Eison, Monkan, and the cult of founders in medieval Japan: on the construction of narrative and material selves in East Asian Buddhism

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the viability of constructions of a narrative self in light of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self by examining Eison (or Eizon; 1201–90), founder of the Shingon Ritsu movement; his grand-disciple Monkan (1278–1357); and their involvement in the cult of founders in medieval Japan. The article begins by briefly establishing Eison and Monkan’s significance, then looks at Steven Collins’s distinction between systematic and narrative thought in Pali Buddhism. I suggest that this distinction helps clarify the relationship between the self of narrativity and of conventional truth versus the no-self of ultimate truth in Buddhist traditions across times and regions. Then, using Eison, Monkan, and the medieval cult of founders as a case study, I argue that even among scholar-monks actively engaged in such systematic exposition as that related to notions of no-self, the exposition is embedded within a broader devotional framework in which tensions between no-self and a narrative self largely dissolve. I conclude by suggesting that notions of no-self posed little impediment to Eison and fellow monastics’ promotion of a cult of founders that glorifies particular narratively and materially constructed ‘selves.’

KEYWORDS:

• Eison (1201–90)
• Monkan (1278–1357)
• Saidaiji order
• Kamakura period (1185–1333)
• narrative self
• no-self
• autobiography
• living icons
• devotional cults
• esoteric Buddhism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. On social welfare activities in Eison’s movement, see, for example, Yoshida, ‘Eison no kairitsu to jizen kyūsai’ and ‘Ninshō no shakai jigyō’; Goodwin, Alms and Vagabonds, chapter 5; Matsuo, Kyūsai no shisō (especially chapters 1 and 6); Abé, ‘Mantra, Hinin, and the Feminine’; and Quinter, ‘Creating Bodhisattvas,’ ‘Emulation and Erasure,’ and From Outcasts to Emperors. For two studies that examine the movement’s ‘relief’ (kyūsai 救済) activities for outcasts more in terms of control, see Ōishi, ‘Hinin kyūsai to seichō annon.’ and Hosokawa, Chūsei no mibunsei to hinin, 131–64.

2. For abundant examples of this iconographic legacy, see Nara Rokudaiji Taikan Kankōkai, Nara rokudaiji taikan, vol. 14; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Nara Saidaiji ten; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Kōshō Bosatsu Eison; and Mitsui Kinen Bijutsukan et al., Nara Saidaiji ten.

3. See SEDS for the standard compilation of sources related to Eison’s biography. See also the collection of sermons attributed to him (primarily from when he was in his eighties), known as the Kōshō Bosatsu gokyōkai chōmonshū 興正菩薩御教誡聴聞集 [Collection of Admonitions Heard from Kōshō Bosatsu (Eison)]; hereafter Chōmonshū.

4. The reign dates given here for Go-Daigo and Go-Murakami are based on those for the ‘Southern Court,’ with whom Monkan remained closely aligned until his death. For a provocative study of the significance of Shingon rituals and institutions to the Northern Court after its 1336 establishment, especially those linked to the Daigoji subtemple Sanbōin, see Conlan, From Sovereign to Symbol. Conlan’s study also includes a brief section on Monkan and Go-Daigo (89–93), which takes into account some of the revisionist scholarship on Monkan by the time of its publication (2011).

5. See, for example, Uchida, ‘Monkanbō Kōshin ni kankei suru kaiga’ and Monkanbō Kōshin to bijutsu; Abe, Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 121–93, and Hōju no katadoru ōken; Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, chapter 6; and Rappō, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie and ‘Data Mining.’

6. For more on historiographical issues in the study of Monkan and the Tachikawa lineage, see Iyanaga, ‘Tachikawa-ryū’; Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, chapter 6; and Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, ‘Heresy and Heresiology,’ ‘Monkan,’ and ‘Deviant Teachings.’

7. For a good analysis of this issue and a probing summary of recent views of the narrative self, see Zahavi, Self and Other, 53–62.

