› bitstream › handle › 1887 › 3601… · Web viewNotes on Languages and Terms - Leiden...

Explicating Shōji jissō giA Study of Interpretation, Debate, and Innovation in a Shingon

Buddhist Commentarial Tradition

A Master’s Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master Program of MA Asian Studies: Japanese Studies (120EC), Leiden University

By: Bruce Winkelman0918474

Supervisor and First Reader: Dr. H. van der VeereSecond Reader: Dr. H.W.A. Blezer

Word count: 23.522 (including references)Submitted on 15 July 2015

Explicating Shōjigi B. Winkelman, 0918474

Notes on Languages and Terms

In the following study I have followed the stylistic conventions proposed by the

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies. Where Japanese words are concerned I

transliterated based on the modified Hepburn system. For Chinese names I

transliterated by means of pinyin, and for those in Sanskrit I followed the Monier-

Williams conventions. I have generally rendered foreign words in italics, but did not

treat words found in the Oxford Dictionary of English, such as Buddha, bodhisattva,

Shinto, and so on, as foreign words where permitted.

In transliterating technical Buddhist terms I have attempted were possible to

follow the accepted Buddhist pronunciation of the terms instead of those used in daily

speech. Problems are still present, because different schools and lineages may follow

different traditions of pronunciations, but I have tried to remain faithful to the context

as much as possible.

I have refrained from translating the titles of texts for conceptual reasons.

Where lengthy titles are commonly abbreviated in Buddhist sources I have followed

those abbreviations, only explaining the full form when it was of immediate relevance

to the discussion.

All translations are mine unless stated otherwise.

2


Abstract

This thesis investigates the Shingon esoteric commentarial tradition on the text Shōji

jissō gi, written by Kūkai (774-835). More specifically, it focuses on a selection of

commentaries produced by prominent Shingon thinkers between the thirteenth and

early fifteenth centuries, in order to trace the contours of the tradition and its

development during this period. After an assessment of the historical context and the

functioning of the texts therein, it is suggested that these commentaries are primarily

composed and used for the education of Shingon scholar priests during dharma

lectures (dangi). It is also revealed that exegetical texts not only interpret the original

text, but also connect it to contemporary concerns that are informed by doctrinal

debate inside and outside the Shingon school. On the basis of these observations, it is

proposed that a slight shift in methodology for the study of commentarial literature

may be necessary.

Keywords:

Commentary; Shingon; Shōji jissō gi; scholar priest education; dangi; debate

3


Table of ContentsNOTES ON LANGUAGES AND TERMS..........................................................................................2

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 5

1. PROLOGUE: KŪKAI’S SHŌJI JISSŌ GI....................................................................................15

2. TIDE OF THE TIMES: COMMENTARIES IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT............................23PROLIFERATION, REVITALIZATION, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF KŪKAI AS FOUNDER OF SHINGON

............................................................................................................................................................................. 23THE WORLD OF MEDIEVAL SHINGON DOCTRINAL STUDIES...................................................................26

3. RAIYU’S KAJI-BODY AND THE LANGUAGE OF ZEN.........................................................31NEW VERSUS “OLD”: THE HONJI-KAJI DEBATE...........................................................................................32ZEN MISUNDERSTOOD: “STRAIGHT FROM THE MIND TO THE VOICE”...................................................36

4. TEXTUAL EXPLICATION OR VERBAL EXPLICATION? - DANGI LECTURES AND THE PRODUCTION OF SHŌJIGI COMMENTARIES.........................................................................43

DANGI LECTURES AND THE COMMENTARIAL TEXT...................................................................................43MONDŌ: EXPLICATION THROUGH DEBATE...................................................................................................46WRITING COMMENTARIES..............................................................................................................................50

5. FROM TEXTUAL MONDŌ TO VERBAL MONDŌ AND THE BUILDING OF TRADITION...................................................................................................................................... 55

6. THE “SPIRIT” OF THE SHŌJIGI..............................................................................................63SHŌJIGI AND SOKUSHINGI: SETTING UP THE ESOTERIC METHOD..........................................................63THE 835 KANPU DOCUMENTS: SHŌJIGI AND THE TRAINING OF THE NENBUNDOSHA......................66GENBŌ: VISUALIZING SHŌJI JISSŌ..................................................................................................................70THEORETICAL SHŌJIGI?: KAKUBAN’S DENBŌE LECTURE.........................................................................71

7. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 78

REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 82ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................................82PRIMARY SOURCES...........................................................................................................................................83SECONDARY SOURCES......................................................................................................................................84

4


Introduction

The text Shōji jissō gi 声字実相義 (hereafter Shōjigi, KZ1 521-534) by Kōbō Daishi

Kūkai 弘法大師空海 (774-835) requires explication. This can be glanced from the

abundance of commentarial literature that has been written on since - an overview in a

recent edition of Kūkai’s collected works lists fifty-five known commentaries on the

text. (KDKZ 8, 258-264) This is a substantial amount for an esoteric text read in

comparatively small circles. Looking at the dating of the commentaries, the list in the

collected works suggests that there has been a more or less steady output of exegetical

works on Shōjigi from the time of the earliest known commentary in 1240 to the

present day.1 Most of these commentarial texts have been composed by priests of the

Shingon school (Shingonshū 真言宗) of esoteric Buddhism (mikkyō 密教), that looks

up to Kūkai as a founding father. While composing commentaries, these scholars

engaged with the insights of their predecessors, echoing their insights, including them

as alternative opinions, or arguing against them. Moreover, some scholars have even

written several commentaries on the Shōjigi, while others dedicated themselves to

writing commentaries on the commentaries. There thus exists, I would suggest, a

Shingon tradition of writing commentarial literature on the Shōjigi. In this thesis, I

present a preliminary investigation of this tradition of Shōjigi explication from a

primarily historical perspective.

The production of commentarial literature, in the jargon called masshaku 未

釈, is an essential part of Shingon’s theoretical studies (kyōso 教相). In line with

1 Nasu Seiryū has published a modern commentary in 1982 that has become one of the standard textbooks on the Shōjigi; it was recently reprinted. (Nasu 2011) Another example of a recent commentary is an unpublished textbook by Ōtsuka Nobuo. (Ōtsuka 2002b)

5


tradition that has precedents in Indian Buddhism, numerous commentaries have been

produced on all major Shingon scriptures, as well as Kūkai’s major works. It would

not be an exaggeration to say that a substantial segment of Shingon’s scholastic

output consists of such commentarial literature.2 Moreover, other sorts of Shingon

texts to large extent feature similar modes of exegetical explication. As also hinted at

by the fact that authors sometimes produced multiple commentaries on the same text,

and that commentaries were also written on commentaries, the masshaku is an

esteemed form of Shingon scholastic text.

This commentarial literature is fairly well studied in Japanese Shingon

scholarship, but with little attention for the commentary as textual genre with a

specific historical role. Attention for Shingon commentaries in Anglophone

scholarship is sparse.3 The approaches taken to Shōjigi’s commentaries are, I think,

representative of larger tendencies in the academic approach to Shingon commentarial

literature. Henmi Shūhan’s study of Shōjigi, which uses the explanations of traditional

commentators to come to a closer understanding of the original text, is illustrative of

one of the typical approaches taken.4 (Henmi 1957) This method effectively turns

traditional scholars into voices in the academic debate surrounding the Shōjigi.

Another typical approach is to take a single commentary and investigate it with an

interest in its author’s doctrinal stances.5 These are proven methods of which the

usefulness to the researcher is beyond doubt and I have no wish to discount their

2 This is easy to assess in Sawa’s overview of the various Shingon canons in print: MJ, addendum 84-88.3 By exception, Hendrik van der Veere has presented an interesting study on the role of commentarial literature in the theoretical explanation of the cult of Kūkai-veneration. (van der Veere, 2014)4 Others who take this approach are: Tanaka 1967; Nasu 2011; Ōsawa 2013. In a recent article, Matsunaga Keiji suggests that he will focus on the commentaries in similar fashion during in an upcoming publication. (Matsunaga K 2014, 69) 5 See for instance Nakamura 1999. Ōtsuka Nobuo has done similar work on commentaries on one of Kūkai’s other works. (Ōtsuka 2002a)

6


validity, but I wonder whether it would not be possible to approach this material in a

different way.

In this thesis, I therefore propose to make the commentarial text itself the

focus of study, to look at its functions in the Shingon school and how it facilitates

ongoing commentarial debate on important Shingon texts. Masshaku have been

written in all of the Shingon tradition’s major learning centers and thus reflect distinct

styles of scholarship and different interpretations. As subsequent generations of

scholars priests wrote commentaries on the same text, they stood on the shoulders of

their predecessors and added, by means of accepted exegetical conventions, their own

interpretations to the original text; a tradition. Because of a tradition’s diachronic

nature, this means that commentarial literature provides us with an opportunity to

trace developments in the composition of commentaries, as well as to take inventory

of the interpretational debate itself. Perhaps some careful suggestions to modify the

accepted methodologies may also be made.

It is important to study these developments because they are tightly woven

into the tapestry of Shingon’s historical development. One question that has occupied

researchers for some time now is whether the tradition in its later phases can be

understood accurately solely on the basis of Kūkai’s ideas, or whether practice and

thought in later times also owes debts to subsequent thinkers. In light of recent

insights, it is safe to assume that much of the tradition’s elaborate ritual and doctrinal

repertoires came about through the efforts of those in Kūkai’s footsteps. (van der

Veere 1998, Rambelli 2013) Elsewhere, Hendrik van der Veere has recently argued

convincingly that, much like Shingon’s other forms of scholastic literature,

commentaries are very much part of these innovative efforts to occasionally adjust the

tradition to the demands of the times. (van der Veere 2014) In addition, the very

7


existence of exegetical literature suggests that a system of exegesis is present and

functioning. These systems play an integral part in the composition of Shingon

scholastic literature and by studying exegetical texts this system can be observed in

action. Without methodical study of commentarial literature, our understanding of

Shingon’s theoretical pursuits, the subtle interpretational differences between

different denominations of the Shingon tradition, and by extension Shingon’s

historical development, will necessarily remain incomplete.

I find that commentarial texts on Shōjigi present a particularly suitable starting

point for studying Shingon commentarial traditions for a number of reasons. First, the

text is of undisputable importance to both Kūkai’s thought and the theoretical

foundations of the tradition, because it articulates the linguistic theory of shingon 真

言 (Sk. mantra), upon which the tradition’s ritual system is built.6 Studying

commentaries may contribute to our understanding of the Shōjigi itself, albeit this is

only of secondary importance in the present study. Second, the Shōjigi presents

exegetes with a particularly varied set of interpretational challenges: the terminology

is somewhat complicated, there seem to be chapters missing, there are various highly

ambiguous passages, and so on. The work of the commentators also suggests that

although the importance of the text is unanimously recognized, its precise place in the

doctrinal frameworks of the school is rather ambiguous. In addition, a number of

commentaries written by some of the most influential thinkers in the Shingon school

have been made available in print and are easily accessible. These are representatives

of the scholarly approaches of the school’s various scholastic strongholds. And lastly, 6 For illustrations of the importance of these linguistic notions in Kūkai’s thought, see: Abé 1999, especially 278-93; Winfield 2013, especially 66-104. For more on the orthodoxy of esoteric ritual and worldviews during the medieval period, see Kūroda’s much debated yet highly informative theories of the kenmitsu system. (Kuroda 1996) For a critical assessment of this kenmitsu system in the light of Kūkai’s thought and the subsequent development of the Shingon tradition, see: Abé 1999, 416-28. Lastly, for an informative discussion of how esoteric Buddhist notions of language - in particular those of Kūkai - came to inform kokugaku 国学 linguistic thought during the Edo period, see: Murphy 2009.

8


as far as I am presently aware, no other treatment of Shōjigi’s commentarial literature

is available in English as of today.

It is perhaps tempting to see the commentary - a text on another text - as

derivative and only of secondary importance, but such a view would not be

historically correct. The commentary is in fact an important type of text in East-Asian

intellectual history at large, held in high esteem in Buddhist, Confucian, Daoist, and

literary circles alike. Though it is still relatively unexplored compared to other

formats of text. (E.g., Gardner 1998; Buswell 2003) In fact, the commentaries on

Shōjigi share much with other commentarial traditions in Asia. The general style of

Shōjigi, which cuts the original text into sentences or short passages and presents

commentarial gloss in classical Chinese for each sentence individually, often

commenting, at length, on each individual term, is observed across these traditions.

(E.g., Boot 2013, 70-97) In a study of Chinese Confucian commentaries, Gardner

calls this style “interlinear” because it breaks up the original text and inserts

commentarial gloss. He has theorized this format to some extent, stating that because

of the interlinear format “a [Confucian] classic, depending on the particular

commentary traveling with it, would take on a different meaning, in a sense becoming

a different text with each different commentary.” (Gardner 1998, 402) Gardner’s

approach is predominantly based on the textual-format of the commentary. Perhaps

the historically oriented focus proposed in this study will allow for some observations

that can contribute to improving his framework. For now, however, I depart from a

premise built on his musings: In the case of Shōjigi, the commentary is a new text that

contains the Shōjigi in its entirety, but through the commentarial gloss presents a

particular interpretation that is historically informed and built on top of layers of

interpretations by previous generations. Though traditional, it is highly innovative.

9


The commentarial tradition of Shōjigi has manifold facets that are of equal

importance for coming to a well-balanced picture. To answer the question how

commentators have explained the Shōjigi, the present study develops from the

concrete into the abstract. After a brief prologue (1) that introduces the text Shōjigi

and the necessary terminology, I will present a sketch (2) of the historical backdrop

against which commentarial activity took place. I will then (3) discuss how

contemporary doctrinal questions appear in commentarial literature and (4) attempt to

reconstruct the concrete historical conditions in which the Shōjigi commentaries were

composed. A subsequent (5) exploration of the observations made until then will pave

the way for a (6) brief dip into the commentarial debate itself.

To keep the material manageable within the constraints of the present study, I

have limited the investigation to a selection of commentaries produced from the early

thirteenth to the early fifteenth century. Because this set belongs to a relatively short

period of the commentarial history of Shōjigi and moreover represents only a modest

selection of the literature from that period, the picture will necessarily remain

incomplete. Nevertheless I feel some important observations can be made that can

form the basis further investigation on the Shōjigi commentarial literature from this

period. The commentaries under investigation are, in possible chronological order:

Shōji jissō gi mondō 声字実相義問答 in one volume, author unknown.

Dated 1222.7 (SZ 14, 37-48)

Shōji jissō gi shō kikigaki 声字実相義抄聞書 in two volumes, by Dōhan

道範 (1178-1252). Dated 1240. (SZ 14, 9-36)

7 The commentary is a record of a debate session that supposedly took place in 1222, but the edition of the text available to us seems to be a merger of two previous manuscripts that was compiled in 1252. (SZ 14, 48)

10


Shōji jissō gi kaihi shō 声字実相義開秘鈔 in two volumes, by Raiyu 頼

瑜 (1226-1304). Dated 1280. (SZ 14, 49-114) (1)

Shōji jissō gi gusō 声字実相義愚草 in two volumes, by Raiyu. Dated

1280. (ZSZ 17, 323-418) (2)

Shōji jissō gi kuhitsu 声字実相義口筆 in five volumes, written by Genbō

賢宝 (1333-1398) and taught by Gōhō 杲宝 (1306-1362). Dated 1357

(SZ 14, 115-203)

Shōji jissō gi shō 声字実相義鈔 in three volumes, by Yūkai 宥快 (1345-

1416). Date unknown. (SZ 14, 205-257) (1)

Shōji jissō gi kenshin shō 声字実相義研心鈔 in ten volumes, by Yūkai.

Date unknown. (ZSZ 17, 421-573) (2)

In order to avoid confusion due to the similarity of the titles these works will be

referred to by the names of their respective authors. “First” and “second” will be used

henceforth to distinguish commentaries by Raiyu and Yūkai corresponding to the

order in which they are given in the list above. Where relevant, reference to other

commentarial texts on Shōjigi will be made as well.

Some preliminary observations may be useful. The Shingon tradition places

high value on ritual practice and the verbal transmission. Access to both of these is of

course limited for the present-day academic student, but it is important not to forget

that the texts under discussion here were made to function in such an environment.

This means that one must take into account that texts were likely meant to be

supplemented by oral information. And moreover, that the validity of an interpretation

could not only be based on scriptural sources, but also on mystical insights. Moreover,

Shingon is an esoteric system where access to secret knowledge is regulated by means

11


of ritual initiation (kanjō 灌頂) and only shared with members within the group. Texts

contain inferences only properly understood by the group and may leave obvious or

secret matters out of the text because these are supposed known on the side of the

reader. Shōjigi’s commentary is largely limited to the theoretical domain, which

makes the texts accessible in comparison to ritual texts, but it is nevertheless

important to take these observations into account.

During this brief investigation I hope to propose that from at least the

thirteenth century onward, a tradition of commentarial debate on Shōjigi was in

development where commentators interpreted the text, actively connected it to

contemporary concerns, and used commentarial texts to transmit their views to the

next generation. Importantly, this places the composition of commentaries in an oral

environment, which may have consequences for how the study of commentaries

should be studied. Because interpretation happened at different historical moments in

different, competing scholastic institutions, hence there is also normative Shingon

interpretation of the Shōjigi but a variety of interpretations.

In conclusion a brief note on the methodological project underlying this study. In

order to “make sense” of tantric Buddhism in India, Christian Wedemeyer has

recently developed a dual hermeneutical approach were he first deconstructs modern

academic narratives of tantric Buddhism, and then in light of that deconstruction

proposes a re-reading of tantric texts. Key to this double hermeneutic is a move

Wedemeyer refers to as “going native.” He carries out his deconstruction of academic

historical narratives of Tantra by juxtaposing these against the historical narratives

produced by the tradition itself, i.e., how the tradition has described its history on its

own terms. This sensitivity for the tradition’s own sensibilities, Wedemeyer argues,

12


opens up the possibility for the re-readings of tantric documents, which comprises the

second step of his hermeneutic. This is a compelling idea, but as I already suggest

earlier, Japanese academics have been incorporating the insights of traditional

commentators for some time already.

