https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-6423
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Myriad sources ranging from Kuroda Toshio’s (1926–1993) ground-breaking methodological research about the exoteric-esoteric Buddhist institutional system (kenmitsu taisei 顕密体制) that governed the practice of Buddhism at the seven ‘great’ temples during the Heian – Nanbokuchō period (794–1392) to the remarkable Tengu zōshi emaki 天狗草紙絵巻 (Illustrated Scrolls of Tengu on Rough Paper) demonstrate how widespread and well-known the idea of the dual cultivation of exoteric and esoteric Buddhist practice was in medieval Japan. We know from the sacred teachings documents (shōgyō聖教) from the libraries of three temples – Amanosan Kongōji (in Osaka), Shinpukuji (Nagoya), and Shōmyōji (Yokohama) – that catalogs were produced locally to classify meticulously copied ritual manuals, commentaries to exoteric and exoteric sūtras and commentaries, and other documents. In this article I introduce Kongōji as a prime example of how exoteric Buddhist texts were ritually employed there, followed by Zenne 禅恵 (alt. Zen’e 1284–1364) and his catalogs, and then present an overview of the sacred documents he marked as exoteric. I also explain why exoteric or ‘mainstream’ Buddhism must not be excluded from the study of the history of medieval Japanese Buddhism 顕密体制天狗草紙絵巻聖教御請来目録禅恵称名寺.
Acknowledgments
I would also like to thank Prof. Ochiai Toshinori, director of the Research Institute for Old Japanese Manuscripts at the ICPBS in Tokyo, for making it possible to access the digital archives at the ICPBS library. I would also like to express special thanks to Prof. Abe Yasurō for expending considerable time and effort to introducing me to the marvelous world of the Shinpukuji manuscripts. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for many obliging suggestions. Any errors are entirely my own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. See, for example, “聖教 holy teachings,” Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?80.xml+id(%27b8056-6559%27), which provides multiple references to East Asian dictionaries.
2. The full quotation in Chinese from Jizang’s Fahua yishu, T no. 1721, 34: 452b16-b28, reads as follows: 問: 尋天竺之與震旦, 著筆之與口傳, 敷經講論者不出二種: 一者科章門, 二者直解釋。如天親解涅槃有七分, 龍樹釋般若無章門, 蓋是天竺論師開、不開之二類也。河西製《涅槃疏》開為五門, 道融講新《法華》類為九轍, 至如集解淨名之說、撰注法華之文, 但拆其玄微又不豫科起盡, 蓋是震旦諸師開、不開兩義也。今所釋者其義云何?答: 夫適化無方、陶誘非一, 考聖心以息患 [or 忠] 為主, 統教意以開道為宗, 若因開以取悟則聖教為之開, 若由合而受道則聖教為之合, 如其兩曉並為甘露, 必也雙迷俱成毒藥。若然者, 豈可偏守一逕以應壅九逵者哉!
3. On ‘Sinitic’ to refer to the written language of Chinese and premodern East Asia, rather than Classical or Literary Chinese, see Mair, “Buddhism and the Rise of the Written Vernacular in East Asia”; Kornicki, Languages, Scripts, and Chinese Texts in East Asia, 19–21.
4. For example, Tōkyō daigaku Shiryō hensanjo, Dai Nihon komonjo.
5. Lloyd, Every-day Japan, 149.
6. Miyoshi, ‘Kongōji issaikyō zenbō’; Seta, ‘Jūyō bunkazai Kusunoki-uji monjo’. See also Satō, Komonjogaku nyūmon. The documents in Tōkyō daigaku Shiryō hensanjo, Dai Nihon komonjo: Iewake dainana Kongōji monjo, vol. 7 related to Go-Daigo are nos. 129, 135, 137, 141, 144, 145; for Go-Murakami, see nos. 146, 151, 152, 157, 159, 162, 165–167, 169–173, 180–185, 186, 187, and 189; Kusunoku no Masashige, see nos. 125–127; and Kusunoki no Masatsura nos. 158, 160, 168, 175, 176 and 178.
7. Collcutt, ‘Zen and the Gozan’; idem, Five Mountains; Parker, Zen Buddhist Landscape Arts of Early Muromachi Japan (1336–1573); Goble, ‘The Kamakura Bakufu and its Officials’; Mass, ed. The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World; Mass and Hauser, eds., The Bakufu in Japanese Hstory.