8. See SEDS, 1–63, for the standard printed edition of Eison’s autobiography, the Kongō Busshi Eison kanjin gakushōki 金剛佛子叡尊感身學正記 [The Diamond Buddha-disciple Eison’s Record of Physical Response and Study of the True; hereafter Gakushōki]. All references to the autobiography here are based on this edition; however, I have also benefited from the yomikudashi 読み下し renderings in Hosokawa, Kanjin gakushōki, vols. 1 and 2.

9. By contrast, some strands of Mahāyāna literature explicitly posit notions of a ‘true’ ātman, as opposed to the false ātman posited by non-Buddhist teachings. Even then, however, the literature shows awareness that the doctrine would be controversial in Buddhist circles; see Jones, 'A Self-Aggrandizing Vehicle,' on this issue in tathagātagarbha teachings.

10. Here and elsewhere in this article, I am indebted to Mark Unno’s remarks for the conference ‘The Storied Self: Buddhist Narrativity in Comparative Context,’ held at the University of Oregon on October 20, 2012.

11. Collins, ‘A Buddhist Debate about the Self,’ 477.

12. Collins, ‘A Buddhist Debate about the Self,’ 479.

13. One might argue that the issue of ‘no-self’ was transcended in East Asian Mahāyāna traditions through such teachings as those on tathāgatagarbha (the ‘womb’ or ‘embryo’ of a buddha) and buddha-nature. See, for example, Park, ‘How Buddhism Acquired a Soul,’ which details how many Chinese scriptural translations and commentarial traditions came to posit notions of a permanent agent of perception traversing through rebirths. This is in contrast to what Park considers the mainstream of early Indian Buddhist teachings on no-self. However, even Park’s study shows that such notions were not embraced by all Chinese Buddhists and that concerns with the teaching of no-self in doctrinal and translation traditions remained prominent; see, for example, his analyses of the very influential translation activities of Kumārajīva (344–413), 194–95, 203–4, and of Xuanzang 玄奘 (602?–664), 205.

14. Many recent studies examining contemporary theories of the self in conjunction with Buddhist teachings do take seriously the notion of two truths. But in doing so, most rely on the kind of systematic exposition found in Pali sūtras, Abhidharma literature, and Indo-Tibetan doctrinal texts. See, for example, Albahari, Analytical Buddhism; Siderits et al. Self, No Self?; Siderits, Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy; Ganeri, Attention, Not Self; Verhaeghen, ‘The Self-Effacing Buddhist’; and Chadha, ‘No-Self and the Phenomenology of Agency’; and ‘Reconstructing Memories, Deconstructing the Self.’ Peter Hershock’s provocative analysis of ‘person as narration’ in Chan (Jp. Zen) Buddhism, by contrast, stands out for its focus on rather different evidence, including East Asian narrative literature. But even here, we see a privileging of ultimate truth when he argues that ‘a fully Buddhist articulation of who we are as persons entails nothing short of removing the very presumption of ontological difference, of the distinction of “self” and “other” – in short, of relinquishing all of the horizons by means of which we identify our own “selves” and those of “others”' (‘Person as Narration,’ 692; emphasis added). While this may be the case from an ultimate-truth perspective, it neglects the conventional-truth perspective also abundant in Buddhist literature. I would thus argue that it is not a ‘fully’ Buddhist articulation.

15. For Chan and Zen, see especially Faure, Rhetoric of Immediacy, and Chan Insights and Oversights. On original enlightenment discourse, including in esoteric traditions, see Stone, Original Enlightenment.

16. For a general overview of this issue, see Fujii, ‘Founder Worship in Kamakura Buddhism.’ For a helpful exhibition catalogue attesting the iconographical evidence, see Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Kamakura bukkyō.