Perhaps a similar move to “go native” could be made for Wedemeyer’s second

step of the hermeneutic as well - to use the traditional exegetical tools to read primary

sources. When Wedemeyer carries out his re-reading of tantric passages, he does so

by means of Roland Barthes’ semiotic theories. This leads to important observations,

but I wonder whether it might not be so that deploying Barthes’ semiotic theory as it

is - not intentionally designed to meet the specific sensibilities of premodern tantrism

- cancels out, at least partially, the sensitivity built up during the first step of the

hermeneutic by “going native”. Foregoing the first, deconstructive stage of

Wedemeyer’s double hermeneutic, this study will experiment with “going native” on

the analytical level. That is, to take account of how the tradition has “made sense” of

its own texts while attempting to make sense of the tradition’s texts for academic

purposes.

13


1. Prologue: Kūkai’s Shōji jissō gi

Before proceeding with the analysis of the commentarial tradition it may prove useful

to gain some more familiarity with the Shōjigi and the relevant terminology.

The Shōji jissō gi 声字実相義8 is a linguistic treatise in which Kūkai9 explains the

relation between language and reality. More specifically, it explains the concept of

hosshin seppō 法身説法 - the notion that the absolute dharmakāya (hosshin), the

Buddha Dainichi 大日 that plays a central in Kūkai’s views of the cosmos, actively

expounds the Dharma. An important part in that activity is played by shingon 真言

(“true speech”, Sk. mantra), a form of speech capable of speaking the truth as it is and

in its totality (nyogi gonsetsu 如義言説).

This notion of hosshin seppō is one of the primary points at which Kūkai

differentiated his own esoteric teachings (mikkyō) from the exoteric teachings (kengyō

顕教) of his contemporaries. The exoteric teachings, he claimed, upheld a

conceptualization of the dharmakāya that taught that it was absolute, immobile,

formless, and beyond language. In response to this Kūkai advanced, on the basis of

substantial scriptural evidence, thesis that hosshin does in fact have activities and

form. Moreover, the hosshin communicates the Dharma by linguistic means.10

8 There have been a number of attempts to translate the text into other language. Hakeda prepared the first English edition of the text, but omitted its most technical sections. (Hakeda 1973, 234-46) Kawahara and Jobst have presented an informative and annotated German translation of the text. (Kawahara & Jobst 1992, 53-81) Abé has translated and discussed selections from the text. (Abé 1999, 278-88) Nasu has prepared what is probably the best modern annotated commentary on Shōjigi. (Nasu 2011) Ōtsuka has written a textbook on Shōjigi (Ōtsuka 2002b) and Katsumata has also prepared an annotated version of the text (KCZ 1, 59-76). 9 For more on Kūkai, his life, and his thought, see: Katsumata 1970; Hakeda 1972; Abé 2005; Fujii 2008; Katō 2012; Ōsawa 2013.10 Kūkai advanced this point explicitly and provided evidence for it in Benkenmitsu nikyōron 弁顕密二教論 (KZ 1, 474-505). As evidence he pointed to a number of sutras already known in Japan before his

14


Kūkai’s argument is rooted in a dual/a-dual view on the world where the

absolute exists both beyond duality (a-dual), but at the same time within duality. This

idea can be summarized in the expression nini funi 二而不二; “two, but not two,” or

rather “distinct, but not different.” Though the conditioned and absolute worlds may

seem different and separate, they are in fact both part of reality. The sentient being, in

its present form, is already the Buddha (sokushin jōbutsu 即身成仏). By extension,

the activities, forms, and communication of the phenomenal world themselves are

those of the hosshin, these comprise the true teaching. In Shōjigi Kūkai describes how

one can make this teaching - always right in front of us, provided that one knows how

to gain access to it - discernable.

Shōjigi’s precise date of composition is unknown, academic discussion places

its composition somewhere between 815 and 825. The studies of both Nasu and

Katsumata have refrained from making comments on the texts dating. (Nasu 2011;

KCZ 1: 579) Based on the content of the Shōjigi, Matsunaga Yūkei places both

Sokushin jōbutsu gi 即身成仏義 (hereafter Sokushingi, KZ 1, 506-520) and Shōjigi in

the second period of the development of Kūkai’s thought, during which he “solidified

the logical structure of the esoteric teachings and actively propagated its unique

qualities.” This period lasted from about 816 to around 826. (Matsunaga Y 2013, 70)

The earliest dating is that of Fujii, who judges on the basis of the development

of Kūkai’s thought that Shōjigi must have been written sometime between 815 and

818. This is because the Shōjigi clearly predates a shift in posture vis-à-vis other

schools between that occurred between 818 and 821. (Fujii 2008, 137-38) Toward the

time - notably the Nehankyō 涅槃経 (T374 12) and the Ryōgakyō 楞伽経 (Sk. Laṅkāvatāra sutra, T671 16). Though Kūkai may have claimed that the “exoteric” teachings did not recognize that the hosshin expounds the Dharma, Fujii has pointed out that some of Kūkai’s predecessors among the Nara schools, notably those belonging to the sanron study group 三論宗, had in fact already acknowledged the possibility. (Fujii 2008, 209-234)

15


other extreme we find Katsumata’s vicarious dating made in another of his

publications. (Katsumata 1970, 153-54) He observes that Shōjigi contains citations of

Sokushingi, suggesting that it was composed later. Since Sokushingi may have been

written as late as 825-6, this would make the composition of Shōjigi even later than

that. However, some doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the Sokushingi

citations found in Shōjigi. (Fujii 2008, 343-44) Traditional commentators have also

discussed the dating of the Shōjigi (E.g., Yūkai, SZ 14, 205-206), but facing the same

lack of evidence they have only suggested a relative dating, placing the Shōjigi’s

composition after that of Sokushingi and before Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂経開題

(KCZ 2, 256-278). On the basis of the evidence currently available it is difficult to

make a definite determination as to the dating of the Shōjigi.

The structure of the Shōjigi is very clear, and so is that of its argument. The

first chapter of the text consists of an introduction that summarizes its main point.

Chapter two is divided in a shorter section that explicates the title and a significantly

longer section containing the main argument. The main argument unfolds as a line-

by-line interpretation of the verses of a poem in which Kūkai distilled his argument.

Though the table of contents at the beginning of the work lists a question-and-answer

(mondō 問答) section as third chapter, the text cuts off abruptly after chapter two.

This “missing mondō” has become a matter of commentarial debate, which

formulated a number of different theories.11

The elaboration of hosshin seppō in Shōjigi focuses not so much on the

activity itself, but on the “substance of the teaching” (kyōtai 教體) that is

expounded.12 The consensus of the contemporary kyōtai discourse held that this 11 The explanation in Yūkai’s first commentary is particularly lucid. (SZ 14, 208)12 The discussion over the substance of the teaching is one of the vehicles of Buddhist linguistic speculation. I would suggest that Kūkai’s linguistics also ought to be seen in light of similar concerns. His point is not to describe language out of an academic or philosophical interest, but out of an interest

16


substance was formed by the elements of language, which were considered to be

provisional dharmas (kehō 仮法), and thus not capable of containing the truth. Hence

both the teaching and its substance were provisional means that pointed to an abstract

absolute which defied all means of linguistic expression. In Shōjigi Kūkai unfolds a

very different picture, where the hosshin itself is the substance of the teaching. The

teaching is the literal expression of the truth, which is embodied by the hosshin.

Therefore the activity of seppō goes far beyond the notion of oral teaching in

Kūkai’s ritual cosmos. Though “oral teaching“ might symbolically still work when

hosshin is seen as a human figure in the form of Dainichi, this would not suffice for

the view of hosshin as the complex of the six elements (rokudai 六大體大) , which

Kūkai posited as the substance of all existence in his Sokushingi. Rather this seppō is

the hosshin’s unceasing communicative activity in all its facets, which is not limited

to but includes language and falls within the three mysterious activities of the hosshin

(sanmitsu 三密).13 Kūkai explains in Shōjigi that this activity takes place in all six

fields of sensory perception (rikujin 六塵14), where it unfolds the objective world and

makes it intelligible. Hosshin seppō is thus the manifesting of the truth itself, the

teaching, in material form. Because the hosshin is co-extant with the universe, this

means that in the activity of seppō the hosshin “unfolds” its own body, the reality that

what can subsequently be done with language in the ritual setting. Commentator Gōhō, as well as Nasu and Henmi, have done valuable work to embed Kūkai in the larger kyōtai debate. (SZ 14, 116-119; Henmi 1975; Nasu 2011, 6-7) 13 All things in existence, Buddha or otherwise, are endowed with the three mysterious activities of body (shinmitsu 身密), speech (kumitsu 口密), and mind (imitsu 意密). By synchronizing his activities to that of the deity (sanmitsu kaji 三密加持), the Shingon practitioner can during the ritual performance realize the state of oneness with the deity (sokushin jōbutsu).14 The six defiled worlds of perception form consist of the objects of perception and are often also referred to as the rokkyō 六境 (“six domains”). These are: forms (shiki kyō 色境), sound (shōkyō 声境), smells (kōkyō 香境), tastes (mikyō 味境), tactile objects (sokukyō 触境), and objects of thought (hōkyō法境). Most commentators suggest that Kūkai chose to use rikujin because jin 塵 can mean dirt, suggest that their observation defiles the mind or that they are perceived from the point of view of the unenlightened mind.

17


is its teaching. Because every object of sensory perception partakes in this activity,

teaching is perfectly plain and apparent, right in front of one’s eyes (or nose),

provided that one knows how to look (or listen).

Shōjigi develops its linguistic argument through exegesis of the term that

makes up its title: shōji jissō 声字実相. This expression can be divided into three: shō

声, ji 字, and jissō 実相.15 It can be traced back to a passage in the commentary on the

Dainichikyō 大日経, on of the main Shingon scriptures.16 Traditional commentators

oddly enough discuss Kūkai’s linguistic theory at length in the framework of

contemporary “exoteric” linguistic debate on the kyōtai, they have generally made

little effort to contextualize it in the linguistic notions of the Dainichikyō(sho), though

this is clearly where Kūkai drew most of his inspiration from.17 Through the

Dainichikyō Indian notions of language seeped into Kūkai’s interpretation, though it

is also informed by Chinese linguistic ideas.18

Shō 声 in the conventional linguistic sense means “voice” but is in Buddhist

discourse on the sensory worlds used in the sense of “sound,” where it generally

refers to all sound perceived. (Henmi 1957, 63-68) Raiyu and some other

commentators have read the shō in shōji jissō as referring the world of sound, the

domain of one of the six senses. Shō is then the assembled body of all sounds heard in

the universe, as well as each individual sound. Others, notably Dōhan, have

15 Some commentators say it can be divided into four as well by making shōji an additional compound concept of shō and ji. (KDZ 1, 585)16 Dōhan points this out in his commentary on the Shōjigi. (SZ 14, 9a) The relevant passages in the Dainichikyō and the commentary are: T0848 18, 10b & T1796 39, 657 respectively. The commentary referred to is the Dainichikyōshō 大日経疏 by Zenmui 善無畏 (Sk. Śubhakarasiṃha, 637-735) and Ichigyō 一行 (Ch. Yī Xíng, 683-727) and is of such importance to Shingon that study of the Dainichikyō usually means study of this commentary. For an easy introduction to Shingon’s most important scriptures, see: Sakaki & Honda 2009; Miyasaka 2011.17 Henmi Shūhan observed this as well. (Henmi 1957, 72a)18 Matsunaga Keiji has discusses the impact of Chinese linguistics on Kūkai’s use of the term myō 名, particularly as it is deployed in the Shōjigi. (Matsunaga K 2014)

18


conceptualized the shō somewhat differently, as the quality of speech of Dainichi

from which the whole universe unfolds. This means that this shō is contained in all

things, though not necessarily manifest as sound.19 I find that Dōhan seems to

approach Kūkai’s explanation most accurately. Kūkai explains that all objects (the

monji) in all six sensory fields contain shō, even scents and visual forms, because they

are manifest forms (functions) of the shō (substance).20 This is in line with the

cosmology of the Dainichikyō, where the world unfolds from Dainichi’s speech.

Each manifest shō has the function of signifying a certain meaning, which

Kūkai calls ji 字. Reading ji 字 in the conventional sense of “character” which is used

in, for instance “Chinese character (kanji 漢字)”, does not suffice within such a

framework; it is too limited. That shō can signify a certain meaning is predicated on

mon 文 (sometimes read as aya) or patterns that make on one manifest form of the

shō different from others. E.g., though “A” and “B” are both manifest forms of shō

that signify meaning (shōji), the distinct meanings that they signify is owing to the

differences (shabetsu) between the patterns that constitute their form. These patterns

and the signifying property are not separate from each other, claims Kūkai, hence

Kūkai claims that mon equals ji, which leads to monji 文字. There is thus a particular

signifying function (and signified meaning) for every pattern. The term monji is

conventionally used to denote characters of a written form (moji 文字), but once again

such a translation would not be appropriate.21 (Though written characters are instances

of Kūkai’s concept of monji) Smells are not written characters. Or rather they are, but 19 Some academic authors have pointed out that this is bears interesting parallels to Indian notions of śabda that hold that Voice is an absolute, transcendent utterance that is contained within all phenomena and is made manifest by the act of speech. (Shitamura 1982, 33; Rambelli 85-86)20 Kūkai explains this substance-function relation for sound specifically in the exegesis of the first line of his poem. (KZ1, 524-25)21 Rambelli has discussed Kūkai’s concept of monji and how it is discussed in Shōjigi in some detail. Though I do not fully agree with him, he makes some very valid observations. (Rambelli 1994)

19


they are not instantly recognizable as such. In Kūkai’s framework, a tentative

translation like “specific pattern signifying a certain meaning” for monji would be

more suitable. Because the manifest form is not different from its substance, Kūkai

claims that shō corresponds directly to ji; they are the same.22

The meaning that shō signifies in manifest form is jissō 実相, the truth or

literally “true aspect”. Kūkai identifies this jissō as hosshin. (KZ 1, 524) Because

reality contains both the phenomenal world, the passions, and the absolute in its non-

manifest, this leads Kūkai to the conclusion that it must be so that shō in its manifest,

signifying form (shōji) corresponds to the truth it expresses because it embodies it:

shōji are jissō. And though shōji express specific meanings, these are in the end

qualities of hosshin. In the end, all monji or objects in phenomenal existence thus

refer to hosshin; they are symbols (hyōji 幖幟) of Dainichi that constitute both his

body and his teaching. The hyōji is then a rather peculiar kind of symbol. In contrast

to certain other theories of signs, where symbols refer to something different and

removed, the monji refer to something of which they themselves are inherently part.

I would like to close with a short disclaimer. The view of Shōjigi I have presented

here does not conform to that of the traditional commentators because there is no

correct and normative interpretation of the text. My translations for the technical

terms are based on my own interpretive choices. Traditional interpreters have made

different choices and hence their explanations of the terms require different

translations. In order to make sure that as little as possible is lost in translation and to

refrain from forcing particular views onto the commentarial texts, I will henceforth

refrain from translating important conceptual terms such as shō.22 Henmi has dedicated article to a detailed discussion of Kūkai’s concept of shōji against the backdrop of the “traditional” Buddhist linguistics of Kusharon 倶舎論 and Yugaron 瑜伽論, as well as that of the Dainichikyō and Ichigyō’s commentary. (Henmi 1953)

20


2. Tide of the Times: Commentaries in Historical Context

Before dipping into the commentarial literature itself I think it will be informative to

explore the historical developments that form the background against which the

tradition of Shōjigi commentary developed between the thirteenth and early fifteenth

centuries.

Proliferation, Revitalization, and the Construction of Kūkai as Founder of Shingon

The production of commentaries and other scholastic texts belongs to the theoretical

pursuits (kyōsō) of Shingon, interest in which initially waned after Kūkai’s death.

Probably owing largely to a more pronounced interest in the ritual practical side of

things (jissō 事相), this resulted in a significant drop in scholastic output.

There was, for instance, no formulated response from the Shingon side to critical

voices in the Tendai tradition that pointed out a number of aporia in Kūkai’s writing.

(Kushida 1964, 144; van der Veere 1998, 73-74) The large-scale Dharma lectures

(denbōe 伝法会), set up at the Tōji 東寺 temple and on Mt. Kōya (Kōyasan 高野山) -

two influential Shingon monastic centers - by Kūkai’s immediate disciples in

accordance with his wishes, also came to a stop within the first few decades after his

demise. This is not to say that all scholastic activity was abandoned, but that there was

a diminished of interest to systemically produce, on a large scale, scholarship

addressing the whole gamut of doctrinal topics.

During this period of diminished interest in theoretical pursuits, emphasis lay

primarily on providing ritual services for the protection of the state (chingo kokka 鎮

護国家) and assuring practical benefits in the present world (genze riyaku 現世利益)

at both the collective and individual levels. The lack of a single institutional center

21


and absence of an overarching doctrinal authority - a situation that characterizes the

entire history of the Shingon tradition into the present day - facilitated the

proliferation of numerous ritual lineages (ryūha 流派) that, though very different,

collectively came to be referred to as Shingon. As these lineages settled around

different monastic centers, increased amounts of divergence developed in the details

of ritual practice, as well as the accompanying interpretations. The two most

important groups are the onoryū 小野流 and the hirosawaryū 広沢流, which

developed around the organizations of the Daigōji temple 醍醐寺 and Ninnaji 仁和寺

temple respectively, but others exist as well.23 These groups consist of many sub-

lineages. As certain monastic centers, such as Ninnaji, gained influence, others fell

behind. Mt. Kōya, that had been so important during Kūkai’s time for instance, fell

into disrepair.