8. Adolphson, The Gates of Power; idem, The Teeth and Claws of the Buddha.
9. Damian, ‘As Estates Faded’; Endō Motoo (trans. Goodwin), ‘Tōdaiji’s Estates in Its Documentary Record’; Kawai, ‘Power of the Purse’.
10. Marra, Representations of Power, 30,45; Conlan, From Sovereign to Symbol, 91; Ruppert, ‘Review of From Soverign to Symbol’. Note that neither Goble (Kenmu) nor Conlan (State of War) mention Kongōji.
11. Conlan, From Sovereign to Symbol, 109, 174–186. On the Taiheiki, see the partial translation in McCullough, The Taiheiki and current research at the Japanese Historical Text Initiative at UC Berkeley, https://jhti.berkeley.edu/, accessed in August 2020.
12. It is worth noting here that the entire contents of the Shōgozō were previously only available on 10 DVDs released by Kunaichō Shōsōin Jimusho shozō Shōgozō kyōkan 宮内庁正倉院事務所所蔵聖語蔵経卷 (Tokyo: Maruzen 丸善, 2000-) for between ¥900,000–¥1,400,000 (approx. $8,000–14,000USD) per DVD. On this collection, see https://shosoin.princeton.edu/, accessed Feb. 2020 and Lowe, ‘Buddhist Manuscript Cultures in Premodern Japan’; idem, ‘The Discipline of Writing’; idem, ‘Contingent and Contested’; idem, Ritualized Writing.
13. Those texts included in either the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 [Record of Śākyamuni’s Teachings, Compiled during the Kaiyuan Era (713–741), Z no. 1183, T no. 2154, comp. 730] or the Zhenyuan xinding Shijiao mulu with 1046 titles 部 in 5048 rolls 卷 or 1206 titles in 5351 rolls, respectively. Note that there is an edition of the Kaiyuan lu from Nanatsudera copied from a manuscript dated to 735 (Tenpyō 天平 7) and brought back to Japan by Genbō 玄昉 (d. 746) with 1046 titles in 5048 rolls.
14. Another rare collection of shōgyō produced by Abe and Yamazaki is Abe Yasurō and Yamazaki, eds., Shūkaku Hōshinnō to Ninnaji goryū no bunkengakuteki kenkyū. Please note that in Abe (trans. Iyanaga), ‘Shintō as Written Representation’, 48 n.37, Abe explains why Prince Shūkaku’s (1150–1202) name is not given as Shukaku. Throughout this article I cite the catalog to the Kongōji manuscript Buddhist canon and shōgyō prepared by Ochiai Toshinori and his team at ICPBS: Ochiai, ed. Kongōji issaikyō no sōgōteki kenkyū to Kongōji shōgyō no kisoteki kenkyū. Gotō also prepared an updated catalog of the shōgyō from Kongōji, Gotō, ed. Kongōji kyōzō shōgyō mokuroku, but I have not yet been able to acquire a copy. One cannot forget the pioneering study of this canon: Miyoshi, ‘Kongōji issaikyō zenbō’. On the number of shōgyō from Kongōji, see Akatsuka, ‘Kongōji shōgyō’, 469. See below on shōgyō.
15. On the more nuanced treatment of ‘revealed’ versus ‘secret’ kenmitsu Buddhism in medieval Japan and Tang China, see Dolce, ‘Reconsidering the taxonomy of the esoteric’, 130–137. On studied of Kuroda’s kenmitsu taisei in English, see Hurst, ‘The Development of the Insei’; idem, Insei; Kuroda, ‘The Development of the Kenmitsu System As Japan’s Medieval Orthodoxy’; Grapard, ‘Institution, Ritual, and Ideology’; idem, ‘Linguistic Cubism’; idem, The Protocol of the Gods; idem, ‘Medieval Shintō Boundaries Real or Imaginary’; Rambelli, ‘Before the First Buddha’; idem, ‘Re-positioning the Gods’ and the Origins of Non-Buddhist Discourses on the ‘Kami’; ‘True Words, Silence, and the Adamantine Dance’; Rambelli and Teeuwen, eds., Buddhas and Kami in Japan; Dolce, ‘Hokke Shinto’; idem, ‘Duality and the ‘Kami’; Quinter, From Outcasts to Emperors.
16. Ben kenmitsu nikyō ron is translated in Giebel and Todaro, Shingon Texts, 17–62.
17. On Shingi Shingon see below and Drummond, ‘Looking Back and Leaping Forward’; Ruppert, ‘A Tale of Catalogs and Colophons’.