17. See especially the edited collection Dobbins, ‘The Legacy of Kuroda Toshio,’ on Kuroda’s model of medieval Buddhism.

18. Evidence for both can be found in Saidaiji order activities. On the veneration of Empress Kōmyō at Hokkeji 法華寺, the head convent within the order, see Meeks, Hokkeji and the Reemergence of Female Monastic Orders, 42–48, 52–58, 300–302, 309. Empress Shōtoku (who had earlier reigned as Empress Kōken 孝謙 [r. 749-758]), founded Saidaiji in 764, and Eison inaugurated the Mantra of Light assemblies (Kōmyō shingon-e 光明眞言會) – which would come to be among the most popular of all Saidaiji ceremonies – on her memorial day in 1264. See Quinter, ‘Mantras and Materialities,’ 315–16.

19. On Ryōgen, see in particular Groner, Ryōgen and Mount Hiei.

20. Shinran’s promotion of the Shōtoku Taishi cult is a prime example; see Lee, The Prince and the Monk. See also Kanaji, Shōtoku Taishi shinkō, 151–84, for a clear summary of the involvement of Shinran, Nichiren, Ippen, and other Kamakura-period practitioners (including Eison) in the Shōtoku cult. On Eison specifically, see Quinter, ‘Localizing Strategies.’

21. For a good recent analysis of key developments in the Kōbō Daishi cult from the tenth through early-twelfth centuries, see McMullen, ‘The Development of Esoteric Buddhist Scholasticism,’ 106–17.

22. Drummond further points out that the two ‘parent lines’ of the Hirosawa and Ono would eventually subsume more than 70 sublineages combined; ‘Looking Back and Leaping Forward,’ 816.

23. On Kakuban, see especially Henny van der Veere’s detailed monograph, A Study into the Thought of Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban.

24. Drummond, ‘Looking Back and Leaping Forward,’ 824. On Raiyu, see also Rambelli, ‘In Search of the Buddha’s Intention’ and Ruppert, ‘Raiyu.’ For a rich collection of primarily Japanese-language essays on Raiyu and Shingi Shingon, see Sanpa Gōdō Kinen Ronshū Henshū Iinkai, Shingi Shingon kyōgaku.

25. See Drummond, ‘Looking Back and Leaping Forward,’ 824, for a concise summary of Raiyu’s ryūgi methodology.

26. Kushida, Zoku Shingon Mikkyō seiritsu, 485–86. See also Kushida’s preliminary remarks on the Hōon kō and ryūgi link on p. 245 and his fuller section on this on pp. 480–88. Note too Sakaki, ‘Shingi Shingon no rongi,’ 194 (also cited in Hayes, ‘Registers of Reception,’ 13n. 56). Sakaki indicates that it is unclear precisely when the Hōon kō for Kakuban (originally referred to as the Kakuban kō 覺鑁講) started, but cites the 1344 Sokusō shū 束草集 as evidence that it was being performed by then. It is noteworthy as well that around the same time Hōon lecture-rituals were developing in the nascent Shingi Shingon movement, they were also being spearheaded in Shin Buddhism by Kakunyo 覚如 (1270–1351), helping coalesce a community devoted to the founder Shinran. See Callahan, ‘Recognizing the Founder,’ on Kakunyo’s Hōon kōshiki 報恩講式.

27. See Kushida, Zoku shingon mikkyō seiritsu, 480, which notes that the ‘dharma-enjoyment’ (hōraku 法楽) rites for Raiyu were stipulated for the first of each month, those for Kakuban on the twelfth, and Kūkai on the twenty-first.

28. See the Shien-shōnin donin gyōhō ketsuge ki 思圓上人度人行法結夏記 [Record of Ordinations, Rites, and Summer Retreats Carried Out by Shien-shōnin (Eison)], recorded by Eison’s disciple Kyōe 鏡慧 (d.u.), in SEDS, 213.

29. See Meeks, ‘Vows for the Masses’; Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors and ‘Mantras and Materialities.’

30. See Conlan, From Sovereign to Symbol for illuminating analyses of Heian and early medieval courtier diaries (or ‘chronicles’) and notions of precedent. Such analyses are interspersed throughout the study, but see especially 3–6, and 19–21. For a bold argument on ‘the destruction of precedent’ amid the fourteenth-century conflicts between the Southern and Northern courts, see chapters 4–6 (117–170).

