[morosiki top] [Moro files] [BOOKS, PAPERS and PRESENTATIONS]

This page is based on the paper which was distributed with my presentation for Yogācāra Buddhism Symposium (September 6-8, 2002. University of Calgary).

以下のテキストは、2002年9月6〜8日にカルガリー大学で開催された Yogācāra Buddhism Symposium での発表“Why is the ekayāna theory so important for the East Asian Yogācāra studies?”の配布資料をHTML化したものです。


Why is the ekayāna theory so important for the East Asian Yogācāra studies? このエントリーを含むはてなブックマーク

Shigeki Moro1)

1. Introduction

In the Fǎxiàng / Hossō 法相2) school, one of the East Asian transmissions of Yogācāra, the single-vehicle (ekayāna) theory has occupied an important position although it was not the central topic in Indian tradition. This is due not only to their (and other East Asian Buddhists') religious interest in being Buddha3), but also to their controversy with other Chinese Buddhist philosophers, especially the believers of Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra4) and the Huáyán 華嚴 school. Originally the controversy arose from the theories of five natures and that of three vehicles preached in the Yogācāra texts brought by Xuánzàng 玄奘 (602-664). Since these theories had taught the categorization of all sentient beings into five or three types according to their innate capacities for Buddhahood, the schools which believe the Buddhahood of all sentient beings, such as the Huáyán school, began to criticize on it. They targeted not only the theory of five natures but also the three-period teaching classification of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school. Therefore the theories of five natures, three vehicles and single vehicle were discussed in the context of the three-period teaching classification. Needless to say, each theory had its own structure, and all of them have related complexly to each other. Based on the criticisms, however, the interpretations of these theories had been too simplified.

In this paper, I would like to consider the misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school, before examining the confusion between the single- / three-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification.

2. Misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō School5)

Traditionally, the single-vehicle theory of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school has been summarized as follows: [the teaching of] the three vehicles is true, however [that of] the single vehicle is expedient (三乘眞實一乘方便). Therefore this school has been regarded as an opposite of the single-vehicle believers represented by the Tiantai / Tendai school. However Dàchéng-Jī 大乘基 (632-682), the founder of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school, argues that the single-vehicle teaching of Śrīmālā-sūtra is true in a chapter of his Dàchéng-fǎyuǎn-yìlín-zhāng 大乘法苑義林章:

(1) 又法華一乘唯依攝入、体用狭故爲方便說。勝鬘一乘、出生・攝入二皆周備、故是眞實。 法華一乘唯談有性爲依、故是方便。勝鬘一乘亦談無性爲依、故是眞實。法華唯談不定性、故是方便。 勝鬘亦談決定種姓、故是眞實。 (T. 45, 266b)
The single-vehicle [teaching] of the Lotus sutra depends only on [the single-vehicle teaching as] entrance. As the nature and function [of the Lotus sutra] are limited, it is regarded as an expedient teaching. The single-vehicle [teaching] of Śrīmālā-sūtra, because of its entire inclusion of [the single-vehicle teaching as] generator and entrance, is true. Since the single-vehicle [teaching] of the Lotus sutra is based only on the existence of the [Buddha] nature, it is expedient. Since the single-vehicle [teaching] of Śrīmālā-sūtra is based also on the lack of the [Buddha] nature, it is true. As the single-vehicle [teaching] of the Lotus sutra preaches only on the undetermined nature, it is expedient. Since the single-vehicle [teaching] of Śrīmālā-sūtra states also about the predetermined nature, it is true.

In this chapter named Zhūchéng-yìlín 諸乘義林 (the forest of theories on various vehicles), Dàchéng-Jī surely regards the single-vehicle teaching of the Lotus sutra as an expedient teaching. However we must draw attention to the statements in which Dàchéng-Jī thinks more highly of Śrīmālā-sūtra, since they have been ignored until recently. In (1), Dàchéng-Jī considers the single-vehicle teaching of Śrīmālā-sūtra as the truth, since it preaches it as both generator 出生 and entrance 攝入. According to the commentary on this chapter named Houon-gikyo 法苑義鏡 written by Zenju 善珠 (724-797), an eminent scholar monk of the Hossō school in the Nara period, these terms were based on the following paragraphs of Śrīmālā-sūtra (T. 72, 172c):