18. Seven scrolls survive today, as follows: (1) Kōfukuji, (2) Tōdaiji, (3) Enryakuji, and (4) Tōji, Daigoji, Kōyasan rolls at the Tokyo National Museum (http://www.emuseum.jp/detail/100262). Three separate rolls survive concerning Onjōji: one copy privately held by the Ishikawa Prefectural Museum; another in a private collection; and a third at the Nezu museum. See also Abe and Iyanaga, ‘Shintō as Written Representation’, and the exciting and thorough discussion in Wakabayashi, The Seven Tengu Scrolls.
19. Tinsley, ‘Kūkai and the Development of Shingon Buddhism’, 691. Zenne uses this catalog as a library catalog.
20. On monzeki, see Adolphson, The Gates of Power, 71–74.
21. Fowler, ‘Setting Foot on the Mountain’; Abe, Chūsei Nihon no shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 199–200.
22. On imperially sponsored temples and the momentous changes to this process during the Insei 院政 period (1086–1192) with the construction of the six high or ‘superiority’ temples (rokushōji 六勝寺), see Takagaki, ‘The Rokushō-ji,’ 199–200.
23. Mishina, ed. Amanosan Kongōji, 22. On Hachijō-in, but nothing about Kongōji, see Kawai, ‘Power of the Purse’; idem, ‘Talking to a Deity’; idem, ‘Nyoin Power, Etates, and the Taira Influence’.
24. Hurst, ‘The Development of the Insei,’ 86–87; idem, Insei, 163, 268, 272; and Takagaki, ‘The Rokushō-ji,’ 192, n.157. Kongōji seems to have been a temple established to house Aśokan (ca. 268–232 bce) relics thought to have been brought to Japan from the continent during the reign of emperor Shōmu 聖武 (729–749). Kūkai is also thought to have visited the temple, perhaps on his way to Mount Kōya. On relics in Japanese Buddhism, see Ruppert, Jewel in the Ashes.
25. Mishina, Amanosan Kongōji, 23. On emperor Go-Murakami especially during the 1350s, see also Marra, Representations of Power, 30, 45; Conlan, From Sovereign to Symbol, 117–131. It is important to note that there are two versions of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra in Sinitic translation: T no. 374 and T no. 375. The translation of the former is attributed to Dharmakṣema (Tanwuchen 曇無讖; 385–433) and his translation team. This version has 40 rolls broken into 13 chapters (parivarta). T no. 374 and T no. 375 are technically the same text, but only T no. 374 was considered canonical in the Kaiyuan lu and later catalogs. T no. 375 was edited by Huiyuan 慧遠 (334-416) and his team to improve not only the sentences in Chinese and therefore the punctuation, but also the original text (T no. 374) was sub-divided into 17 chapters. Generally speaking, it is probably historically accurate to suggest that most premodern readers of Sinitic read the current T no. 375 edition, rather than T no. 374. On the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, see Blum, The Nirvana Sutra; Hodge, ‘The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra’; Radich, The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine; Shimoda, Nehangyō no kenkyū; Yamamoto, The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra.
26. Ochiai, ‘Kongōji shōgyō no gaiyō furoku’, 119.
27. On colophons to Japanese manuscripts, see Kornicki, The Book in Japan, 45, 82. See also Lowe, ‘Contingent and Contested’, 227 and Abe, Chūsei Nihon no shūkyō tekusuto taikei, 177. Note that okugaki need not include dedications indicating sponsorship, called gammon 願文 okugaki or shikigo. Akao and Unno, ‘Jūyō bunkazai Daihatsu nehangyō Go-Murakami tennō shinkan okugaki’, 381.
28. Akao and Unno, ‘Jūyō bunkazai Daihatsu nehangyō Go-Murakami tennō shinkan okugaki’, 382, Gotō et al. eds., Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan Dai ni-ki Dai go-kan Shūsho, 148.
29. On the Kongōji manuscript canon and the dated rolls, which range from 1079 to 1375, Miyoshi, ‘Kongōji issaikyō zenbō’, 119–124, and Ochiai et al. The Manuscripts of Nanatsu-dera; Ochiai, Kongōji issaikyō no sōgōteki kenkyū to Kongōji shōgyō no kisoteki kenkyū; Ōtsuka, ‘Issaikyō shosha to butten mokuroku’.