31. This does not characterize all courtier diaries, most of which did undergo later editing. Even so, they are often constructed as if they were written co-extensively with the events depicted therein.

32. See, for example, the Gakushōki entries for 1268 after the summer monastic retreat, 1274/10/5, 1275 after the summer retreat, 1279/9/18, and the 7th and intercalary 7th months of 1281 (in SEDS, 33, 39, 46, 49–50).

33. On these divisions, see also Groner, ‘Icons and Relics in Eison’s Religious Activities,’ 116.

34. Gakushōki, in SEDS, 1–2.

35. Gakushōki, in SEDS, 2–10.

36. See Quinter, ‘Creating Bodhisattvas’ and From Outcasts to Emperors on this issue.

37. This is Eckel’s paraphrase of the Dalai Lama’s comments; see Eckel, ‘A Story of No Self,’ 72.

38. Eckel, ‘A Story of No Self,’ 72–77.

39. The expression can refer to any deity that is the object of devotion for the practitioner. However, in Shingon all such deities are ultimately identified with Mahāvairocana.

40. By contrast, for a provocative analysis of the notion of a ‘true self’ in Chan Buddhism, see Park, ‘How Buddhism Acquired a Soul,’ 218–22.

41. For many examples of this iconographic testimony, see Nara Rokudaiji Taikan Kankōkai, Nara rokudaiji taikan, vol. 14; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Nara Saidaiji ten; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Kōshō Bosatsu Eison; and Mitsui Kinen Bijutsukan et al., Nara Saidaiji ten.

42. Hirata, Ebusshi no sakuhin, 55.

43. See SEDS, 336, for the part of the inscription cited here, as well as Brinker, ‘Facing the Unseen,’ 47, and Groner, ‘Icons and Relics,’ 143. Some scholars may be reluctant to use the term ‘narrative’ for such a chronologically arranged list of accomplishments. I would argue, however, that the selectiveness, ordering, and placing of the list as a depiction of the subject indicate its importance as a framing device, which serves a narrative function for the portrait sculpture.

44. Groner, ‘Icons and Relics,’ 142.

45. That said, he does appear in rather vigorous form for his advanced age, as Groner aptly points out; see ‘Icons and Relics,’ 143.

46. See Brinker, ‘Facing the Unseen,’ plates 17–21, for images of the coil and diagrams of its placement. The ‘white curl between the eyebrows’ (byakugōsō 白毫相) is one of the 32 marks of a buddha.

47. See Eison’s 1236/9 Jisei jukaiki 自誓受戒記 [Record of Self-Ordination], in SEDS, 337–38.

48. References to these latter scriptures in the Taishō canon (T) are: the Lotus Sūtra (Myōhōrengekyō / Ch. Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經), T no. 262; the Brahmā Net Sūtra (Bonmōkyō / Ch. Fanwang jing 梵網經), T no. 1484; the Four-Part Vinaya (Shibun ritsu / Ch. Sifen lü 四分律), T no. 1428; and the Compassionate Flower Sūtra (Hikekyō / Ch. Beihua jing 悲華經), T no. 157.

49. See the Shari anchi jō 舎利安置狀 [Record of the Enshrinement of Relics], in SEDS, 390, for Saibutsu’s text. Fuller details on the various deposits can be found in Brinker, ‘Facing the Unseen,’ and Groner, ‘Icons and Relics,’ 142–50. In addition, many of the documents inserted in the sculpture are printed in SEDS, 337–402.