The revitalization of theoretical pursuits was brought about roughly three

centuries after Kūkai’s time, in the early twelfth century, by the efforts of priests such

as Kakuban 覚鑁 (1095-1144). These reformers operated in what is generally

described as a time of upheaval and great change; a time of both decline and

creativity. Violence burst loose as the governmental order began to come apart and a

new one began the rise to power, cultural values transformed, and great changes

occurred in the ritual landscape occurred as well. (Bowring 2005, 217-266) Against

this background, one of Kakuban’s aims was to restore the Shingon tradition to what

he thought had been Kūkai’s original vision of it. For one, he sought initiations into as

many ritual lineages as possible to reconstruct the genuine, original esoteric lineage.

But his effort at restoration also inspired him to bring the long underappreciated

theoretical pursuits back into the picture, though not to the extent that it diminished

23 For a detailed overview of the many lineages, when they developed, and how the “traditional” division schemes of these lineages were developed, see: Koda 2003.

22


the importance of jisō. (Van der Veere 1998) Kakuban’s scholastic work (kyōgaku 教

学) systematically treated a wide array of matters and attempted to tie up the loose

ends left by Kūkai. Aside from this, his scholarship also reacted to new developments,

such as then upcoming Amida nenbutsu 阿弥陀念仏 practices.

As part of this theoretical revival, Kakuban also reinstated of a system of

regular denbōe lectures where eminent scholars - among whom he himself - would

teach multiple-day seminars on Shingon doctrine and ritual at a large scale.24 The

success of such efforts can be glanced from the renewed interest in scholarship in

various other Shingon centers, as well as the development of similar seminar-like

systems. As far as these restorative efforts are concerned, Kakuban is perhaps best

remembered because he was so successful, but he is a figure representative of a larger

restorative movement.25

In light of out interest in commentarial literature specifically, this may be a

good time for a brief look at Tomabechi Seiichi’s work on how Kūkai’s works

became object of exegesis. (Tomabechi 2010) According to Tomabechi, it is also

around Kakuban’s time that Kūkai’s status as founder of the Shingon school had

become consolidated. While this already gave his writings a certain status, the

concurrent construction of Kūkai as Bodhisattva, which made him an object of

veneration, imbued his writings with even more value. Seen as the utterances of a

Bodhisattva, suggests Tomabechi, Kūkai’s writings began to be construed as texts on

par the sutras and treatises on which Kūkai had based his interpretations. (Tomabechi

2010, 42) Though I am somewhat reluctant to follow Tomabechi as far to suggest 24 For more on Kakuban’s denbōe and which topics were discussed see: Shinpo 1992, 102-3; Van der Veere 2007, 606-7.25 Kakuban’s master Kanjo 寛助 (1057-1125) also took an interest in the restoration of Mt. Kōya and made efforts to organize denbōe. (Van der Veere 2007, 602) See also Marc Buijnsters’ study of Jichihan 実範 (ca. 1088-1144). (Buijnsters 1999) For more on developments in Shingon at large during this time period, see: Kushida 1964, especially 105-733; Kushida 1979, especially 65-585.

23


that this may have come about because his writings were by this time seen as the

words of a Bodhisattva, I agree with him that the fact that Kūkai’s writings had by

this time attained a certain status may have been a motivation for exegetical practices.

The World of Medieval Shingon Doctrinal Studies

The revitalizing efforts of Kakuban and his contemporaries were successful and

inspired developments in doctrinal scholarship and lecture-initiatives at various

monastic centers. During the two hundred years between Dōhan and Yūkai a

significant number of Shingon scholars devoted themselves to doctrinal studies and

exerted themselves to build up and develop institutions of scholastic learning that

could compete with each other and those of other schools. Meanwhile, a new state

order came to power and consolidated its grip, accompanied by the rise of what

Kuroda Toshio has called an orthodoxy of ritual power centers (kenmitsu taisei 顕密

体制) that was framed by an esoteric worldview. (Kuroda 1996) Concurrently, the

continuing rise in popularity of Amida nenbutsu gave rise to new organizations, while

newer movements such as Zen and that of Nichiren 日蓮 (1222-1282) also appeared

on the scene.26 The period is also known as a time of intense debate in Japan’s ritual

landscape, as theories on inherent enlightenment (hongaku 本覚) and notions of

indigenous kami 神 as manifestations of Buddha’s (honji suijaku 本地垂迹) had

taken hold and were developed further. (Stone 1995; Teeuwen & Rambelli 2003)

During this period, the division of priests that occupied itself with theoretical

studies (gakusō 学僧, gakuryo 学侶) formed a relative minority among the Shingon

clergy, which also consisting of itinerant priests, worker priests, and so on. (Rambelli

26 For an expansive overview of these developments see: Bowring 2005, especially parts III. For more detailed discussion of developments within the Shingon school specifically, see: Kushida 1964, especially 105-733; Kushida 1979, especially 65-585.

24


2014, 28) Though the precise organizational structures differed depending on

scholastic institution and historical moment, there were, as in most educational

systems, both academic and administrative hierarchies in place. There were teachers

and students of varying degrees, from beginners to advanced levels. Particularly

competent teachers were often made headmasters (gakutō 学頭) - oftentimes there

were two at one learning center - and put in charge of the curriculum, the

administration of the educational institute. Gakutō also regularly delivered lectures.

(Toganoo 1982b, 356-367; MDJ, 204, 230)

The various scholar priests whose Shōjigi commentaries we are investigating

here operated from various such scholastic institutions. During the time of their

Shōjigi commentaries they moved among the higher ranks of the scholar priests, being

or becoming headmasters of their respective institutions. Their work is widely praised

in Shingon scholasticism and as any historical overview of the Shingon tradition will

quickly show, they constitute an important presence in the tradition’s historical

development. (E.g., Kushida 1964; 1974)

Dōhan, to begin with, operated from the Shōchiin 正智院 on Mt. Kōya.

Initiated into the chūinryū 中院流 lineages, his Shingon scholarship is largely

inspired by the ideas of Kakukai 覚海 (1142-1223), another prominent scholar on Mt.

Kōya Dōhan studied under. Besides this, Dōhan is also well known for his active

interest in practices on the kōmyō shingon 光明真言 and Amida’s nenbutsu. He is

considered a member of the esoteric nenbutsu (himitsu nenbutsu 秘密念仏)

movement and in his ideas about the nenbutsu drew inspiration from the work of

previous esoteric thinkers such as his master Jōhen 静遍 (1166-1224), Jichihan, and

Kakuban. Saliently, there are hardly any traces of Dōhan’s nenbutsu ideas to be found

25


in his in his Shōjigi commentary. That is, despite that fact that he did perceive a

connection between the two, as is clearly seen when he deploys Shōjigi to explain the

nenbutsu in his Himitsu shū nenbutsu shō 秘密宗念仏鈔, (DBZ 43, 53c-54a).

(Kushida 1964, 168, 213-219; Sanford 1994; Buijnsters 1999; Satō 1999; Satō 2001)

Raiyu 頼瑜 (1226-1304), heir to the sanbōinryū 三宝院流, operated first from

Mt. Kōya, but left for Mt. Negoro (Negorosan 根来三) after conflict with other

factions on the mountain. He is widely praised and looked up to as the founder of

shingi Shingon 新義真言 (litt. “new interpretation Shingon), a faction that developed

from his time on alongside its counterpart, the faction of kogi Shingon 古義真言 (litt.

“old interpretation Shingon”).27 A debate about the teacher of the Dainichikyō became

one of the main doctrinal points on which the two factions would differentiate, and

the theory upheld by the shingi side is attributed to Raiyu. The matter revolves around

the question whether it is the honjihosshin 本地法身 (“original base dharmakāya) or

the kajihosshin 加持法身 (dharmakāya in communication with sentient beings) that

teaches the Dainichikyō. Raiyu suggests that it is the kaji-body that expounds the

Dharma, while kogi Shingon holds that it is the honji-body. We will return to this

matter later.28

Gōhō and his closest disciple Genbō were active at the Tōji 東寺 in present

day Kyōto, they belonged to the sanbōinryū 三宝院流. (MDJ, 530-31) Together with

Gōhō’s master Raihō 頼宝 (1279-1330?), they have retrospectively become known as

the “three jewels” (sanbō 三宝) of the Tōji since their names end in the character for

27 Kiyota Minoru has described the development of these two factions as a “schism” in the tradition, but this would presume that there was a single united tradition to begin with. (Kiyota 1978, 76)28 For more on Raiyu, I recommend this volume of collected essays that was published to commemorate the seven hundredth anniversary of his passing: San ha gōdō kinenron shūhen shūi’in kai, 2002.

26


jewel: hō 宝. All three became headmasters of the Tōji and worked in rapid

succession to re-consolidate the tradition its tradition of theoretical learning,

producing an astounding amount of scholastic works.29 Gōhō carried on the efforts

initiated by his master Raihō, while Genbō worked to finish what Gōhō had left

undone, even finishing some of his master’s writings. Gōhō’s scholastic work work is

meticulous and characterized by moments where he explicitly provides his personal

opinion on the matter under discussion. Some research has been done on Gōhō’s

posture towards Zen Buddhism, rising in prominence at the time, in a number of his

writings. (E.g., Chiba 1994)

According to Kushida, Genbō’s scholarship was very much along the lines of

that of Gōhō and he tied up many of his master’s doctrinal loose ends. Typical for his

scholarship, but also his master, is a text-critical approach that insisted on determining

the correct readings of terms and their efforts to reconstruct texts by comparing

different manuscripts. (Kushida 1979, 337-49) Genbō studied under Gōhō from at

least the age of fifteen and the two became very close both professionally and

personally. Gōhō’s was a sickly man and during his episodes, Genbō would regularly

fill in as lecturer. At other times, when Gōhō did lecture, Genbō would take notes and

they would together annotate these notes into commentarial texts.

With Yūkai we find ourselves back on Mt. Kōya about a century after Dōhan’s

time, in the presence of a scholar known for the polemical nature of his work.30

Though first initiated in the chūinryū, also had initiations in the sanbōinryū, saiinryū

西院流, and jimyōinryū 持明院流. (MDJ 2192) Yūkai not only criticized his

29 Kushida provides a lists of Gōhō’s works (Kushida 1979, 317-323), while his footnotes citing a great number Genbō’s texts give a sense of his respective scholastic productivity (Kushida 1979, 327, 333-32, 340).30 For more on Yūkai, see the work of Rinzan and Kanayama. Rinzan 2005;2007; Kanayama 1973, 542-600.

27


contemporary Chōkaku 長覚 (1340-1416), another scholar on Kōyasan, but also his

predecessors in Kōya-scholasticism, Dōhan and Jōhen. (Rinzan 2007, 107) His

polemics also targeted the Tachikawa ritual lineage (tachikawa ryū 立川流),

criticizing in a text called Hōkyōshō 宝鏡鈔 that it practiced on an incorrect

interpretation of the Shingon maxim bonnō soku bodai we have already encountered.

(Rinzan 2005, 178)31 These observations run the risk, however, of misrepresenting

him and his scholarship. His commentaries on Shōjigi are insightful and when he

criticizes the interpretations of other scholars, his alternatives are well founded and

convincingly argued. Yūkai is also known for having formulated a systematized kogi

Shingon reply to Raiyu’s kaji-body theory, which almost ironically suggests that the

“old” kogi Shingon interpretation may plausibly be more recent than that of “new”

shingi Shingon (Takagami 1989, 155)

While sketching the historical background against which our Shōjigi

commentarial literature was written I have also made some observations on the

possible functions such texts may have performed in the tradition. Besides explaining

the meaning of a text that had perhaps become difficult to comprehend due to the

changing of the times - certainly one of the primary concerns - commentaries were

produced as part of a theoretical practice that met the demands of the times. In the

face of increasing competition over ritual clientele, owing partially to the large

number of esoteric ritual lineages and the rise of new movements, doctrinal studies

provided a means to make sense of the situation and explain the superior ritual

efficacy of one’s own ritual center. More specifically, by the study of doctrine it was

31 It is perhaps partially owing to Yūkai love of polemics that the Tachikawa lineage is now generally stigmatized as a “heretical movement” and researched as such. Yūkai dismissed another contemporary of his, Yūhan 宥範, for being “heretical” as well because he was too interested in Tendai ideas. (Rinzan 2007, 111)

28


possible to articulate and justify differences in ritual practices, as well as to

differentiate that praxis from practices of other groups.

The status and authority of Kūkai’s writings made it possible to do this with

the works of the tradition’s “founder” as well. Commentaries allowed the explicator

to advance an interpretation of an important text and explain the differences between

the interpretation of his group and those. Moreover, the fact that rivaling scholastic

groups sought their legitimacy in Kūkai’s writings may very well have provided an

additional incentive for others to do so as well. Because various center of learning

composed commentaries on Shōjigi, different transmissions of Shōjigi interpretation

were developed that actively reacted to eachother.

But how do such concerns surface in the Shōjigi commentaries? I will explore

this in the next chapter by means of two examples.

3. Raiyu’s kaji-body and the language of Zen

In order to explore how “sectarian” concerns and disagreement over doctrinal

interpretations not directly related to Shōjigi are brought into the commentarial

literature, this chapter shall discuss two informative exegetical passages. One is taken

from Raiyu’s first commentary, where he takes advantage of the opportunity offered

to express his views of the Dharma exposition of the kaji-body. The other is taken

from Dōhan’s commentary and attempts to adjust Shōjigi ideas so that they

accommodate popular claims made by Zen movements.

New versus “Old”: The honji-kaji debate

As already mentioned Raiyu, and the Shingi faction in his wake, upheld the theory

that the exposition of the Dharma is carried out by the kaji-body and not the honji-

body. When the term kaji occurs in the Shōjigi, Raiyu’s first commentary jumps at the

29


chance to use this “new” theory in order to explain what Kūkai means to say. This

both explains Kūkai’s text and constructs legitimacy for Raiyu’s interpretation

because it is in accord. Raiyu writes:

“[Shōjigi says:] Hence the kaji 加持 of the nyorai 如来 shows a way to return

to that domain.

[...]

Now, this kaji here is the kaji of the dharma form in its essential nature

(jishō 自性). It is not the kaji of the juyū 受用 form and so on. [...] The

point (i 意) of this is that in the state (i 位) of fundamental inner

enlightenment (honji jishō 本地自證), there is no exposition of the

Dharma. Hence, [the Buddha] here abides in the kaji-body and points

out the way to return to that domain. Hence is it says later [in Shōjigi]

that “Dainichi nyorai expounds the meaning of shōji jissō.”

Moreover, part three of the commentary on the Dainichikyō

says “however, because it is by means of his kaji power (kajiriki 加持

力), that the form (shin 身) of the eight-petalled lotus of the taizō 胎蔵

manifests from the virtue of the Buddha’s state of inner enlightenment

(bodai jishō 菩提自證).”32

Moreover, my commentary on the commentary on the

Dainichikyō says: “The kaji-body is the deity that appears on the lotus

in the middle of the mandara. This one is also called the Buddha who

32 The passage comes from: T1796 39, 610b.

30


is endowed with the paths (dō 道) of the various jimon 字門. Hence we

also call him the endowed kaji body (gukajishin 具加持身)”33

The point (i 意) of these [two quotes] is that in the state of

fundamental inner enlightenment, there is no exposition of the dharma.

And hence, when it says now that “the kaji 加持 of the nyorai 如来

shows a way to return to that domain,” it refers to the Buddha who is

endowed with the paths (dō 道) of the various jimon 字門. This is the

kaji-body that can be seen in the juyū forms and so on. The kaji form in

its essential nature is the comprehensive body [that contains

everything] and hence it is called the endowed kaji body.

Because of this, the Dainichikyō says: “Because it is by the

power of kaji, that the [the nyorai] teaches by means of monji in order

to make all the different worlds cross over [to the domain of

enlightenment.]”34 This is the point!

(SZ 14, 53-54)

This quote, albeit somewhat lengthy, clearly articulates Raiyu’s theory of the

preaching kaji-body on the basis of evidence drawn from the scriptures, as well as one

of his own commentaries thereon. The kaji of the nyorai in Shōjigi, he says, must

refer to the kaji-body, because that is the one that expounds the Dharma. In order

prove this he produces a quote from the Dainichikyō as evidence of kajishin seppō

that happens to mention the monji so important in Shōjigi’s discussion as well. This

emphasizes that Raiyu’s interpretation is in accordance with the Shōjigi.

33 Raiyu here refers to a sentence in his own commentary on the commentary on the Dainichikyō, the Dainichikyōsho shishinshō 大日経疏指心鈔. T2217 59, 600a.34 The passage comes from: T0848 18, 9b.

31


In order obtain a clearer view of how Raiyu here advances a doctrinal stance

that is distinctive, it may be informative to take a look at the basic problems from

which was theory derived. First, there is discussion over the nature of the teacher,

kyōshu 教主, of the Dainichikyō as it is explained in the commentary. Whereas it can

in certain instances be read as suggesting that the honji-hosshin (“Dharma body of the

original state”) expounds the sutra, other passages suggest that the teacher is the kaji-

shin (i.e., the body that manifests to communicate with sentient beings). Two

solutions are thus possible and Raiyu selected the kaji-body.

The disagreement over the teacher of the Dainichikyō would perhaps not have

become such a point of contention had Kūkai written about it, but he did not. Kūkai

had proposed a theory of a fourfold Buddha body (shishuhosshin 四種法身) based on

the dharmakāya’s activities in different functions. There is the jishō hosshin 自性法

身 (“original nature form”), that is the body of the Dharma world (hokkai 法界, Sk.

dharmadhātu) residing in the state of samadhi that characterizes all existence. Then

there is the juyū hosshin 受用法身, that knows two aspects. As ji juyū hosshin 自受用

法身 (“self-receiving function form”) it expresses the Dharma for its own enjoyment,

while as ta juyū hosshin 他受用法身 (“other receiving function form”) it expounds

the Dharma for the sake of others. As third, there is a “transformation form” (henge

hosshin 変化法身) that expounds the Dharma in historical environments such as the

human world. And lastly there is the tōru hosshin 等流法身 (“equal outflowing

form”) that is comprised of all phenomena and sentient beings as manifestations of

hosshin. The problem in light of the kyōshu-problem of the Dainichikyō is that Kūkai

32


had stated explicitly that the jishō hosshin is the ultimate teacher of the Dharma, but

had not equated his fourfold scheme to the twofold scheme of the Dainichikyō.35

The question for Raiyu and his contemporaries thus became how the kaji-body

and honji-body relate to Kūkai’s fourfold body theory. And this is exactly what we

see explained in the quote from Raiyu’s first Shōjigi commentary. Raiyu proposes a

solution where Kūkai’s jishō hosshin has the aspects of both the honji-body and the

kaji-body. Though as honji-body it does not directly teach, the jishō hosshin manifests

a kaji-body and then unfolds the teaching. And this kaji-body is the Dainichi at the

center of the two mandara from which all three other forms in Kūkai’s scheme arise.