(2) 摩訶衍者。出生一切聲聞緣覺世間出世間善法。世尊。如阿耨大池出八大河。如是摩訶衍。 出生一切聲聞緣覺世間出世間善法。 (T. 12, 219b)
…all the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened and all the mundane and supramundane virtuous natures are distributed by the Great Vehicle. For example, the four great streams from Lake Anavatapta. In the same way, all the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened and all the mundane and supramundane virtuous natures issue from the Great Vehicle. (Wayman [1974], p. 78-79)
(3) 聲聞緣覺乘皆大乘。大乘者即是佛乘。是故二乘即是一乘。 (ibid., 220c)
…the vehicles of the Disciples and the Self-Enlightened ones are included in the Great Vehicle. Lord, ‘Great Vehicle’ is an expression for Buddha Vehicle. In that way, the three vehicles are counted one vehicle (ekayāna). (ibid., p. 92)

As Yoshimura [1999] pointed out, the single-vehicle had the same meaning as the great vehicle in the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school. Concerning on these terms (generator and entrance), moreover, Dàchéng-Jī's commentary of Śrīmālā-sūtra (Shèngmán-jīng Shùjì 勝鬘經述記) which was recorded by his pupil Yìlìng 義令 states as follows:

(4) 有二義。一云、若定性智定皆從大乘中出、名出生大乘也 二云、若不定種性及大乘種姓畢竟還歸大乘、名攝入大乘。 二云、於不定性中有二義。若始從小教趣小果時、名出生故、名大乘。若已迴心歸大乘時、名曰攝入故、名大乘也。 (Z. 1-30-4-304c)
There are two theories: First, since the wisdoms for all the predetermined natures are generated from the great vehicle, it should be named ‘the great vehicle as generator.’ If those who have the undetermined nature or the nature predetermined for bodhisattva finally return to the great vehicle, it should be named ‘the great vehicle as entrance.’ Secondly, there are two interpretations of the undetermined nature: If [those who have the undetermined nature] started with the small [vehicle] and ended in the small [vehicle], [what they were taught] should be called [the great vehicle as] generator. Thus it should be called the great vehicle. If [those who have the undetermined nature started with the small vehicle but] at last converted to the great vehicle, it should be called [the great vehicle as] entrance. Thus it should be called the great vehicle.

According to (4), the teaching of entrance was preached only for those who had nature predetermined for bodhisattvas (大乘種姓) and those who converted from the small vehicle into the great vehicle (the undetermined nature). Quotation (4) also writes that the teaching of generator was for those who had either the predetermined nature or the undetermined nature of the small vehicle. However, it is reasonable to think that all four vehicles (四乘) or five natures (五性) are generated from the great vehicle, based on (2) and the parable of four burdens in Śrīmālā-sūtra (T. 12, 218a-b. Wayman and Wayman [1974], p. 71-72). In addition, as Suguro [1972] pointed out, this parable has been traditionally considered as an evidence of the truth of four (or three) vehicle teaching by the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school. Taking the different aspects of the single-vehicle teaching into consideration, however, there is no contrast between the truth of the four (or three) vehicle teaching and that of the single vehicle teaching, since the former is true in the context of generator and the latter is true in the aspect of entrance6). Consequently, it should be clear that Dàchéng-Jī claimed the truth in single-vehicle, although his content of ‘truth’ is different from that of single-vehicle believers.

In traditional interpretation, Dàchéng-Jī regarded the single vehicle teaching of Śrīmālā-sūtra as an expedient (e.g. Suguro [1972], p. 367 and Matsumoto [1989], p. 299), depending on the following part:

(5) 若如來隨彼所欲而方便說。即是大乘無有二乘。 (T. 12, 221a. See Wayman [1974], p. 94)
If Tathāgata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the great vehicle, not the two-vehicle. (my translation)

However, according to Zhūchéng-yìlín quoted below, he did not interpret it like that:

(6) 依勝鬘經「若如來隨彼意欲、而方便說唯有一乘無有二乘」。 此意即顯攝二乘大說一乘者、隨他意語。 (T. 45, 266a)
Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “If Tathāgata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the single-vehicle, not the two-vehicle.” This teaching demonstrates that if the entrance of the two-vehicle into the great vehicle was taught as the single-vehicle, it must have been a teaching which was following the audience.
(7) 「若如來隨彼意欲、而方便說即是大乘無有二乘」。故會二乘於一者、是方便說。 (ibid., 267b)
[Śrīmālā-sūtra says:] “If Tathāgata expediently preaches as he pleases, [the teaching] will be of the single-vehicle, not the two-vehicle.” Therefore it is the expedient teaching to unify the two vehicles and lead them into the single vehicle.