50. On such esoteric conceptions of reliquaries, see especially Naitō, Shari shōgon bijutsu.

51. Sharf, ‘Prolegomenon to the Study of Japanese Buddhist Icons,’ 14.

52. For a vivid example, see the analysis of the 1267 and 1269 dedication ceremonies Eison led for the Hannyaji ‘living Mañjuśrī’ icon and the annotated translations of Eison’s dedicatory texts in Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, chapter 3 and pp. 275–92. For printed versions of the original texts, see Hannyaji Monju engi 般若寺文殊縁起 and Eison ganmon 叡尊願文. Both texts included lists of the objects inserted in the sculpture, and it was typical in medieval Japan to read such dedicatory texts before the assemblies gathered for enshrinement ceremonies. Moreover, we have many surviving examples from Eison’s and other medieval groups of rosters of diverse contributors being inserted in sculptures (see also Quinter, ‘Localizing Strategies’ and ‘Mantras and Materialities’), and this is another likely source of broader medieval awareness of the custom of inserting deposits in sculptures.

53. Whether or not this surprise is warranted, however, is another issue. James Robson has aptly pointed to the contrast between the prevalence of premodern practices of inserting relics and other objects inside Buddhist statues and the repeated expressions of surprise in contemporary media reports when such discoveries are made. See Robson, ‘Relic Wary,’ especially pp. 18, 26–27.

54. For related reflections on the animating (and re-animating) process for Buddhist icons, in this case the renowned Great Buddha statue at Tōdaiji and its medieval restoration, see Quinter, ‘Enacting Identities.’

55. See note 5 above.

56. The biographical details on Monkan that follow are adapted from Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, chapter 6, which, like here, gives primary attention to his early career, when he was part of the Saidaiji order. Monkan entered Daigoji and other major Shingon temples beyond the order after 1316, when his master at Saidaiji, Shinkū, died. For a more comprehensive biographical analysis of Monkan, see Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie.

57. See Tamura, ‘Monkanbō Kōshin to Monju shinkō,’ 5. On Eison’s trip to Harima and back, see the entries for 1285/7/23 to 8/15 in the Gakushōki (SEDS, 60–61).

58. The Yuga dentō shō Monkan biography can be found in a yomikudashi version in Tsujimura, ‘‘‘Yuga dentō shō” ni miru Monkan den,’ 1–2, and in kanbun and facsimile versions in Uchida, ‘Monkanbō Kōshin ni kankei suru kaiga,’ 78–79. For an annotated French translation, see Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 127–32.

59. Hirata, Ebusshi no sakuhin, 56, 59.

60. See SEDS, 130, for the vow. The Nenpu is a chronological record of Eison’s activities compiled in the Genroku period (1688–1704), which includes many documents believed to be accurately attributed to Eison.

61. Faure, ‘Substitute Bodies in Chan/Zen Buddhism,’ 222.

62. See Kobayashi, ‘Saidaiji Monju Bosatsu zō nōnyūbutsu,’ 45–46, for the full 1302/6/16 colophon to these images and an accompanying votive text. For varying partial images of the scroll, see Nara Rokudaiji, Nara rokudaiji taikan, vol. 14, inserted p. 2, plate 8; Mainichi Shinbunsha, Juyō bunkazai, 52, plates 7–8.

63. See Mainichi Shinbunsha, Juyō bunkazai, plate 3, and the description of the image there.

64. See Kobayashi, ‘Saidaiji Monju Bosatsu zō nōnyūbutsu,’ 46, and Moriyama, Tachikawa jakyō, 270, for the colophon for Monkan’s daily sketches and the accompanying mantras. See also Nara Rokudaiji, Nara rokudaiji taikan, vol. 14, inserted p. 12, plate 39, and p. 49 no. 8; Mainichi Shinbunsha, Juyō bunkazai, 53, plate 11. Uchida’s analysis of the daily Mañjuśrī sketches held by the Nara National Museum, dated to 1337 and 1338, shows Monkan’s continuation of this practice in later years (‘Monkanbō Kōshin ni kankei suru kaiga,’ 91–93).

65. See Moriyama, Tachikawa jakyō, 270–73, for the colophons to these first two fascicles, as well as seven other fascicles for which Monkan performed the reading. Note too that Moriyama’s renderings were based on the partial 1954 publication of the items deposited in the sculpture in Kobayashi, ‘Saidaiji Monju Bosatsu zō nōnyūbutsu.’ Additional Great Wisdom Sūtra fascicles and other scriptures read by Monkan have been revealed in subsequent investigations.

