajiaowangjing 佛説一切如來金剛三業最上 祕密大教王經 (T. 885.18.469), Dānapāla (S. Guhyasamāja-tantra, J. Bussetsu issainyorai kongōsangō saijōhimitsu daikyōōkyō). Foshuo yiqie rulai zhenshi shedashengxianzheng sanmei jiaowangjing 佛説一切如來眞實攝大 乘現證三昧大教王經 (T. 882.18.341), Dānapāla (S. Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāmamahāyāna-sūtra, J. Bussetsu issainyorai shinjitsu shōdaijō genshōzanmai

daikyōōkyō). Foshuo yiqie gonde zhuangyanwang jing 佛説一切功徳莊嚴王經 (T. 1374.21.890), Yijing (J.

Bussetsu issai kudoku shōgonōkyō). Foshuo yixiang chusheng pusa jing 佛說一向出生菩薩經 (T. 1017.19.698), Jñānagupta (S.

Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Bussetsu ikkō shusshō bosatsukyō). Foshuoyujia dajiaowang jing 佛説瑜伽大教王經 (T. 890.18.559), Dharmabhadra (J. Bussetsu yuga daikyōō kyō). Foshuo zhuangyanwang tuoluoni zhoujing 佛説莊嚴王陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1375.21.894), Yijing (J.

Bussetsu shōgonō darani jukyō). Genkō shakusho 元亨釋書 (DNBZ 101), Kokan Shiren 虎關師錬 (1278-1346). Gokuraku jōdo kuhon ōjōgi 極樂淨土九品往生義 (JZ 15), Ryōgen 良源 (912-985). Gorin kuji myō himitsu shaku 五輪九 明祕密釋 (T. 2514.79.11), Kakuban. Guanfo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 (T. 643), Buddhabhadra (J. Kanbutsu sanmai kai kyō). Guanshiyin Pusa mimizang ruyilun tuoluoni shenzhoujing 觀世音菩薩祕密藏如意輪陀羅尼神 呪經 (T. 1082.20.197), Śikṣānanda (J. Kanzeonbosatsu himitsuzō nyirin darani shinjukyō). Guanshiyin Pusa ruyi moni tuoluoni jing 觀世音菩薩如意摩尼陀羅尼經 (T. 1083.20.200),

Maṇicinta (J. Kanzeonbosatsu nyoi mani daranikyō). Guanwuliangshuo jing 觀無量壽經 (T. 365.12.340), Kālayaśas (J. Kanmyryōju kyō). Guan wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T. 1749.37.173), Jingying Huiyuan (J.

Kanmuryōjukyō gisho). Guanzizai pusa dabeizhiyin zhoubian fajie liyi zhongshengxunzhenrufa 觀自在菩薩大悲智印周 遍法界利益衆生薫眞如法 (T. 1042.20.33), Amoghavajra (J. Kanjizaibosatsu daihichiin shūhen hokkai ryakushujō kun shinnyo hō). Guanzizai pusa shuo puxian tuoluonijing 觀自在菩薩説普賢陀羅尼經 (T. 1037.20.19),

Amoghavajra (J. Kanjizaibosatsu setsu fugen daranikyō). Guanzizai pusa suixinzhoujing 觀自在菩薩隨心呪經 (T. 1103.20.457), Zhitong 智通 (?- 653;

Chitsū) (J. Kanjizaibosatsu zuishinshu kyō). Guanzizai pusa xinzhenyan yiyin niansong fa 觀自在菩薩心眞言一印念誦法 (T. 1041.20.32)

Amoghavajra (J. Kanjizaibosatsu shinshingon ichiin nenjuhō). Hakke hiroku 八家秘録 (See: Shoajari shingon mikkyō burui sōroku). Hannya shingyō hiken 般若心經祕鍵 (T. 2203.57.11), Kūkai. Hannya shingyō hiken ryakuchū 般若心經祕鍵略註 (T. 2203B.57.13), Kakuban. Heike monogatari 平家物語 (NKBT 32-33, SNKBT 44-45). Henjōhokki shōryōshū 遍照発揮性霊集 (TKDZ 8), Kūkai. Kongōkai jōchiki 金剛界浄地記 (T. 2386.75.23), Ennin. Himitsu mandara jūjushinron 秘密曼荼羅十住心論 (T. 2425.77.303), Kūkai Hishūnongiyō 祕宗文義要 (SZ 22), Jōhen. Hizōhōyaku 祕藏寶鑰 (T. 2426.77.363), Kūkai. Hizōki 祕藏記 (TKDZ 5), Kūkai. Hokke gisho 法華義疏 (T. 2187.56.64), Shōtoku Taishi 聖德太子 (574-622). Hokkekyō hishaku 法華經祕釋 (T. 2191.56.184), Kakuban. Hokkekyō kaidai 法華經開題 (T. 2190.56.172), Kūkai. Hōkōin sekifuki 寶光院析負紀, Kongōbuji shoinke sekihushū 金剛峰寺諸院家析負輯, fasc. 1,

ZSZ 34. Honchō kōsōden 本朝高僧傳 (DNBZ, 103). Ichigo taiyō himitsu shū 一期大要祕密集 (KDS 1), Kakuban. Jike Shōchiin 寺家正智院, Kii zokufūdoki 紀伊續風土記, fasc. 4 (ZSZ 37). Jin’gang chang tuoluonijing 金剛場陀羅尼經 (T. 1345.21.854), Jñānagupta (S. Vajramaṇḍa dhāraṇī, J. Kongōjōdaranikyō). Jin’gangding yujia liqubanruojing 金剛頂瑜伽理趣般若經 (T. 241.08.778), Vajrabodhi 金剛智

(671-741; C. Jin’gang zhi, J. Kongōchi) (S. Adhyartha-śatikāprajñāpāramitā sūtra, J.

Kongōchō yuga risshu hannyakyō). Jin’gangding yiqierulai zhenshishe dacheng xianzheng dajiaowangjing 金剛頂一切如來眞實攝 大乘現證大教王經 (T. 865.18.207), Amoghavajra (Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṃgrahaṃ nāma mahāyāna-sūtra, Vajraśekhara-sūtra, J. Kongōchō issainyorai shinjitsushō daijō genshō daikyōōkyō). Jin’gangding yujia qianshouqianyan guanzizai pusa xiuxing yiguijing 金剛頂瑜伽千手千眼觀 自在菩薩修行儀軌經 (T. 1056.20.72), Amoghavajra (J. Kongōchō yuga senjusengen kanjizaibosatsu shugyō gikikyō). Jin’gangding yujia zhong fa anouduoluo sanmiaosan putixin lun 金剛頂瑜伽中發阿耨多羅三 藐三菩提心論 (T. 1665.32.572) Amoghavajra (J. Kongōchō yuga chū hotsu anokutara sanmyakusan bodaishin ron). Jin’gangding yujia zhong luechu niansong jing 金剛頂瑜伽中略出念誦經 (T. 866.18.233),

Vajrabodhi (S. Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṃgrahaṃ nāma mahāyāna-sūtra, Vajraśekhara sūtra, J. Kongōchō yuga chūryakujutsu nenju kyō). Jin’gangding yujia zuisheng mimi chengfo suiqiujide shenbian jiachi chengjiu tuoluoni yigui 金

剛頂瑜伽最勝祕密成佛隨求即得神變加持成就陀羅尼儀軌 (T. 1155.20.644),

Amoghavajra (J. Kongōchō yuga saishō himitsujōbutsu zuigusokutoku jinpen kaji jōju

daranigiki). Jin’gang fengluoge yiqieyujia yuqijing 金剛峯樓閣一切瑜伽瑜祇經 (T. 867.18.253),

Vajrabodhi (J. Kongōbu rōkaku issai yuga yugi kyō). Jin’gang kongbu jihui fangguang guiyi guanzizai pusa sanshi zuisheng xinmingwangjing 金剛恐

怖集會方廣儀軌觀自在菩薩三世最勝心明王經 (T. 1033.20.9), Amoghavajra (J.

Kongō kuhu shūe hōkō kigi kanjizaibosatsu sanze saishōshin myōōgyō). Jingu lun 浄土論 (T. 1963.47.83), Jiacai 迦才 (f. 645; J. Kazai) (J. Jōdo ron). Jiupin wangsheng amituosanmodiji tuoluonijing 九品往生阿彌陀三摩地集陀羅尼經 (T.

933.19.79), Amoghavajra (J. Kuhon ōjō amida sanmaji shū daranikyō). Jubosatsukaigi 授菩薩戒儀 (T. 2378.74), Enchin. Jūgan hosshin ki 十願發心記 (SEJ 2:159-220), Senkan 千觀 (918-984). Jūnen gokuraku ioushū 十念極樂易往集 (Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankō yotei shomoku 大正新 修大藏經刊行豫定書目; Tōji Kanchi-in 東寺觀智院 manuscript), Butsugon 佛嚴 (late-

12th cent.). Kakukai(Kakkai) hokkyō hōgo 覺海法橋法語 (NKBT 83:55-58), Kakkai/Kakukai 覺海

(Nanshōbō 勝房) (1142–1223). Kakuzenshō 覺禪鈔 (DNBZ 45-51), Kakuzen 覺禪 (1143-?). Kechimyaku ruishūki 血脈類聚記 (SZ 39). Ketsujō ōjōshū 決定往生集 (T. 2684), Chingai/Chinkai 珍海 (1091-1152). Kitamuroin rekidai keifūsshi 北室院歷代系譜寫, Kongōbuji shoinke sekihushū, fasc. 10 (ZSZ

34). Kongōchō daikyōō kyōsho 金剛頂大教王經疏 (T. 2223.61.7), Ennin. Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂經開題 (T. 2221.61.1), Kūkai. Kongōchō mujōshū dendōroku zokuhen 金剛頂無上正宗傳燈廣錄續編 (ZSZ 33). Kongōkai daihō taijuki 金剛界大法對受記 (T. 2391.75.116), Annen. Kōsō gōjō Shōchiin Dōhan den 高僧行狀正智院道範傳, Kii zokufudōki, fasc. 10 (ZSZ 39). Kōya ōjōden 高野往生傳 (ZJZ 6). Kōyasan gobanshū ichimi keijō 高野山五番衆一味契狀 (Hōkanshū 寶簡集 1.441 (Dainihon komonjo 大日本古文書, Iewake daiichi 家わけ第一, Kōyasan monjo 高野山文書). Kurodani Shōnin gotōroku 黒谷上人語燈録 (T. 2611.83.105), Hōnen 法然 (1133-1212). Kōya shunjū hennen shūroku 高野春秋編年輯錄 (DNBZ 131). Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信證 (T. 2646.83.589), Shinran 親鸞 (1173-1262). Rulengqie jing 入楞伽經 (T. 672.16.587), with Śikṣānanda and Mitraśānta 彌陀山 (C.

Mitoushan, J. Midasan) (S. Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, J. Nyūrōgakyō). Lidaisanbao ji 歴代三寶紀 (T. 2034.49.22), Fei Changfang 費長房 (late-6th cent.; J. Hi Chōbō)

(J. Rekidaisanbō ki). Liuduji jing 六度經 (T. 152.03.01), Kang Senghui 康僧會 (d. 280; J. Kō Sōe) (J. Rokudo kyō). Liumentuoluonijing 六門陀羅尼經 (T. 1360.21.878), Xuanzang (S. Śaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī, J.

Rokumondaranikyō). Lushanji 廬山記 (T. 2095.51.1024), Chen Shunyu 陳舜俞 (d. 1075; J. Chin Junyu) (J. Rōsanki). Manshushilipusa zhouzangzhong yizi zhouwangjing 曼殊師利菩薩咒藏中一 咒王經 (T.

1182.20.781), Yijing (J. Manjushiribosatsu juzōchū ichijijuōkyō). Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經 (T 262.09.1), Kumārajīva (S. Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra, J.

Myōhō renge kyō). Miaofa lianhua jing wenju 妙法蓮華經文句 (T. 1718.34.1), Tiantai Zhiyi 天台智 (538-597; J.

Tendai Chigi) (J. Myōhō rengekyō mongu). Modengjiajing 摩登伽經 (T. 1300.21.399), Zhu Luyan and Zhi Qian (S. Mātaṅgī-sūtra, J.

Matogakyō). Mohezhiguan 摩訶止観 (T. 1911.46.1), Tiantai Zhiyi (J. Makashikan). Mulimantuoluo zhoujing 牟梨曼陀羅呪經, 1 fasc., (T. 1007.19.657) (J. Murimandara jukyō). Muryōju nyorai sakuhō shidai 無量壽如來供養作法次代 (KDZ 2:495-521), attr. Kūkai. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan 海寄歸内法傳 (T. 2125.54.204), Yijing (J. Nankai kiki naihō den). Nanzan chūin shingon hihōshoso denpu 山中院眞言祕法諸祖傳譜 (ZSZ 32). Nihon ōjō gokuraku ki 日本往生極樂記 (NKBT 7), Yoshishige Yasutane 慶滋保胤 (933-1002). Nyūshingonmon nyūnyojitsukenkōenhokke ryakugi 入眞言門入如實見講演法華略儀 (T.

2192.56.189), Enchin. Ōjōjūin 往生拾因 (T. 2683.84.91), Eikan/Yōkan 永觀 (1033–1111). Ōjō kōshiki 往生講式 (T. 2725.84.880), Eikan. Ōjōyōshū 往生要集 (T. 2682.84.33), Genshin 源信 (942-1017). Pubianguangming qingjing chicheng ruyibaoyin xinwunenbsheng damingwang dasuiqiu

tuoluonijing 普遍光明清淨熾盛如意寶印心無能勝大明王大隨求陀羅尼經 (T.

1153.20.616), Amoghavajra (J. Fuhenkōmyō shōjō shijō nyoishō inshin munōshō daimyōō daizuigu daranikyō). Pusadichi jing 菩薩地持經 (T. 1581.30.888), Jingying Huiyuan (J. Bosatsujijikyō). Putichang suoshuo yizi dinglun wangjing 菩提場所説一 頂輪王經 (T. 950.19.193),

Amoghavajra (S. Ekāksara-cakravartin, J. Bodai jōsho setsu ichiji chōrin ōkyō). Pusa diji jing 菩薩地持經 (T. 1581.30.888), Dharmakṣema (S. Bodhisattva-bhūmi J. Bosatsu jijikyō). Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin Pusa guangdayuan manwuai dabeishin tuoluonijing 千手千眼觀

世音菩薩廣大圓滿無礙大悲心陀羅尼經 (T. 1060.20.105), Bhagavaddharma 伽梵達摩

(7th cent.; C. Qiefandamo, J. Gabondaruma) (J. Senju sengen kanzeon bosatsu kōdaienman muge daihishin darani kyō). Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin Pusa laotuoluonishen jing 千手千眼觀世音菩薩姥陀羅尼身經 (T. 1058.20.96), Bodhiruci (J. Senju sengen kanseon bosatsu modarani shinkyō). Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin Pusa dabeixin tuoluoni 千手千眼觀世音菩薩大悲心陀羅尼 (T.

1064.20.115) Amoghavajra (J. Senju sengen kanseon bosatsu daihishin darani). Qianshou qianyan Guanshiyin Pusa zhibing heyao jing 千手千眼觀世音菩薩治病合藥經 (T.

1059.20.103), Bhagavaddharma (J. Senju sengen kanseon bosatsu jibyō gōyaku kyō). Qianyanqianbi Guanshiyin Pusa tuoluoni shenzhoujing 千眼千臂觀世音菩薩陀羅尼神呪經 (T.

1057.20.83), Zhitong (J. Sengensenbi kanzeonbosatsu darani shinju kyō). Qianzhuan tuoluoni guanshiyan pusa zhou 千轉陀羅尼觀世音菩薩呪 (T. 1035.20.17), Zhitong

(S. Sahasrāvartā-dhāraṇī, J. Senten darani kanzeonbosatsu ju). QingGuanshiyin Pusa xiaofuhai tuoluoni zhoujing 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1043.20.34), *Nandi 難提 (early-5th cent.; C. Nanti, J. Nandai) (J. Shōkanzeon bosatsu shōbukudokugai daranikyō). Qingjing guanshiyin puxian tuoluonijing 清淨觀世音普賢陀羅尼經 (T. 1038.20.21), Zhitong (J.

Shōkanzeon bosatsu shōbukudokugai daranikyō). Renwang huguo banruoboluomi jing 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 (T. 246.08.834), Amoghavajra

(J. Ninnō gogoku hannya haramita kyō). Ruilingye jing 蕤呬耶經 (T. 897.18.760), Amoghavajra (J. Suikiya kyō). Rulai fangbian shanqiao zhoujing 如來方便善巧呪經 (T. 1334.21.565) Jñānagupta (J. Nyorai hōben engyō jukyō). Ruyibaozhu zhuanlun mimixianshenchengfo jinglun zhouwangjing 如意寶珠轉輪祕密現身成佛 金輪呪王經 (T. 961.19.330) Amoghavajra (J. Nyoihōshu tenrin himitsu genshin jōbutsu kinrin shuōkyō). Ruyilun tuoluoni jing 如意輪陀羅尼經 (T. 1080.20.188), Bodhiruci (S. Cakravarticintāmaṇi, J.