Hence, “the kaji form in its essential nature is the comprehensive body [that contains

everything] and hence it is called the endowed kaji body.” (SZ 14, 53) This

corresponds to the shingi-Shingon view.

The kogi-Shingon view holds that the jishō hosshin corresponds only to the

Dainichikyō’s honji-body, and that this body provides the basis from which the other

three forms arise directly as kaji-bodies. Such a view clearly cannot be reconciled

with the above quote from Raiyu’s commentary. To say it in the more concrete terms

that Raiyu also uses: this means that the Dainichi on the central dais of the lotus in the

taizō-mandara 胎蔵曼荼羅 is in Raiyu’s view the kaji-form of the Buddha, it is in the

kogi-Shingon interpretation the jishō hosshin. In both cases the functional relation

between the central Dainichi and the other Buddhas is the same: the Dainichi is the

total form (sōtai 総體) that encompasses the others. Nevertheless, this very subtle

difference in terminology became one of the fundamental interpretational differences

35 Later thinkers, such as Donjaku 曇寂 (1674-1742) and Hōjū 法住 (1723-1800), have make attempts to synthesize the two views, but these ideas did not find much resonance among their contemporaries. For further discussion of this issue and the surrounding debate, see: Sakaki & Honda 2009, 184; Takagami 1989, 151-174.

33


upon which the kogi-shingon and shingi-shingon factions would predicate their

sectarian distinction.

Raiyu clearly takes advantage of the opportunity offered by the occurrence of

the term “nyorai kaji” in the Shōjigi to push forward his own interpretation on a

matter and seek legitimacy in one of Kūkai’s writings. By contrast, Dōhan’s earlier

commentary makes no remark on the term. Yūkai, though known for having

formulated the kogi response most systematically, does not bring it up either. In a

much later commentary, the priest Shūkai 周海(?-1789) a shingi priest of the busan-

ha 豊山派 does and he follows Raiyu’s explanation by even quoting from that

commentary. (SZ 14, 354b)

Zen Misunderstood: “Straight from the Mind to the Voice”

Another telling moment is in Dōhan’s commentary, when it becomes necessary to

adjust an idea in Shōjigi to a newly arisen claim Kūkai could not have foreseen when

he originally wrote the text. Whereas Kūkai claims in Shōjigi that there is no teaching

in the world that does not rely on shōji, Dōhan’s commentary raises the question of

whether the Zen school, which supposedly claims to transmit the Dharma directly

from mind to mind, is an exception. If that were so, the consequence would be that

Kūkai would have been wrong - an acknowledgment I am yet to encounter in the

commentarial literature, which rather seems to assume that Kūkai is always right.36

Nevertheless, it is an interesting occasion to see in action how exegetical methods are

deployed to “repair” Kūkai’s claim from this “attack.” It also demonstrates how

36 Nakamura has written a short article about this little discussion of Zen in Dōhan’s commentary. However, he is more interested in the repercussions of what is said here for Dōhan’s linguistic views. This is interesting because in light of observations I make in the next chapter, it may very well be that the discussion here may not be representative for Dōhan’s views. (Nakamura 1999)

34


contemporary concerns such as rise of new ritual movements informed the

composition of masshaku. The questioner asks:

“Question: [Shōjigi says] That the esoteric and the exoteric, the larger vehicle

and the smaller vehicle, all teachings, rely on shōji jissō, this must truly be so.

However, in the Zen school, they say that they “convey from mind to mind”

(ishin denshin 以心伝心), and that their transmission is extra-canonical

(kyōgai 教外), and also that they do not establish monji. Does this mean that

their teaching does not rely on shōji jissō?”

(SZ 14, 12a)

So Zen groups presented a challenge to Kūkai’s assertions on the teachings of the

universe because they profiled themselves as exception. They claimed - or at least

were understood to have claimed - that their transmission took place outside of the

canon (kyōgai 教外) and made no use of linguistic means. To state the matter in

Shōjigi terms, they claimed that their teachings were of a different kyōtai 教體, that

they did not use monji.

The reply reads:

“Answer: These Zen schools establish their interpretations on the basis of the

non-duality beyond words of the Yuimakyō37. This non-duality is number five

among the five types of language (goshugonsetsu 五種言説38), the nyogi

37 In this passage the Yuimakyō 維摩経 is referred to by the term Jōmyō 浄名, a Chinese translation of the figure after which the Yuimakyō was named, Vimalakīrti. For three Chinese translation of the text, see: T474 14;T475 14; T476 14.　 38 The model of five types of linguistic expression is mentioned at the end of Kūkai’s discussion of shingon theory at the end of the first section of the second chapter of the Shōjigi. (KZ 1, 526) The five

35


gonsetsu 如義言説 or “linguistic expression in accordance with the correct

meaning.” How could this not be on the basis of shōji jissō? After Śākyamuni

had entered into nirvana, his disciple Kashō 迦葉39 transmitted it in a golden

coffin (konkan 金棺), so how could it not have been a teaching? It is only that

the scholars of the time called it “outside of the canon” or beyond words. They

did not know the meaning of nyogi 如義, so they only argued about it to the

[limited] extent of the four types of deluded verbal expression. But how could

a “discourses of attachment” that [claims] comprehensiveness (sō 総) but

[still] affirms it’s own position and negates that of others possibly be in accord

with the truth (shōgi 正義)!”

(SZ 14, 12a)

A number of remarkable things happen here. First, Zen interpretations are not

dismissed but instead defended. The view that is proposed by the questioner, i.e., the

understanding of Zen as kyōgai or without monji, is not the position of Zen but an

incorrect understanding of their position. This incorrect view is traced to the

misunderstanding of contemporary scholars. (Contemporaries of Kashō in India,

perhaps?) These scholars did not understand the type of language that Zen

transmissions did make use of and called them kyōgai.

Second, by correcting this view, Zen thought is placed within the linguistic

hierarchy of the five types of language discussed elsewhere in the Shōjigi. This is an

types of language are: 1. “linguistic expression based on causal, external observation“ (sō gonsetsu 相言説) 2. “linguistic expression based on dream experiences” (mu gonsetsu 夢言説) 3. “linguistic expressions based on false views” (mōshū gonsetsu 妄執言説) 4. “linguistic expression based on [desires] without beginning“ (muji gonsetsu 無始言説) 5. “linguistic expression in accordance with reality” (nyogi gonsetsu 如義言説). This model can be seen in Shakumakaenron and is attributed Nagārjuna. (T1668 32, 605b) Nasu explains the model’s implementation in Shōjigi: Nasu 2011, 63-64. 39 Kashō 迦葉 (Sk. Kāśyapa), often referred to as Daikashō 大迦葉/Makakashō 摩訶迦葉 (Sk. Mahākāśyapa) is the disciple of Śākyamuni who in Zen interpretations is held to have received and transmitted the Zen teachings outside of the established written canon.

36


inclusive move to give Zen thought, like any other interpretation, a respective place

within the esoteric view. However, by giving Zen the doctrinal basis of “language in

accordance with reality,” the answerer puts Shingon’s own position in jeopardy. After

all, shingon is supposed to be the only language that is in accordance with reality. The

interrogator pursues this matter further:

“Now, with regards to placing Zen at the fifth level of language in accordance

with reality. [Kūkai’s] Nikyōron takes this nyogi language from

Shakumakaenron and calls it “shingon”. If that is so, then would not Zen be

shingon?”

(SZ 14, 12a)

The answerer is now, of course, in a tight spot. Due to his answer, the interpretations

of Shingon and Zen have now come to stand on equal par. And this is where repair

becomes necessary because Zen is talked into a position that does in fact pose a

challenge to Shōjigi ideas. But not all is lost; the answerer has another hierarchy of

terms up his sleeve.

“Answer: If we interpret nyogi in the wide sense, there are three gates (sanmon

三門) of nyogi. What we call the nyogi of Zen is the “language in accordance

with the reality of thusness (shinnyo nyogi 真如如義)” of these three gates.

This is not the gate of non-duality. In Shakumakaenron, the nyogi of the

Sanmaikyō 三昧経 contains shinnyo nyogi. And hence Shakumakaenron’s

chapter on the “shinnyo gate (真如門)“ provides proof for this shinnyo nyogi.

But the Daishi [i.e, Kūkai] took this and made it into the nyogi of the gate of

non-duality. Shinnyo nyogi is the darkness and stillness of true emptiness

37


(shinkū no myōjaku 真空冥寂). The nyogi of non-duality is the exact likeness

of essential nature and phenomenal characteristic (shōsō ennen 性相宛然).”

(SZ 14, 12b)

So because there are different types of being in accordance with reality (nyogi), there

are also different modes of linguistic expression to correspond to those realities. The

reality of Zen is portrayed as a quiet and dark emptiness, Shingon’s reality of non-

duality is described by means of an expression akin to sokuji nishin 即事而真, i.e.

“phenomena are no different from reality”. The matter is resolved and the Shingon

interpretation is saved from the Zen threat.

However, the Zen matter seems to be an important point on the agenda, and

the discussion pushes on a little bit further, showing us a further glimpse of the

contemporary intellectual climate:

“Question: Some people consider Zen to be the “mind mystery (imitsu 意密)”

of shingon. Can such an interpretation be tolerated?”

“Answer: [Zen says that] originally there are no passions and desires (bonnō

煩悩) and that fundamentally these are the thoughts and views (ikan 意観) of

enlightenment (bodai 菩提). Even though one must concede that this is indeed

one [possible] interpretation of “phenomena are no different from reality”

(sokuji nishin 即事而真), though shallow and abbreviated, the fact is that

these are not endowed with the three mysteries means that they cannot attain

the equal sanmitsu of the Dharma Buddha. Hence, these can be distinguished

and one must not confuse them.”

38


(SZ 14, 12b)

The questioner thus rephrases his previous questions whether Shingon and Zen are the

same in a slightly different form. Here, Zen is likened to Shingon practices focusing

on the mind, i.e., visualizations. I am at present not familiar with any major Shingon

thinkers that may have held this position, but it would seem that from within the

tradition such a position would be untenable, as the answerer rightly points out.

In this brief example we see clearly that the commentary goes somewhat out

of its way and departs from the Shōjigi’s main text in order to address a contemporary

issue that has some relation to the theme under discussion. Dōhan is not the only one

who did so, considering that Yūkai later did so as well. In this way, the commentary

accomplishes two things simultaneously. First it articulates a clear distinction between

Shingon and Zen, which hints at the sectarian-political concerns I have outlined above

for doctrinal studies. At the same time and crucially, however, it makes the Shōjigi of

immediate relevance to a contemporary audience, drawing it into the contemporary

state of the doctrinal discourse. For reasons that will hereafter become clear, I think it

is significant that this is brought up by means of a question-and-answer exchange

(mondō).

This chapter has attempted to illustrate how commentators could make active use of

the opportunity offered by exegesis of one of Kūkai’s works to advance their own

doctrinal interpretations and to address contemporary issues. Raiyu did so for his kaji-

body theory and effectively turned the commentarial text into a vehicle for doctrinal

development. He jumped at the opportunity to demonstrate concomitant with his

explanation of Kūkai’s words that his ideas are not counter to those of Kūkai’s, but

39


rather in congruence with them. In a similar fashion Dōhan’s commentary brought up

a contemporary issue in order to “adjust” the content of the Shōjigi to accommodate

claims attributed to Zen groups. By addressing such contemporary issues in the

commentarial text, the original work is woven even tighter into the doctrinal debate of

the time. If anything, the commentaries do much more than “just” explain Shōjigi. So

though traditional, there is pronounced innovation to be seen in the commentarial

discourse.

40


4. Textual Explication or Verbal Explication? - Dangi

lectures and the Production of Shōjigi Commentaries

Though the historical discussion above illuminates one of the functions commentarial

literature may have played in the tradition during this particular period of its history, it

also leaves a number of questions unanswered. Why did Yūkai write five different

commentaries on the text? Or why were commentaries on commentaries written?

In this chapter I suggest that the texts themselves furnish us with insights that

may contribute toward answering these questions. Though commentarial texts are

generally treated as textual scholarship, there is evidence to suggest that the

composition of Shōjigi commentaries coincided with moments of oral knowledge

transmissions (kuden 口伝), a form of knowledge transmission that is in Shingon’s

esoteric systems valued above textual transmission.

Dangi lectures and the Commentarial Text

That there exists a close connection between Shōjigi’s commentaries and oral

knowledge transmission is apparent from the titles of the texts. Genbō’s commentary

is titled Shōji jissō gi kuhitsu 声字実相義口筆, where one could render kuhitsu in

English as something along the lines of “verbal notes.” Other examples of such titles

are: kuketsu 口決 (“oral definition”), kōen 講筵 (litt. “lecture seat”), kikisho 聞書

(“aural notes”), and so on. There is also a commentary titled Shōji jissō gi mondō 問

“答 question-and-answer” (SZ 14, 37-48), where the mondō format is more than

merely a literary device and, and as we shall see, likely denotes an actual question-

answer session on the Shōjigi.

41


A more detailed inspection of the colophons of the various commentaries is

even more revealing. The colophon of Raiyu’s first commentary states at the end that

“the manuscript (sō 草) was finished in the “straw roofed hut“ (sōan 草庵) at the

Denbōin 伝法院 on Mt. Kōya, succeeding the Dharma lectures (denbōe dangi 伝法会

談義) in the third year of Kōan 弘安 (1280).”40 (SZ 14, 113) The Denbōin was an

institution dedicated to such lectures that had been constructed by Kakuban somewhat

earlier as part of his effort to reinstate such seminars. Moreover, the same colophon

suggests that the commentary was still used for lectures on the Shōjigi after Raiyu’s

his death. A priest named Ryōei 良英 (dates unknown) copied the text during the

dangi conference of the Shōhōin 正法院 in Ōei 応永 27 (1420). (Ibid.) Though I

have not been able to ascertain whether the topic of the 1420 seminar was Shōjigi or

not (he may also have copied it in preparation for the next year), it is at least clear that

the occasion of the conference gave Ryōei the chance to do so.

Similar observations can be made for Dōhan’s commentary, where the

colophon states that “it was lectured on at the meditation hall (zenteiden 禅定殿) from

the twenty-third day of the tenth month [sic] to the fourth day of the tenth month of

the first year of Ninji 仁治 (1240).” (SZ 14, 35) And, moreover, that “the seating

arrangement (jōza 常座) was that the precept master (risshi 律師) Bōjin 房信 was

made to write down the teaching (hōmon 法門) that was discussed, and so on (un’un

云々).“ (Ibid.) As we shall see below, it is not unlikely that the eventual commentary

written by Dōhan was composed on the basis of notes such as those taken by Bōjin.

40 Unfortunately it is impossible to determine from the printed edition whether Raiyū himself wrote the manuscript or not.

42


Toganoo Shōun has treated these dangi seminars in some detail in his historical study

of Shingon’s scholastic educational systems, though he is mostly concerned with

those events held at Mt. Kōya and Mt. Negoro (Negorozan 根来山). (Toganoo 1982)

Under the name of denbōe, such conferences had already been held by two of Kūkai’s

direct disciples, Jichie 実恵 (786-847) and Shinzen 真然 (804-891), at the Tōji and

on Mt. Kōya respectively. These initiatives came to a halt fairly quickly and it would

not be until roughly two centuries later that serious, large-scale conferences came to

be held again on Mt. Kōya at the initiative of Kakuban.41 As evidenced by Kakuban’s

request to construct a larger venue, his sessions were immensely successful with

crowds numbering hundreds of attendees. After Kakuban’s time, such conferences

began to be held continuously in one form or another at different centers of learning.

Though the specific names (e.g., dangi, denbōe, denbōdai’e 伝法大会) and formats

for such sessions differed depending on time, place, and lineage, Toganoo concludes

that a general template can be discerned that became increasingly rigid and

pronounced from the early Kamakura period onward, leading to highly ritualistic

forms of lecture and debate towards the end of the period. (Toganoo 1982b, 394)

Dangi conferences typically lasted a set number of days - Kakuban’s, for

instance, seem to have lasted fifty, though durations of twenty days were common as

well - and were at times invoked as parallels to the yearly Indian Buddhist retreat for

the monsoon.42 It was also not uncommon that two sessions were held sessions per

41 Shinpo Ryūshō has compared the denbōe of Jichie, Shinzen, and Kakuban respectively. (Shinpo 1992) Akatsuka Yudō and Henny van der Veere have discussed Kakuban’s denbōe in some detail. (Akatsuka 2007; Van der Veere 2007) 42 Genbō’s commentary, for instance, refers to the seminar on the Shōjigi as a “lecture for the retreated assembly” (rōshū dangi 籠衆談義). Whether this actually means that a lecture was held for itinerant priests who had retreated to the Tōji for a certain period, as would be suggested by a literal interpretation of the term “retreat” (komori 籠), cannot be determined from this. The term was also used to refer to a certain rank and status for scholar priests in the Shingon training program. (Toganoo 1982b, 356)

43


year, one before summer and one after. The lectures were delivered by highly learned

speakers and each conference typically focused on a certain text, be it sutra scripture,

commentaries thereon, other treatises important for Shingon doctrine (e.g.,

Shakumakaenron 釈摩訶衍論 (T1668 32)), or works by Kūkai. Each lecture session

was usually preceded by the necessary ceremonials, such as the chanting of the

sonshōdarani 尊勝陀羅尼 and related ritual proceedings, after which the headmaster

(gakutō) of the institute, or another scholar who had been invited to deliver the

lecture, presented a “reading” of the handout materials (haibun 配文). He would

comment on the proper readings of characters, the meaning of specific terms, and

interpret passages from the text.