66. See Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, on these issues in the Mañjuśrī cult.

67. The Nenpu mentions Eison’s study of Hossō at Kōfukuji at the age of 30, several years before he entered Saidaiji for the first time (in SEDS, 117). Notably, this period is part of a gap among the activities recorded in Eison’s autobiography, from the ages of 29 to 32 (Gakushōki, in SEDS, 6). Thus it is possible that the Nenpu is just filling in this gap, whether based on reliable records or not. Even so, Eison’s autobiography does show how foundational Kōfukuji Hossō teachings were for his understanding of the vinaya and the precepts just before his entry into Saidaiji; see in particular the entries for 1235 and 1236, when he was 35 and 36 years old (Gakushōki, in SEDS, 8–10).

68. See the Gakushōki, in SEDS, 24.

69. See Tōkyō Daigaku, Dai Nihon shiryō series 6, vol. 21, 495, for the original Honchō gashi passage. Although the location of this Kuiji (Jp. Jion Daishi) painting is currently unknown, it appears that there had been independent corroboration of the painting. Moriyama notes that it had been listed among Japan’s national treasures, but that he could not locate it (Tachikawa jakyō, 439).

70. Eison’s autobiographical tendencies are evident not only in the Gakushōki but also in the Jisei jukaiki, Chōmonshū, and other texts.

71. My translation is based on the full colophon printed in Abe, Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128, with reference also to the version in Inoue, ‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 54–55, and excerpts and remarks in Oishio, ‘Eison botsugo no Saidaiji,’ 388–90. Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, 190-92, translates and annotates much of the colophon based on these same sources (and not, as Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 185n. 155, suggests, on Oishio alone). Rappo’s study, 184–85, features a helpful partial French translation that has added to my understanding here. However, his translation ends after the phrase I translate below as ‘and my mind was settled.’ Crucially for this article, this is before what I interpret as the reference to Eison’s portrait sculpture. As Rappo has a forthcoming printed version (honkoku 翻刻) of the as-yet unpublished full text of the Saigyokushō, he may be working from a different edition of the colophon. But even if so, the continuation of the colophon in the versions published to date is significant.

72. The ‘urgings of unseen response’ refers to the influence of a buddha, bodhisattva, or other deity. The phrase is omitted in Inoue’s version of the colophon (‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 54) but found in both Abe’s version (Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128) and the excerpt in Oishio, ‘Eison botsugo no Saidaiji,’ 388.

73. ‘Twofold’ (ryōbu 両部) here indicates the Diamond and Womb realm maṇḍalas, otherwise known as the Dual Realm maṇḍala. ‘Secret depths’ (hiō 祕奥), as found in Abe (Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128) and in Oishio (‘Eison botsugo no Saidaiji,’ 388), is rendered as ‘secrets’ (himitsu 祕密) in Inoue (‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 54). The ‘three points’ (santen 三點) is an esoteric term referring to principle, wisdom, and phenomena. Phenomena are understood to be produced through the union of wisdom and principle; see Mikkyō Gakkai, Mikkyō daijiten, 817a–b, s.v. ‘santen.’

74. In Shingon, Yoga (yuga 瑜伽) refers to union with deities through practice of the ‘three mysteries’ (sanmitsu 三密) of body, speech, and mind. The term can also serve as an alternative name for Shingon esotericism; see Mikkyō Gakkai, Mikkyō daijiten, 2201a, s.v. ‘yuga’; 2201c, s.v. ‘yugashū.’ As Oishio suggests (‘Eison botsugo no Saidaiji,’ 389), although the ‘four layers’ (shijū 四重) can refer to the ‘four major’ precepts, based on the sequence of esoteric terms here, the esoteric term the ‘four-level secret understanding’ is the likely meaning. The ‘four levels’ refer to increasingly higher stages of understanding that can be applied to any phenomena; see Mikkyō Gakkai, Mikkyō daijiten, 931b–c, s.v. ‘shijū hishaku.’ See also Proffitt, ‘Mysteries of Speech and Breath,’ 397–98, for a discussion of the concept in the context of Dōhan’s 道範 (1179 or 1184–1252) explication of the Mantra of Light, which was one of the most popular esoteric practices in the Saidaiji order by Monkan’s time.