Nyoirin daranikyō). Sanjūjū sasshi 三十帖册子 (Printed editions available in Taishō, Ryūkoku, Ōtani, Kōyasan university archives), Kūkai. Sanzhong xidi podiyuzhuanyezhang chusanjie mimituoluonifa 三種悉地破地獄轉業障出三界祕 密陀羅尼法 (T. 905.18.909), Śūbhakarasiṃha (J. Sanju shijji hajigoku tengosshō shussangai himitsu daranihō). Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṃgrahaṃ nāma mahāyāna-sūtra (See: (See: Jin’gangding yujia zhong luechu niansong jing, Jin’gangding yiqierulai zhenshishe dacheng xianzheng dajiaowangjing, Yiqie rulai zhenshishe dasheng xianzheng sanmei dajiaowang jing). Seiryūji ōshō rinjū kengyō 靑龍寺和尙臨終觀行 (Zentsūji 善通寺 archive online:

http://base1.nijl.ac.jp/iview/Frame.jsp?DB_ID=G0003917KTM&C_CODE=XSE1-

21704). Senchaku hongan nenbutsu shū 選擇本願念佛集 (T. 2608.83.1), Hōnen. Shakumakaenron ketsugihanan eshakushō 釋摩訶衍論決疑破難會釋抄 (T. 2286.69.570), Saisen. Shakumakaenron ryūgi bunryakushaku 釋摩訶衍論立義分略釋 (T. 2287.69.577), Saisen. Shelifu tuoluonijing 舍利弗陀羅尼經 (T. 1016.19.695) (S. Anatamukhasādhāka-dhāraṇī, J. Sharihotsu daranikyō), 1 fasc., attr. Saṃghavarman 僧伽婆羅 (b. 460; C. Sengqiepoluo, J. Sōgyabara). Shenheyehelifu daweinuwang lichen dashen yangongyang niansong yigui fapin 聖賀野紇哩縛大

威怒王立成大神 供養念誦儀軌法品 (T. 1072A.20.155), Amoghavajra (J.

Shōgayakiriba daiinuōryūjō daijinken kuyō nenju gikihōbon). Shimoheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (T. 1668.32.591), attr. Nāgārjuna (J. Shakumakaenron). Shingonshū kyōjigi 眞言宗教時義 (T. 2396.75.374), Annen. Shiyimian guanzizai pusa xinmiyan niansong yiguijing 十一面觀自在菩薩心密言念誦儀軌經 (T. 1069.20.139), Amoghavajra (S. Ekādaśamukha-dhāraṇī, J. Jūichimen kanjizaibosatsu shinmitsugon nenju gikikyō). Shixiang boreboluomi 實相般若波羅蜜經 (T. 240.08.776), Bodhiruci (S. Adhyardhaśatikā prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, J. Jissō hannyaharamitsu kyō). Shiyimian guanshiyan shenzhou jing 十一面觀世音神咒經 (T. 1070.20.149), Yaśogupta 耶舍崛 多 (late-6th cent.; C. Yeshejueduo, J. Yashakutta) (S. Ekādaśamukha-dhāraṇī, J.

Jūichimen kanzeon shinju kyō). Shingonshū sokushinjōbutsu gishō 眞言宗即身成佛義章 (T. 2511.79.1), Kakuban. Shiyimian shenzhouxinjing 十一面神呪心經 (T. 1071.20.152) Xuanzang (J. Bussetsu Jūichimen kanzeon shinjukyō). Shoajari shingon mikkyō burui sōroku 諸阿闍梨眞言密教部類總録 (T. 2176.55.1113), Annen. Shōchiin ruiyō senshi meibo 正智院累葉先師名簿, in Kongōbuji shoinke sekihushū (ZSZ 34). Shōjijissōgi 聲 實相義 (T. 2429.77.401), Kūkai. Shōmangyō gisho 勝鬘經義疏 (T. 2185.56.1), Shōtoku Taishi 聖德太子 (574-622). Shoshū shōshoroku 諸宗章疎録 (DNBZ 95). Shūi Kurodani Shōnin gotōroku 拾遺黒谷上人語燈録 (T. 2612.83.239), Hōnen. Shengman jing 勝鬘經 (T. 353.12.217), (S. Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, J. Shōman gyō). Supohutongzhiqingwen jing 蘇婆呼童子請經 (T. 895.18.719) Śubhakarasiṃha (J.

Sobakodōjishōmon kyō). Shoulengyan sanmei jing 首楞嚴三昧經 (T. 642.15.629), Zhi Qian (S. Śūraṃgama-samādhi sūtra, J. Shuryōgon sanmai kyō). Soshijji gyarakyō ryakusho 蘇悉地羯羅經略疏 (T. 2227.61.389), Ennin. Jinguangming zuisheng wanging 金光明最勝王經 (T. 665.16.403), Yijing (S. Suvarṇa prabhāsa-sūtra J. Konkōmyō saishō ōkyō). Sokushin jōbutsu gi 卽身成佛義 (T. 2428.77.381), Kūkai. Soshitsuji myōshindai 妙心大 (T. 2387.75.39), Ennin. Soshitsuji taijuki 蘇悉地對受記 (T. 2392.75.200), Annen. Supohu tongzi qingwen jing 蘇婆呼童子請經 (T. 895.18.719), Śubhakarasiṃha (J.

Sobakodōjishōmongyō). Suxidijieluo gongyangfa 蘇悉地羯羅供養法 (T. 894.18.692), Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Soshitsuji

kyarakuyōbō). Suxidijieluo jing 蘇悉地羯囉經 (T. 893.18.603), Śubhakarasiṃha (J. Soshitsuji kyarakyō). Taizōkai kyōshinki 胎蔵界虚心記 (T. 2385.75.1), Ennin. Taizōkai daihō taijuki 胎藏界大法對受記 (T. 2390.75.54), Annen. Taizō kongō bodaishingi ryaku mondō shō 胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔 (T. 2397.75.451),

Annen. Taizō nyūzōnyūri shō 胎藏入理鈔 (T. 2534.79.145), Raiyū 賴瑜 (1226-1304). Dafangdeng rulaizang jing 大方等如來藏經 (T. 666.16.457), Buddhabhadra (S.

Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, J. Daihōdō nyorai zōkyō). Tōji chōja honin 東寺長者補任 (ZGRJ 2). Tuoluoni ji jing 陀羅尼集經 (T. 901.18.785), Atikuta 阿地瞿多 (7th cent.; C. Adijuduo, J.

Achikuta) (S. Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha-sūtra, J. Darani jikkyō). Weimojing xuanshu 維摩經玄疏 (T. 1777.38.519), Tiantai Zhiyi (J. Yuimakyō gensho). Weimo yiji 維摩義記 (T. 1776.38.421), Jingying Huiyuan. Wenshushilipusa genben dajiaowang jing jinchiniaowang pin 文殊師利菩薩根本大教王經金翅 鳥王品 (T. 1276.21.325), Amoghavajra (Variant text of T. 1191) (J. Monjushiribosatsu konpon daikyōō kyō konjichōō bon). Wuda xukongzangpusa suji dashenyan mimi shijing 五大虚空藏菩薩速疾大神 祕密式經 (T.

1149.20.607), Vajrabodhi (J. Godai kokūzōbosatsu sokushitsu daijinken himitsushiki

kyō). Wufoding sanmei tuoluoni jing 五佛頂三昧陀羅尼經 (T. 952.19.263) Bodhiruci (J. Gobutsu sanmai darani kyō). Wugoujing guangda tuoluonijing 無垢淨光陀羅尼經 (T. 1024.19.717), Mitraśānta (S.

Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhā-dhāraṇī, J. Mukujōkō daidaranikyō). Wuliangmen pomo tuoluonijing 無量門破魔陀羅尼經 (T. 1014.19.688), Guṇabharman 功德直 (5th cent.; C. Gongdezhi, Kudokujiki) and Xuanchang 玄暢 (416-484; J. Genchō) (S.

Anantamukha-dhāraṇī, J. Muryōmon hama daranikyō). Wuliang rulai guanxing gongyang yigui 無量壽如來觀行供養儀軌 (T. 930.19.67),

Amoghavajra (J. Muryōju nyorai kengyō kuyō giki). Unjigi 吽 義 (T. 2430.77.404), Kūkai. Vajraśekhara-sūtra 金剛頂經 (See: Jin’gangding yujia zhong luechu niansong jing,

Jin’gangding yiqierulai zhenshishe dacheng xianzheng dajiaowangjing, Yiqie rulai zhenshishe dasheng xianzheng sanmei dajiaowang jing). Xukongzangpusa wenqifo tuoluonizhoujing 虚空藏菩薩諸問七佛陀羅尼呪經 (T. 1333.21.561),

(J. Kokūzōbosatsu shomon shichibutsu daranikyō). Yanggwŏn muryangsu-kyŏng chong’yo 兩卷無量壽經宗要 (T. 174737.125), Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617-686; C. Yuanxiao, J. Gangyō) (C. Liangjuan wuliangshou jing zongyao, J. Ryōkan

Muryōju kyōshūyō). Yahō meitokuden 野峯名德傳 (DNBZ 106). Yaoshirulai guanxing yigui fa 藥師如來觀行儀軌法 (T. 923.19.22), Vajrabodhi (J. Yakushi nyorai kengyō giki hō). Yiqie rulai zhenshishe dasheng xianzheng sanmei dajiaowang jing 一切如來眞實攝大乘現證三 昧大教王經 (T. 822.17.846) Dānapāla (Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṃgrahaṃ nāma mahāyāna-sūtra, Vajraśekhara-sūtra, J. Issai nyorai shinjisshō daijō genshō zanmai

daikyōō kyō). Yizi qite foding jing 一 奇特佛頂經 (T. 0953.19.285) Amoghavajra (J. Ichiji kitoku

bucchōkyō). Yokawa Shuryōgon-in nijūgosanmai kishō 横川首楞嚴院二十五三昧起請 (T. 2724.84.878), Genshin. Yokawa Shuryōgon-in nijūgo sanmai shiki 橫川首楞嚴院二十五三昧式 (T. 2723.84.876),

Genshin. Yuimagyō gisho 維摩經義疏 (T. 2186.56.20), Shōtoku Taishi 聖德太子 (574-622). Yujia shidi lun 瑜伽師地論 (T. 1579.30.279) Xuanzang (S. Yogācāra-bhūmi, J. Yuga shiji ron). Yujia jiyao yankoushishi qijiao anantuo zhuyou 瑜伽集要焰口施食起教阿難陀諸由 (T.

1319.21.472), Amoghavajra (J. Yuga shūyō enkusejikikyō ananda enyu). Yujiajiyao yankoushishiyi 瑜伽集要焰口施食儀 (T. 1320.21.473), (J. Yuga shūyō enkusejiki gi). Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (T. 99.02.01), Guṇabhadra (S. Saṃyuktāgama, J. Zō agon gyō). Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經 (T. 125.02.549), Gautama Saṃghadeva 瞿曇僧伽提婆 (4th cent.; C. Jutan Sengqietipo, J. Gudon Sōgyadaiba) (S. Ekottarāgama, J. Zōichi agon kyō). Zhufoxintuoluoni jing 諸佛心陀羅尼經 (T. 918.19.01), Xuanzang (J. Shobutsu shindarani kyō). Zoku henjōhokki shōryōshū hoketsu shō 続遍照発揮性霊集補闕抄 (TKDZ 8:127-211), Saisen. Zoku senchaku mongi yōshō 續選擇文義要鈔, Jōhen, Zoku Senchaku mongi yōshō 続選択文義 要鈔 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1984). Zuisheng foding tuoluoni jingchuyezhang zhoujing 最勝佛頂陀羅尼淨除業障呪經 (T.

970.19.357), Divākara (J. Saishō bucchō darani jōjo gosshō shukyō). Zunshengfoding xiuyu jiafa yigui 尊勝佛頂脩瑜伽法儀軌 (T. 973.19.368), Śubhakarasiṃha (J.

Sonshō bucchō shūyuga hōgiki).

MODERN SCHOLARLY SOURCES, COMPENDIA, AND REFERENCE WORKS

Abbott, Terry. “The Chinese Version of the Hevajra Tantra.” Transactions of the International

Conference of Orientalists in Japan 23 (1978): 99–103. Abé, Ryūichi 阿部龍一. “From Kūkai to Kakuban: A Study of Shingon Buddhist Dharma

Transmission.” Ph D diss., Columbia University, 1991. ——. “Bridging Ritual and Text: Kakuban’s Writing on Meditative Practice.” In Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban kenkyū 興教大師覚鑁研究, ed. Kōgyō Daishi Kenkyū Ronshū Henshū Iinkai 興教大師研究論集編集委員会, 1076-1073 (reverse pagination). Tokyo: Shunjūsha 春 秋社, 1992. ——. The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. ——. “Gorinkujimyō himitusyaku 五輪九 明秘密釈.” In Nihon no Bukkyō: tēma Nihon Bukkyō no bunken gaido 日本の仏教: テーマ 日本仏教の文献ガイド, edited by Nihon

Bukkyō kenkyūkai 日本仏教研究会, 80-83. Kyōto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館, 2001. ——. “Mikkyō girei to kenmitsu bukkyō: Myōe Kōben no nyūmetsu girei wo

megutte 密教儀礼と顕密仏教: 明恵房高弁の入滅儀礼をめぐって.” In Chūsei Bukkyō

no tenkai to sono kiban 中世仏教の展開とその基盤, edited by Imai Masaharu 今井雅 晴, 38-57. Tokyō: Daizō Shuppan 大蔵出版, 2002. ——. “Nara ki no mikkyō no saikentō—kyūseiki no tenkai o fumaete 奈良期の密教の再検討--

九世紀の展開をふまえて.” In Nara Bukkyō to zaichi shakai 奈良仏教と在地社会, edited by Nemoto Seiji 桹本誠二 and Samueru C. Mōsu 根本誠二, サムエル C·モース

(Samuel Morse), 105–153. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin, 2004.

——. “Word.” In Critical Terms for the Study of Buddhism, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.,   	291-310. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. 

Abe Yasurō 阿部泰郎. “Shukaku hosshinnō to inseiki no bukkyō bunka 守覚法親王と院政期 の仏教文化.” In Inseiki no bukkyō 院政期の仏教, edited by Hayami Tasuku 速水侑,

118–42. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1998. Abe Yasurō and Yamasaki Makoto 山崎誠, eds. Shukaku hosshinnō to Ninnaji goryū no

bunkenteki kenkyū, ronbunhen 守覚法親王と仁和寺御流の文献学的研究, 論文編. 2

vols. Tokyo: Benseisha, 1998. Abe Yasurō 阿部泰郎. Chūsei Kōyasan engi no kenkyū 中世高野山縁起の研究. Gangōji Bunkasai Kenkyūjo 元興寺文化財研究所, 1982. Adolphson, Mikael S. The Gates of Power: Monks, Courtiers, and Warriors in Premodern Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. Adolphson, Mikael, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto, eds. Heian Japan: Centers and Peripheries. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. Alper, Harvey P., ed. Mantra. New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press, 1989. Amstutz, Galen. Interpreting Amida, History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York, 1997. ——. “The Politics of Pure Land Buddhism in India.” Numen 45.1 (1998): 69-96. Amstutz, Galen, and Mark L. Blum, eds., Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Varieties of Pure Land Experience, 33.2 (2006). Astley, Ian. The Rishukyō: The Sino-Japanese Tantric Prajñāpāramitā in 150 Verses

(Amoghavajra’s Version). Buddhica Britannica Series Continua III. Tring, UK: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1991a. ——. “Some Random Remarks on the History of Esoteric Buddhism in East Asia.” Perspectives on Japan and Korea, Nordic Proceedings in Asian Studies 1 (1991b): 41. ——. “An Annotated Translation of Amoghavajra’s Commentary on the Liqu jing (Rishukyō)—

Part I.” Studies in Central and East Asian Religions 7 (1994): 27–53. Astley-Kristensen, Ian. “An Example of Vajrasattva in the Sino-Japanese Tantric Buddhist

Tradition.” Studies in Central and East Asian Religions 1 (1988): 67–87. Asai Jōkai 浅井成海. “Jikaku daishi Ennin no Jōdokyō 慈覚大師円仁の浄土教.” Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 455 (2000): 1-25. Aśvaghosa. Buddhacarita: In Praise of Buddha’s Acts. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2009. Aung, S. Z. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids. Points of Controversy: Kathāvatthu. London: Pali Text Society, 1915. Basham, A. L. “Tantrism and the Decline of Buddhism in India.” In The Buddhist Tradition in

India, China & Japan, edited by William Theodore DeBary, 110-124. New York:

Modern Library, 1969. Barau, Dwijendralal. “Buddha-khetta in the Apadana.” B.C. Law Volume 2 (1946): 183-190. Bauer, Mikael. “The Power of Ritual: An Integrated History of Medieval Kōfukuji.” PhD diss.,

Harvard University, 2011a. ——. “The Yuima-e as Theater of the State.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 38.1

(2011b): 161-179. Bechert, Heinz. “Buddha-field and Transfer of Merit in a Theravāda Source,” Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (1992): 95-108. Beghi, Clemente. “The Dissemination of Esoteric Scriptures in Eighth Century Japan.” In

Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H.

Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 661-682. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. ——. “Ritualization of Texts and Textualization of Ritual in the Codification of Taoist Liturgy.”

History of Religions 27 (1998): 366–92. Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations, Essays and Reflection. Ed. Hannah Arendt. New York:

Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. Berger, Patricia. “Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China.” In Latter

Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, 850–1850, edited by Marsha Weidner,

89–93. Honolulu: Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas in association with

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994. Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh. The Indian Buddhist Iconography: Mainly Based on the

Sādhanamālā and other Cognate Tāntric Texts of Rituals, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1993 (Repr. of Oxford University Press, 1924). ——. An Introduction to Buddhist Esotericism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2009 (Repr., 1980).

Bialock, David T. Eccentric Spaces, Hidden Histories: Narrative, Ritual, and Royal

Authority from the Chronicles of Japan to the Tale of the Heike. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007. Bielefeldt, Carl. “Filling the Zen-shū: Notes on the ‘Jisshū yōdō ki.’” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 7

(1993-4): 221–48. ——. “Kokan Shiren and the Sectarian Uses of History.” In The Origins of Japan’s Medieval

World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors, and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Jeffrey P. Mass, 295–317. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997. Birnbaum, Raoul. The Healing Buddha. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications, 1979. ——. “Thoughts on T’ang Buddhist Mountain Traditions and Their Context.” T’ang Studies 2

(1984): 5–23. ——. “Seeking Longevity in Chinese Buddhism: Long Life Deities and Their Symbolism.”