30. Ochiai, ‘Kongōji shōgyō no gaiyō furoku’, 117.
31. On jingūji and miyadera, see Sagai, Shinbutsu shūgō no rekishi to girei kūkan, 105–110. For the term ‘multiplex’ see Grapard, ‘Institution, Ritual, and Ideology’, And his synopsis in Shively and. McCullough, eds. The Cambridge History of Japan, Vol. 2, Heian Japan, ch.8. See below and McMullin, Buddhism and the State in 16th Century Japan, 8–32; Kornicki, The Book in Japan, 252–253. Cf. Keyworth, ‘Apocryphal Chinese books in the Buddhist canon at Matsuo Shintō shrine’, 1–2. The Matsuo manuscript Buddhist canon (Matsuno’o issaikyō no uchi [nai] 松尾一切經の内) was copied for father and son shrine priests (kannushi 神主) Hata no Chikatō 秦親任 (kannushi on 1076/2/20) and Hata no Yorichika 秦頼義 (kannushi on 1128/8/12) at Matsuo during the mid-twelfth century and was proofread by monastics from both Mount Hiei and Miidera between 1139.1 and 1143.5.26. It has at least 210 separate texts within the canon (517 separate rolls) with colophons indicating how they were checked against editions from the library of Bonshakuji 梵釈寺 (Shiga prefecture, on the southeastern slope of Mount Hiei). Eighteen of the 35 titles with this dedication, Ganshu kannushi Hata Sukune no Chikatō 願主神主秦宿祢親任, also have colophons with the same clan vow (ichizoku 一族), which illustrates that Chikatō had the merit accrued from the act of having them copied transferred to his extended family. See Nakao and Honmon Hokkeshū Daihonzan Myōrenji, eds., Kyōto Myōrenji zō ‘Matsuosha issaikyō’ chōsa hōkokusho, 270; Keyworth, ‘Copying for the Kami’. Two rolls with colophons from the twelfth century from the Matsuo scriptures confirm that these rolls were ritually read (tendoku). The colophon to roll 20 of Jinglū yixiang 經律異相 [Peculiarities of the Sūtras and Vinayas, comp. Baochang 寶唱 [516], Z no. 1171, T no. 2121] reads: 以我等轉讀力 倍贈御威光 御遷宮成就 仰者與父母 旦那及法界 現當二世願 悉地皆滿足 同特以相縁 松尾御社之一切經 // ☐ 光房微覺度 轉讀了. The colophon to roll 5 of Zhujing yaoji 諸經要集 [Collection of Essentials from the Sūtras, comp. Daoshi 道世 [659], Z no. 1173, T no. 2123] also confirms that perhaps these compendia were included in the practice of tendoku; the colophon reads: 西明寺沙門 [] // 願以此功德 普及於一切 我等與衆生 皆供成佛道 廣際寺住侶 ☐ 林坊榮秀轉讀之. Cf. nos. 1223/3297 and 1224/3349 in Nakao Takashi 中尾堯 and Honmon Hokkeshū Daihonzan Myōrenji 本門法華宗大本山妙蓮寺, ‘Matsuosha issaikyō’ chōsa hōkokusho. Fourteen titles in the Nanatsudera canon have a six-line stamp (rokugyō inki 六行印記) that reveal how these scriptures were copied and vowed to the kami of Atsuta 熱田 as well as protective gongen 守護権現 (avatāras) of fifteen others in central Japan, including: the great shining (or powerful) kami (daimyōjin 大明神) of Atsuta shrine, Yatsurugi no daimyōjin 八剱大明神, and the protective gongen of fifteen other shrines in central Japan. These include the Inner and Outer shrines at Ise 伊勢内外; Bonson who resides on Musan 梵尊土所牟山; Hakusan Myōri 白山妙理; the three shrines of Kumano 熊野三所; the Three Sages of Sannō 山王三聖; and three protective or tutelary shrines (chinjusha 鎮守社) of Tado 多度, Tsushima 津嶋, Nangū 南宮 and Chiyo 千代. The Inner shrine at Ise is, of course, dedicated to Tenshō daijin (Amaterasu); the Outer shrine is dedicated to Toyouke Bime 豊宇気毘売神. See Nanatsudera issaikyō hozonkai, Owari shiryō Nanatsudera issaikyō mokuroku, 5–128.