Mondō: explication through debate

Questions raised during the lectures were to be resolved by means of mondō

“question-and-answer” sessions, where it became common practice to divide the

assembly in a “question” group and an “answer” group. The division of the audience

into groups was determined beforehand and the two groups would be seated

separately during the sessions. Debate thus focused on the text under discussion.

Though initially freer in format and likely intended as a form of debate where

students could demonstrate their skill at debate, the mondō-sessions later became

more formalized developed standard debate progressions based on more elaborate

divisions of roles in the debate.

The Shōjigi Mondō commentary provides some valuable glances and the

proceedings of such a session on Mt. Kōya. The text says that the session was held in

the first year of Jōō 貞応 (1222). The participants listed are: Kakukai, Shinkan 信寛,

44


Shōhen 證遍, Genchō 源朝, Hosshō 法性, Shōso 尚祚, and Dōhan who is already

familiar. (SZ 14, 48) The Mondō reports:

“Subsequently, the following question was asked. With regards to [the section

of the Shōjigi that reads] ‘The exposition of the Dharma by the nyorai 如来

(Sk. tathāgata) necessarily depends on monji 文字,’ and so on. What is the

extent (bunzai 分齊) of ‘the exposition of the Dharma by the nyorai’?

The nyūji 入寺43 Hosshō replied that with regards to the exposition of the

Dharma that spreads throughout the world of passions (shaba sekai 娑婆世界)

Dainichi and Shakyamuni [and all other Buddha’s] can have no limitations.

The nyūji Dōhan criticized this by saying that Hōō’s 法応 [sic] statement that

the various Buddha’s cannot be limited [in their preaching] is too wide in

scope (kōryō 荒涼). It is explained somewhere that ‘on the side of samādhi

(jōhen 定辺) there is no verbal expression (gonsetsu 言説), but on the side of

wisdom (ehen 恵辺) there is verbal expression.’44 What about it if this is to

43 A rank for scholar priests in the service that were more advanced than regular students, but not yet at the level of a master (ajari 阿闍梨). (MDJ, 1708)44 This is a passage taken from the Hizōki 秘蔵記, a text that was originally attributed to Kūkai, but is now considered apocryphal. See: Ōsawa 2013. The whole passage from which this quote was taken reads: “The hosshin has two sides (hen 辺), that of samādhi (jō 定) and that of wisdom (e 恵). If we liken this to water, its being crystalline clear and tranquil is samādhi and its reflecting of all forms and marks (shokusō 色相) is wisdom. What the esoteric teachings explain is that there is no linguistic expression on the side of samādhi, but that there is linguistic expression on the side of wisdom. The water is crystalline clear and tranquil, and it reflects the forms and marks. Nevertheless, the winds of the vows and practices (gangyō 願行) cause waves to appear and these waves make sounds. These are the sounds of seppō.” (KZ 2, 22)

45


mean that it is not possible for the hosshin of subsumed principle (ri hosshin

理法身) to expound the Dharma?

Consequently, the following question was raised: ‘[But] are the hosshin of

subsumed principle and the jōhen [from the quote] the same thing, or different

things?’

In short, all those present agreed that these are the same. A correct

interpretation (shōgi 勝義) was not yet accepted nor rejected (seibai 成敗).

[...]

The next day, following that Shōhen, Hosshō, Dōhan, and so on, come in,

refined debate (seidan 清談) was held again on the teachings (hōmon 法門) of

the previous day.”

(SZ 14, 46)

Leaving the doctrinal intricacies of this debate aside for now, some observations can

be made with regards to how such ceremonies were conducted. Questions were raised,

though it is not clear from the text whether this is by the audience, the master, or an

appointed interrogator, and different scholars stepped forward and attempted to

answer the questions. Their rank as nyūji suggests that the debaters were of advanced

scholarly rank. When a difficult issue was raised, those present were asked to share

their opinion as well, seeing as “all those present agreed”. Sessions could, moreover,

last multiple days and unresolved issues were carried over to the next sitting. As

becomes apparent by further reading of this commentarial passage, the debate has a

46


certain flow and progresses by new questions being posed in response to answers

given to other questions.

In Raiyu’s format, to take a contrasting example of one of the later developed

rigid debate progressions, there seems to be little room for such an organic

progression of the discussion. As part of his effort to systematize the dangi and their

mondō sessions before and after his move to Mt. Negoro in 1288, he developed a

mondō in three stages: the first stage comprised a brief question and a brief answer,

during the second stage the questioner would evaluate and negate, based on scriptural

evidence, two possible positions. The answerer would then reply to this with his own

interpretation by building on the opponent’s evidence and providing new evidence of

his own. The third stage would comprise another attack from the side of the

interrogator. (Toganoo 1982b, 119-20) This is but one example of a practice that was

developed in various learning centers of the tradition that had their own systems and

approaches to the matter, but I think it gives a good sense of how such debates were

carried out.

Because of the restriction posed by this format, Raiyu took some of the other

elements out of the dangi sessions and dedicated separate moments. In order to let

other prominent scholars share alternative views on the matters under discussion he

developed dedicated sessions called rongi 論議. He also extracted the examination

element from the dangi and made it a separate occasion, ryōgi 竪義. (Toganoo 1982b,

121)

Mondō debate thus focused on a number of concerns. Establishing the correct

meaning of statements in the text, the meanings of certain words, exploring its ideas

from different perspectives by moving somewhat away from the original statements

and bringing in sections from other texts. That this is down with so much attention

47


and dedication to detail may have been, as Toganoo suggests as well, to handhold new

students present at the sessions. (Toganoo 1982b, 110-11) The lecture sessions and

accompanying the debates thus served didactic purposes for students at different

levels. For those of the higher levels by letting them demonstrate their skill and

knowledge during debate, while for those of less advanced level by providing them

with the traditional interpretations of certain terms and a demonstration of how to

construct those interpretations as an argument.

Writing Commentaries

So how exactly where these commentaries used and composed during the

dangi sessions? As suggested by its colophon, the Mondō-commentary just discussed

later became a template for future sessions. When Yūjitsu copied the text from the

first manuscript he consulted, he wrote down that he copied it “because it was set as

the textbook (haibun 配文) for the seminar (gakudō 学道) of this institution (tōin当

院) [i.e., the kangakuin勧学院 in the southern valley of Mt. Kōya] next year.” (SZ

14, 44) This would seem to suggest that commentarial texts such as this Mondō can be

linked to in dangi sessions in two ways: On the one hand as a record the proceedings

and the interpretations established, and on the other to serve as textbook for future

sessions.

A note in one of Raiyu’s commentaries supports this and gives more precise

indications on how his composition of commentaries was closely intertwined with his

teachings of denbōe sessions. He writes that the end of his second commentary: “The

writing [of this text] was finished succeeding the lecture (dangi) of the denbōe

[conference] at [...] the Denbōin on Mt. Kōya at the beginning of the fifth month of

the third year of Kōan 弘安 (1280). The questions by the assembly (daie 大会) at that

48


time were included therein. After the assembly had attended the debate session (rongi

論議), I added the remaining ones myself.” (ZSZ 17, 417b)

What is suggested here, then, is that Raiyu first delivered a lecture on the

Shōjigi during which the audience raised questions. A number of these questions - or

all of them - would be taken up and discussed further in the mondō session that was

part of the dangi, and thus written down in the commentary. After that, a debate

session or rongi was held during which alternative interpretations and additional

question were discussed. Raiyu then added these to the commentary. This conforms to

Raiyu’s format for the denbōe as Toganoo discusses it, which emphasizes that Raiyu

strictly distinguished the dangi and the rongi. (Toganoo 1982b, 122) The “results” of

these separate events, however, were compiled into one resulting text: the

commentary. Significantly, the colophon suggests that this text too was copied for use

as a haibun during dangi sometime later in 1488. (ZSZ 17, 369)

An additional salient detail is that both of the commentaries by Raiyu that are

under investigation here are dated to the beginning of the fifth month of 1280. This

suggests that they were likely written in connection with the same denbōe session on

Shōjigi. Their styles, however, differ somewhat. One of the two has a more

“narrative” style if you will, that explains the text and at times brings up questions,

while the second commentary is more problem driven and predominantly takes these

up in the form of mondō. It lists passages from the Shōjigi and then point by point

matters (koto 事) for discussion that are all developed in the mondō fashion. In light

of the text’s just discussed colophon that mentioned questions posed by the audience,

as well as those that came up during the rongi I would suggest it is supposed to be an

overview of the debate point of that seminar on Shōjigi. This is somewhat at odds

with what Fabio Rambelli has suggested elsewhere.

49


In a brief article on Raiyu, Fabio Rambelli mentions in passing that Raiyu’s

works with gusō 愚草 (litt. “foolish notes”) were drafts on the basis of which Raiyu

delivered his lectured and which he would later rewrite into the final commentaries.

(Rambelli 2002, 1231) This observation would not hold in the present case because

the gusō very well did go through the whole process of revision. But it is likely that

Rambelli is right in suggesting that Raiyu as well as other commentators did indeed

lecture on the basis of draft commentarial texts to which they might later add points

that came up during the lectures to produce the definitive version of the text. To return

to Raiyu’s two commentaries of the same date, we can observe that though there is

some overlap in their contents, both mention things that the other does not as well;

they are two distinct texts likely composed for two different purposes.

Let us take a closer look at one more commentary, that of Genbō. Whereas

Raiyu’s commentaries suggest that he himself wrote them in light of lectures he

delivered, Genbō wrote his commentary on the basis of lectures delivered by his

master Gōhō, for which he even recorded the dates of the sessions and noted the

names of those present/absent for a certain session.45 It is, as already mentioned, a

kuhitsu, or collection of verbal notes. It is also easily glanced from remarks in the text

that Genbō wrote the commentary during the lectures of his master Gōhō. He wrote

these notes, as suggested by remarks in the text, rather hurriedly during the sessions

themselves and read completed them in his room afterwards. His master Gōhō would

then annotate this kuhitsu in order to create the final commentary. (SZ 14, 115, 127)

If the process indeed proceeded as is suggested here, this has interesting

implications for certain occurrences in the commentary. Both the scholarship of

Genbō and of Gōhō are characterized by moments of personal interpretation signified

45 At the beginning of the commentary Genbō writes that it is the first dangi for an ordinand called Kyōgen 教源 (dates unknown).

50


by expressions such as “shiki私記” or “watakushi iwaku 私云.” This presents the

reader of the commentary with a conundrum: does the “I” in the commentary refer to

Genbō the author, or to Gōhō the teacher?

The commentaries under discussion here provide concrete evidence that they

were written and later reproduced during and for the aforementioned Dharma

seminars (denbō dangi 伝法談義) that were held periodically. The express goal of

these seminars was to train the scholastic clergy by means of lecture and debate,

where advanced students demonstrated their skill in debate (a form of examination),

while those of lower level in the audience learned by listening.46 Composed in such an

environment, commentaries seem to serve a primarily didactic purpose that aims to

instill in students an understanding of the original text, but also attempts to answer

their questions. Lecturers incorporated the questions discussed the seminars into the

definitive editions of their commentaries, improving their educational value even

further. Commentaries thus actively participate in the process of transmitting and

preserving the Dharma.

Such observations may contribute to an explanation of why certain scholars

wrote multiple commentaries, but also the attention for detail in the commentarial

texts. It may also provide a concrete explanation of how seemingly “external matters”

such as the previously discussed Zen-question can come up during the sessions.

Someone may simply have asked the question.

These suggestions have a potentially profound impact on the approaches by

which masshaku are studied in the present day academy, which on the whole do not

seem take into account this environment of oral transmission. In the next chapter I

46 Paul Groner has remarked that the Tendai tradition also developed educational systems that focused on lectures and debate around the same time. (Groner 2011)

51


will explore the potential methodological implications of the observations made here

by deploying the in an argument that points out the possibility that problems external

to Shōjigi’s own text became part of one of the traditional transmissions. In the end, I

will propose that it is important to read the commentaries while taking the educational

context of their composition into account.

52


5. From Textual Mondō to Verbal Mondō and The Building

of Tradition

In the previous chapter I briefly quoted from the discussion recorded in the Shōjigi

Mondō commentary to illustrate the proceedings of such a verbal exchange. The

matter that was debated there, i.e., whether the rihosshin expounds the Dharma or not,

comes up in Dōhan’s own commentary as well. Sometime later, Yūkai’s

commentaries bring up the topic. In this section, I discuss both those later occurrences

because I would like to suggest that: Firstly, occurrences of the mondō format in

commentarial texts may sometimes be registrations of actual exchanges instead of

text-rhetorical devices. This means that the given passage requires a slightly different

treatment. And second, that what happens here is that a problem that is external to the

Shōjigi, a contradiction in Kūkai’s Hizōki, came to be a regular topic of discussion

during dangi on Shōjigi on Mt. Kōya.

In Dōhan’s commentary, the matter of the rihosshin is brought up by a

questioner in regards to the term nyorai that occurs in the very first sentence of the

Shōjigi. (KZ1, 521) The point of discussion becomes to which Buddha bodies the

term refers. Dōhan’s commentary tackles the question head-on, when a questioner

asks:

“Question: Which of the three bodies (sanjin 三身47) does “nyorai” here [in

Shōjigi] indicate? Or, does it refer to all three?

47 The three-body theory is one of the conventional schemes for Buddha bodies based on bodies in different functions. Though variedly interpreted, the general outline is usualy similar. There is the Dharma-body (hosshin, Sk. dharmakāya), an absolute entity generally considered to be beyond language and thought, having no form or activity. The second body in the scheme is the hōshin 報真 (Sk. saṃbhogakāya), or ‘reward body’, that expounds the Dharma for very advanced sentient beings such as Bodhisattvas. And lastly there is the hengeshin 変化身 (Sk. nirmāṇakāya) or transformation body where the Buddha manifests in the form of a sentient being to expound the Dharma directly for the benefit of other sentient beings

53


Answer: All three bodies together have this [seppō activity].

(SZ 14, 10)

The term nyorai then refers to all three types of bodies available to the Buddha, which

is fully in accord with Kūkai’s idea that all bodies are Dainichi. He explains this later

in Shōjigi. (KZ1, 532-33) This could have been the end of the matter, had the author

merely wanted to clarify this. Or, if he had intended to make his point more

convincing, he could have supplied additional evidence to strengthen his position.

Instead, the interrogator retorts with a question that brings up a problem that

lays outside of the Shōjigi’s text, but that becomes interesting in light of the topic

addressed. Homing in on the Dharma body of the three, he suggests that nyorai seppō

cannot possibly include all three bodies because the Dharma body - here discussed as

rihosshin - does not expound the Dharma because it cannot have speech.

Rebuke: But among these three bodies, the rihosshin48 [i.e., the hosshin in its

absolute aspect] is not a teacher (kyōshu 教主) that expounds the Dharma.

Hence it says somewhere that ‘on the side of samādhi (teihen 定辺) there is no

verbal expression (gonsetsu 言説), but on the side of wisdom (ehen 恵辺)

there is verbal expression.’49 Additionally, in the state (i 位) of self-

48 The term rihosshin 理法身 is in Shingon at times also used in conjunction with chihosshin 智法身, wisdom Dharma body, to distinguish the Dharma body’s absolute aspect from its wisdom aspect. Kūkai treated these as two modes of description of the same a-dual entity. Here, however, the context suggests that it is being used to refer to one of the three bodies, where it corresponds to the Dharmakāya in the Mahayāna sense, i.e., an absolute and inactive entity beyond cognition. We shall see below that Yūkai, in a way one Dōhan’s scholastic successors, explicitly identifies the rihosshin as the jishōshin of Kūkai’s four-body scheme. In Yūkai’s interpretation, the chihosshin would then be equivalent to the self-oriented ji juyū shin, one of the two aspects of the nirṃanakāya. He explains this in his first commentary, dealing with the same passage as Dōhan here. (SZ 14, 208) 49 This sentence was already encountered earlier, when the discussion of the mondō sessions quoted from the Shōji jissōgi mondō. I provided a translation of the Hizōki passage in footnote # 43.

54


enlightenment (jishō 自證), [things] become totalized (sō 総) and one cuts off

linguistic expression and abolishes the [distinction between the] mind and its

objects. Hence the commentary on the Dainichikyō says: ‘at this point (sho

処), language (gongo 言語) is completely exhausted and the [distinction

between the] mind and its objects (gyō 行) has also perished.’ Moreover, it

also says: ‘The speaker (sessha 説者) is without speech and the observer

(kansha 観者) is without looking.’ Now how can one then say that all three

bodies each expound the Dharma?

Answer: That there is no verbal expression in the sate of self-enlightenment,

means that the “talent” with which one has been endowed (hiki被機) [i.e., the

presence of the absolute itself within the human body] has no verbal

expression. It does not mean that there is no verbal explanation of the truth of

inner realization (naishō内證). What we call the teaching of Shingon is the

true linguistic expression that is [precisely] in accordance with the true

meaning [of things] (nyogi shinjitsu no gonsetsu 如義真実言説). It is used

only between Buddha’s. Moreover, as for your statement that the rihosshin

does not preach is concerned, that is not the true meaning of the present

teaching [of Shingon mikkyō]. It is the meaning established by the scholars

that cling to the web of the exoteric [teachings]. When it says somewhere that

there is no linguistic expression in the state of samādhi, it only looks at

speech’s aspect (sō 相) of teaching others (keta 化他).”

(SZ 14, 10)

55


What the questioner brings up is, in essence, what the Shingon discourse considers to

be the exoteric view of the Dharma body - as is suggested by the reply to the question.

Kūkai held the opposite position that the hosshin expounds the teaching actively and

in all sorts of ways. However, the interrogator produces evidence from the

Dainichikyō and one of Kūkai’s own writings, that this hosshin does not expound the

Dharma. This points to a problem that lies in the Hizōki and the Dainichikyō: though

Kūkai’s explicit position is that the hosshin engages actively in seppō, there are two

passages of scripture that contradict this. One of which is found in his own writings.