Journal of Chinese Religions 13–14 (1985-6): 143–76. Blacker, Carmen. The Catalpa Bow: A Study of Shamanistic Practices in Japan. London: Allen

and Unwin, 1975. Blum, Mark. The Origins and Development of Pure Land Buddhism: A Study and Translation of Gyōnen's Jōdo Hōmon Genrushō. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Bodiford, William M. Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1993. ——. “Emptiness and Dust: Zen Dharma Transmission Rituals.” In Tantra in Practice, edited by

David G. White, 299–307. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. ——. “When Secrecy Ends: The Tokugawa Reformation of Tendai Buddhism and Its

Implications.” In The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 309–30. London: Routledge, 2006. ——. “Zen and Esoteric Buddhism.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 924-935. Leiden: Brill,

2011. Bogel, Cynthea J. “Canonizing Kannon: The Ninth-century Esoteric Buddhist Altar at

Kanshinji.” Art Bulletin 84 (2002): 32–64. ——. “The Objects of Transmission and the Subjects of History: Catalogue of Imported Goods

(Shōraimokuroku).” Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture

(2004): 67–99. ——. With a Single Glance: Buddhist Icons and Early Mikkyō Vision. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009. Bokenkamp, Stephen R. “Sources of the Ling-Pao Scriptures.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honor of R. A. Stein, edited by Michel Strickmann, 2: 434–86. Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 1983. ——. “The Silkworm and the Bodhi Tree: The Lingbao Attempt to Replace Buddhism in China and Our Attempt to Place Lingbao Taoism.” In Religion and Chinese Society, edited by John Lagerwey, 1: 317–340. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004. ——. Ancestors and Anxiety: Daoism and the Birth of Rebirth in China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Borgen, Robert. “The Japanese Mission to China, 801–806.” Monumenta Nipponica 37 (1982):

1–28. Braarvig, Jens. “Dhāraṇī and Pratibhāna: Memory and Eloquence of the Bodhisattvas.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 8.1 (1985): 17–29. Buijnsters, Marc. “Jichihan and the Restoration and Innovation of Buddhist Practice.”

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26.1-2 (1999): 39-82. Burnouf, Eugene. Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism. Trans. Katia Buffetrille and

Donald S. Lopez Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. ——. Dainihon Bukkyō zensho. New edition. Tokyo: Meicho Fukyūkai, 1978-1083. Buswell, Robert E., Jr. The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1983. ——. The Zen Monastic Experience: Buddhist Practice in Contemporary Korea. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1992. ——. Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wonhyo’s Exposition of the Vajrasamādhi-Sutra (Kumgang Sammaegyong Non). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. Campany, Robert F. “Return from Death Narratives in Early Medieval China.” Journal of

Chinese Religions 18 (1990): 91–125. ——. “On the Very Idea of Religions (In the Modern West and In Early Medieval China).” History of Religions 42 (2003): 287–319. Carr, Kevin G. Plotting the Prince: Shōtoku Cults and the Mapping of Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2012. Carter, Caleb. “Producing Place, Tradition and the Gods: Mt. Togakushi, Thirteenth through

Mid-Nineteenth Centuries.” PhD, diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2014. Chandra, Lokesh. The Esoteric Iconography of Japanese Mandalas. Satapitaka Series 92. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971. Chappell, David W. “Hermeneutical Phases in Chinese Buddhism.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 175–205. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1988. Chandler, David. “Paul Mus (1902-1969): A Biographical Sketch,” Journal of Vietnamese

Studies 4.1 (2009): 149-191. Chaves, Jonathan. “The Legacy of Ts’ang Chieh: The Written Word as Magic.” Oriental Art 23

(1977): 200–215. Chen, Jinhua. “The Formation of Early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in Japan: A Study of Three

Japanese Esoteric Apocrypha.” Ph.D. dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1997. ——. “The Construction of Early Tendai Esoteric Buddhism: The Japanese Provenance of

Saichō’s Transmission Documents and Three Esoteric Buddhist Apocrypha Attributed to

Śubhākarasiṁha.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21 (1998): 21–76. ——. Making and Remaking History: A Study of Tiantai Sectarian Historiography. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies in Tokyo, 1999. ——. Legend and Legitimation: The Formation of Tendai Esoteric Buddhism in Japan.

Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 30. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2009. ——. Crossfire: Shingon-Tendai Strife as Seen in Two Twelfth-century Polemics, with Special References to Their Background in Tang China. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 25. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies in Tōkyō, 2010. Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964. Chou, Yi-liang. “Tantrism in China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8 (1945): 241– 332.

Repr. (without appendices) in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, edited by Richard K.

Payne, 33–60. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006. Cleary, Thomas, trans. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1984, 1986. Como, Michael. Shōtoku: Ethnicity, Ritual and Violence in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ——. Weaving and Binding: Immigrant Gods and Female Immortals in Ancient Japan.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009. Conlan, Thomas. From Soverign to Symbol: An Age of Ritual Determinism in Fourteenth-

Century Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Conway, Michael. “A Transformative Expression: The Role of the Name of Amituo Buddha in Daochuo’s Soteriology.” Unpublished paper, presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the International Association of Shin Buddhist Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May, 31st – June 2nd. Conze, Edward. The Prajṇāpāramitā Literature. The Hague: Mouton, 1960. Cook, Francis H. Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra. University Park and London:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. Copp, Paul F. “Voice, Dust, Shadow, Stone: The Makings of Spells in Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 2005. ——. “Notes on the Term ‘Dhāraṇī’ in Medieval Chinese Buddhist Thought.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71 (2008): 493–508. ——. The Body Incantatory: Spells and the Ritual Imagination in Medieval Chinese Buddhism.

New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. Corless, Roger J. “T'an-luan's Commentary on the Pure Land Discourse: An Annotated Translation and Soteriological Analysis of the Wang-sheng-lun chu (T 1819).” PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973. ——. “T'an-luan: Taoist Sage and Buddhist Bodhisattva,” in Buddhist and Taoist Practice in Medieval Chinese Society, edited by David W. Chappell, 36-48. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1987. ——. “T'an-luan: The First Systematizer of Pure Land Buddhism,” in The Pure Land Tradition:

History and Development, edited by James Foard, Michael Solomon and Richard K.

Payne, 107-137. Berkeley: University of California, 1996. Cuevas, Bryan J. and Jacqueline I. Stone, eds. The Buddhist Dead: Practices, Discourses, Representations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007. Daigoji bunkazai kenkyūjo 醍醐寺文化財研究所, ed. 1991. Daigoji shinyōroku 醍醐寺新要録,

2 vols. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1991. Dalton, Jacob. “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra During the 8th-12th

Centuries.” Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies 28 (2005): 115–

81. Davids, T. W. Rhys, William B. Stede, eds. The Pali Texts Society’s Pali-English Dictionary London: Luzac, 1925 (Repr., 1966). Davidson, Ronald M. Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. ——. “The Problem of Secrecy in Indian Tantric Buddhism.” In The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 60–77. London:

Routledge, 2006. ——. “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37 (2009): 97–147. ——. “Some Observations on the Usṇīsa Abhiṣeka Rites in Atikūṭa’s ̣ Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha.” In

Transformations and Transfer of Tantra: Tantrism in Asia and Beyond, edited by István Keul, 77-98. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Davis, Edward L. Society and the Supernatural in Song China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i

Press, 2001. DeCaroli, Robert. Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. De Certeau, Michel. The Writing of History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Demiéville, Paul “Butsudo,” Hōbōgirin, troisie’me fascicule (1937): 198-203. Dobbins, James C., ed. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Special Issue: Kuroda Toshio and his Scholarship (1996). ——. “Envisioning Kamakura Buddhism.” In Re-visioning “Kamakura Buddhism, edited by Richard K. Payne, 28-38. Honlulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998. ——. Jōdo Shinshū: Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,

2002. ——. Letters of the Nun Eshinni, Images of Pure Land Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 2004. Dolce, Lucia. “Criticism and Appropriation: Ambiguities in Nichiren’s Attitude Towards

Esoteric Buddhism.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 (1999): 349–82. ——. “Esoteric Patterns in Nichiren’s Thought.” Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden,

	Netherlands, 2002. 

——. “Rec onsidering the Taxonomy of the ‘Esoteric’: Taimitsu Hermeneutical and Ritual

Practices. In The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 130–71. London: Routledge, 2006. ——. “Taimitsu: The Esoteric Buddhism of the Tendai School.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the

Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

Payne, 744-767. Leiden: Brill, 2011a. ——. “Godai’in Annen.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 768-776. Leiden: Brill, 2011b. ——. “Taimitsu Rituals in Medieval Japan: Sectarian Competition and the Dynamics of Tantric

Performance.” In Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond, edited by Istvan Keul, 329-364. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Dolce, Lucia and Shinya Mano. “Yōsai and Esoteric Buddhism.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the

Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

Payne, 827-834. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Donner, Neal, and Daniel B. Stevenson. The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study and

Annotated Translation of the First Chapter of Chih-i’s Mo-ho chihkuan. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1993. Drummond, Donald. “Negotiating Influence: the Pilgrimage Diary of Monastic Imperial Prince Kakuhō.” PhD, diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 2007. Endō Isami 遠藤伊左見. “Shingon mikkyō ni okeru santensetsu no genten kōsatsu 真言密教に

おける三点説の原点考察,” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 57 (2014a): 65-89. ——. “Kamakura ki ni okeru himitsu nenbutsu shisō no kōsatsu—Jōhen, Dōhan wo chūshin

toshite 鎌倉期における秘密念仏思想の考察―静遍・道範を中心として.” Taishō

daigaku daitaku-in kenkyū ronshū 大正大学大学院研究論集 38 (2014b): 206-234. Faure, Bernard. The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. ——. Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Trans. Phyllis Brooks.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. ——. The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. ——. “Japanese Tantra, the Tachikawa-ryū, and Ryōbu Shintō.” In Tantra in Practice, edited by David Gordon White, 543–56. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. ——. The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Foard, James H. “In Search of a Lost Reformation: A Reconsideration of Kamakura Buddhism,”

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 7.4 (1980): 261-91. Ford, James L. “Competing With Amida: A Study and Translation of Jōkei’s Miroku kōshiki,”

Monumenta Nipponica 60.1 (2005): 43-79. ——. Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2006a. ——. “Buddhist Ceremonials (kōshiki) and the Ideological Discourse of Established Buddhism in Early Medieval Japan,” in Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japanese Buddhism, eds., Richard K. Payne and Taigen Daniel Leighton, 97-125. New York:

RoutledgeCurzon, 2006b. ——. “Jōkei and Kannon: Defending Buddhist Pluralism in Medieval Japan,” The Eastern Buddhist 39.1 (2008): 11-28. ——. “Exploring the Esoteric in Nara Buddhism.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 776-793.

Leiden: Brill, 2011. Forte, Antonino. “The Activities in China of the Tantric Master Manicintana (Pao-ssu-wei: ?–

721 A.D.) from Kashmir and of his Northern Indian Collaborators.” East and West 34 (1984): 301–347. ——. “The South Indian Monk Bodhiruci (D. 727) Biographical Evidence.” A Life Journey to the East: Sinological Studies in Memory of Giuliano Bertuccioli (1923– 2001), edited by

Antonino Forte and Federico Masini, 77–116. Kyoto: Scuola Italiana di Studi sull’ Asia

Orientale, 2002. Foulk, T. Griffith. “The Ch’an Tsung in Medieval China: School, Lineage, or What?” Pacific

World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, n.s., 8 (1992): 18–31. ——. “Myth, Ritual, and Monastic Practice in Sung Ch’an Buddhism.” In Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China, edited by Patricia B. Ebrey and Peter N. Gregory, 147–208.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1993. ——. “Sung Controversies Concerning the ‘Separate Transmission’ of Ch’an.” In Buddhism in the Sung, edited by Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz Jr., 220–94. Studies in East Asian Buddhism 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999. Fowler, Sherry D. “Nyoirin Kannon: Stylistic Evolution of Sculptural Images.” Orientations 20

(1989): 58–65. Fujii Jun 藤井淳. Kūkai no shisōteki tenkai no kenkyū 空海の思想的展開の研究. Tokyo:

Transview, 2008. Fujii Masako 藤井雅子. Chūse Daigoji to shingon mikkyō 中世醍醐寺と真言密教. Tokyo:

Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版, 2008. Fujii Naomasa 藤井直正. 2001. “Jōgon Wajō no Sokuseki” 浄厳和尚の足跡.” Ōtemae Daigaku Jinbunkagakubu Ronshū 大手前大学人文科学部論集 (2001): 1–30. Kotatsu Fujita 藤田宏達. Genshi Jōdo shisō no kenkyū 原始浄土思想の研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1970. ——. “Pure Land Buddhism in India,” in The Pure Land Traditions: History and Development, eds. James Foard, Michael Solomon, and Richard K. Payne (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996; reprint, 2006. Fukushima Kaneharu 福島金治. “Ninnaji go-ryū no Kamakura denpa: Kamakura Sasame

Yuishin’in to sono yakuwari 仁和寺御流の鎌倉伝播―鎌倉佐々目遺身院とその役

割.” In Shukaku hosshinnō to Ninnaji goryū no bunkenteki kenkyū, ronbunhen 守覚法親

王と仁和寺御流の文献学的研究, edited by Abe Yasurō 阿部泰郎 and Yamazaki Makoto 媒体情報, 455–502. Tokyo: Benseisha, 1998. Fussman, G. “La place des Sukhāvatī-vyūha dans le bouddhisme indien,” Journal Asiatique (1999): 523-586. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. Gardiner, David L. “Maṇḍala, Maṇḍala on the Wall: Variations of Usage in the Shingon School.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 19 (1996): 245–79. ——. “The Consecration of the Monastic Compound at Mount Kōya by Kūkai.” In Tantra in Practice, edited by David Gordon White, 119–30. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Gethin, Rupert. “Cosmology and Meditation: From the Aggañña-Sutta to the Mahāyāna,”

History of Religions 36.3 (1997): 183-217. ____. “Mythology as Meditation: From the Mahāsudassana Sutta to the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra,” Journal of Pali Text Society (2006): 63-112. Gernet, Jacques. Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries. Trans. Franciscus Verellen. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Giebel, Rolf W. “The Chin-kang-ting ching yü-ch’ieh shih-pa-hui chih-kuei: An Annotated Translation.” Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kiyō 成田山仏教研究所紀要 18 (1995): 107–

201. ——, trans. Two Esoteric Sutras: The Adamantine Pinnacle Sutra / The Susiddhikara Sutra.

Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2001. ——. “Notes on Some Dhāraṇī-sūtras in Chinese Translation.” In Higashi Ajia Bukkyō—sono seiritsu to tenkai: Kimura Kiyotaka Hakushi Kanreki kinen ronshū 東アジア仏教 — そ

	の成立と展開: 木村清孝博士還暦記念論集, edited by Kimura Kiyotaka Hakushi  	Kanreki Kinenkai 木村清孝博士還暦記念会, 762(27)–743(46). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 
	

2002. ——, trans. The Vairocanābhisaṃ bodhi Sutra. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2005. Gimello, Robert M. Frederic Girard, Imre Hamar, eds. Avatamsaka Buddhism In East Asia:

Huayan, Kegon, Flower Ornament Buddhism: Origins And Adaptation of a Visual Culture. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012. Girard, Frederic. The Stanza of the Bell in the Wind: Zen and Nenbutsu in the Early Kamakura Period. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 2007. Goble, Geoffrey. “Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra and the Tang Ruling Elite.” PhD, diss., Stanford University, 2012. Gómez, Luis O., intro. and trans. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless

Light. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1996. ——. “Measuring the Immeasurable: Reflections on Unreasonable Reasoning.” In Buddhist

Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, edited by John J.

Makransky, Roger R. Jackson, 367-385. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2000. Gonda, Jan. “Introduction: Some Critical Remarks apropos of Substratum Theories.” In Change and Continuity in Indian Religion. The Hague: Mouton, 1965. Goodwin, Janet. Alms and Vagabonds: Buddhist Temples and Popular Pilgrimage in Medieval Japan. Honolulu; University of Hawai’I Press, 1994. Gorai Shigeru 五来重, ed. Kōyasan to Shingon mikkyō no kenkyū, Sangaku shūkyo shi kenkyū

sōsho 高野山と真言密教の研究, 山岳宗教史研究叢書. Tokyo: Meicho shuppan,

1976. ——. Kōya hijiri 高野聖. Tokyo: Kadokawa bunko 角川文庫, 1975 (Repr., 2011). Grapard, Allan. The Protocol of the Gods A Study of the Kasuga Cult in Japanese History.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. ——. “Keiranshūyōshū: A Different Perspective on Mt. Hiei in the Medieval Period.” In Re visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism, edited by Richard K. Payne, 55–69. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998. Gray, David B. The Cakrasaṃvara Tantra: A Study and Annotated Translation. New York:

American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2007. Gregory, Peter N., ed. Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism. Studies in East Asian Buddhism 4. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986. Groner, Paul. Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press, 1984. (Repr.: Honolulu: University of Hawa‘i Press,

2000.) ——. “Shortening the Path: Early Tendai Interpretations of the Realization of Buddhahood with this Very Body (sokushin jōbutsu).” In Paths to Liberation: The Mārga and Its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., and Robert M.

Gimello, 439–73. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1992. ——. Ryōgen and Mount Hiei: Japanese Tendai in the Tenth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002. ——. “Training Through Debates in Medieval Tendain and Seizan-ha Temples.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 38.2 (2011): 233-261. Guenther, Herbert V. The Tantric View of Life. Berkeley: Shambhala Publications, 1972. Gyatso, Janet. “Commemoration and Identification in Buddhānusmṛti.” In In the Mirror of

Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, edited by Janet Gyatso, 215-238. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. ——. “An Avalokiteśvara Sādhana.” In Religions of Tibet in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 266-270. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Gyōnen, and Gishin. The Essentials of the Vinaya Tradition. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995. Gyōnen, and Saichō. The Essentials of the Eight Traditions. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1994. Hakeda, Yoshito S. Kūkai: Major Works. Translated with an Account of His Life and a Study of His Thought. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Hall, John W., and Yamamura Kōzō, eds. Medieval Japan. The Cambridge History of Japan.

Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Halkias, Georgios. Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet: With an Annotated English Translation and Critical Analysis of the Orgyan-glin Gold Manuscript of the Short Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,

2013. Hanawa Hokinoichi 塙保己一, ed. Gunsho ruijū 群書類従 (GR). Tokyo: Keizai zasshisha,

1898–1902. Harrison, Paul. “Buddhānusmṛti in the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvastita-samādhi-sūtra,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 6 (1978): 35-57. ——. The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English

Translation of the Tibetan Version of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Saṃmukhāvasthita-

Samādhi-Sūtra with Several Appendices Relating to the History of the Text. Tokyo:

International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. Harootunian, Harry D. 1988. Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Hase Hōshū 長谷寶秀, ed. Kōbō daishi zenshū 弘法大師全集, 6 vols. Ōsaka: Mikkyō Bunka Kenkyūjo, 1909-1911 (Repr. 1966). ——. Shingon shū anjin zensho 真言宗安心全書, 2 vols. Kyoto: Daigakudō shoten. Repr. 1973 Hasegawa Takeshi 長谷川岳史. 1993. “Mikkyō ni okeru gochi shisō no seiritsu ni kansuru

kenkyū 密教における五智思想の成立に関する研究 (1).” Ryūkoku daigaku daigakuen Bukkyō kenkyūshitsu nenpō 龍谷大学大学院仏教学研究室年報 6 (1993): 34–58. ——. 1999. “Fukūyaku kyōten no busshinkan 不空訳経典の仏身観.” Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 453 (1999): 24–40. Hashimoto Hatsuko 橋本初子. Chūsei Tōji to Kōbōdaishi shinkō 中世東寺と弘法大師信仰.

Kyoto: Shibunkaku shigaku sōsho 思文閣史学叢書, 1990. Hasuzawa Jojun 蓮沢浄淳. “Kakkai sonshi no monka 覚海尊師の門下.” Mikkyō bunka 密教研 究 10 (1922): 151-166, 167-228. Hatta Yukio 八田幸雄. Shingon jiten 真言辭典. Tokyo: Hirakawa Shuppansha, 1985. Kobayashi Naoki 小林直樹. “Muju to Kongōōin sōzu Jitsugen 無住と金剛王院僧正実賢.” Bungakushi kenkyū 文学史研究 49 (2009): 55-64. Hayami Tasuku 速水侑. Miroku shinkō—mō hitotsu jōdo shinkō 弥勒信仰―もう一つの浄土 信仰. Tokyo: Hyōronsha 評論社, 1971. ——. Heian kizoku shakai to bukkyō 平安貴族社会と仏教. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan,

1975. ——. Jōdo shinkō ron 浄土信仰論. Tokyo: Yūzankaku Shuppan, 1978. ——. Kannon shinkō 観音信仰. Tokyo: Kōsenshō, 1981. ——. Jujutsu shūkyō no sekai: Mikkyō no shuhō no rekishi 呪術宗教の世界: 密教の修法の歴

史. Tokyo: Hanawa shobō, 1987. ——. Inseiki no bukkyō 院政期の仏教. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1998. ——, ed. Kannon shinkō jiten 観音信仰辞典. Tokyo: Ebisu kōshō shuppan, 2000. ——. Nara, Heian bukkyō no tenkai 奈良, 平安仏教の展開. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan,

2006. ——. Jujutsu shūkyō no sekai 呪術宗教の世界. Tokyo: Hanawa shinsho はなわ新書, 1987

(Repr., 2007). Himitsu nenbutsu shō kenkyūkai 秘密念仏抄研究会. “Dōhan cho ‘Himitsu nenbutsu

shō’ no kenkyū—honbun kōtei to kaki kudashi, gochū 道範 『秘密念仏抄』の研究- 本文校訂と書き下し・語註.” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 39 (1996): 105-130. Hinonishi Shinjō 日野西真定. “Kōyasan no jōdoshinkō 高野山の浄土信仰.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 70 (1987): 227-230. ——, ed. 1988. Kōbō Daishi shinkō 弘法大師信仰. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. ——. “Kōbō daishi no hōgō no rekishi to sono shūkyō teki imi 弘法大師の宝号の歴史とその 宗教的意味.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 90 (1997): 142-146. ——, William Londo, trans., “The Appearance and Evolution of the Hōgō of Kōbō Daishi,”

Japanese Religions 27.1 (2002) 1-18. ——. “Sangaku reiba ni matsurareru kami to hotoke: toku ni Kōyasan no baai 山岳霊場に

祀られる神と仏：特に高野山の場合.” In Sei naru Mono no Katachi to Ba 聖なるも

のの形と場, edited by Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, 470–489. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2004. Hirakawa Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism from Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, Trans. and ed. Paul Groner. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. Hirota, Dennis, and Yoshifumi Ueda. Shinran: An Introduction to His Thought. Kyoto:

Hongwanji International Center, 1989. Hodge, Stephen. “Considerations on the Dating and Geographical Origins of the

Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi-sūtra.” In The Buddhist Forum III. Eds. Tadeusz Skorupski and Ulrich Pagels, 57-83. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1994. ——. The Mahā-vairocanā-abhisambodhi Tantra with Buddhagugya’s Commentary. London:

Routledge, 2003. Horiuchi Noriyuki 堀内規之. Saisen kyōgaku no kenkyū: Inseiki shingonmikkyō no shomondai

済暹教学の研究: 院政期真言密教の諸問題. Tokyo: Nonburu ノンブル, 2009. Howard, Angela F. “The Dhāraṇī Pillar of Kunming, Yunnan: A Legacy of Esoteric Buddhism and Burial Rites of the Bai People in the Kingdom of Dali (937–1253).” Artibus Asiae 57 (1997): 33–72. Hunter, Harriet. “The Rishukyō Mandara Said to Have Been Introduced by Shūei.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 8 (1995): 371–88. ——. “Faquan’s Transmission of the Susiddhi Category of the Esoteric Buddhist Teachings.”

Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies 8 (2004): 43–93. Huntington, John C. “Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10.2 (1987): 88-98. Huntington, Susan L. “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism.” Art Journal 49 (1990):

401–408. Hur, Namlin. Death and Social Order in Tokugawa Japan: Buddhism, AntiChristianity, and the Danka System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-I 智 (538-597): An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk. Bruxelles: I’Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinioses, 1962. Hyōtani Kazuko 俵谷和子. Kōyasan shinkō to kenmon shinshi: Kōbō daishi nyūjō densetsu wo

chūshin ni 高野山信仰と権門貴紳: 弘法大師入定伝説を中心に. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin,

2010. Ichikawa Hiroshi 市川浩史. “Jōdo 浄土.” In Nihon Bukkyō no kenkyūhō 日本仏教の研究法 歴史と展望, edited by Nihon Bukkyō kenkyūkai 日本仏教研究会 et al., 154-167. Kyoto:

Hōzōkan 法蔵館, 2000. Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎, et al., eds. Nihon shisō taikei 日本思想体系 (NST), 67 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1970-1982. Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎 and Akamatsu Toshihide 赤松俊秀, eds. Nihon Bukkyōshi 日本佛教 史, 3 vols. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1967. Igarashi Takayuki 五十嵐隆幸. Seizan Jōdokyō no kiban to tenkai 西山浄土教の基盤と展開.

Kyoto: 思文閣, 2010. Hamar, Imre, ed. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives On Huayan Buddhism. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, 2007. Inagaki Hisao 稲垣久雄. The Anantamukhanirhāra-Dhāraṇī Sūtra and Jñānagarbha’s

Commentary: A Study and the Tibetan Text. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodo, 1987. ——. “The Esoteric Meaning of ‘Amida.’” In Kōgyō daishi Kakuban kenkyū 興教大師覺鑁の 硏究, 1104-1095. Tokyo: Shujūsha, 1992. ——. The Three Pure Land Sutras: A Study and Translation from Chinese. Kyoto: Nagata

Bunshōdo, 1995. ——. Amida Dhāraṇī Sūtra and Jñānagarbha’s Commentary. Tokyo: Ryukoku Gakkai, Ryukoku University, 1999. ——. “Kūkai’s ‘Principle of Attaining Buddhahood with the Present Body.’” In Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, edited by Richard K. Payne, 99–118. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2005. Inamoto Taishō 稲本 泰生. “Narachō komikkyō no zenshi ni kan suru kakusho—chūgoku

bushūki zengō no jōkyō wo chūshin ni 奈良朝古密教の前史に関する覚書 ー中国武周 期前後の状況を中心に.” In Komikkyō: Nihon mikkyō no taidō 古密教ー日本密教の胎

動, edited by Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館, 139–144. Nara: Nara kokuritsu hakubutsukan, 2005. Inatani Sukenobu 稲谷祐宣. “Nara jidai mikkyō kyōten to Kūkai 奈良時代の密教経典と空

海.” Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 73 (1965): 52–59. Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞. Nihon jōdokyō seiritsushi no kenkyū 日本淨土教成立史の研究.

Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1956. ——. “Inseiki ni okeru Kōyasan no Jōdokyō” 院政期における高野山の浄土教.” In Nihon Mikkyō 日本密教, vol. 7 of Mikkyō taikei 密教体系, edited by Miyasaka Yūshō 宮坂宥 勝, 167-216. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館, 1995. Ishida Mitsuyuki 石田充之. “Mikkyōkei Jōdo ganshōsha Jōhen sōzu no Jōdokyō tachiba 密教系

浄土願生者静遍僧都の浄土教的立場.” Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 336

(1949): 36-62. Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. Kegon shisō no kenkyū 華厳思想の研究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1996. Ito Shigeki 伊藤茂樹. “Jōhen no shūkyō katsudō 静遍の宗教活動.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 117 (2009): 55-59(R). ——. “Jōhen no shōgai nitsuite 静遍の生涯について.” Jōdokyō kenkyū 浄土宗学研究 34

(2008): 93-94(R). Iyanaga Nobumi 彌永信美. “Tachikawa-ryū to Shinjō Juhō-yōjin shū wo megutte 立川流と心

	¨

定『受法用心集』をめぐって.” Nihon bukkyō Sōgō Kenkyū 日本仏教綜合研究 2

(2003): 13–31. ——. “Secrecy, Sex and Apocrypha: Remarks on Some Paradoxical Phenomena.” In The

Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 204-228. London: Routledge, 2006. ——. “Tachikawa-ryū.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D.

Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 803-814. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Jaffe, Richard. Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical Marriage in Modern Japanese Buddhism.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Jones, John James. The Mahāvastu-Avadāna, vols. I-III. London: Luzac and Company, 1949. Josephson, Jason Ananda. “Taming Demons: The Anti-Superstition Campagn and the Invention of Religion in Japan (1853-1920).” PhD diss., Stanford University, 2006. ——. The Invention of Religion in Japan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. Kagiwada Seiko 鍵和田聖子. “Tōmitsu to Taimitsu no sōgo eikyō kara mita juyō to kensan no

tenkai 東密と台密の相互影響から見た受容と研鑽の展開.” PhD diss., Ryūkoku

University, 2014. Kakehashi Nobuaki 梯信暁. Nara, Heianki jōdokyō tenkairon 奈良・平安期浄土教展開論.

Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2008. ——. Jōdokyō shisōshi: Indo, Chūgoku, Chōsen, Nihon 浄土教思想史:インド・中国・朝鮮・ 日本. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2012. Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chugōku bukkyu shi 中國佛教史, 6 vols. Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1982-1999. Kameyama Takahiko 亀山隆彦. “Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru myōsoku shisō no tenkai—

Shūkotsushō wo chūshin ni 中世真言宗における命息思想の展開--『宗骨抄』を中心

に.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 59 (2011): 651-654. Kamikawa Michio 上川通夫. Nihon chūsei Bukkyō to Higashi Ajia sekai 日本中世仏教と東ア ジア世界. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō 塙書房, 2012. Kanaoka Shūyū 金岡秀友, ed. Kūkai jiten 空海辞典. Tokyo: Tōkyōdō shuppan, 1979. Kanda, Fusae C. “The Development of Amida Raigō Painting: Style, Concept, and

Landscape.” Ph. D. diss., Yale University, 2002. Kamai Shūchū 亀井宗忠. “Mikkyō shoka to ōjō shisō 密教諸家と往生思想.” Buzan gakuhō 豊 山学報 2 (1954): 78-89. Kanayama Maboku 金山穆韶. “Chōkaishō (Dōhan ajari ki) 聴海抄 (道範阿闍梨記).” Mikkyō kenkyū 密教研究 10 (1922): 167-228. ——. “Chōkai shō ni tsuite 聽海抄に就.” Mikkyō kenkyū 密教研究 10 (1922): 229-231. Kaneko Daiei 金子大榮, ed. Shinran chosaku zenshū 親鸞 作全集. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964. Kapstein, Matthew T. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——, ed. The Presence of Light: Divine Radiance and Religious Experience. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2004a. ——. “Pure Land Buddhism in Tibet? From Sukhāvatī to the Field of Great Bliss.” In

Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha. Eds. Richard K.

Payne and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 16-52. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004b. ——, ed. Buddhism Between Tibet and China. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2009. Kasahara Kazuo 笠原一男, ed. A History of Japanese Religion. Trans. Paul McCarthy and

Gaynor Sekimori. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 2001. ——. “Akunin ōjō shisō no keihu 悪人往生思想の系譜.” Nihon ni okeru kokka to shūkyō 日本

における国家と宗教. (1978): 117-132. Katsuhisa Toshinori 勝又俊教. Mikkyō no nihonteki tenkai 密教の日本的展開. Tokyo:

Shunjūsha, 1970. ——. “Nara jidai no mikkyō 奈良時代の密.” In Mikkyō no rekishi 密教の歴史, edited by Miyasaka Yūshō et al., 168–83. Kōza mikkyō 2. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1977. ——. Kōbō Daishi no shisō to sono genryū 弘法大師の思想とその源流. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1981. ——, ed. Kōbō Daishi Chosaku Zenshū 弘法大師 作全集. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 1997. Katsuura Noriko 勝浦令子. “Higashi Ajia no ‘Mukujōkō daidaranikyō’ juyō to

hyakumantō 東アジアの『無垢浄光大陀羅尼経』受容と百万塔.” In Nara-Heian

Bukkyō no tenkai 奈良・平安仏教の展開, edited by Hayami Tasuku 速水侑, 2-31. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2006. Kawai, Hayao and Mark Unno. The Buddhist Priest Myōe: A Life of Dreams. Venice: Lapis

Press, 1992. Keyworth, George A. “The Esotericization of Chinese Buddhist Practice.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 516-519. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Kawamura Teruo 川村晃生. “Saigyō no Shikoku gekō ichi daishi iseki junrei kagun ni

tsuite 西行の四国下向一大師遺跡巡礼歌群について.” Mita kokubun 三田園文 1

(1983): 1-4. Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1997. ——. 2003. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Kimbrough, R. Keller. “Reading the Miraculous Powers of Japanese Poetry: Spells, Truth Acts, and a Medieval Buddhist Poetics of the Supernatural.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32.1 (2005): 1-33.

——. “Tourists in Paradise, Writing the Pure Land in Medieval Japanese Fiction.” Japanese 
	

Journal of Religious Studies 33.2 (2006): 269-296. Kitagawa Masahiro 北川 真寛. “Keiran shūyōshū niokeru jōdo shisō 『渓嵐拾葉集』 における浄土思想.” Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 207 (2001): 1-32. Kiuchi Gyōō 木内堯央. Tendai mikkyō no keisei: Nihon Tendai shisōshi kenkyū 天台密教の形

成：日本天台思想史研究. Tokyo: Keisuisha, 1984. Kiyota Minoru. Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Buddhist Books International, 1978. ——. Tantric Concept of Bodhicitta: A Buddhist Experiential Philosophy. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin-Madison, South Asian Area Center, 1982. Klautau, Orion. “Kindai Bukkyō to Shinshū no mondai 近代仏教と真宗の問題.” Nihon shisōshi gakkai 日本思想史学会 43 (2011): 35-43. Kleeman, Terry. “Chinese Religion: History of Study.” (1987, Re-written and updated) In

Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, edited by Norman Girardot, 1629-40. Chicago:

Macmillan Reference, 2005. Klein, Christof. “Hermits and Ascetics in Ancient Japan: The Concept of Hijiri Reconsidered.” Japanese Religions 22.2 (1997): 1-46. Klein, Susan Blakeley. Allegories of Desire: The Esoteric Literary Commentaries of Medieval Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Klimburg–Salter, Deborah E. The Silk Route and the Diamond Path: Esoteric Buddhist Art on the Trans-Himalayan Trade Routes. Los Angeles: UCLA Art Council, 1982. Kloetzli, Randy. Buddhist Cosmology: From Single World System to Pure Land. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. Köck, Stefan. “The Dissemination of the Tachikawa-ryū and the Problem of Orthodox and

Heretic Teaching in Shingon Buddhism.” Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū インド哲

学仏教学研究 7 (2000): 69–83. Kōda Yūun 甲田宥吽. “Dōhan ajari no jagi sōden ni tsuite 道範阿闍梨の邪義相伝について.” Mikkyō-gaku kaihō 密教学会報 19–20 (1981a): 36–47. ——. “Chūin-ryū no jaryū wo tsutaeta hitobito 中院流の邪流を伝えた人々.” Mikkyōbunka 密 教文化 135 (1981b): 19-37. ——. “Keika wajō igo no mikkyō sōtachi 惠果和尚以後の密敎僧たち.” Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 密敎文化研究所紀要 15 (2002): 29–62. Kokushi Daijiten Henshū Iinkai 國史大辭典編集委員会, ed. Kokushi Daijiten 國史大辭 典.

Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1986. Kōyasan Daigaku Sensho Kankōkai 高野山大学選書刊行会, ed. Kōyasan to Mikkyō bunka 高 野山と密教文化. Kōyasan Daigaku sensho 高野山大学選書, Vol. 1. Tokyo:

Shōgakkan, 2006a. ——. Shingon Mikkyō no arata na tenkai 真言密教の新たな展開. Kōyasan Daigaku sensho 高 野山大学選書, Vol. 2. Tokyo: Shōgakkan, 2006b. ——. Kōyasan no Dentō to mirai 高野山の伝統と未来. Kōyasan Daigaku sensho 高野山大学 選書, Vol. 4. Tokyo: Shōgakkan, 2006c. Kōyasan Reibōkan 高野山霊宝館. Kōya Shōchi’in no rekishi to bijutsu 高野正智院の歴 史と美術. Wakayama: Kōyasan Reibōkan, 1998. Kroll, Paul W. Dharma Bell and Dhāraṇī Pillar. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies,

2001. Kūkai, and Kakuban. Shingon Texts : On the Differences Between the Exoteric and Esoteric Teachings, the Meaning of Becoming a Buddha In This Very Body, the Meanings of

Sound, Sign, and Reality, the Meanings of the Word Hūṃ, the Precious Key to the Secret Treasury. Berkeley, Calif.: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2004. Kumada Junshō 熊田順正. “Azuma kuni no genshi Shinshū kyōdan e no himitsu nenbutsu shisō

no eikyō nit suite 東国の原始真宗教団への秘密念仏思想の影響について,” Ryūkoku

kyōgaku 竜谷教学 (2004): 9-25. ——. “Jōhen ‘Zoku sentaku mongi yōshō’ ni okeru Amida no busshin butsudokan nit suite 静遍

続選択文義要鈔』における阿弥陀仏の仏身仏土観について,” Indogaku

Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 106 (2005): 86-89. ——. “Jōhen Jōdokyō ni mieru shichi hachi kushiki setsu nit suite kōsatsu 静遍浄土教に見える

七八九識説についての考察,” Bukkyōgaku 仏教学 48 (2006): 69-92. ——. “Jōhen kyōgaku no tokuisei nit suite—shoshi o hihan wo tooshite 静遍教学の特異性につ いて--諸師の批判を通して,” Tōyōgaku kenkyū 東洋学研究 (2008): 97-121. Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄. Nihon chūsei no kokka to shūkyō 日本中世の国家と宗教. Tokyo:

Iwanami Shōten, 1975 (Repr. 2007). ——. Nihon chūsei no kokka to shūkyō 日本中世の国家と宗教. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten 岩波

書店, 1975. ——. Nihon chūsei shakai to shūkyō 日本中世社会と宗教. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1990. ——. Kenmitsu taisei ron 顕密体制論. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1994. ——. “The Development of the Kenmitsu System as Japan’s Medieval Orthodoxy.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 23 (1996a): 233–69. ——. “The Discourse on the ‘Land of Kami’ (shinkoku) in Medieval Japan.” In The Legacy of

Kuroda Toshio (special issue). Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23 (1996b): 353–

85. Kuroita Katsumi 黑板勝美, ed. Kokushi Taikei 國史大系, 60 vols (KT). Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1929-1967. Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田良洪. Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 真言密教成立過程の研究.

Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 1964. ——. Kakuban no kenkyū 覚鑁の研究. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1975. ——. Zoku Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 続 真言密教成立過程の研

究. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 1979. ——. Kūkai no kenkyū 空海の研究. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 1981. ——. “Himitsu nenbutsu shisō no bokkō 秘密念仏思想の勃興,” Taishō daigaku kenkyū kiyō tsūgō 大正大学研究紀要 通号 48 (1963): 43-80. Lee, Sonya S. Surviving Nirvana: Death of the Buddha in Chinese Visual Culture. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 2010. Lehman, F.K. “On the Vocabulary and Semantics of ‘Field’ in Theravāda Buddhist Society,”

Contributions to Asian Studies 16 (1981): 101-111. Lehnert, Martin. “Myth and Secrecy in Tang-period Tantric Buddhism.” In The Culture of

Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 78–104.

London: Routledge, 2006. Lindsay, Ethan. “Pilgrimage to the Sacred Traces of Kōyasan: Place and Devotion in Late Heian Japan.” PhD, diss., Princeton University, 2012. Linrothe, Robert, and Henrik H. Sørensen, eds. Embodying Wisdom: Art, Text and Interpretation in the History of Esoteric Buddhism. Copenhagen: Seminar for Buddhist Studies

Publications, 2001. Londo, William. “The Other Mountain: The Mt. Kōya Temple Complex in the Heian Era.” PhD, diss., University of Michigan, 2004. Lopez, Donald S., Jr. Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995 ——. Elaborations on Emptiness, Uses of the Heart Sūtra. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996a. ——. “‘Lamaism’ and the Disappearance of Tibet.” Comparative Studies in Society and History

38.1 (1996b): 3-25. ——, ed. Religions of Tibet in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997a. ——. “Mindfulness of Death,” in Religions of Tibet in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997b), 421-442; ——. Buddhism and Science, A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2008. ——. “Burnouf and the Birth of Buddhist Studies.” The Eastern Buddhist 43.1-2:25-34. ——. From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. Lü Jianfu 呂建福. Zhongguo mijiao shi 中国密教史. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Lye, Hun Y. “Feeding Ghosts: A Study of the Yuqie Yankou Rite.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 2003. ——. “Song Tiantai Ghost-Feeding Rituals.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 520-524. Leiden:

Brill, 2011. Lyotard, Jean-François. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbele.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. Mack, Karen J. “Function and Context of Fudō Imagery from the Ninth to Fourteenth Century in

Japan.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 2006a. ——. “The Phenomenon of Invoking Fudō for Pure Land Rebirth in Image and Text.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 33.2 (2006b): 297–317. Maeda Eun 前田慧雲 and Nakano Tatsue 中野達慧, eds. Dainippon zokuzōkyō 大日本續藏經, 750 vols. In 150 cases. Kyoto: Zōkyō shoin, 1905-1912. Maetani Keishū. “Nara Heianki ni okeru sanrin shugyō no igi 奈良·平安期における山林修行 の意義.” Mikkyōgaku kenkyū 密教学研究 34 (2002): 103–22. Mair, Victor. The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Makransky, John J. and Roger R. Jackson, eds. Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by

Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2000. Manabe Shunshō 真鍋俊照. Jakyō Tachikawa-ryū 邪教·立川流. Tokyo: Chikuma shobō, 2002. Mass, Jeffrey P. Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu: The Orgins of Dual Government In Japan. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999. Masuzawa, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions, or, How European Universalism was

Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Matsumoto Bunzaburō 松本文三郎 and Nakano Tatsue 中野達慧, eds. Nihon daizōkyō 日本大 蔵経, 100 vols. Tokyo: Nihondaizōkyō hensankai, 1914-1922. Matsunaga, Daigan, and Alicia Matsunaga. Foundation of Japanese Buddhism I: The

Aristocratic Age. Los Angeles and Tokyo: Buddhist Books International, 1974. Matsunaga Yūkei 松長有慶. Mikkyō no rekishi 密教の歴史 Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1969. ——. “Ri to chi 理と智.” Mikkyōgaku 密教学 13/14 (1977): 60–77. ——. A Critical Edition of the Guhyasamājatantra. Osaka: Tōhō shuppan, 1978. ——. Mikkyō kyōten seiritsu shiron 密教経典成立史論. Kyōto: Hōzōkan, 1980. ——. et al., eds. Koyasan: Sono rekishi to bunka 高野山: その歴史と文化. Kyoto: Hōzōkan,

1984. ——. “On the Date of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. A. Stein, edited by M. Strickmann. 3: 882–94. Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études

chinoises, 1985. ——. Himitsu shūkai tantora wayaku 秘密集会タントラ和訳. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2000. Matsuo Kenji 松尾剛次. “What is Kamakura New Buddhism? Official Monks and Reclusive

Monks.” Japanse Journal of Religious Studies 24.1-2 (1997): 179-189. ——. Shinpan Kamakura shin Bukkyō no seiritsu: nyūmon girei to soshi shinwa 新版鎌倉新仏

教の成立: 入門儀礼と祖師神話. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1998. ——. A History of Japanese Buddhism. Dorset, UK: Global Oriental, 2007.

Matsuzaki Keisui 松崎惠水. Heian mikkyō no kenkyū: Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban wo chūshin toshite 平安密教の研究 : 興教大師覚鑁を中心として. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 2002. Matsuzaki Keisui 松崎惠水. “Kakuban to Jōhen no Jōdo ōjō shisō 覚鑁と静遍の浄土往生思

想.” Buzan gakuhō 豊山学報 53 (2010): 1-18. McBride, Richard D., II. “Is There Really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27 (2004): 329–56. ——. “Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28 (2005): 85–114. ——. “The Mysteries of Body, Speech, and Mind: The Three Esoterica (sanmi) in Medieval

Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29 (2006): 305–55. ——. Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008. ——. “Popular Esoteric Deities and the Spread of their Cults.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the

Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

Payne, 215-219. Leiden: Brill, 2011. McCagney, Nancy. Nāgārjuna and the Philosophy of Openness. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997. McMahan, David. “Transpositions of Metaphor and Imagery in the Gandavyuha and Tantric Buddhist Practice.” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 3. 6

(2004): 181-194. McMullen, Matthew D. “Raiyu and Shingi Shingon Sectarian History.” MA Thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2008. McMullin, Neil. “The Sanmon-Jimon Schism in the Tendai School of Buddhism: A Preliminary

Analysis.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 7 (1984): 83–105. ——. “Historical and Historiographical Issues in the Study of Pre-Modem Japanese Religions,”

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 16.1 (1989): 3-40; McRae, John. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986. ——. “Buddhism, Schools of: Chinese Buddhism.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by

Lindsay Jones, et al., 1235-41. Detroit, MI: Macmillan, 2005. Meeks, Lori. Hokkeji and the Reemergence of Female Monastic Orders in Premodern Japan.

Honolulu: University of Hawa’i Press, 2010. Meisezahl, R. O. “The Amoghapāśahṛdaya-dhāraṇī: The Early Sanskrit Manuscript of the Reiunji, Critically Edited and Translated.” Monumenta Nipponica 17 (1962): 265–328. Mikkyō Bunka Kenkyūjo 密教文化研究所, ed. Kōbō Daishi zenshū 弘法大師全集, 8 vols.

Kōyasan, Wakayama: Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo, 1965–1968. ——, ed.. Kōbō Daishi zenshū 弘法大師全集, 5 vols. Mount Kōya: Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo,

1970–1977. ——, ed. Teihon Kōbō Daishi Zenshū. 定本弘法大師全集 Kōbō Daishi zenshū 弘法大師全集,

10 vols. Kōyasan: Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo, 1991–1997. Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo seikyō chōsa han 密教文化研究所聖教調査班, ed. “Kōyasan shinnōin seikyō monjo chōsa gaiyō ichifu, shiryō kaishō, ‘Dōhan nikka rinjū higi’ 高野

山親王院聖教文書調査概要--付、資料紹介『道範日課臨終秘儀』.” Kōyasan

Daigaku Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 高野山大学密教文化研究所紀要 16 (2003): 79-

92. Mikkyō Jiten Hensankai 密教辞典編纂会, ed. Mikkyō Daijiten 密教大辞典. Kyoto: Hōzōkan,

1983. Miller, Alan L. “Ritsuryō Japan: The State as Liturgical Community.” History of Religions 11

(1971): 98–124. Misaki Ryōshū 三崎良周. “Junmitsu to zōmitsu ni tsuite 純密と雑密について,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學硏究 15 (1967): 535–40. ——. “Nara jidai no mikkyō ni okeru shomondai 奈良時代の密教における諸問題.” Nanto bukkyō 都仏教 22 (1968): 55–73. ——. Taimitsu no kenkyū 台密の研究. Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1988. ——. Taimitsu no riron to jissen 台密の理論と実践. Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1994.

Mitra, Rajendralala. The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal. New Delhi: Cosmo, 1888

(Repr. 1981). Miyagi Yōichiro 宮城洋一郎. “Nara jidai mikkyō no ichi keitai 奈良時代密教の一形態.” Mikkyōgaku kenkyū 密教学研究 18 (1986): 75–91. Miyake, Hitoshi 宮家準. 2001. Shugendo: Essays on the Structure of Japanese Folk Religion.

Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan Press, 2001. ——. 2005. The Mandala of the Mountain: Shugendo and Folk Religion, Trans. and ed. Gaynor Sekimori. Tokyo: Keiō University Press, 2005. Miyasaka Yūshō 宮坂 宥勝. “Mikkyō kanahōgo no shiryō (ichi) 密教仮名法語の資料

(一).” Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 41/42 (1958): 23-42. Mizuhara Gyōei 水原尭栄. “Chu’inryū seikyō no daijōsha Shingen daitoku ni tsuite 中院流聖教

の大成者真源大徳に就て.” Mikkyō Kenkyū 密教研究 7 (1922): 45–68. ——. Kōyasan no chūin wo meguru shikei no konjaku 高野山の中院を繞る四渓の今昔,

Kōyasan: 高野山出版社, 1956. Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨.. Bukkyō daijiten 佛教大辭典, 10 vols. Tōkyō: Sekai shōten kankō

Kyōkai, 1909–1936 (Repr., 1974). Moerman, Max. Localizing Paradise: Kumano Pilgrimage and the Religious Landscape of

Premodern Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (2008 revision), last modified October 20, 2014, http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/index.html. Mori Shigeki 森重樹, ed. Toganō korekushon kenmitsu tenseki monjo shūsei 栂尾コレクション 顕密典籍文書集成, vol. 5. Tokyo: Hirakawa shuppansha, 1981. Moriyama Shōshin 守山聖真. Tachikawa jakyō to sono shakaiteki haikei no kenkyū 立川邪教と

その社会的背景の研究. Tokyo: Rokuya-en 鹿野苑, 1965. ——. Shingonshū nenpyō 真言宗年表. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1973. Morrell, Robert. “Shingon’s Kakukai on the Immanence of the Pure Land.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 11.2-3 (1984): 195-220. _______. Sand and Pebbles (Shasekishu): The Tales of Muju Ichien, a Voice for

Pluralism in Kamakura Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985. _______. Early Kamakura Buddhism: A Minority Report. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1987. Morita Kaneyoshi 森田兼吉. “Nankai ruroki kō” 海流浪記考. Nihon bungaku ronkyū 日本文学論究 39 (1979): 32-39. Morita Ryūsen 森田竜僊. “Mikkyō no jōdo shisō 密教の浄土思想.” Mikkyō kenkyū 密 教研究 6 (1921): 15-45. Motoyama Kōju 元山 公寿. “Himitsu nenbutsu ni tsuite 秘密念仏について.” Gendai mikkyō 現代密教 11/12 (1999): 35-48. Muller, Charles, ed. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism. http://buddhism-dict .net/ddb. Muller, Wilhelm K. “Shingon-Mysticism: Śubhākarasiṁha and I-hsing’s Commentary to the

Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Chapter One, An Annotated Translation.” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of California, Los Angeles, 1976. Murakami Hiroko 村上弘子. Kōyasan shinkō no seiritsu to tenkai 高野山信仰の成立と展開.

Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 2009. Murti, T. R. V. Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of Mādhyamika System. London: Allen and Unwin, rev. ed. 1960. Mus, Paul. Barabuḍur: Sketch of a History of Buddhism Based on Archaeological Criticism of the Texts, trans. Alexander W. Macdonald. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts: Sterling Publishers, 1998. Nagasaki Ken 長崎健. “Nankai rurōki” 海流浪記. Kokubungaku kaishaku to kanshō

国文学解釈と観賞 54.12 (1989): 82-86. Naitō Hide 内藤湖 . “Komikkyōten gaisetsu 古密教展概説.” In Komikkyō: Nihon Mikkyō no taidō: tokubetsuten 古密教: 日本密教の胎動: 特別展, edited by the Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館, 130–44. Nara: Nara kokuritsu hakubutsukan, 2005. Nakamikado Keikyō 中御門敬教. “Muryōju nyorai kengyō kuyō giki 無量寿如来観行供養儀

軌.” Jōdokyōtenseki mokuroku 浄土教典籍目録, 27-28. Kyoto: Bukkyō daigaku sōgō

kenkyūjo 仏教大学総合研究所, 2011. Nakamura Honnen 中村本然. (Nakamura Masafumi 中村正文). “Shakumakaenron niokeru huni makaenhō ni tsuite –kenge to mike no chūshakusho no hikaku wo chūshin toshite『釈摩

訶衍論』における不二摩訶衍法 不二摩訶衍法について－顕 家と密家の註釈疏の

比較を中心として.” Mikkyōgaku kenkyū 密教学研究 15 (1983): 129-144. ——. “Zenrinji Jōhen no teishōshita kyōgaku nit suite 禅林寺静遍の提唱した教学について.” Kōyasan daigaku ronsō 高野山大学論叢 26 (1991): 73-97. ——. “Jōhen sōzu no shinkō no ichi sokumen nit suite 静遍僧都の信仰の一側面について.” Mikkyō gakkaihō 密教学会報 31 (1992): 1-49. ——. “Dōhan no Jōdo kan 道範の浄土観.” Kōyasan daigaku ronsō 高野山大学論叢 29

(1994): 149-202. ——. “Dōhan ki ‘Shoshintongaku shō’ ni tsuite 道範記『初心頓覚鈔』について.” In Mikkyō

to shobunka no kōryū: Yamasaki Taikō kyōju koki kinen ronbunshū 密教と諸文化の交 流：山崎泰広教授古稀記念論文集, edited by the Yamasaki Taikō kyōju koki kinen ronbunshū kankōkai 山崎泰広教授古稀記念論文集刊行会, 151- 184. Kyoto: Bunkōdo,