Paying attention to the word 入 (entrance) underlined in (6) and (7), it is clear that the expedient single-vehicle teaching preached in Śrīmālā-sūtra should be limited to the meaning of entrance. Thus the single-vehicle as generator is still true. Likewise, Zenju interprets (7) as follows:

(8) 引勝鬘文、證法華一乘是方便門。 (T. 71, 172b)
Quoting the sentences of Śrīmālā-sūtra, it is proved that the single-vehicle [teaching] of the Lotus sutra is an expedient gate.

Consequently, this structure mentioned above can be expressed as in the following figure:

3. Confusion between the single-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification

Criticism from the Huáyán School in China

Why has the single-vehicle theory of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school been misunderstood? In my understanding, it was caused by the confusion of the single-vehicle theory with the three-period teaching classification. For example, Zōngmì 宗密 (780-841), who was a scholar monk in Tang China, criticized the three period teaching classification as follows:

(9) 如法相宗意、以一乘爲權、三乘爲實故。深密三時教中、初皆不成、次一向成、是爲若過若不及皆非了義。 第三時中、有性者成、無性不成、方爲了義。 (Z. 1-14-2-114c)
Based on the view of the Fǎxiàng theory, the single-vehicle [teaching] would be expedient and the three-vehicle [teaching] would be true. In the teaching of the three-period teaching classification in Saṃdhinirmocana, in the first period, [it was preached that] no one could attain [the enlightenment]; in the second period, [it was preached that] everyone could attain [the enlightenment]. Thus neither the excesses nor lack [of the enlightenment] had the complete revelation of meaning. In the third period, [it was preached that] those who had the [Buddha] nature could attain [the enlightenment] and those who didn't have the [Buddha] nature could not. Therefore it had the complete revelation of meaning.

Originally, the three-period teaching classification of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school was a doctrinal separation of Buddhist teachings based on Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. It consists of three periods: the teaching of existence as the first period, the teaching of emptiness (śūnyatā) as the second period and the teaching of the Middle way as the third period. According to Hùizhăo 慧沼 (649-714), regarded as the head disciple of Dàchéng-Jī in Japanese tradition, the term ‘period’ () should be interpreted not only as a sequence of time (前後), but also as a sort of contents (義類) (T. 43, 660c). In principle, the teaching of existence means the small vehicle teaching established in the Four Āgama sutras and the Abhidharma texts. The teaching of emptiness is connected with the Prajñāpāramitā sutras and the doctrine of Mādhyamika, especially Bhāviveka. The teaching of the Middle way is the sublation of the first and second teachings, which is explained in the Yogācāra sutras represented by Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the works of the Yogācāra masters such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu. Zōngmì confused the three-period teaching classification with the single- / three-vehicle theory. In other words, he interpreted the classification with the single-vehicle opposing to the three-vehicle. As I mentioned above, the single-vehicle as generator and the three-vehicle are not inconsistent.

We can traced back such a confusion to Fǎzàng 法藏 (643-712), who was an ancestor of the Huáyán school. According to him, there were debates between Śīlabhadra 戒賢 and Jñānaprabha 智光 in India. Śīlabhadra, a scholar monk of Yogācāra, espoused the three-period teaching classification based on Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. Jñānaprabha, in contrast, posited his view of the three-period teaching classification (consisted of the first teaching of the four noble truths, the second teaching of the great vehicle of Dharma-character 法相大乘 and the last teaching of the great vehicle of No-characteristics 無相大乘), based on unknown Dàchéng-miàozhì-jīng 大乘妙智經. The tradition was in turn based on the statement of Divākāra 地婆訶羅 quoted in Dàchéng-qǐxìnlùn-yìjì 大乘起信論義記 by Fǎzàng7). It is important that Fǎzàng also interpreted Jñānaprabha's classification as the development from the small vehicle to the single vehicle. He writes:

(10) 先攝機者、初時唯攝二乘人機。第二通攝大小二機、以此宗計一分二乘不向佛果。 三唯攝菩薩、通於漸・頓、以諸二乘悉向佛果無異路故。二約教者、初唯攝小乘。次通三乘、後唯一乘。
First, taking the capacities into consideration, the first period included only the capacities of the people on the two vehicles. The second period included the capacities for both the great and small vehicles, since the theory of the second period stuck to the impossibility of the Buddhahood for a part of the two vehicles. The third period included only [the capacity for] bodhisattvas training both suddenly and gradually, since all people on the two vehicles must obtain none other than the Buddhahood. Secondly, from the point of view of Buddha's sermons, the first [period] consisted of the small vehicle, the next [period] included all the three vehicles and the last [period had] the single-vehicle only. (T. 35, 112a)

Although Fǎzàng does not mention the relationship between Śīlabhadra's classification and the three vehicle theory, it would be easy to suppose that Fǎzàng wrote this paragraph bearing the relationship between the three period classification of the Fǎxiàng school and its three vehicle theory in mind. In order to criticize the Fǎxiàng theories in which the authenticity was guaranteed under the newest teaching classification of Saṃdhinirmocana, the opposites had to cite the Indian tradition to support their single-vehicle theories.

Controversy with the Sanron School in Japan

With this as a background, I now turn to an account of the controversy between the Hossō school and the Sanron school (the Japanese form of Indian Mādhyamika tradition based on Chinese translations of the three treatise: Madhyamaka-śāstra / Zhōng-lùn 中論, Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra / Shíèrmén-lùn 十二門論 and Śata-śāstra / Bǎi-lùn 百論) during the Nara and early Heian period8). One of the subjects of this controversy was the anumāna to demonstrate śūnyatā in Bhāviveka's Dàchéng-zhǎngzhēn-lùn 大乘掌珍論. In the context of this controversy, the same way as Śīlabhadra and Jñānaprabha, the confrontation between non-existence and existence was often confused with the opposition of single vehicle teaching to three vehicle teaching. For example, Shūhoushi 秀法師 (the dharma master called ‘Shū’), who was a scholar monk of the Hossō sect in the early Heian period and is speculated to be Ninshū 仁秀, wrote a small text named Shōchin-ryō-dō 掌珍量噵 (A guide for the inference of Dàchéng-zhǎngzhēn-lùn). It concluded as follows:

(11) 凡淸辨義、玄奘所傳、何故余師輒加言乎。 (中略)凡傳淸辨宗已是玄奘、玄奘已授基師令立。自此以外誰人更進於天竺、受淸辨宗。 諸三論家皆受基師、今依誰說還誹師乎。又智論・中論・十二門論、此三部論龍樹造。百論二巻及廣百論並提婆造。 除玄奘所譯廣百論自余三論、並後秦弘始年中羅什譯。羅什不立悉有佛性義、今三論師受誰所說立悉有佛性。 (T. 65, 268c)
Bhāviveka's opinion was transferred [into China] by Xuánzàng. Why can masters of other [schools] butt in? (…) The person who transferred Bhāviveka's doctrine [into China] was Xuánzàng. Xuánzàng taught [Bhāviveka’s doctrine] to Master [Dàchéng-]Jī and made him independent. After Xuánzàng, no one has ventured to visit India for Bhāviveka's doctrine. Therefore all Sanron masters have been taught by Master Jī. Whose doctrine are your teachings based on in order to criticize against your master at this time? Dàzhìdù-lùn, Zhōng-lùn and Shíèrmén-lùn, these three treatises were written by Nāgārjuna. Both Bǎi-lùn and Guǎnbǎi-lùn (Catuḥśataka) were written by Āryadeva. Three treatises except Guǎnbǎi-lùn translated by Xuánzàng were translated by Kumārajīva during Hóngshǐ era of Hòuqín dynasty. Kumārajīva didn't set up the theory of the possession of the Buddha nature by all [sentient beings]. Whose doctrine do the Sanron masters at this time rely on in order to establish the theory of the possession of the Buddha nature?

As Hirai [1978] pointed out, the Buddha nature was the hidden subject of Shōchin-ryō-dō.