32. Mujaku Dōchū’s 無著道忠 (1653–1745) encyclopedia, chap. 21, Mujaku Dōchū, Zenrin shōkisen 禅林象器箋 [Notes on Images and Implements from the Groves of Zen] (Kyoto: Seishin shobō, 1963), 590–591 cites Zhiyi’s Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 5, T no. 1716.732c28-733a2: 既得論悟與不悟, 何妨論於淺深?究竟大乘, 無過《華嚴》、《大集》、《大品》、《法華》、《涅槃》, 雖明法界平等、無說無示, 而菩薩行位終自炳然。The five great sūtras include, in order, the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra (in 60 rolls), *Mahāvaipulya-mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra (in 30 rolls, Daijikkyō, Z no. 68, T no. 397), Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā- or the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Daibankyō, Z nos. 3–5, T nos. 222, 223, 226), Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra (Hokkekyō, Z no. 146, T no. 262), and Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (40 rolls) as copied by Go-Murakami for Kongōji. On the Daibankyō, see Conze, The Prajñāpāramitā Literature, 54-55; Komine, Katsuzaki, and Watanabe, Hannyakyō taizen, 40–41.
33. Initial reports from the 1960s suggested these images were carved by Unkei 運慶 (d. 1224); see Mishina Shōei, Amanosan Kongōji, 1. Cf. https://amanosan-kongoji.jp/cultural/, accessed February 2020.
34. Hishō mondō 2, T no. 2536, 79: 331b7, lists a Sonshō mandara zu 尊勝曼荼羅図 as attributed to Chishō 智勝 (a common variant for 証 in Chishō in manuscripts) daishi zu. It should be noted that this referenced cannot be found in Chishō daishi shōrai mokuroku 智証大師請来目録 [Catalog of Imported Items by Enchin, T no. 2173] nor any of his other extant catalogs (T nos. 2169–2172).
35. Mishina, Amanosan Kongōji, 3.
36. Rambelli, ‘In Search of the Buddha’s Intention’; idem, ‘The Ritual World of Buddhist ‘Shintō’; idem, ‘Texts, talismans, and jewels’; idem, ‘Secrecy in Japanese esoteric Buddhism’; Rambelli and Reinders, eds. Buddhism and Iconoclasm.
37. Rambelli, ‘True Words, Silence, and the Adamantine Dance’, 384–385. See the fruitful remarks in Ruppert, ‘Review of A Study into the Thought of Kōgyō Daishi Kakuban’; idem, ‘A Tale of Catalogs and Colophons’, 57–58 and Bodiford, ‘No. 78. Zen and Esoteric Buddhism’.
38. Abe and Yamazaki, eds. Shinpukuji komokurokushū 2, 585. On the connections between Dharma Prince Shōchin and Shin’yu, see Chikamoto, ‘Tōnan’in gozen shōgyō mokuroku kaidai’, 708; Abe and Iyanaga, ‘Shintō as Written Representation’, 94, 97.
39. See text and explanation in Gotō et al. eds., Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan 1: 1, 663–664, 744–746.
40. On this text, see Groner, ‘A Medieval Reading of the Mo-ho chih-kuan,’ 50, 61–63. On discussion of this text and the Kongōji ed., see Gotō et al. eds., Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan 1: 2, 376–389,512–516.
41. On discussion of this text and the Kongōji ed., see Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan Dai ichi-ki Dai ni-kan Innen Kyōke, 359–375,502–511. For a brief discussion of these Tendai teaching materials in the Kongōji shōgyō, see Akao, ‘Tendai shōgyō no koshahon’.
42. Gotō et al. Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan Dai ichi-ki Dai ni-kan Innen Kyōke, 505–506.
43. Abe, ‘Koramu 1ʹ; Yamazaki, ‘Shinpukuji komokurokushū ni sōsetsu’, 598; Akatsuka, ‘Negoroji kyōgaku no nyūden’; idem, ‘Shōrai mokuroku to mikkyō kyōki to no kankei’.
44. Ruppert, ‘A Tale of Catalogs and Colophons’, 50. On shōgyō in the medieval debates and about Shingon transmission practices, see Sango, ‘Buddhist Debate and the Production and Transmission of Shōgyō in Medieval Japa’; and Tinsley, ‘Indirect Transmission in Shingon Buddhism’, 82–83.
45. Rambelli, ‘In Search of the Buddha’s Intention’; Ruppert, ‘A Tale of Catalogs and Colophons’; Drummond, ‘No. 69ʹ, 822–823.