1998a. ——. “Kenmitsu nikyōron tekagami shō ni tsuite, tokuni ‘Shakumakaenron’ kaishaku ni kansuru

shomondai wo chūshin to shite 『顕密二教論手鏡鈔』について特に『釈摩訶衍論』

解釈に関する諸問題を中心として.” In Bukkyō kyōri shisō no kenkyū: Satō Ryūken hakushi koki kinen ronbunshū 仏教教理思想の研究：佐藤隆賢博士古稀記念論文集,

edited by the Satō Ryūken hakushi koki kinen ronbunshū kankōkai 佐藤隆賢博士古稀 記念論文集刊行会, 333-263 (R). Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 1998b. ——. “‘Shōji jissō gi shō’ (Dōhan ki) ni tokareru nyogi gensetsu nitsuite—sono ichi,

‘Shaku makaen ron’ to Kūkai no chosaku ni miru nyogi gensetsu wo chūshin toshite—

声 実相義抄』(道範記) に説かれる如義言説について — その一、『釈摩訶衍 論』と空海の 作にみる如義言説を中心として—.” Mikkyō bunka 密教文化

203 (1999): 1-20. ——. “Zenrinji Jōhen no sōmokuhihō jōbutsu nit suite 禅林寺静遍の草木非情成仏説につい

て.” Nihon Bukkyōgakkai nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 68 (2003a): 281-304. ——. Shingon mikkyō ni okeru anjinron 真言密教における安心論. Wakayama Prefecture:

Kōyasan University, 2003b. ——. “ Dōhan ki ‘Bodaishin ron dangi ki’ nitsuite 道範記 『菩提心論談義記』 に ついて.” In Mandara no shosō to bunka: Yoritomi Motohiro hakase kanreki kinen

ronbunshū マンダラの諸相と文化: 頼富本宏博士還暦記念論文集, edited by the

Yoritomi Motohiro hakushi kanshiki kinen ronbunshū kankōka 頼富本宏博士還暦記念 論文集刊行会, 395-430. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館, 2005. ——. “Dōhan sen ‘Kongōchō kyō kaidai kanchū’ ni tsuite” 道範撰 『金剛頂経開題 勘註』 について.” Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 密教文化研究所紀要 21 (2008a): 29-

52. ——. “Senjaku hongan nenbutsushū ni tokareru gogyaku jūzai nit suite 『選択本願念仏集』に

説かれる五逆重罪について.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 116

(2008b): 129-136(R). ——. “Shingon kyōgaku ni okeru shōshikan 真言教学における生死観.” Nihon Bukkyōgaku nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 75 (2010): 169-184(R). ——. “Dōhan no seibotsunen nitsuite 道範の生没年について.” In Kōyasan daigaku Mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo 高野山大学密教文化研究所 blog, from December 15th, 2011, accessed, May 17th, 2012, http://www.koyasan-

u.ac.jp/mikkyobunka/blog/diary.cgi?field=9. Nakano Tetsue 中野達慧, et al., eds. Nihon daizōkyō 日本大蔵経, 51 vols. Tokyo: Nihon daizōkyō hensankai, 1914-1921. Nakano Satoshi 中野聡. Nara jidai no Amida nyoraizō to jōdo shinkō 奈良時代の阿弥陀如来 像と浄土信仰. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版, 2013. Nalinaksha Dutt. Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. 1. Srinagar: Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939. Nanjiō Bun’yū 条文雄. A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripitaka, the

Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan. San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center, 1975. Nara Hiromoto 奈良弘元. “Kōgyō daishi Kakuban izen no Kōyasan jōdokyō 興教大師覚鑁以 前の高野山浄土教.” Kōgyō daishi Kakuban Kenkyū: Kōgyō daishi happyaku gojūen

goonkikinen ronshū 興教大師覚鑁研究: 興教大師八百五十年御遠忌記念論集, edited

by Kōgyō daishi kenkyū ronshū henshū iinkai 興教大師研究論集編集委員会, 683-698.

Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1992. ——. “Shoki Kōyasan Jōdokyō ni tsuite 初期高野山浄土教について.” Seshin kagaku 精神科 学 35 (1996): 35-52(L). ——. Shoki Eizan Jōdokyō no kenkyū 初期叡山浄土敎の硏究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2002. Nara kokuritsu hakabutsukan 奈良国立博物館, ed. Jōdo mandara—gokuraku jōdo to raigō no

roman—浄土曼荼羅―極楽浄土と来迎のロマン―. Nara: Nara kokuritsu

hakakubtsukan, 1983. Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan 奈良国立博物館, ed. Komikkyō: Nihon mikkyō no taidō 古密教 ー日本密教の胎動. Nara: Nara kokuritsu hakubutsukan, 2005. Nasu Kazuo 那須 一雄. “Jōhen to Hōnen Jōdokyō 静遍と法然浄土教.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 106 (2005): 80-85. ——. “Hōnen to sono monka ni okeru ‘senju’ ‘zasshu’ rikai—tokuni Ryūkan, Shōkū, Jōhen nit

suite 法然とその門下における「専修・雑修」理解--特に隆寛・証空・静遍につい

て.” Shinshū kenkyū 眞宗研究 52 (2008): 42-62. ——. “Myōhen kyōgaku to Jōhen kyōgaku 明遍教学と静遍教学.” Shūkyo kenkyū 宗教研究

363 (2010): 359-360(R). Nattier, Jan. “The Realm of Aksobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure ̣ Land

Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23 (2000): 71–

102. ——. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra

(Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003. ——. “The Names Amitābha/Amitāyus in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations,” Sokadaigaku

Kokusai bukkyōgaku kōdō kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学国際仏教学高等研究所年報 10

(2006): 359-394. Needham, Rodney. “Polythetic Classicication.” Man 10.3 (1975): 349-69. Nemoto, Seiji 根本誠二. Nara jidai no sōryo to shakai 奈良時代の僧侶と社会. Tokyo:

Yūzankaku 雄山閣, 1999. ——. Tenpyōki no sōryo to tennō: sōdōkyō shiron 天平期の僧侶と天皇: 僧道鏡試論. Tokyo:

Iwata Shoin 岩田書院, 2003. ——. Nara Bukkyō to Mikkyō 奈良仏教と密教. Tokyo: Koshi Shoin 高志書院, 2011. Newman, John R. “The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayāna Buddhist Cosmology in the

Kālacakra Tantra.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1987. Nicoloff, Philip L. Sacred Kōyasan: A Pilgrimage to the Mountain Temple of Saint Kōbō Daishi and the Great Sun Buddha. New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press,

2007. Nietzche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals & Ecce Homo, trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. ——. The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, ed. Walter Kaufmann.

New York: Vintage Books, 1967, 1968. Ninnaji Konbyōshi Kozōshi Kenkyūkai 仁和寺紺表紙小双紙研究会, ed. Shukaku hosshinnō no girei sekai: Ninnajizō konbyōshi kozōshi no kenkyū 守覚法親王の儀礼世界 : 仁和寺蔵 紺表紙小双紙の研究, 2 vol. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan 勉誠出版, 1995. Nishi Yayoi 西弥生. Chūsei mikkyō jiin to shuhō 中世密教寺院と修法. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppansha 勉誠出版, 2008. Norman, Kenneth Roy. Pali Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and

Sanskrit of all the Hinayana Schools of Buddhism. In A History of Indian Literature:

Buddhist and Jaina Literature, Vol. 7, Part 2, edited by Jan Gonda. Wiesbaden: O.

Harrassowitz, 1983. Ogiwara Unrai 荻原雲來, ed. Kanyaku taishō bonwa daijiten 漢譯對照梵和大辭典. Taibei:

Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi 新文豊出版公司, 1979. Oishio Chihoro 追塩千尋. Chūsei no nanto bukkyō 中世の 都仏教. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1995. Ōkubo Ryōshun 大久保良峻. “Godai’in Annen no kokudokan 五大院安然の国土観.” Nihon Bukkyō gakukai nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 58 (1993): 155-170. ——. Tendai kyōgaku to hongaku shisō 天台教学と本覚思想. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1998. ——. Taimitsu kyōgaku no kenkyū 台密教学の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2004. Ōmori Gijō 大森義成. Jisshu Shingonshū no mikkyō to shugyō 実修真言宗の密教と修行.

Tokyo: Gakken Paburishingu 学研パブリッシング, 2010. Ōmura Chōkaku 林村澄覺, et al. Mikkyō daijiten 密教大辭典. 6 vols., rev. and enlarged ed.

Taipei: Xinwenfeng, 1979. Ōmura Seigai 大村西崖. Mikkyō hattatsushi 密教発達志 Monograph on the Development of

Esoteric Buddhism, 5 vols. Tokyo: Bussho Kankōkai Zuzōbu Kokusho Kankōkai, 1918. ——. 1972. Mikkyō hattatsushi 密敎発逹志. Tōkyō: Kokusho Kankōkai. Facsimile reproduction of 1918 edition. Ono Gemmyō 小野 玄妙, ed. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解説大辭典. Tokyo: Daitou Shuppansha, 1999. Ooms, Herman. Imperial Politics and Symbolics In Ancient Japan: The Tenmu Dynasty, 650-

800. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2009. Orlando, Raffaello. “A Study of Chinese Documents Concerning the Life of the Tantric Buddhist Patriarch Amoghavajra (A.D. 705–774).” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1981. Orzech, Charles D. “Cosmology in Action: Recursive Cosmology, Soteriology, and Authority in

Chen-yen Buddhism with Special Reference to the Monk Pu-k’ung.” Ph.D., diss., University of Chicago, 1986. ——. “Seeing Chen-yen Buddhism: Traditional Scholarship and the Vajrayāna in China.”

History of Religions 29 (1989): 87–114. ——. “The Legend of the Iron Stūpa.” In Buddhism in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 314–17. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. ——. “Mandalas on the Move: Reflections from Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, circa 800 CE.”

Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies 19 (1996a): 209–44. ——. “Saving the Burning-mouth Hungry Ghost.” In Religions of China in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 278–83. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996b. ——. “The Scripture on Perfect Wisdom for Humane Kings Who Wish to Protect Their States.”

In Religions of China in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 372–80. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1996c. ——.Politics and Transcendent Wisdom: The Scripture for Humane Kings in the Creation of Chinese Buddhism. Hermeneutics: Studies in the History of Religions. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. ——. “Looking for Bhairava: Exploring the Circulation of Esoteric Texts Produced by the Song

Institute for Canonical Translation.” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, 3rd ser. 8 (2006a): 139–66. ——. “The ‘Great Teaching of Yoga’: The Chinese Appropriation of the Tantras, and the Question of Esoteric Buddhism.” Journal of Chinese Religion 34 (2006a): 29–78. ——. “A Tang Esoteric Manual for Rebirth in the Pure Land.” In Path of No Path:

Contemporary Studies in Pure Land Buddhism Honoring Roger Corless, edited by Richard K. Payne, 31–55. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Buddhist Studies and Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2009. ——. “Esoteric Buddhism in the Tang: From Atikūṭa to Amoghavajra (651-780).” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H.

Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 263-285. Leiden: Brill, 2011a. ——. “After Amoghavajra: Esoteric Buddhism in the Late Tang.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the

Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

Payne, 315-228. Leiden: Brill, 2011a. ——. “Esoteric Buddhism under the Song: An Overview.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

Payne, 421-430. Leiden: Brill, 2011b. ——. “Translation of Tantras and Other Esoteric Buddhist Scriptures.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 439-450. Leiden: Brill, 2011c. ——. “The Trouble with Tantra in China: Reflections on Method and History.” In Religion and

Society: Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond, edited by István Keul, 303-328. Hawthorne, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Orzech, Charles D., Richard K. Payne, Henrik H. Sorensen. “Introduction: Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia: Some Methodological Considerations.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H.

Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 3-18. Leiden: Brill, 2011a. Osabe Kazuo 長部和雄. Tōdai mikkyōshi zakkō 唐代密教史雑考. Kobe: Kōbe Shōka daigaku gakujutsu kenkyūkai, 1971. ——. Tō Sō mikkyōshi ronkō 唐宋密敎史論考. Kyoto: Hatsubaijo Nagata Bunshodo, 1982. Ōshika Shinō 大鹿眞央. “Chūsei Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru sankōdan kaishaku: Dōhan ni okeru

daisankōdan kaishaku wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における三劫段解釈: 道範におけ る第三劫段解釈を中心に.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 60.1 (2011): 115-118. ——. “Tōmitsu ni okeru shochisokugyokusetsu no tenkai 東密における初地卽極説の展開.”

Tōyō no shisō to shūkyō 東洋の思想と宗教 29 (2012a): 71-89. ——. “Chūsei Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru shohōmyōdō no hensen: daihachi jushin to no kankei

wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における初法明道の変遷: 第八住心との関係を中心

に.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 61.1 (2012b): 40-43. ——. “Tōmitsu ni okeru shoji sokugokusetsu no tenkai 東密における初地卽極説の展開.”

Tōyō no shisō to shūkyō 東洋の思想と宗教 29 (2012c): 71-89. ——. “Chūsei Tōmitsu kyōgaku ni okeru shukuzen kaishaku no tenkai: Dōhan no shukuzen

kaishaku wo chūshin ni 中世東密教学における宿善解釈の展開: 道範の宿善解釈を

中心に.” Chizan gakuhō 智山學報 63 (2014): 131-149. Osto, Douglas. “Proto-tantric Elements in the Gandhavyuha Sūtra.” Journal of Religious History

33.2 (2009): 165-177. Ōtsuka Nobuo 大塚伸夫. “Shoki mikkyō no zentaizō: Shoki mikkyō no hōga kara tenkai,

kakuritsu he 初期密教経典の全体像：初期密教の萌芽から展開・確立へ.” In Shoki mikkyō: shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密教：思想・信仰・文化. Eds. Takahashi Hisao 高 橋尚夫, et. al., 5-21. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2013a. ——. “Fukūkensaku jinpen shingon kyō no jumon: Tayōna jumonkeitai ga mirareru kyōten 不空

羂索神変真言経の呪文 : 多様な呪文形態が見られる経典.” In Shoki mikkyō: shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密教：思想・信仰・文化. Eds. Takahashi Hisao 高橋尚夫, et. al., 121-133. Tokyo: Shunjusha 春秋者, 2013. ——. Indo shoki mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū インド初期密教成立過程の研究. Tokyo:

Shunjusha 春秋社, 2013. Ōtsuka Norihiro 大塚紀弘. “Chūsei ‘zenritsu’ Bukkyō to ‘zenkyōritsu’ jūshūkan 中世「禅律」 仏教と「禅教律」十宗観.” Shigaku zasshi 史学雑誌 112.9 (2003): 1477-1512. ——. Chūsei zenritsu bukkyōron 中世禅律仏教論 (Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha, 2009). Ōyama Kōjun 大山 公淳. “‘Dōhan daitoku no ‘Kōya hiji’ 道範大徳の 『高野秘事』. Mikkyō bunka 11 (1923): 116-135, 136-154. Park, Jin Y. Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan, and the Possibility of Buddhist Postmodern Ethics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. Pas, Julian. Visions of Sukhāvatī, Shan-Tao’s Commentary on the Kuan Wu-Liang-Shou-Fo Ching. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Payne, Richard K. The Tantric Ritual of Japan: Feeding the Gods—The Shingon Fire Ritual. Śata-Pitaka series, vol. 365. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1991. ——. “The Tantric Transformation of Pūjā: Interpretation and Structure in the Study of Ritual,”

In India and Beyond: Aspects of Literature, Meaning, Ritual and Thought—Essays in Honour of Frits Staal, edited by Dick van der Meij. Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, 1997a. ——. “The Cult of Arya Aparamitayus: Proto-Pure Land Buddhism in the Context of Indian Mahayana.” The Pure Land, Journal of Pure Land Buddhism, 13-14 (1997b): 19-36. ——. Language Conducive to Awakening: Categories of Language Use in East Asian Buddhism, with Particular Attention to the Vajrayāna Tradition. Düsseldorf: Hauses der Japanischen Kulter, 1998a. ——., ed. Re-Visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1998b. ——. “Ajikan: Ritual and Meditation in the Shingon Tradition.” In Re-visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism, edited by Richard K. Payne, 219–48. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,

1998c. ——. “Shingon Services for the Dead.” In Religions of Japan in Practice, edited by George J.

Tanabe, Jr., 159–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999a. ——. “The Shingon Ajikan: Diagrammatic Analysis of Ritual Syntax.” Religion 29 (1999b):

215–29. ——. “Tongues of Flame: Homologies in the Tantric Homa.” In The Roots of Tantra, edited by

Katherine Anne Harper and Robert L. Brown, 193–212. New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press, 2002. ——. “Ritual Syntax and Cognitive Theory.” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, 3rd ser., 6 (2004): 195–227. ——. “Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invisibility of the Shingon Mission to the United States.” In

Buddhist Missionaries in the Era of Globalization, edited by Linda Learman, 101–22.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005a. ——., ed. 2006. Tantric Buddhism in East Asia. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006a. ——. “Introduction.” In Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, edited by Richard K. Payne, 1-31.

Boston: Wisdom Books, 2006b. ——. “The Shingon Subordinating Fire Offering for Amitābha: ‘Amida Kei Ai Goma'” in

Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, third series, no. 8 (2006c):

191-236. ——. “Aparamitāyus: ‘Tantra’ and ‘Pure Land’ in Late Medieval indian Buddhism?,” Pacific World (3rd series) 9 (2007): 273-308. ——. “The Fourfold Training in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the

Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K.

ayne, 1024-1028. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ——. “From Vedic India to Buddhist Japan: Continuities and Discontinuities in Esoteric Ritual.”