75. The reference here is ultimately traceable to a depiction in the Zhuangzi 莊子 of a mythical bird named Peng and of the smaller birds and insects that are incredulous over Peng’s tremendous flying power. See the first chapter of the Zhuangzi, ‘Free and Easy Wandering’ (‘Xiaoyao you’ 逍遙遊), translated in Watson, Complete Works of Zhuangzi, 1–3. As Rappo points out (Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 184–85n. 154), Kūkai drew on a related comparison of an insect to peng 鵬 in his Hizō hōyaku 祕蔵宝鑰; see T no. 2426 78:366a27-28, and Hakeda, Kūkai: Major Works, 178, for an English translation.

76. The term ryū 流 often refers to specific esoteric ‘lineages,’ whether for what I have referred to as the ‘broad streams’ of the Hirosawa-ryū and the Ono-ryū or their various sublineages. Here, I have translated the term literally as ‘stream’ to maintain the water imagery and Monkan’s wordplay with the verb ku(mu) 酌, which suggests ‘drawing’ or scooping water or other liquid.

77. Three missing characters in the next sentence make it difficult to interpret, and Abe (Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128) and Inoue (‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 54) read even some of the legible characters there differently. I have thus omitted that part, but I think the gist of the narrative here is relatively clear despite that lacuna.

78. The phrase I have translated as ‘conveyed the principle and title’ (云義理、云題名), based on Abe (Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128) is rendered instead as ‘conveyed the title of the principle [i.e., Monkan’s text]’ (云義理の題名) in Inoue (‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 54). Note too that giri 義理 here could be alternatively translated simply as ‘contents.’

79. My rendering of Shinkū’s colophon is based on Inoue, ‘Monkanbō Shuon to Kawachi kuni,’ 55; the version of Monkan’s colophon in Abe, Chūsei shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 128, does not append the comments by Shinkū.

80. See Oishio, ‘Eison botsugo no Saidaiji,’ 389.

81. For the records of this award, see the directive (inzen 院宣) issued by Retired Emperor Kameyama 龜山 (r. 1259–74), dated 1300/7/4, and the ensuing imperial edict (rinji 綸旨) issued by Emperor Go-Fushimi 後伏見 (r. 1298–1301), dated 1300/intercalary 7/3; the two documents can be found in SEDS, 203–4.

82. See Faure, ‘Substitute Bodies in Chan/Zen Buddhism.’ Faure’s study focuses on mummies and other posthumous embodiments of Chan masters. However, the relevance of his analysis for Eison’s portrait statue and the cult of founders more broadly is aptly attested when he notes that ‘It is not by a mere coincidence that most of the mummies recorded in the Chan tradition happen to be the “founders” of new schools’ (218). See also James Dobbins’s analysis of portraits of Shinran as embodiments of both the master and the Buddha Amida; ‘Portraits of Shinran,’ especially p. 29.

83. This is not to say that Monkan did not value the specific precepts orientation of the Saidaiji order; he continued to identify himself with Eison’s Ritsu lineage even after he left Saidaiji and entered Daigoji and other major Shingon temples from 1316 on (see Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors, 185–86, 201). But the passage does underscore the strongly esoteric orientation that Monkan had even from his early years at Saidaiji.

84. Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 184, 184n. 54.

85. Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 174–76.

86. Rappo, Rhétoriques de l’hérésie, 176.

87. Zahavi, Self and Other, 55. For a similar characterization of influential views of the narrative self, see Krueger, ‘The Who and the How of Experience,’ 35–36.