46. Cf. excellent examples in Zengaku Daijiten Hensansho, Zengaku daijiten.
47. Akatsuka, ‘Negoroji kyōgaku no nyūden’, discussed in Ruppert, ‘A Tale of Catalogs and Colophons’, 58–61.
48. Akatsuka, ‘Amanosan Kongōjizō no shōraikyō ni tsuite’; ‘Shōrai mokuroku to mikkyō kyōki to no kankei’.
49. Gotō et al. eds., Amanosan Kongōji zenpon sōkan 2:4, 425–431,654–660.
50. Ochiai (ed.) Kongōji issaikyō no sōgōteki kenkyū to Kongōji shōgyō no kisoteki kenkyū; and Gotō (ed.) Kongōji kyōzō shōgyō mokuroku; Abe and Yamazaki (eds.) Shinpukuji komokurokushū 2; Abe and Yamazaki (eds.) Shūkaku Hōshinnō to Ninnaji goryū no bunkengakuteki kenkyū.
51. Following Annen’s Sho ajari Shingon Mikkyō burui sōroku, the eight [esoteric Buddhist] monk-pilgrims to Tang China are: Saichō 最澄 (Dengyō daishi 傳教大師, 767–822, in China 804-805), Kūkai, Ennin 円仁 (Jikaku daishi 慈覚大師, 794–864, in China 838–847), Jōgyō 常暁 (d. 867; 838–839), Engyō 円行 (799–852; China 838–839), Eun 恵運 (798–869; China 842–847), Enchin, and Shūei 宗叡 (809–884; China 862–865). See von Verschuser, Les Relations Officielles du Japon avec la China aux VIIIe et IXe Siécles); Yoritomi, Nicchū o musunda bukkyōsō. On these catalogs, private catalogs, and libraries in early and medieval Japan, see Kornicki, The Book in Japan, 285–287, 367–416.
52. My use of the terms ‘Chinese manuscript Buddhist canon’ or ‘Tang manuscript Buddhist canon’ follow Zhan Ru, ‘The Buddhist canon of Ximing Monastery and Tang China’; and Storch, ‘Lidai sanbao ji,’ esp. 133. But I am well aware that the status of a fixed canon – cataloged by a particular catalog such as the Kaiyuan lu (730) or Zhenyuan lu (800) – was rare, at the very least, in monastic and temple libraries in Tang China. One could use the phrase manuscript corpus instead, as in the ‘Gilgit manuscript corpus or the Dunhuang so-called Library cave corpus, but that term would erroneously suggest that there was no tendency to conform sets of the canon (yiqie jing, issaikyō) within specific libraries to an bibliographic standardization. It does appear, however, that when sets of the Buddhist canon from libraries in the Chinese capital (Chang’an) or southern temples (e.g., Kaiyuansi visited by Saichō, Kūkai, Ennin or Enchin) were brought to Japan, these sets of scriptures (and other books) were used to generate copies of what were understood by Japanese pilgrims to be manuscript canons.
53. Genkō shakusho 元亨釋書 [Buddhist History of the Genkō Era (1321-24)] 16, comp. by Kokan Shiren 虎関師錬 (1278-1346) 16, NBZ 470.62.149b-c.
54. There is, of course, a distinction to be made between a translation and a version of a text; Chinese or Tibetan translations ‘should not be regarded simply as “a translation” of the text but as “a version” representing a certain stage at which the text developed’; Karashima, A Critical Edition of Lokakṣema’s Translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā,’ xii; Apple, ‘The Phrase dharmaparyāyo hastagato in Mahāyāna Buddhist Literature’, 27n.24. Furthermore, individual translators did not work alone; they worked often in elaborate teams; see Chen Jinhua, ‘Yijing’s (635–713) Translations’; Chen Ming, ‘Vinaya works translated by Yijing and their circulation’.
55. Akatsuka, ‘Shōrai mokuroku to mikkyō kyōki to no kankei’.
56. Ochiai, Kongōji issaikyō no sōgōteki kenkyū to Kongōji shōgyō no kisoteki kenkyū (vol. 2), 184.
57. On Qianzhen, see Chen, Crossfire, 102n.150, 181–185.
58. Ochiai, Kongōji issaikyō no sōgōteki kenkyū to Kongōji shōgyō no kisoteki kenkyū (vol. 2), 138.
59. On Raishin’s Fuguruma daini mokuroku, see Abe, ‘Fuguruma daini mokuroku kaidai’, esp. 685-688 and the documents that Zenne copied, see Akatsuka, ‘Kongōji shōgyō: Jōjōbō Zenne no shosha katsudō’.
60. Abé, ‘Kūkai sen Issaikyō kaidai no kenkyū’.
61. McRae, Seeing through Zen, 9–11.
62. Gorman, ‘Manuscript Books at Monte Amiata in the Eleventh Century’, 229. Cited in Buringh, ‘Chapter Three’, 426.