The occasion of commenting on the Shōjigi here becomes an opportunity to attempt to

address a problem that actually lies in two other texts.

The magnitude of the problem that this contradiction presents can be glanced

from a passage in the somewhat older Shōjigi mondō commentary we already

discussed. The passage was already discussed in section one of this study, but I will

return to it briefly. In the Mondō, Dōhan himself steps forward and brings up the same

passage from the Hizōki to argue that the rihosshin does not preach. In response to

this, the interrogators made a clever rhetorical move as defense:

“In this connection the following question was raised: ‘[But] are the Dharma

body of subsumed principle and the teihen [mentioned in the Hizōki quote] the

same thing, or different things?” (SZ 14, 46a)

This is a clear question: Who is to say that Kūkai actually talks about in the passage is

the same as the rihosshin? Unfortunately for the interrogating party “all those present,

in short, agreed that they are the same [thing].” (SZ 14, 46a) In this instance then,

Dōhan’s observation was accepted as a valid point, a real problem of contradiction in

56


one of Kūkai’s works. The importance of solving such an inconsistency can be

glanced from the effort and time subsequently invested in order to come to an

explanation. “[At that time] a superior interpretation (shōgi 勝義) was not yet

accepted nor rejected (seibai 成敗)” and discussion over the matter continued without

a solution, so “the next day, following that Shōhen, Hosshō, Dōhan, and so on, had

come in, refined debate (seidan 清談) was held again on the teachings (hōmon 法門)

of the previous day.” (SZ 14, 46a) A clear solution to Kūkai’s self-contradiction is, in

the end, not established in the Mondō because the debate leads away from Dōhan’s

initial point.

As we have already seen, Dōhan’s later commentary on the Shōjigi does

present a solution to the matter. The statement does not mean that there is no

linguistic expression at all, but only that there is no linguistic expression for the

benefit of other beings. The Shingon language, which is fully in accord with reality, is

spoken in that domain, but only between the Buddhas. After this question has been

resolved, the commentary moves on to discuss another question on the same sentence.

But why does such a collateral matter appear during an explication of Shōjigi?

A reading of the commentary as a scholastic text may suggest that Dōhan does

this as a rhetorical move to support his point that nyorai refers to the three bodies, but

as I already suggest, there are more convincing methods available to do that. Or

perhaps the author decided to take advantage of an opportunity to connect a point in

the Shōjigi to another problem he is aware of, in order to present his solution to it.

This is a plausible explanation, but in light of Raiyu’s kaji-theory exposition, the

explanation here leaves much to be wanted in detail and evidence. However, in light

of what we now know about the production of commentarial literature during

57


scholastic lecture cycles, I would suggest that there may be a more compelling

explanation.

Dōhan had raised the matter earlier, in the Mondō commentary, and it may

very well be so that the mondō in his commentary is a registration of an actual

question-answer exchange as well. In that case, the problem comes up in Dōhan’s

commentary because the issue was raised during the lecture session, or because it was

selected as point of discussion beforehand. Against this scholastic background of

lecture and debate, the occasion gave more advanced students an opportunity to

demonstrate their skill by solving the problem, while for the less advanced students in

the audience it was a chance to be educated in how to formulate the correct solution

and the establish of the traditional hosshin seppō position of Shingon.

Yūkai, one of Dōhan’s successors on Mt. Kōya and likely familiar with his

scholarship, raises the Hizōki problem in both of his commentaries as well. Saliently,

he does so in the mondō format. The question is posed in a slightly different form

from Dōhan’s. In both it is asked to which of the fourfold Dharma body’s proposed by

Kūkai “nyorai” refers. The answer is, of course, all four. Here too, the Hizōki passage

is brought up to counter the answer. Yūkai’s second commentary proposes a solution

that is different from Dōhan’s:

“Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂経開題 says: “All four types of Dharma body

expound this path (dō 道)”. Only, with regards to what was just brought up for

questioning [from the Hizōki], that is only that for one moment, temporarily,

(ichiō 一往) samādhi (jō 定) and wisdom (e 恵) “look each other in the eye”

58


(sōmō 相望) [in a relative division]. In reality, there can be seppō there. <As

usual (tsune no gotoshi 如常)>” (ZSZ 17, 428-29)

In order to solidify his claim, the defender first refers to a text where Kūkai says

explicitly that all four bodies expound the Dharma - a solution that is perhaps only

possible because the question is now rephrased in terms of the fourfold Buddha body.

Yūkai’s other commentary brings in more explicit evidence from Kūkai’s writings,

that contains exactly the right terms: it is said that the ryōbu-sutras are preached by

the jishō juyū richi ni hosshin 自性受用理智二法身, or the “two Dharma bodies of ri

and chi that are the jishō body and the juyū body of Kūkai’s four bodies respectively”.

(SZ 14, 208b) The matter is thus resolved.

But what is more salient in the quote from Yūkai’s second commentary is the

little note at the end of the discussion concerning the Hizōki quote: “As usual. (tsune

no gotoshi 如常)” I read this as an reference to the proceedings of the mondō session

as it took place. That is, it reports that the discussion progresses as usual. We have

already seen that Toganoo has argued that the format of discussion and the topics of

debate become increasingly ritualistic and determined as the Kamakura period

progressed toward Yūkai’s time (Toganoo 1982b, 394) In light of this, “as usual” can

be read to suggest that the debate progressed according to the usual routine and that

the correct interpretation was eventually established. Because the routine is

supposedly familiar to the reader, there is no need to write it down at full length -

though we are, regrettably, not aware of what the full routine may have entailed.

Based on these observations I wonder whether it perhaps be so that this

external matter of the Hizōki-contradiction became an integral part of the Shōjigi

commentarial tradition on Mt. Kōya. Such development would resonate well with the

59


earlier observation that older commentaries began to be used as haibun-textbooks for

lectures around this time. Moreover, it may not be the only instance. Yūkai’s mention

of Zen in his second commentary, though slightly different in form, addresses

basically the same Zen/language related issue as Dōhan did. I think this matter

deserves further exploration, but it will have to be postponed until a future

opportunity.

I would like to propose that in light of the passages just treated, there is

enough evidential basis to suggest that it may be so that not all mondō section in

commentaries are textual devices, but that a number of them - perhaps even a

substantial amount - might be records of actual mondō exchanges. Such an

observation has potential ramifications for how academic scholars read a

commentary, because it may suggest that the opinions presented during the mondō are

not necessarily in alignment with those of the commentary’s author. I find that this

exposes an important characteristic of the commentarial text that needs to be taken

into consideration when reading passages in Shōjigi commentaries.

Now that the circumstances and motivations of Shōjigi explications have

become somewhat cleared and a slightly different approach to the texts has been

suggested on the basis thereof, the next chapter can take a brief dip into the

commentarial discussion and assess exactly how commentators have framed their

discussion of the Shōjigio. Or how they have made it relevant to their audiences.

60


6. The “Spirit” of the Shōjigi

As I suggested above, scholastic literature provided Shingon’s knowledge

communities a means to articulate their differences and construct interpretational

boundaries. Against such a background, it is hardly a surprise that each commentary

on the Shōjigi presents a different vision on the text, an interpretation informed by the

commentator and his audience - be it the audience of a writer or of a lecturer.

The study of the respective differences in conceptual interpretation of the

Shōjigi, such as how the understanding of monji differs from Dōhan’s commentaries

to those of Yūkai’s, would involve a detailed investigation into very subtle doctrinal

differences. Ironically, these can easily be conveyed by means of the interlinear style

of the commentaries themselves, but turns into a logical nightmare when one attempts

to force it into the format of an academic argument. A responsible enquiry into such

matters would go far beyond the confines of the present study.

However, I think that the debate revolving around one specific point of the

Shōjigi in particular may still be manageable and uniquely suitable to illustrate the

interpretive differences between the different commentaries. This is the matter of

Kūkai’s intention, or i 意, with the text; a topic touched upon by every commentator.

There is perhaps is no point in the Shōjigi were the discord among the interpreters is

so pronounced as on this matter. Besides, how they frame the text reveals something

of how they made the text relevant to their respective audience and may also hint at

how they understand the text in the large scheme. Let us briefly take note of a

selection of commentarial opinions.

61


Shōjigi and Sokushingi: Setting Up the Esoteric Method

Dōhan’s commentary treats Kūkai’s intentions with the Shōjigi the relationship with

what is considerd to be the earlier Sokushingi. It tells us that Kūkai composed Shōjigi

after the Sokushingi in order to develop and clarify the order of the two divisions of

the Shingon tradition into which practices are systematized, the ryōbu 両部.

The ryōbu are the kongōkai 金剛界 and the taizō 胎蔵, two different ritual-

doctrinal approaches - and also different initiation lineages - that are complimentary

in Kūkai’s system: they are funi 不二 (“not different”) because they represent two

different views of the same absolute dharmakāya that is beyond duality. In both views

the hosshin is different in function, but the same in substance. These two views are

based on the Kongōchōgyō 金剛頂経 (kongōkai; T865 18) and Dainichikyō (taizō)

and can be schematized in the dual mandara (ryōbu mandara 両部曼荼羅). In their

pictorial form, the mandara are hung on both sides of the altar during ritual

performances, but their schematic is also used to structure the visualizations of the

practitioner.50

Dōhan’s commentary explains that Sokushingi, though it in fact discusses both

divisions, is oriented on the kongōkai. Its focus is on shigaku 始覚, the first step of

enlightened insight actualized in this lifetime that is also immediately already the

complete result. This, Dōhan tells us, is jōbutsu 成仏, which in this context must be

translated as “becoming a Buddha” because his discussion of the kongōkai

presupposes a process leading the process from the root to the result (i.e., 50 The mandara is a topic of some debate. They are usually commonly considered to be pictorial representation, but in Shingon the concept is much more expansive. Henny van der Veere explains that mandara are at the theoretical level fields that organize objects on the basis of a certain shared quality. (Van der Veere 1998, 150) The so-called hō-mandara 法曼荼羅, for instance, organizes a field on the basis of the various Siddham syllables that objects in that field. Pictorial mandara can be seen as instance of theoretical notion, but when mandara are mentioned in the present study, it usually denotes non-pictorial forms.

62


enlightenment). By explaining the complex of six elements, four mandalas and the

kaji of three mysteries, Sokushingi - like its title already suggests - makes this jōbutsu

the main focus of its discussion.51

Shōjigi by contrast does not discuss jōbutsu but takes the taizō. There, the

focus lies on the constant and unchanging presence of a “subsumed principle”(ri 理)

in all things, the immanent presence of the absolute that makes everything in the

universal equal. This is an approach that is according to Dōhan predicated on inherent

enlightenment (hongaku 本覚52). He explains that when the world is viewed from the

point of inherent enlightenment, there can be no jōbutsu. (SZ 14, 9)

Dōhan suggests that Kūkai wrote the two texts in this succession in order to

clarify that taizō should come after kongōkai. This order can also be glanced in the

buildup of Shingon’s ritual curriculum, the shido kegyō 四度加行. There one first

studies the jūhachidō 十八道, then the kongōkai 金剛界 rituals, then the goma 護摩

fire-ritual, and after that the taizō 胎蔵 rituals - although the moment at which one

studies the goma can vary depending on the ritual lineage.53 According to Dōhan’s

51 In Sokushingi Kūkai proposes a view of the absolute that draw on the discursive approaches Daijōkishinron 大乗起信論 and Shakumakaenron. (T1666 32; T1668 32) Kūkai identifies the absolute discussed in these texts as the hosshin Dainichi and discusses it on the basis of four properties: 1) its substance (taidai 体大) as consisting of six qualities (rokudai 六大), 2) its differentiated perceptible aspects (sōdai 相大) as consisting of four mandara, 3) its functions (yūdai 用大) as consisting of the three mysteries, and 4) its condition of existence as unobstructed interpenetration (muge 無碍). Kūkai calls this complex sokushin jōbutsu. (KZ 1, 506-520)52 The idea of hongaku became a topic of immense speculation in Tendai scholarship between the twelfth and the fourteenth century in particular. (Stone 1995) Though it is quite possible that Dōhan was aware of the early stages of such developments - his work on Amida nenbutsu shows a marked interest in Tendai ideas - it is difficult to determine conclusively whether his mention of the term hongaku should be seen in light of that debate. (E.g., DBZ 43, 54c) The terms hongaku and shigaku occur as a set in the Shakumakenron that is an important to Shingon scholasticism, so it is plausible that he merely took the set from there. 53 The denbōinryū 伝法院流 studies goma in between kongōkai and taizōkai, where as the chūinryū studies goma after the other two. In Tendai training it is the other way around and taizō comes before kongōkai. For more on ritual practice and shido kegyō training, see: Toganoo 1982a; Payne 1991.

63


commentary the clarification of this sequence was Kūkai intention with the Shōjigi.

(SZ 14, 9b)

The 835 Kanpu Documents: Shōjigi and the Training of the Nenbundosha

A much later Shōjigi commentary by the priest Donjaku - in this chapter of some

interest - rather finds Kūkai’s intention with the Shōjigi in a place seemingly at odds

with Dōhan’s. (SZ 14, 259-345) He brings to attention a document issued to Kūkai by

the Great Council of State in 835, the year of his death.54 The document, or kanpu 官

符, presented the Shingon school with three annual ordinands (nenbundosha 年分度

者) that were each to dedicate themselves to one of three academic disciplines (sangō

三業) in a program of study likely devised by Kūkai himself.55 This program was

briefly implemented on Mt. Kōya after Kūkai’s death, but was discontinued when the

mountain became abandoned in the tenth century. One of these students was to

dedicate his time to the study of ritual of the kongōkai orientation. Another would

study practices of the taizō orientation. The third student would apply himself to

mastering the discipline of shōmyō 声明, which included the study of Shōjigi. It is

worth quoting the document’s passage on shōmyō in some detail. The three

disciplines, with the third described briefly, are:

“•The discipline (gō 業) of the Kongōchōyugakyō 金剛頂瑜伽経, one person.

[...]

54 Yūkai first commentary discusses this document as well, though I think he only brings it up to demonstrate the importance of Shōjigi. (SZ 14, 205)55 There are two versions of this kanpu or two kanpu on this topic from subsequent days (some editions give them the same date, some date them to subsequent days). The fact that there are two was remarked upon by Gōhō, who in chapter eight of his Tōbōki 東宝記 compares the two. The one found in KZ does mention Shōjigi as part of the shōmyō curriculum, while the other version, also found in Ruiju sandai kyaku 類聚三代格, does not. Cf. ZZGR 12, 150-52; KZ 446-47; KT 12, 419-20.

64


• The discipline of the Daibirushanajōbutsukyō 大毘盧遮那成仏神変加持経,

one person. [...]

• The discipline of shōmyō, one person

Shall dedicate his studies to memorizing, writing, and chanting Bonji shittan

shō梵字悉曇章56 in one section and two fascicles. Additionally, he must read

the Daikujaku myōōkyō 大孔雀明王経57 in one section and three fascicles.

Moreover, he also ought to study the Shōji jissō gi.

(KZ 5, 446)

Though this passage provides little to go on regarding the actual practices to be

studied as part of shōmyō, it can at least be deduced that Siddham was to be studied,

that certain scriptures were to be memorized, and that the Shōjigi was to be read.58

The study of Siddham likely only involved reading and writing the characters, since

Sanskrit studied in Japan showed little concern for Sanskrit grammar until the

Shingon priest Ji-un 慈雲 (1718-1805). (Van Gulik 1980, 119, 133) The chanting was

perhaps also an important part of the practice, seeing as shōmyō later developed into a

musical-like tradition for singing scripture (sutras, shingon, darani) with its own

lineages and systems for musical notation.59 Judging from how the other disciplines in

56 It is not entirely clear which text this is. Kūkai mentions a text with this exact title in the catalogue of texts and ritual implements he brought back from China, but the text in the catalogue is only one fascicle, whereas that mentioned in the kanpu is in two fascicles. (Shōrai mokuroku 請来目録, KZ 1, 90) And Edo-period text by this title also exists, but does not speak to the present discussion.　57 T982 19.58 The second version of the kanpu reads: ’• The discipline (gyō 業) of shōmyō, one person. Shall dedicate himself to writing and reciting shingon in Sanskrit and darani 陀羅尼 such as the daibucchō

大仏頂 [darani] and the zuigu 随求陀羅尼 [darani]. The one person on the right [who will study shōmyō] shall also dedicate himself to studying the Daikujaku myōōkyō 大孔雀明王経.’ (ZZGR 12, 152-53) For the two darani: Cf. MDJ, 1534-44; MDJ, 1313 & 1960, respectively.59 Kushida discusses the history of Shingon shōmyō in some detail, but focuses on the development of its lineages at a number of monastic centers. The concrete practices of shōmyō and how these

65


the kanpu are described, it is quite possible that Shōjigi was put on the curriculum as a

form of doctrinal justification, to explain why shōmyō “works”.60 If anything, Shōjigi

can provide the rationale to explain why chanting - and more importantly chanting

correctly - can be an effective practice. (KZ 5, 446) Along the same line, Kushida has

also claimed that Shōjigi provided the shōmyō discipline with a doctrinal backbone,

placing it on equal par with those of the taizō and kongōkai as practical methods of

realizing the absolute through ritual praxis. (Kushida 1964, 410)

It may very well be that this is what Donjaku meant when he wrote about this

passage from the kanpu that “when our Daishi 大師 [i.e., Kūkai] wrote this text it was

in order to set up the three disciplines and to let students after his death have a field

(chi 地) to which to dedicate (oku置く) their minds.” (SZ 14, 259)

Genbō’s discussion of the same kanpu passage proceeds in a slightly different

direction. After quoting from the kanpu, he proceeds to provide a “personal

interpretation” quoted here in full. Given that such personal interpretations are a

trademark of his master Gōhō’s scholarship as well, one might wonder whether what

is presented here is Genbō’s view or that of his teacher.