In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 1040-1054. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Payne, Richard K. and Tanaka, Kenneth eds. Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha. Honolulu:University of Hawaii, 2004. Piggot, Joan R. The Emergence of Japanese Kingship. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,

1997. Pinte, Klaus L. R. A. “Mui-sanzō Zen’yō/Wu-wei san-ts’ang Ch’an-yao 無畏三蔵禅要: Een

Vajrayāna-tekst (T. vol. XVIII, nr. 917, pp. 942b–946a).” MA thesis, Ghent University,

2004. Porcu, Elisabetta. Pure Land Buddhism in Modern Japanese Culture. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2008. Poussin, Louis de La Vallee. “Cosmology and Cosmogony (Buddhist).” In Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, 13 vols., 2:129-138. Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1908-1927), 2:129-138. ——. Bouddhisme: Opinions sur l’histooire de la dogmatique. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne et

Cie., 1908. Puett, Michael. To Become a God: Cosmology, Sacrifice, and Self-Divinization in Early China.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Proffitt, Aaron P. “Nenbutsu Mandala Visualization in Dōhan’s Himitsu nenbutsu shō: An Investigation into Medieval Japanese Vajrayāna Pure Land,” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies (Third Series) 15 (2013): 153-170. Quinter, David. “The Shingon Ritsu School and the Mañjuśri cult in the Kamakura Period: From Eison to Monkan.” PhD diss., Stanford University, 2006. ——. “Creating Bodhisattvas: Eison, Hinin, and the ‘Living Mañjuśrī.’” Monumenta Nipponica

62 (2007): 437–58. Rambelli, Fabio. “True Words, Silence, and the Adamantine Dance: On Japanese Mikkyō and the Formation of the Shingon Discourse.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 21.4 (1994): 373-405. ——. “Tantric Buddhism and Chinese Thought in East Asia.” In Tantra in Practice, edited by

David Gordon White, 361–80. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. ——. Vegetal Buddhas: Ideological Effects of Japanese Buddhist Doctrines on the

Salvation of Inanimate Beings. Kyoto: Scuola Italian di Studi sull' Asia Orientale, 2001. ——. “In Search of the Buddha's Intention, Raiyu and the Worlds of Medieval

Shingon Learned Monks.” In Shingi Shingon kyōgaku no kenkyū: Raiyu sōjō

shichihyakunen goenki kinen ronshū 新義真言教学の研究: 頼瑜僧正七百年御遠忌記 念論集, edited by Sanpa Gōdō Kinen Ronshū Henshū iinkai 三派合同記念論集編集委 員会, 35-64. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan 大蔵出版, 2002. ——. Buddhist Materiality: A Cultural History of Objects in Japanese Buddhism. Stanford:

Stanford University Press, 2007. Rawlinson, Andrew. “The Position of the Asṭasashasrikā Prajñāpāramitạ̄ in the Development of

Early Mahāyāna.” In Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honour of Edward Conze, edited by Lewis Lancaster, 3–34. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

1977. Rasmussen, William Brian. “An Annotated Transcription and Translation of the Gilgit Manuscript of the Ajitasena-vyākaraṇa-nirdeśana-mahāyāna-sūtra.” MA thesis,

University of Texas, 1995. Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Reader, Ian, and George J. Tanabe, Jr. Practically Religious: Worldly Benefits and the Common

Religion of Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998. Reider, Noriko T. “Animating Objects: Tsukumogami ki and the Medieval Illustration of Shingon Truth.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 36.2 (2009): 231-257. Reischauer, Edwin O., trans. Ennin’s Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law. New York: Ronald Press, 1955a. ——. Ennin’s Travels in T’ang China. New York: Ronald Press, 1955b. Reis-Habito, Maria. “The Repentance Ritual of the Thousand-Armed Guanyin.” Studies in

Central and East Asian Religions 4 (1991): 42–51. ——. 1994. “The Great Compassion Dhāraṇī.” In The Esoteric Buddhist Tradition: Selected

Papers from the 1989 SBS Conference, edited by Henrik H. Sørensen, 31–49.

Copenhagen and Aarhus: University of Copenhagen, 1994. ——. 1999. “The Amoghapāśa Kalparāja Sūtra: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in

Central and East Asian Religions 11: 39–67. Rinpoche, Patrul. The Words of My Perfect Teacher. Boston: Shambhala, 1998. Rhodes, Robert F. “The Beginnings of Pure Land Buddhism in Japan: From its Introduction throught the Nara Period.” Japanese Religions 31.1 (2006): 1-22. Robson, James. “Signs of Power: Talismanic Writing in Chinese Buddhism.” History of Religions 48 (2008): 130–69. Rosenfield, John M. Portraits of Chōgen: The Transformation of Buddhist Art In Early Medieval Japan. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Rowell, T. “The Background and Early Use of the Buddha-kṣetra Concept,” Eastern Buddhist 6

(1932-1935): 199-246, 399-431; 7 (1936-1939): 130-176. Ruegg, David. “Aspects of the Study of the (Earlier) Indian Mahāyāna.” Journal of the

International Association of Buddhist Studies 27.1 (2004): 3-62. Ruppert, Brian D. Jewel in the Ashes: Buddha Relics and Power in Early Medieval Japan.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2000. ——. “Pearl in the Shrine.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 29 (2002): 2–11. ——. “Constructing Histories, Thinking Ritual Gatherings, and Rereading: "Native" Religion A

Review of Recent Books Published in Japanese on Premodern Japanese Religion (Part

Two).” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 40.2 (2013): 355-375 ——. “Dharma Prince Shukaku and the Esoteric Buddhist Culture of Sacred Works (Shōgyō) in

Medieval Japan.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles

D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 794-802. Leiden: Brill, 2011 Michibata Ryōshū 道端良秀. “Donran to Dōkyō to no kankei 曇鸞と道教との關係.” Tōyō bunka ronshū 東洋文化論集 (1969): 1001-1020. Sakade Yoshinobu 坂出祥伸. 1999. “Shoki mikkyō to Dōkyō tono kōshō 初期密教と道教との 交渉.” In Chūgoku mikkyō 中国密教, edited by Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, 153–172. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999 (Repr. 2005). Sakauchi Tatsuo 坂内龍雄. Shingon darani 眞言陀羅尼. Tokyo: Hirakawa Shuppansha, 1981. Sakuma Ruriko 佐久間留理子. “Henge Kannon kyōten 変化観音経典.” In Shoki mikkyō: shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密教：思想・信仰・文化. Eds. Takahashi Hisao 高橋尚夫, et. al., 77-89. Tokyo: Shunjusha 春秋者, 2013. Samuel, Geoffrey. The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Sanford, James H. 1991a. “The Abominable Tachikawa Skull Ritual.” Monumenta Nipponica 46 (1991): 1–20. ——. “Wind, Waters, Stūpas, Mandalas: Fetal Buddhahood in Shingon.” Japanese Journal of

Religious Studies 24 (1997): 1–38. ——. “Amida’s Secret Life: Kakuban’s Amida hishaku.” In Approaching the Land of Bliss, edited by Richard K. Payne and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 120-138. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 2004. ——. “Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu.” In Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, edited by Richard Payne, 161–90. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006. Sango Asuka. “Making Debate Hell: Knowledge and Power in Japanese Buddhist Ritual.”

History of Religions 50.3 (2011): 283-314. ——. “Buddhist Debate and the Production and Transmission of ‘Shōgyō’ in Medieval Japan.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 39.2 (2012): 241-273. Sasaki Kaoru 佐々木馨. Chūsei kokka no shūkyō kōzō: taisei bukkyō to taiseigai bukkyō no

sōkoku 中世国家の宗教構造―体制仏教と体制外仏教の相剋. Tokyo: Yoshikawa

Kōbunkan, 1988. ——. Chusei bukkyō to Kamakura bakufu 中世仏教と鎌倉幕府. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunsha,

1997. Sasaki Daiju 佐々木大樹, “San darani 三陀羅尼,” in Shoki mikkyō: shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密 教：思想・信仰・文化, eds. Takahashi Hisao 高橋尚夫, et. al., 166-177. Tokyo:

Shunjusha, 2013. Saso, Michael. 1987. “Kuden: The Oral Hermeneutics of Tendai Tantric Buddhism.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 14 (1987): 235–46. ——. Tantric Art and Meditation: The Tendai Tradition. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i

Press, 1990. ——. Homa Rites and Mandala Meditation in Tendai Buddhism. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991. Satō Hiroo 佐藤弘夫. Kamakura Bukkyō 鎌倉仏教. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha 第三文明社,

1994. ——. Kami, hotoke, ōken no chūsei 神·仏·王権の中世. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1998. Satō Mona 佐藤もな. “Dōhan cho Himitsu nenbutsu shō inyō bunken shutten chūki 道範 『秘

密念仏抄』引用文献出典注記.” Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronshū 仏教文化研究論集 4

(2000): 130-141(L). ——. “Dōhan no himitsu nenbutsu shisō--myōgokan wo chūshin toshite 道範の秘密念仏思想--

名号観を中心として.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 98.49-2 (2001): 108-110. ——. “Shingon kyōgaku niokeru jōdo kan, Dōhan no baai 真言教学における浄土観—道範の 場合.” Shūkyō kenkyū 宗教研究 331.75-4 (2002a): 214-215. ——. “Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru jōdo shisō kaishaku: Dōhan Himitsu nenbutsu shō o

megutte” 中世真言宗における浄土思想解釈--道範『秘密念仏抄』をめぐって.”

Indo tetsugaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū インド哲学仏教学研究 9 (2002b): 80-92. ——. “Dōhan ni kan suru kisoteki kenkyū—denki shiryō wo chūshin toshite 道範に関する基礎

的研究 —伝記史料を中心として.” Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronshū 仏教文化研究論集 7

(2003): 85-95 (L). ——. “Dōhan cho Jōō shō ni kansuru ichikōsatsu tōji kanchiin shozōhon wo chūshin toshite 道

範 『貞応抄』に関する一考察--東寺観智院所蔵本を中心として.” Indogaku

Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 102.51-2 (2003b): 131-133. ——. “Dōhan no kyōshugi ni tsuite 道範の教主義について,” Nihon Bukkyō sōgō kenkyū 日本 仏教綜合研究 5 (2006): 67-78(R). ——. “Jippan Byōchū shūgyō ki no shinshutsu shahon nitsuite 実範『病中修行記』の新出写 本について.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 114.56.2 (2008): 5 9(R). Satō, Tetsuei 佐藤哲英. Eizan Jōdokyō no kenkyū 叡山浄土教の硏究, 2 vols. Kyōto-shi:

Hyakkaen 百華苑, 1979. Saunders, E. Dale. Mudrā: A Study of Symbolic Gestures in Japanese Buddhist Sculpture.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Sawada Mizuho 澤田瑞穂. Chūgoku no juhō 中国の呪法. Tokyo: Hirakawa shuppansha, 1984. Scheid, Bernhard, and Mark Teeuwen, eds. The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion.

London: Routledge, 2006. Schmid, Neil. “Revisioning the Buddhist Cosmos: Shifting Paths of Rebirth in Medieval Chinese

Buddhist Art.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 17 (2008): 293–325. Schober, Juliane ed. Sacred Biographies in the Buddhist Traditions of South and Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1996. Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology,

Epigraphy and texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997. ——. Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2004. ——. Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005. ——. “The Mahāyāna and the Middle Period in Indian Buddhism: Through a Chinese Looking-

Glass.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism: More Collected Papers, 3-

25. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005b. ——. “On Sending the Monks Back to their Books: Cult and Conservation in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, More

Collected Papers, 108-153. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005b. ——. “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature.” In

Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, More Collected Papers, 154 189. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005d. Sharf, Robert H. “Visualization and Mandala in Shingon Buddhism.” In Living Images:

Japanese Buddhist Icons in Context, edited by Robert H. Sharf and Elizabeth Horton Sharf, 151–97. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. ——. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002a. ——. “On Esoteric Buddhism in China.” Appendix to Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism:

A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatise. 263–78. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002b. ——. “On Pure Land Buddhism and Ch’an/Pure Land Syncretism in Medieval China.” T'oung Pao 33.4/5 (2002c): 282-331. ——. “Thinking Through Shingon Ritual.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26 (2003): 51–96. Sharf, Robert H. and Elizabeth Horton Sharf, eds. Living Images: Japanese Buddhist Icons In

Context. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001. Shimizutani Kyōjun 清水谷恭順. Tendai mikkyō no seiritsu ni kansuru kenkyū 天台密教の成立 に關する研究. Tokyo: Bun’ichi shuppansha, 1972. Shirai Yūko 白井優子. Kūkai densetsu no keisei to Kōyasan: nyūjō densetsu no keisei to

Kōyasan nōkotsu no hassei 空海伝説の形成と高野山 : 入定伝説の形成と高野山納骨

の発生. Tokyo: Dōseisha 同成社, 1986. ——. Inseiki Kōyasan to Kūkai nyūjō densetsu 院政期高野山と空海入定伝説. Tokyo:

Dōseisha, 2002. Shirai Yūko 白井 優子. Inseiki kōyasan to kūkai nyūjō densetsu 院政期高野山と空海入定伝

説. Tokyo: Shinkōsha, 2002. Shishiō Enshin 獅子王圓信. “Taitō ryōmitsu no kyōhanshijō ni okeru ronsō 台東両密の教判史 上における論争.” Mikkyō kenkyū 密教研究 39 (1930): 1–43. Shizuka Jien 静慈圓, ed. 2005. Kōbō daishi Kūkai to tōdai Mikkyō: Kōbō daishi nittō

sennihyakunen kinen ronbunshū 弘法大師空海と唐代密教、弘法大師入唐千二百年 記念論文集. Tokyo: Hōzōkan 法蔵館. Silk, Jonathan A. “The Virtues of Amitābha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang.” Ryūkoku

Daigaku Bukkyō Bunka Kenkyūjo Kiyō 龍谷大學佛教文化研究所紀要 32 (1993): 1-

109. ——. “What, If Anything, Is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and

Classifications,” Numen 49.4 (2002): 355-405. Sinnet, A.P. Esoteric Buddhism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1884. Skilling, Peter. “Mahāyāna and Bodhisattva: An Essay Towards Historical Understanding.” In

Phothisatawa barami kap sangkom thais nai sahatsawat mai, edited by P. Limpanusorn, 139-156. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press, 2004. ——. “Theravada in History.” Pacific World Journal 3.11 (2009): 61-93. Skilling, Peter, Jason A. Carbine, Claudio Cicuzza, Santi Pakdeekham, eds., How Theravada is

Theravada?: Exploring Buddhit Identities. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books,

2012. Skorupski, Tadeusz. “A Tibetan Prayer for Rebirth in the Sukhāvatī.” The Pure Land 12 (1995):

205-253. ——. “Funeral Rites for Rebirth in the Sukhāvatī Abode,” The Buddhist Forum 6 (2001): 137–

172. Smith, Jonathan Z. “The Unknown God: Myth in History.” In Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, 66–89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. ——. Relating Religion, Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2004. Snellgrove, David L. The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study, 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. ——. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. London: Serindia Publications, 1987. Snodgrass, Adrian. The Matrix and Diamond World Mandalas in Shingon Buddhism. Śata-Pitaka

Series, vols. 354–355. New Delhi: International Academy of ̣ Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1988. Sofū Sen’yōkai 祖風宣揚會, ed. Kōbō Daishi zenshū 弘法大師全集. Tokyo: Yoshikawa

Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1910. Sørensen, Henrik H. “Esoteric Buddhism (Milgyo) in Korea.” In The Esoteric Buddhist tradition, edited by Henrik H. Sørensen, 73–96. Copenhagen: Seminar for Buddhist Studies, 1994. ——, ed. Religions in Traditional Korea. Copenhagen: Seminar for Buddhist Studies, 1995. ——. “Esoteric Buddhism under the Koryŏ in the Light of the Greater East Asian Tradition.”

International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture 7 (2006): 55–94. ——. “Esoteric Buddhism: A Working Definition.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, Richard K. Payne, 155-175.

Leiden: Brill, 2011. Spiro, Melford E. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982. Sponberg, Alan. “Meditation in Fa-hsiang Buddhism.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 15–43. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,

1986. Staal, Fritz J. “The Meaninglessness of Ritual.” Numen 26.1 (1979): 1–22. ——, ed. Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar, 2 vols. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1983. ——. Rules Without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras, and the Human Sciences. New York: Peter

Lang, 1989. Stevenson, Daniel B. “The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 45–98. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986. ——. “Protocols of Power: Tz’u-yün Tsun-shih (964–1032) and Tien-t’ai Lay Buddhist Ritual in the Sung.” In Buddhism in the Sung, edited by Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz, Jr., 340–408. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999. ——. “Text, Image, and Transformation in the History of the Shuilu fahui, the Buddhist Rite for

Deliverance of Creatures of Water and Land.” In Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, edited by Marsha Weidner, 30–70. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,

2001. ——. “Feeding Hungry Ghosts.” In Buddhist Scriptures, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 416–22.

New York: Penguin Books, 2004. Stone, Jacqueline I. “Seeing Enlightenment in the Last Age: Mappo Thought in

Kamakura Buddhism.” Eastern Buddhist 18.1-2 (Spring and Fall 1985): 28-56, 35-64. ——. “Medieval Tendai Hongaku Though and the New Kamakura Buddhism.” Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 22.1-2 (1995): 17-48. ——. Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999a. ——. “The Contemplation of Suchness.” In Religions of Japan in Practice, edited by George J.

Tanabe, Jr., 199-209. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999b. ——. “Deathbed Practices in Medieval Japan, Developments after Ōjō yōshū.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 50.1 (2001): 528-524 (L). ——. “By the Power of One's Last Nenbutsu: Deathbed Practices in Early Medieval

Japan.” In Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitābha, edited by Richard K. Payne and Kenneth Tanaka, 77-119. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2004. ——. “Death.” In Critical Terms for Buddhist Studies, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 56-76.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. ——. “Just Open Your Mouth and Say “A”: A-Syllable Practice for the Time of Death in Early

Medieval Japan.” Pacific World Journal 8 (2006): 167-189. ——. “The Secret Art of Dying, Esoteric Deathbed Practices in Heian Japan.” In The Buddhist

Dead: Practices, Discourses, Representations, edited by Bryan J. Cuevas and Jacqueline I. Stone, 134-174. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007a. ——. “The Dying Breath: Deathbed Rites and Death Pollution in Early Medieval

Japan.” In Heroes and Saints, The Moment of Death in Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, 173-264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007b. ——. “With the Help of ‘Good Friends.’” In Death and Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism, edited by Jaqueline I. Stone and Mariko Namba Walter, 61-101. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press, 2008. Stoneman, Jack. “Why did Saigyō Become a Monk? An Archaeology of the Reception of

Saigyō’s ‘Shukke.’” Japanese Language and literature 44 (2010): 69-118. Strickmann, Michel. “India in the Chinese Looking-glass.” In The Silk Route and the Diamond

Path: Esoteric Buddhist Art on the Trans-Himalayan Trade Routes, edited by D.