“I myself say that the three disciplines (sangō 三業) are none other than the

three mysteries. The discipline of the kongōchō 金剛頂 is the mystery of

mind, the discipline of the taizō is the mystery of the body, and the discipline

of shōmyō is the mystery of speech. Moreover, because the three mysteries

interpenetrate, are complete and are unlimited, the three divisions (sanbu 三

developed receive only brief attention. Cf. Kushida 1964, 409-479. 60 The subsequent passage in the kanpu is in fact a description of why shōmyō is important. Though the justification of shōmyō is based on a number of ideas clearly drawn from Shōjigi, the passage provides no hints with regards to concrete details of the practice and what its study entailed.

66


部) also appear within the discipline of shōmyō. These also take the form of

the three mysteries. When the bonji-shittan mentioned [in the kanpu] are in the

form of characters (ji 字), they are the body mystery. When the Kujaku

myōōkyō is treated as sound, it is the mystery of speech. And when shōji jissō

is viewed for its true meaning (gi 義), it is the mystery of mind.”

(SZ 14, 115)

In the course of this passage, Genbō’s commentary engages in an interesting feat of

word play based on the term sangō 三業. In the kanpu the term is used to refer to the

three disciplines, but in the same orthography it can also be used with a very different

connotation. Namely to refer to the three types of karmic activities engaged in by the

living beings: the activities of the body (shingō 身業), those of speech (kugō 口業),

and those of the mind (igō 意業). (BDJ, 581; MDJ, 788) These three activities

correspond to the categories of the three mysteries. It is this correspondence that

provides the basis for Genbō’s identification of each of the disciplines with one of the

three mysteries. One might of course wonder whether Kūkai intended this or not, but

what Genbō does make clear is that he considers the shōjigi as the mystery of mind,

of visualization. This may seem rather surprising in light of Shōjigi’s emphasis on

voice, but when Genbō later discusses Kūkai’s intention with the Shōjigi directly,

what he may have meant becomes somewhat clearer.

Genbō: Visualizing shōji jissō

67


When Genbō’s commentary discusses the meaning of Shōjigi’s title, it is asked why

Kūkai wrote the text. The reply speaks, mostly, for itself. I here render the whole

exchange in translation:

“Question: What was Kūkai’s intention in establishing the three types of shō,

ji, and jissō?

Answer: It was in order to further advance the visualization practices (shukan

修観) of Shingon practitioners. [This was necessary] because the ritual

procedures (hōsoku) for the Shingon practices are clarified in various places in

the sutras and tantras, and these [clarifitcations] are not the same. Generally

speaking, there are no more than two types: ceremonial [rituals] (kuyō 供養)

and recitation [rituals] (nenju 念誦). Among these two, nenju is the most

essential. So when it says “nenju” in the titles of the various tantras, this is

what is meant.

As for these nenju rituals, it means to let the mind become quiet, and

turn it to both jō 定 and e 恵, and then to visualize the shō 声 of the Shingon

that one is reciting. After that one visualizes the shape of its letters (ji 字), and

after that one visualizes its meaning(s?) (giri 義理).

This ritual procedure is to focus the mind on one object and not let it

stray any further. Derived out of this [shared basis], the various types of

mindsets applied to visualization, such as those of that have form (usō 有相)

and those that do not (musō 無相), are just as explained in the various sutras

and tantras. Because this is so, when the three visualizations of shō, ji, and

68


jissō are brought in accord, one can attain supreme wisdom (daishijji 大悉地).

And because that is the larger meaning of the visualization practices of our

school, [Kūkai] wrote this text and truly explained this truth (gi 義).

(SZ14, 120)

According to this passage, Kūkai wrote the Shōjigi from a ritual interest. He meant to

provide a single framework within which to systematize the many different forms of

visualization found in the scriptures, such as the ajikan 阿字観 and the gosōjōjinkan

五相成身観 visualization practices. (Cf. Takagami 1989, 251-52; Toganoo 1982a,

222-29) This would fit nicely with what we saw Genbō do for the kanpu document.

There he equated Shōjigi to the mind mystery, which in light of the passage here may

suggest that he considered Shōjigi to provide the basis for the visualizations made

during shōmyō practice.

Theoretical Shōjigi?: Kakuban’s Denbōe Lecture

At this point it may be interesting to turn our gaze to one of Kakuban’s denbōe

lectures, because he also discussed Shōjigi.

Kakuban organized denbōe lectures twice yearly, dedicating the first session

to theoretical matters and the second mostly to implementation in ritual practices. The

secrecy of the second session in particular was of such importance that he had a sign

put up saying that priests without proper credentials were not to be admitted. It seems

that Kakuban was not present for every session, but he delivered lectures regularly

between 1130 and 1143 at different venues on Mt. Kōya and Mt. Negoro. (van der

Veere 2007; Shinpo 1992)

Most of what is known about the content of Kakuban’s lectures is owed to the

survival of a collection of notes written down by one of Kakuban’s less prominent

69


disciples, Chōganbō Shōō 長厳房聖応 (dates unkown), about whom practically

nothing is known. The notes have been bundled in a work called Uchigikishū 打聞集

that, though not written by Kakuban himself, is considered a valuable aid in the study

of his thought.61 It is difficult to ascertain to what extent Shōō’s notes convey reliably

what perspired during these lectures and what remains of Kakuban’s original words

and intentions. Despite being a record of oral transmission similar to that of which

Shōjigi commentaries testify, it is possible that Shōō’s notes did not receive the same

approval of the master as Genbō’s did. Genbō’s commentary mentions explicitly that

his master annotated the text, which likely means that it was approved. In the case of

Shōō, however, it is not at all clear whether this is the case Kakuban sanctioned the

text. Van der Veere mentions that a manuscript of the Uchigikishū copied by Raiyu

contains a note suggesting that Kakuban may have seen the text and approved its

contents, but the veracity of this statement is difficult to determine. (Veere 2007, 605)

It is also plausible that Shōō may have written these notes for his personal use and

consequently left out many of the matters that were already familiar to him.

Notwithstanding, I think a brief look at Shōō’s notes on the lecture about Shōjigi may

still be informative.

The lecture on Shōjigi is the very last one that Kakuban delivered before his

death, the autumn session of Kōji 2 康治 (1143). (KDZ, 585-587) Closer inspection

of the brief entry reveals that the notes only explain the first few sentences of the

Shōjigi’s introduction. The text’s title is discussed, as well as the important concepts

that occur in first few sentences. Interpretations are also offered for ambiguous terms

in the early passages of the Shōjigi. Because this is an autumn session one would

61 There are in fact two different texts entitled Uchigikishu. One comprises the collection of notes discussed here and which full title is Kakuban shōnin denbōe dangi uchigikishū 覚鑁聖人伝法会打聞集, the other is an early Heian-period collection of twenty-seven setsuwa 説話 tales only extant in a manuscript copied by the monk Eigen 栄源 dated Chōshō 3 長承 (1134). (van der Veere 2007)

70


expect that the discussion of the text is directly concerned with ritual praxis, but

saliently this is not clearly so.

Shōō’s commence with a forthright though somewhat obscure statement of

what shōji jissō gi is. Shōō writes:

“Shōji jissō gi62 is the basic principle (sadame 定)63 for the kaidai 開題 of all

the other scriptures. The kaidai is comprehensive (sō總), while the [regular]

sentences (mon 文) and so on in the text are only partial (betsu 別).”

(KDZ 585)

But what does this mean? The term kaidai can be used to refer to a number of things.

It is for instance used to refer to the act of “opening the title” - the literal meaning of

the term - which means that one explains the title of a scripture in order to retrieve the

gist of the text. This operation is predicated on the idea that the entire content of a

sutra is already contained in its title. This has spawned a genre of kaidai texts, a type

of commentarial text of which Kūkai wrote a considerable number. These generally

have “kaidai” in the title.64 Alternatively, the term can be used as an abbreviation for

kaidai kuyō 開題供養, a type of ceremony where scriptures are copied and their titles

explained before making an offering of them. (MDJ 205-206)

62 It is grammatically ambiguous whether the “shōji jissō gi” here ought to be read as the title of the Shōjigi or as “the ‘gi’ of shōji jissō”, but this difference would have only minor impact on the general meaning of the sentence.63 This is not the most conventional meaning of the term, but it is found in dictionaries of premodern Japanese. In Buddhist contexts it usually often means “meditation.” Such a translation would, however, not fit the present context. Cf. Second meaning of “定め”, KGJ, 506. 64 Katsumata has collected and annotated twenty-five of them. He also mentions the titles of four that are likely lost. Cf. KCZ 2, 183-443, 452-53.

71


Perhaps what Shōō’s notes refer to is a passage in one of Kūkai’s kaidai texts,

the Kongōchōgyō kaidai. There, Kūkai provides the title of the Kongōchōgyō in its

Sanskrit form, cuts it into small segments consisting of words and individual

syllables, and proceeds to explain the meanings of these. This is an exegetical strategy

highly reminiscent of the interlinear style of Shōjigi commentaries. Right after the

cut-up of the title, Kūkai refers to his Shōjigi for explanation of what he just did and

how each segment of the title can have many meanings. He writes:

“In this way, one character (ji 字) and two characters, or even three characters

and four characters, come together and express the name/meaning myō 名 of a

single thing. Words (myō 名65) come together and form phrases (ku 句), and

phrases come together to form verses (ju頌). Single words (myō 名) and

single phrases all express the name/meanings of people and Dharma’s. The

meanings (gi 義) of words consisting of one character and words consisting of

one or two characters are immensely broad and boundless (jinkō musai甚広無

際). This is like I explained it in Shōjigi, so I will omit it here.”

(KCZ 2, 264)

The different linguistic elements that Kūkai uses in this passage - characters, words,

phrases - all correspond closely to the linguistic elements that he described in Shōjigi.

There, however, these elements are those that make up the shingon language.

This fits in well with Kūkai’s views of humans language as a corruption of

Dainichi’s shingon. Degraded forms of language carry the same properties as the

shingon language because they arise from it. Hence their linguistic elements are the 65 Note that the character myō 名 is used here in two distinct senses. It is on the one hand the name/meaning expressed by an utterance, but at the same time used to refer to a linguistic unit used to construct utterances.

72


same. In the same way as shingon, then, the words of the defiled languages contain

limitless meanings, though their use by ignorant beings is usually intended to convey

only a very limited number or even single meaning. Once one has recognized this, one

can theoretically speaking begin to analyze the correct meanings (gi 義) of any

linguistic utterance.

And this happens to be exactly what Kūkai does next in Kongōchōgyō kaidai,

as well as other kaidai texts. He discusses how the title can be divided into phrases,

words, and single characters, and even how this division can be different for the

Chinese and Sanskrit versions of the title. Then he correlates all these elements, in

grouped in sets of different numbers, to the components of the esoteric teachings - the

sanmitsu, the five wisdoms, the six elements, and so on. In a sense, he extracts the

esoteric teaching in its entirety out of a sutra title. Such a cut-up of the title and the

subsequent identification of its elements as the esoteric teaching is predicated on

linguistic theories as articulated in Shōjigi.

I would suggest that this might be Shōō meant when he wrote down that the

meaning of shōji jissō is the basic principle for kaidai. Not necessarily directly for the

genre of literature or the offering of scripture to the Buddha’s, but for the act of

“opening the title” itself. Shōji jissō is the principle that explains that all possible

linguistic utterances contain the truth, which is the esoteric teaching. Taking this

literally, one can then locate all elements of the esoteric teaching in any linguistic

utterance, especially sutra’s titles.

This connects very well to the next sentence in the passage, where the so-

called sō-betsu 總別 exegetical tool is deployed to explain why shōji jissō is the basis

for kaidai. The esoteric teaching, as the whole truth, is in its entirety contained within

the title of a sutra, be it esoteric or exoteric, which makes the title comprehensive (sō

73


總). The sentences that make up the rest of the sutra try to explain this same truth as

well, but by means of language at the conventional level. In such use, language is not

recognized as having boundless meanings, but rather works in a restricting sense to

convey single meanings. It can then only discuss parts (betsu 別) of the whole truth

that cannot be contained in human language. Once one knows that the title if

comprehensive, one can proceed to extract the full teaching from the title. Shōji jissō

is what makes this operation of extraction possible.

Shōō’s notes thus suggest that, at least on this occasion, Kakuban may have

treated Shōjigi from a theoretical approach, describing it as providing the basic

principles for a particular type of exegesis aimed at sutra titles. This seems to be

somewhat dissonant with the practical focus one would expect from Kakuban’s ritual-

oriented autumn lectures. It is possible to speculate, however, that the reason for

“opening” the title of a sutra is in order to explain its efficacy from the esoteric

viewpoint and make it practically applicable. In short, to turn it into a method, or

hōmon 法門. This will have to be postponed until future elaboration based on

substantial evidence.

This chapter briefly assessed some of the different ways in which authors have framed

the Shōjigi when treating the matter of authorial intent. According to Dōhan, Kūkai

wrote it in order to set up his ryobu-system of the taizō and the kongōkai. Donjaku

suggested that the intention was rather to furnish shōmyō with a doctrinal foundation.

And Genbō suggested that the text was written in order to set up a method to

systematize the many different visualization practices found in the tantras. In contrast

to this ritual turn, we see Kakuban described as taking a much more theoretical

74


approach the text, where he suggests that it forms the basis for a certain type of

exegetical scholarship.

Though this probably does not expose the definitive positions of these authors

on what the text was for and could be used for, I think it provides a valuable glance at

the strategies by which commentators - be it is writer or as lecturer - made the text

meaningful to their audience. It also exposes the extent to which there was room for

debate and disagreement in the various commentarial transmissions. Additionally, the

variety of methods taken signifies how differently Shōjigi can be understood and

underlines that there can be no single, normative Shingon interpretation of the Shōjigi

and that to correctly assess its place in the Shingon tradition it is essential to recognize

that different interpretations are considered to be “correct”.

75


7. Conclusions

In the foregoing, I have attempted to trace the Shingon tradition of commentarial

debate on the text Shōjigi by Kūkai between the early thirteenth and the early fifteenth

century. By embedding the tradition in its historical context, I have suggested that

commentarial texts do much more than merely interpret the Shōjigi. They function, at

the same time, to justify doctrinal interpretations and address new matters brought

about by the changing times. By doing so, they wove Shōjigi tightly into the doctrinal

debates of their time. Additionally, a close inspection of the commentarial texts

themselves revealed they were written and used as part of dangi lectures that served

as an important part of the educational system for scholar priests. Question-and-

answer sessions during these lectures raised problems about it and also connected the

text to contemporary concerns that lay outside of the original text. Answers to these

problems were developed over time and there is some evidence to suggest that it is

possible that such matters became part of the tradition of transmitting Shōjigi

transmission. In the last chapter, I have tried to sketch a number of different ways in

which commentators tried to make the text meaningful to their audiences. In short, I

have proposed that commentarial texts interpret the Shōjigi, address (contemporary)

doctrinal problems, are closely linked to verbal knowledge transmission, and propose

a variety of different approaches to the text.

A number of additional observations can be made on the basis of the

conclusions drawn here that plausibly resonate with Shingon masshaku and perhaps

even to some extent East-Asian commentarial literature at large.

Most importantly, the observation that commentaries were produced in close

connection to the oral transmission of Dharma seminars may have methodological

76


consequences. As suggested, mondō-passages may be registrations of actual verbal

exchanges and this requires a different reading strategy than if they had been text-

rhetorical devices. Consequently, it is possible that commentaries contain quite a few

statements that do not necessarily represent the views of the author. The academic

student is then presented with the additional task of determining whether this is the

case or not, regardless of the kind of approach and interest with which commentaries

are approached. This implies that some adjustment to the presently prevalent

approaches in the study of Shingon commentarial literature may be necessary.

Moreover, when regarded from this historical perspective, there are new ways

to answer the “why” questions regarding commentarial texts and their production.

Why write them at all? Why produce so many? Why does one author write multiple

commentaries? Why do scholars write commentaries on commentaries? And why is

there such meticulous attention for the minutiae of nearly every word? Previous

scholars have provided explanations by suggesting that this is because of reverence

and respect for the main that is being explicated, as well as due to the high esteem in

which commentaries were held. (Gardner 1998, 401) These concerns no doubt factor

in when it comes to Shōjigi commentaries as well, but alternative answers can also be

formulated based on the didactic purposes of exegetical texts, the driving force of

“tradition”, and the contest for the superior interpretation.

In light of my observations a small contribution to the debate on Shingon

hermeneutics and knowledge theory can also be proposed. Thus far Shingon

hermeneutics have been described as being a method of ritual practice (Kuroki 1979,

33-34), a means of philosophical speculation on the absolute (“interpretation for the

sake of interpretation, Ibid.), or a method aimed at “salvation” (?) (Rambelli 2013).

These are intriguing suggestions, but they do not yet seem to take into account the

77


type of textual exegesis carried out in commentarial traditions. However, as I have

hoped to demonstrate here, such methods of exegesis exist and play an important role

in the Shingon tradition at large: exegesis becomes a didactic method.

Within the confines of this study it was possibly to treat only a small fraction

of the commentarial literature available, even in view of that available on Shōjigi

alone. Further research could focus on a different period of Shōjigi commentary, flesh

out the period treated here based on commentaries I did not have access to, explore

the suggestion made here in other corpora of Shingon commentarial literature, or even

explore similar question in other Buddhist traditions of commentary, such as in Tibet.

I have also made use of the opportunity granted by this study to emphasize

two other points I find important. On the one hand to put the Shingon commentary on

the map as a text-form deserving of more reflection and serious attention in the

Anglophone field in particular. There is no normative interpretation of the Shōjigi. In

order to better understand the history of the Shingon tradition, it is necessary to trace

the different interpretations constructed instead of attempting to reconstruct the text’s

original intention. From the approach I have proposed here, commentarial literature

makes it possible to study this reception history and come to a more a nuanced

understanding of Shōjigi’s place in Shingon’s historical development.

Furthermore, by unlocking a body of hitherto untreated - that is, in English -

texts and unveiling how their interpretations vary, I have attempted to illustrate the

great wealth of ideas and interpretations available for study. There is no monolithic

Shingon school, but a highly varied tradition of contested approaches and

interpretations. Through my efforts here, I hope to have exposed some of the

engaging variety that is there for all to see.