Klimberg-Salter, 52–63. Los Angeles: UCLA Art Council, 1982. ——. “Homa in East Asia.” In Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar, edited by Frits Staal, 2,

pt. 1:418–55. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1983. ——. “The Consecration Sūtra: A Buddhist Book of Spells.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 75–118. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. ——. “A Seal of the Law: A Ritual Implement and the Origins of Printing.” Asia Major, 3rd ser.,

6 (1993): 1–83. ——. Mantras et Mandarins: Le bouddhisme tantrique en Chine. Bibliothéque des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1996. ——. Chinese Magical Medicine, edited by Bernard Faure. Asian Religions and Cultures.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. ——. Chinese Poetry and Prophecy: The Written Oracle in East Asia, edited by Bernard Faure.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005. Strong, John S. “‘Gandhakuṭī’: The Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha.” History of Religions

16.4 (1977): 390-406. Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士. “Amida santai-setsu o megutte 阿弥陀三諦説をめぐっ

て.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 28.1 (1979): 216-22. ——. Nihon Bukkyō shi: shisōshi to shite no apurōchi 日本仏教史 : 思想史として のアプローチ. Tokyo: Shinchōsha, 1992. ——. Nihon Bukkyō shisōshi ronkō 日本仏教思想史論考. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1993 ——. “Annen: The Philosopher Who Japanized Buddhism.” Acta Asiatica 66 (1994): 69–86. ——. Heian shoki bukkyō shisō no kenkyū: Annen no shisō keisei chūshin ni tsuite 平安初期仏

教思想の研究. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1995. ——. “A Reexamination of the Kenmitsu Taisei Theory.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23 (1996): 449–66. ——. Kamakura Bukkyō keiseiron: shisōshi no tachiba kara 鎌倉仏教形成論: 思想史の立場か

ら. Tokyo: Hōzōkan, 1998. ——. Nihon shūkyō shi 日本宗教史. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006. ——. Kamakura Bukkyō tenkairon 鎌倉仏教展開論. Tōkyō: Transview, 2008. Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan 鈴木学術財団, ed. Nihon daizōkyō 日本大藏經, 100 vols. Tokyo:

Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan. Rev. ed, 1973-1978 (Orig. pub. 1914–1922, 51 vols.). Swanson, Paul. 1989. Foundations of T’ien-t’ai philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press. ——. “Dandala, Dhāraṇī, and Denarii: A T’ien-t’ai Perspective on The Great Vaipulya Dhāraṇī Sūtra.” Buddhist Literature 2 (2000): 197–233. Swearer, Donald K. Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, eds. Chūgoku Mikkyō 中国密

教. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999a (Repr. 2005a). ——. Indo Mikkyō インド密教. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999b (Repr. 2005b). ——. Chibetto Mikkyō チベット密教. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999c (Repr. 2005c). ——. Nihon Mikkyō 日本密教. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2000 (Repr. 2005d). Taira Masayuki 平雅行. Nihon chūsei no shakai to Bukkyō 日本中世の社会と仏教. Tokyo:

Hanawa Shobō 塙書房, 1992. ——. “Kuroda Toshio and the Kenmitsu Taisei Theory.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23 (1996): 427–48. ——. “Kamakura chūki ni okeru Kamakura Shingon-ha no sōryo—Ryōyu, Kōhō, Jitsugen 鎌倉

中期における鎌倉真言派の僧侶--良瑜・光宝・実賢.” Machikaneyama ronsō 待兼山

論叢 43 (2009): 1-27. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, and Ono, Genmyō 小野玄妙, eds. Taishō shinshū dai zōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1932 [–1935]. Takubo Shūyo 田久保周誉. Shingon Daranizō no kaisetsu 真言陀羅尼蔵の解説. Kotei zoho saihan. Tokyo: Kanoen, 1967. Tanabe, George, J. “Kōyasan in the Countryside: The Rise of Shingon in the Kamakura Period.”

In Re–Visioning “Kamakura” Buddhism, edited by Richard Payne, 43–54. Honolulu:

University of Hawai‘i Press, 1998. ——. Myōe the Dreamkeeper: Fantasy and Knowledge in the Early Kamakura Period.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Tanabe, George J., ed. Religions of Japan in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1999. Tanaka Hisao 田中久夫. “Dōhan no ‘Shoshin tonkaku shō’ ni tsuite 道範の「初心頓覚鈔」に ついて.” Nihonrekishi 日本歴史 172 (1962): 87-89. ——. Kamakura Bukkyō 鎌倉仏教. Tokyo: Kyōiku sha, 1980 (Repr., Kōdansha gakujutsu bunko, 2009]. Tanaka Kenji 田中 健二. “Komonjo kaitoku kōza, Kamakura jidai no ryūjin no nikki, ‘Nankai

rurōki’ ni miru Sanuki no sugata 古文書解読講座 鎌倉時代の流人の日記「 海流浪 記」に見る讃岐の姿.” Kagawa kenritsu monjokan kiyō 香川県立文書館紀要, 15

(2011): 1-13. Tanaka, Kenneth K. The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine: Chin-ying Huiyuan’s Commentary on the Visualization Sūtra. Albany: state University of New York Press,

1990. Tang Daipeng 唐希鵬. Zhongguo hua de mijiao ‘Xianmi yuantong chengfo xin yaoji’sixiang

yanjiu 中国化的密教《显密圆通成佛心要集》思想研究. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue,

2004. Tinsley, Elisabeth. “Jūsan seiki Kōyasan no den Dōhan cho ‘Henmyō-in daishi myōjin go

takusen ki’ no kōzō to seisaku katei ni tsuite 13 世紀高野山の伝道範 『遍明院大師 明神御託宣記』の構造と制作過程について.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学

仏教学研究 53.3 (2010): 1284-1287. Teeuwen, Mark. “The Kami in Esoteric Buddhist Thought and Practice.” In Shinto in History, edited by John Breen and Mark Teeuwen, 95–116. Richmond, Surrey, UK: Curzon Press,

2000. ——. “Knowing vs. Owning a Secret: Secrecy in Medieval Japan, as Seen Through the Sokui kanjō Enthronement Unction.” In The Culture of Secrecy in Japanese Religion, edited by Bernhard Scheid and Mark Teeuwen, 172–203. London: Routledge, 2006. Teeuwen, Mark, and Fabio Rambelli, eds. Buddhas and Kami in Japan: Honji Suijaku as a Combinatory Paradigm. London: Routledge, Curzon, 2003. Teiser, Stephen F. The Ghost Festival in Medieval China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. ——. The Scripture of the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994. ——. Reinventing the Wheel: Paintings of Rebirth in Medieval Buddhist Temples. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 2006. Tendai shūten hensanjo 天台宗典編纂所, ed. Zoku tendaishū zensho 続天台宗全書, 10 vols.

Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1987. ——. Zoku tendai zenshō 続天台宗全書, 15 vols. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1993. ten Grotenhuis, Elizabeth. Japanese Mandalas: Representations of Sacred Geography.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999. Toganoo Shōun 栂尾祥雲. Himitsu Bukkyōshi 秘密佛教史. Kōyasan: Kōyasan Daigaku

Shuppanbu, 1933. ——. Nihon Mikkyō gakudōshi 日本密教学道史. Kōyasan: Kōyasan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1942. Tōkyō daigaku shiryō hensanjo 東京大學史料編纂所, ed. Daigoji monjo 醍醐寺文書, 15 vol. Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku shiryō hensanjo, 1955. Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一. “Guhari shoku Amidazō wo megutte 紅頗梨色阿弥陀像をめ ぐって.” Chizan gakuhō 智山学報 44 (1995): 53-79. ——. Heianki shingonmikkyō no kenkyū: Heianki no shingonmikkyō to mikkyōjōdokyō 平安期

真言密教の研究: 平安期の真言教学と密教浄土教, vol. 2. Tokyo: Nonburu sha ノン ブル社, 2008. ——. “Nara jidai no mikkyō kyōten 奈良時代の密教経典.” In Shoki mikkyō—shisō, shinkō, bunka 初期密教――思想・信仰・文化, edited by Takahashi Hisao 高橋尚夫, et. al., 293-308. Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2013. Tsuchiya Megumi 土谷恵. “Chusei shoki no Ninnajji omuro 中世初期の仁和寺御室.” Nihon rekikishi 日本歴史 451 (1985): 46-63. Tweed, Thomas. The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992 (Repr., 2000). Ueda Shinjō 上田進城. “Hairyū no Ajari Dōhan” 配流の阿闇梨道範. Misshū gakuhō 密 宗学 報 161 (1912): 617-642. ——. “Jōgon no Mikkyō Shisō 浄厳の密教思想.” Mikkyō Bunka 109 (1975): 39–57. Ueshima Susumu 上島享. “Inseiki bukkyō no rekishiteki ichi—nihon bukkyō no keisei 院政期

仏教の歴史的位置-日本仏教の形成.” Bukkyō shigaku kenkyū 仏教私学研究 43 (2001): 94–103. Unno, Mark T. “As Appropriate: Myōe Kōben and the Problem of the Vinaya in Early

Kamakura Buddhism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alta, CA, 1994. ——. “Recommending Faith in the Sand of the Mantra of Light.” In Re-visioning Kamakura Buddhism, edited by Richard K. Payne, 167–218. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press,

1998. ——. Shingon Refractions: Myōe and the Mantra of Light. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004. Urban, Hugh B. Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003. Ujitani Yūken 宇治谷祐顯. “Hikekyō no Amidabutsu honjō setsuwa 悲華経のアミダ佛本生説 話考.” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 33.1 (1968): 74-80. Van den Broucke, Pol K. Yugikyō: The Scripture of All Yogas and Yogins of the Pavilion with Vajra-Top. Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent National University, Ghent Belgium, 1990. ——. Hokyosho: “The Compendium of the Precious Mirror” of the Monk Yukai. Ghent, Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Vakgroep Oost-Azië, Dienst Japanse Taal en Cultuur,

1992. ——. “Dōhan’s Letter on the Visualization of Syllable A.” Shingi Shingon kyōgaku no kenkyū

新義真言教学の研究 10 (2002): 65-87. ——. “The Twelve-armed Deity Daishō Kongō and His Scriptural Sources.” In Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, edited by Richard K. Payne, 147–59. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2006. Van der Veere, Hendrick. Kakuban Shōnin: The Life and Thought of Kōgyō Daishi. Tokyo:

Nombre, 1998. ——. A Study into the Thought of Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban with a Translation of his Gorin kuji myō himitsushaku. Leiden: Hotei, 2000. Van Gulik, Robert H. Hayagrīva: The Mantrayānic Aspect of the Horse-cult in China and Japan. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1935. ——. Siddham: An Essay on the History of Sanskrit Studies in China and Japan. New Delhi:

Sharada Rani, 1980. Von Glahn, Richard. The Sinister Way: The Divine and the Demonic in Chinese Religious Culture. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. Wada Teiichi 和田禎一. “Narachō ni okeru mikkyō no seikaku—Shōsōin monjo wo

chūshin toshite 奈良朝における密教の性格—正倉院文書を中心として.” Seishin

kagaku 精神科学 9 (1970): 65–78. Wada Shūjō 和多秀 . “Jūnen gokuraku iōshū nit suite 十念極楽易往集について.” Indogaku

Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 63 (1983): 1-10. ——. Kōyasan shinkō no keisei to tenkai 高野山信仰の形成と展開. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館,

1997. Wada Ujō 和多昭夫. “Kōyasan ni okeru Kamakura Bukkyō 高野山における鎌倉仏教.” Nihon Bukkyō gakkai nenpō 日本仏教学会年報 34 (1969): 79-96. Waddell, L. Austine. The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism: With its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and

Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1895 (Repr., 1972). Walters, Johnathan S. “Mahāyāna Theravāda and the Origins of the Mahāvihāra,” Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities 23.1-2 (1997): 100-119. Wang, Eugene Y. Shaping the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Visual Culture in Medieval China. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 2007. Warder, A. K. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970 (Repr., 2008). Wayman, Alex Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems. Delhi: Motilal Bandarsidass, 1978 (Repri., 1998). ——. Yoga of the Guhyasamājatantra, The Arcane Lore of Forty Verses, A Buddhist Tantra Commentary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1977. Wayman, Alex, and R. Tajima. The Enlightenment of Vairocana. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,

1992. Weinberger, Steven Neal. “Significance of Yoga Tantra and the Compendium of Principles (Tattvasaṃgraha tantra) within Tantric Buddhism in India and Tibet.” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA, 2003. Wedemeyer, Christian K. “Tropes, Typologies, and Turnarounds: A Brief Genealogy of the

Historiography of Tantric Buddhism,” History of Religions 40.3 (2001): 223-259 ——. Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian

Traditions. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Weinstein, Stanley. The Kanjin Kakumushō. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge

MA, 1965. ——. “The Beginning of Esoteric Buddhism in Japan: The Neglected Tendai Tradition.” Journal of Asian Studies 34 (1974): 177–91. ——. “Buddhism: Schools of.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, 2nd. ed.

(1987a): 482– 87. New York: Macmillan. ——. Buddhism Under the T’ang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987b. Wheelock, Wade T. “The Problem of Ritual Language: From Information to Situation.”

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50 (1982): 49–71. ——. “The Mantra in Vedic and Tantric Ritual.” In Mantra, edited by Harvey P. Alper, 96–122.

New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press, 1989. Willemen, Charles. “Tripitaka Shan-wu-wei’s name. A Chinese Translation ̣ from Prākrit.” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 67 (1981): 362–65. ——. The Chinese Hevajratantra: The Scriptural Text of the Ritual of the Great King of the

Teaching, the Adamantine One, With Great Compassion and Knowledge of the Void.

Belgium: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1983. Williams, Duncan R. The Other Side of Zen: A Social History of Sōtō Zen Buddhism in Tokugawa Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge, 2008. Winfield, Pamela. “Curing with Kaji: Healing and Empowerment in Japan.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 32 (2005): 107–30. ——. Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kūkai and Dōgen on the Art of

Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013. Wong, Dorothy C. “The Case of Amoghapāśa.” Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 2 (2007a): 151–58. ——. “The Huayan/Kegon/Hwaŏm Paintings in East Asia.” In Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism, edited by Hamar Imre, 349–96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,

2007b. ——. “Early Transmission of Esoteric Images from China to Japan in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries.” Huaxue 9 (2008): 1696–1719. Wong, Dorothy, with Eric M. Field, eds. Hōryūji Reconsidered. Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars’ Publishing, 2008. Wright, Arthur F. “Fo-t’u-teng: A Biography.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 11 (1948):

321–71. Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya

Theory, 2004. Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “The Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha:

The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sūtra.” PhD. Diss, Yale University, 1999. Yamada Isshi, ed. Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṅgraha nāma Mahāyāna sūtra: A Critical Edition

Based on a Sanskrit Manuscript and Chinese and Tibetan Translations. New Delhi:

International Academy of Indian Culture, 1981. Yamada Shōzen 山田昭全. Saigyō no waka to Bukkyō 西行の和歌と仏教. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin

明治書院, 1987. Kazuo Yamakage 山陰加春夫, Chūsei Kōya kyōdan soshiki shōkō 中世高野山教団組織小考,”

Kōyasan daigaku ronsō 高野山大学論叢 19 (1984): 1-21. Yamaguchi Shikyo 山口史恭. “Dōhan cho Himitsu nenbutsu shō no hihan taishō nitsuite 道範

秘密念仏鈔』の批判対象について.” Buzankyōgaku taikaikiyō 豊山教学大会紀

要 30 (2002): 81-122. Yamamoto Chikyo. Mahāvairocana-Sūtra. New Delhi: International ̣ Academy of Indian Culture

and Aditya Prakashan, 1990. Yamamoto Nobuyoshi 山本信吉. “Kōyasan Shōchi’in shozō Ajari Dōhan jihitsubon

(nishu) 高野山正智院所蔵阿闇梨道範自筆本(二種).” In Kodai chūsei shiryō kenkyū 古代中世史料学研究, Vol. 2. , edited by Minagawa Kanichi 皆川完一, 342-375.

Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1998. ——., ed. Shōchiin monjo 正智院文書. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 2004. Yamasaki Kōgen 岩崎敲玄. Jōdokyō shi. Tokyo: Hakkō shoin, 1930. Yamasaki Taikō. Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1988. Yan Yaozhong 严耀中. Hanzhuan Mijiao 汉传密教. Xuelin chubanshe 学林出版社, 2006. Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏. 1979. Chūgoku mikkyō no kenkyū 中国密教の研究. Tokyo:

Daitō Shuppansha, 1979. ——. “Chūgoku mikkyō no nagare 中国密教の流れ.” In Chūgoku mikkyō 中国密教, edited by

Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏, 15–39. Tokyo:

Shunjūsha, 1999a (Repr. 2005). ——. 1999c. “Chūgoku mikkyō no shisōteki tokushitsu 中国密教の思想的特質.” In Chūgoku mikkyō 中国密教, edited by Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富 本宏, 113–40. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999b (Repr. 2005). Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏 and Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵, eds. Chūgoku mikkyō 中国密

教. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1999 (Repr. 2005). Yoshida Kazuhiko. “Religion in the Classical Period.” In Nanzan Guide to Japanese Religions, edited by Paul L. Swanson and Clark Chilson, 144-162. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006. Yü Chün-fang 于君方. Kuan-yin: The Chinese Transformation of Avalokiteśvara. New York:

Columbia University Press, 2001. Yu, Jimmy. “Revisiting the Notion of Zong: Contextualizing the Dharma Drum Lineage of

Modern Chan Buddhism.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 113-151. Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. Zurcher, E. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (reprint 2007).