78


In conclusion I present my personal interpretation of Kūkai’s words, fully

attuned to the circumstances and my audience. Kūkai wrote in Shōjigi: “I can only

hope that later students shall dwell on this “spirit” (i 意) with the utmost incisive

mind.” (KZ 1: 521) This means that more research is required.

79


References

Abbreviations

BD Kōsetsu bukkyōgo daijiten shukusatsuhan 広説仏教語大辞典縮刷版. Nakamura Hajime 中村元, ed. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Shoseki, 2010.

CZ Chizan zensho 智山全書. Kyōto: Chizan zensho kankōkai, 1964-1971.

DBZ Dainihon bukkyō zensho 大日本仏教全書. Suzuki gakujutsu zaidan 鈴木学術財団, ed. Tōkyō: Bussho Kankōkai, 1911-1922.

JZ Jōdoshū zensho 浄土宗全書, 22 vols. Tōkyō: Shūten kankō kai 浄土宗宗典刊行会, 1911-1972. (Also accessible through Google books Library Project)

KCZ Kōbō Daishi Chosaku Zenshū 弘法大師著作全集 (revised edition). Katsumata Shunkyō 勝又俊教, ed. Tōkyō: Sankibō busshorin, 1979.

KDKZ Kōbō Daishi Kūkai Zenshū 弘法大師空海全集. Kōbō Daishi Kūkai Zenshū Henshū Iinkai 弘法大師空海全集編輯委員会, ed. Tōkyō: Chikuma shobō, 2000.

KDZ Kōgyō Daishi Zenshū 興教大師全集. Nakano Tatsue 中野達慧, ed. Tōkyō: Sesōken, 1935.

KGJ Shinmeikai kogojiten 新明解古語辞典, third edition. Kindaichi Haruhiko 金田一春彦 & Sanseidō henshūsho 三省堂編修所, ed. Tōkyō: Sanseidō 2002.

KZ Kōbō Daishi Zenshshū 弘法大師全集. Mikkyō Bunka Kenkyūjo 密教文化研究所. Kyōto: Domeisha, 1977.

MDJ Mikkyō Daijiten • shukusatsuhan 密教大辞典縮刷版• . Mikkyō jiten hensan kai 密教辞典編纂会, ed. Kyōto: Hōzōkan, 1983.

MJ Mikkyō Jiten 密教辞典. Sawa Ryūken 佐和隆研, ed. Kyōto: Hōzōkan ,1975.

T Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新脩大蔵経. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 et al., eds. Tōkyō: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai and Daizō Shuppan, 1924-1932.

SZ Shingonshū Zenshō 真言宗全書. Takaoka Ryūshin 高岡隆心, ed. Tōkyō: Shingonshū zenshō kankōkai, 1922-1939.

ZSZ Zoku Shingonshū zensho 続真言宗全書. Kōyasan: Zoku shingonshū zenshō kankōkai, 2008.

ZZGR Zoku zoku gunshō ruiju 続々群書類従. Ichishima Kenkichi 市島謙吉, ed. Tōkyō: Kokusho kankōkai, 1906-1909.

80


81


Primary Sources

Benkenmitsu nikyō ron 弁顕密二教論, KZ 1, 474-505.

Daibirushana jōbutsu jinben kaji kyō 大毘盧遮那成仏神変加持経, T0848 18.

Daibirushana jōbutsu kyō sho 大毘盧遮那成仏経疏, T1796 39.

Dainichikyōsho shishinshō 大日経疏指心鈔, T2217 59.

Daijōkishinron 大乗起信論, T1666 32.

Himitsu shū nenbutsu shō 秘密宗念仏鈔, DBZ 43, 54-65.

Hizōhōyaku 秘蔵宝鑰, KZ I, 417-473.

Hōkyōshō 宝鏡鈔, T2456 77.

Kanpu tōhen nen zasshu 官符等編年年集. KZ 5: 444-47.

Kongōchōgyō kaidai 金剛頂経開題, KCZ 2, 256-278.

Kongochō issai nyorai shinjitsu shō daijō genshō daikyō’ō kyō 金剛頂一切如来真実

摂大乗現証大教王経, T865 18.

Abidamma Kusharon 倶舎論, T1558 29.

Nehankyō 涅槃経, T374 12.

Ruiju sandai kyaku 類聚三代格, KT 12.

Ryōgakyō 楞伽経, T671 16.

Sokushin jobutsu gi 即身成仏義, KZ 1, 506-520.

Shakumakaenron 釈摩訶衍論, T1668 32.

Shōji jissō gi 聲字實相義, KZ 1, 521-534.

Shōji jissō gi gusō 声字実相義愚草, ZSZ 17, 323-418.

Shōji jissō gi kaihi shō 声字実相義開秘鈔, SZ 14, 49-114.

Shōji jissō gi kenshin shō 声字実相義研心鈔, ZSZ 17, 421-573.

Shōji jissō gi kuhitsu 声字実相義口筆, SZ 14, 115-203.

Shōji jissō gi mondō 声字実相義問答, SZ 14, 37-48.

Shōji jissō gi shiki 声字実相義私記, SZ 14, 259-345.

Shōji jissō gi shō 声字実相義鈔, SZ 14, 205-257.

Shōji jissō gi shō kikigaki 声字実相義抄聞書, SZ 14, 9-36.

Shōrai mokuroku 請来目録, KZ 1, 69-104.

Tōbōki 東宝記, ZZGR 12.

Uchigikishū 内聞集, KDZ1, 407-588.

82


Unji gi 吽字義, KZ 1, 535-553.

Yuimakyō 維摩経 T474 14;T475 14; T476 14. Yuga shiji ron 瑜伽師地論, T1579 30.　

83


Secondary Sources

Abé, Ryūichi1999 The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist

Discourse. New York: Columbia University Press.

Akatsuka Yudō 赤塚祐道 2007 Kōyasan denbōin no rongi: Kongōji zō Shakuronshōshutsu ni tsuite 高野山

伝法院の論議：金剛寺蔵『釈論抄出』について. Indogaku bukkyō gaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 no. 56/1: 103-106.

Boot, W.J.2013 The Adoption and Adaptation of Neo-Confucianism in Japan: The Role of

Fujiwara Seika and Hayashi Razan. Third version.

http://www.ngjs.nl/files/artikelen/Boot_W_J_The_Adoption_and_Adaptation_of_Neo_Confucianism_in_Japan_v3.pdf(Accessed 4 May 2015)

Buswell, Robert E.2003 Wŏnhyo and the Commentarial Genre in Korean Buddhist Literature.

International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture 2, 47-63.

Bowring, Richard2005 The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600. Cambridge & New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Buijnsters, Marc1999 Jichihan and the Restoration and Innovation of Buddhist Practice. Japanese

Journal of Religious Studies 26/1-2, 39-82.

Chiba Masa 千葉正1994 Gōhō no zenshū-kan: Kaishinshō jōkan wo megutte 杲宝の禅宗観–『開心

抄』上巻をめぐって. Indogaku bukkyō gaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 no. 42/2: 664-666.

Fujii Jun 藤井淳2008 Kūkai no shisōteki tenkai no kenkyū 空海の思想的展開の研究. Tokyo:

Transview.

Gardener, Daniel K.1998 Confucian Commentary and Chinese Intellectual History. The Journal of

Asian Studies 57/2, 397-422.

Gulik, R.H. van1980 Siddham: An Essay on the History of Sanskrit Studies in China and Japan.

New Delhi: Sharada Rani.

84


Groner, Paul2011 Training Through Debates in Medieval Tendai and Seizan-ha Temples.

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 38/2, 223-261.

Hakeda, Yoshito S.1972 Kūkai: Major Works - Translated, with an account of his life and a study of

his thought. New York and London: Columbia University Press.

Hare, Thomas Blenman1990 Reading Writing and Cooking: Kūkai’s Interpretive Strategies. The Journal

of Asian Studies 49/2, 253-73.

Henmi Shūhan 辺見宗範1957 Shō ji jissō gi ni okeru shōji no gainen ni tsuite 声字実相義における声字の

概念について, mikkyō bunka 密教文化 39, 62-74.

Kanayama Bokushō 金山穆韶1973 Shingon mikkyō no kyōgaku 真言密教の教学. Kyōto: Rinsen shoten.

Katō Seiichi 加藤精一2012 Kūkai nyūmon 空海入門. Tōkyō: Kadokawa bunko. Originally published

1999.

Katsumata Shunkyō 勝又俊教1970 Mikkyō no nihonteki tenkai 密教の日本的展開. 1970: Shunjūsha, 1970.1981 Shingon no kyōgaku: Daishō hyakujō daisanjū no kenkyū 真言の教学 : 大疏

百条第三重の研究, 2 vols. Tōkyō: Kokusho kankō kai.

Kawahara Eihō M. and Jobst, C. Yūhō1992 Kōbō Daishi Kūkai: Ausgewählte Schrifte - Übers. und kommentiert von M.

Eihō Kawahara und C. Yūhō Jobst. München: Iudicium. The translation of Shōjigi in this volume was also published in the journal Mikkyō bunka between 1972 and 1974: Cf. Mikkyō bunka 101 (1972); 108 (1974); 110 (1974).

Kiyota, Minoru1978 Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Buddhist Books

International.

Koda Yu’un 甲田宥吽 2003 Sanjūroku ryū inshin shū seiritsukō 『三十六流印信集』成立考.

Gyōeibunko kenkyū kiyō 堯榮文庫研究紀要 4, 1-40.

Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄1996 The Development of the Kenmitsu System As Japan’s Medieval Orthodoxy.

Transl. Dobbins, James C.. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/3-4, 233-269.

85


Kuroki Mikio 黒木幹夫1979 Shingon mikkyō no kaishakugaku: shinpishaku no mondai wo megutte 真言

密教の解釈学: 深秘釈の問題をめぐって. Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 127, 31-53.

Kushida Ryōkō 櫛田良洪1964 Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū sei 真言密教成立過程の研究 - 3

正 Tōkyō: Sankibō busshorin.1979 Zoku Shingon mikkyō seiritsu katei no kenkyū 続真言密教成立過程の研

究.Tōkyō: Sankibō busshorin.

Lopez, Jr., Donald S. ed.1988 Buddhist Hermeneutics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Matsunaga Keiji 松長恵史2014 Kūkai chosaku ni okeru “myō” no igi ni tsuite ikkōsatsu 空海著作における

「名」の意義について一考察. Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 232, 55-71.

Matsunaga Yūkei 松長有慶2013 Kūkai: Hannya shingyō no himitsu to yomitoku 空海：般若心経の秘密を読

み解く, supplemented re-issue 2006. Tōkyō: Shunjūsha.

Miyasaka Yūshō 宮坂宥勝2011 Mikkyō kyōten: Dainichikyō, Rishukyō, Dainichikyōsho, Rishushaku 密教経

典：大日経理趣経大日経疏理趣釈• • • . Tōkyō: Kōdansha.

Murphy, Reagan E.2009 Esoteric Buddhist Theories of Language in Early Kokugaku: The Sōshaku of

the Man’yō daishōki. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/1: 65-91.

Nakamura Honnen 中村本然 1999 Shō ji jissō gi shō (Dōhan ki) ni tokareru nyogigon setu ni tsuite: sono ichi,

Shakumaka enron to Kūkai no chosaku ni miru nyogigon setsu wo chūshin toshite 『声字実相義抄』（道範記）に説かれる如義言説について：その一、『釈摩訶衍論』と空海の著作にみる如義言説を中心として. Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 203, 1-20.

Nasu Seiryū 那須政隆1985 Unji gi no kaisetsu 吽字義の解説. Narita 成田: Daihonzan Naritasan

Shinsōji.1997 Sokushin jōbutsu gi no kaisetsu 即身成仏義の解説, revised ed., originally

published 1980. Narita 成田: Daihonzan Naritasan Shinsōji.2011 Shō ji jissō gi no kaisetsu (sakuinduke) 声字実相義の解説索引付, revised

ed., originally published 1984. Narita 成田: Daihonzan Naritasan Shinsōji.

86


2012 Ben kenmitsu nikyō ron no kaisetsu (sakuinduke) 辯顕密二教論索引付, revised ed., originally published 1987. Narita 成田: Daihonzan Naritasan Shinsōji.

Ōsawa Shōkan 大澤聖寛2013 Kūkai shisō no kenkyū 空海思想の研究. Tōkyō: Sankibō busshorin.

Ōtsuka Nobuo 大塚伸夫2002a Raiyu sōjō no sokushin jōbutsu shisō ni tsuite: Sokushin jōbutsu gi kentoku

shō wo chūshin ni 頼瑜僧正の即身成仏思想について：『即身成仏義顕得鈔』を中心に. In San ha gōdō kinenron shūhen shūi’in kai 2002, 73-95.

2002bShō ji jissō gi (Buzan Hasedera zōhan ) 声字実相義 (豊山長谷寺蔵版). Unpublished textbook.

Payne, Richard Karl1991 The Tantric Ritual of Japan: Feeding the Gods: The Shingon Fire Ritual.

New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture: Aditya Prakashan.

Rambelli, Fabio1994a The Semiotic Articulation of Hosshin Seppō: An Interpretive Study of the

Concepts of Mon and Monji in Kūkai’s Mikkyō. In Esoteric Buddhism in Japan, ed. Astley, Ian, 17-36. The Seminar for Buddhist Studies (SBS) Monographs 1. Copenhagen and Aarhus: SBS.

1994bTrue Words, Silence, and the Adamantine Dance: On Japanese Mikkyō and the Formation of the Shingon Discourse. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 21/4, 373-405.

2013 A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics: Signs, Ontology, and Salvation in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.

Repp, Martin & Inōe Yoshiyuki 井上喜幸 2012 Mondō to ronsō no bukkyō: shūkyōteki komyunikeeshon no shatei 問答と論

争の仏教宗教的コミュニケーションの射程• . Kyōto: Hōzōkan.

Rinzan Mayuri林山まゆり2005 Yūkai no bonnō-soku-bodai kan 宥快の煩悩即菩提観. Indogaku

bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 54/1, 178-181.2007 Yūkai no konponmumyō setsu 宥快の根本無明説. Indogaku bukkyōgaku

kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 56/1, 107-11.

Sakaki Yoshitaka 榊義孝 & Honda Ryuin 本多隆仁, eds.2009 Shingon mikkyō wo saguru 真言密教を探る. Tōkyō: Taishō Daigaku

shuppankai.

Sanford, James H.1994 Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nenbutsu. In Esoteric Buddhism in Japan, ed.

Astley, Ian, 64-98. The Seminar for Buddhist Studies (SBS) Monographs 1. Copenhagen and Aarhus: SBS.

87


San ha gōdō kinenron shūhen shūi’in kai 三派合同記念論集編集委員会, ed.2002 Shingi shingon kyōgaku no kenkyū: Raiyu sōjō nana hyaku nen go onki 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. Tōkyō: Daizō shuppan.

Satō Mona 佐藤もな2001 Dōhan no himitsunenbutu shisō: myōgōkan 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, 108-110.

2002 Chūsei Shingonshū ni okeru jōdo shisō kaishaku: Dōhan Himitsu nebutsu 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, 80-92.

Shinpo Ryūshō 真保龍敞1992 Kōgyō Daishi no kyōka: denbō 興教大師の教化 - 伝法. Gendai mikkyō 現

代密教 no. 4, 91-105.

Shitamura Takeshi 下村武1982 Kigō • jōhō • moji: Kūkai no shōji jissō gi kōjosetsu 記号情報文字：空海• •

の『声字実相義』考序説. Ōsaka furitsu kōgyō kōtō senmongakkō kenkyū kiyō 大阪府立工業高等専門学校研究紀要 16, 25-36.

Stone, Jacqueline1995 Medieval Tendia Hongaku Thought and the New Kamakura Buddhism - A

Reconsideration. JJRS 22/1-2, 18-48.

Takagami Kakushō 高神覚昇1989 Mikkyō gairon 密教概論, revised ed. Tōkyō: Daihōrinkaku.

Tanaka Chiharu1967 Shōji jissō gi kōwa 声字実相義講話. Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 81, 1-8.

Teeuwen, Mark & Rambelli, Fabio2003 Buddhas and Kami in Japan: honji suijaku as a combinatory paradigm.

London etc.: Routledge Curzon.

Toganoo Shōun 栂尾祥雲1982a Himitsu jisō no kenkyū 秘密事相の研究. Kyōto: Rinsen shoten.1982bNihon mikkyō gakudō shi 日本密教学道史. Kyōto: Rinsen shoten.

Tomabechi Seiichi 苫米地誠一2010 Kūkai senjutsu no “soten”-ka wo megutte: Kūkai daisanji bosatsu setsu to

Goyuigō no seiritsu 空海撰述の「祖典」化をめぐって：空海第三地菩薩説と『御遺告』の成立. In Chūsei bungaku to jiin shiryō•seikyō 中世文学

88


と寺院資料聖教• , ed. Abe Yasurō 阿部泰郎, 40-66. Tōkyō: Chikurinsha 竹林舎.　

Veere, Hendrik van der1998 An Investigation into the Thought of Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban: with a

Translation of his Gorin kuji myō himitsushaku. PhD diss., Leiden University.

2007 The Teaching strategies of Kakuban Shōnin: A new reading of Chōganbō Shōō’s Uchigikishū. Essays on Sanskrit and Buddhist Culture: Prof. Y. Matsunami’s Felicitation Volume presented to him on his seventieth birthday, 599-628. Tōkyō.

2014 My name is Henjō Kongō: Transformation in the Shingon school from the Perspective of the Secret Cult of Kōbō Daishi Kūkai. Forthcoming.

Wedemeyer, Christian K.2013 Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology & Transgression in

the Indian Traditions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Winfield, Pamela D.2013 Icons and Iconoclasm in Japanese Buddhism: Kūkai and Dōgen on the Art of

Enlightenment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yoshida Hiroaki吉田宏晢1988 Kyōka no shiten kara mita shingon kyōgaku ni tsuite 教化の視点から見た

真言教学について, Gendai mikkyō 現代密教 1, 27-38.

89

Date post:	25-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times