In addition, Saichō 最澄 (766/767-822) and Tokuitsu 德一 (8c-9c), who contended severely with each other for the truth of the Lotus sutra in the early Heian period, also regarded the confrontation between non-existence and existence as the opposite of the single-vehicle and three-vehicle. In Saichō’s Ketsu-gonjitsu-ron 決權實論, Bhāviveka is regarded as a believer of the single vehicle:

(12) 天親菩薩・堅慧菩薩・青辨論師・智光論師、說内證一乘。 (DZ. 2, p. 700)
Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, Bodhisattva Sāramati, Disputant Bhāviveka and Disputant Jñānaprabha preached the inner-enlightenment of the single-vehicle.

Tokuitsu considers Língrùn 霊潤 as a person of the Sanron school in his lost Hossō-ryōgi-tō 法相了義灯 quoted by Genshin 源信:

(13) 得一法相了義灯云「霊潤是三論宗人」。 (T. 74, 341a)
Tokuitsu's Hossō-ryōgi-tō says: “Língrùn was a person of the Sanron school.”

Língrùn was a scholar monk who argued the existence of Buddha nature against Xuánzàng9). However, he did not belong to the Sanron school. Since Saichō and his disciples have been the main current in Japan, this misunderstanding began with Fǎzàng and established in Japan is spreading now.

Sudden and Gradual

Some modern scholars have misunderstanding over the three-period teaching classification as follows, because of their prejudice:

(14) (前略)法相教学は、『法華経』や『涅槃経』や『般若経』のように一切衆生悉有仏性 (すべての人間に仏となれる本性が有る)説を認める教学集団ではないということである。 この故に(中略)法相宗の三時教判の中に、 一乗思想や仏性説を説く『法華経』や『涅槃経』を取り入れることの不可能なことの意味が理解できると考えられる。 (Iwata [1996]. See also Harada [1998])
…The Fǎxiàng / Hossō school cannot belong to a group which admits the theory of ‘all sentient beings possess the Buddha nature’ like the Lotus sutra, Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra. Therefore (…) it would be resonable to think that the Lotus sutra or Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, which preach the theory such as the single-vehicle or the Buddha nature, cannot be accepted as a part of the three-period teaching classification.

By reading the texts of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school carefully, however, it becomes clear that the third period includes not only the Yogācāra texts but also the single-vehicle sutras, such as the Lotus sutra, Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra or Śrīmālā-sūtra. Dàchéng-Jī's commentary on Vimalakīrti-sūtra (Shuōwúgòuchēngjīng-shū 說無垢称經疏) states as follows:

(15) 三雙遮有空執、並說有・空宗、即花嚴・深密・涅槃・法花・楞伽・厚嚴・勝鬘等是。 (T. 38, 999a)
In [sutras of] the third [period], the attachments to both existence and emptiness were refused. These were Avataṃsaka-, Saṃdhinirmocana-, Mahāparinirvāṇa-, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-, Laṅkāvatāra-, Hòuyán10) and Śrīmālā- or so.

Thinking over these sutras, they divided into the sudden teachings and the gradual teachings. Dàchéng-Jī says:

(16) 古來大德立有頓漸二教。 爲諸菩薩大根大莖說花嚴・楞伽・大雲・法鼓・勝鬘等經、一會之中說二諦理尽、名之爲頓。 大不由小起故名爲頓。(…) 阿含等經、維摩・思益・大品空教、法華一乘・涅槃等說常住佛性皆是漸教、 會通三乘、大由小起名爲漸也。 (T. 45, 247b-c)
From long ago, the great masters established [the classification of] the sudden and gradual teachings. For bodhisattvas who had the great root and stem, sūtras such as Avataṃsaka-, Laṅkāvatāra-, Mahābherī-, Mahāmegha- and Śrīmālā- were preached. Since the Two Truths were entirely preached in their sermon, they should be called the sudden [teaching]. Since their great [vehicle teachings] didn't [occur] from the small [vehicle], they should be called the sudden [teaching]. (…) The teachings of Āgama sutras, the emptiness of Vimalakīrti-, Viśeṣacintin- and the Large [Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra], the single-vehicle of the Lotus [sūtra] and the eternal Buddha nature of Mahāparinirvāṇa- were gradual. They embraced the three vehicles. Since their great [vehicle teachings] occur from the small [vehicle], they should be called the gradual [teaching].
(17) 約理及機漸入道者、大由小起、乃有三時諸教前後、解深密經說唯識是也。 若非漸次而入道者、大不由小、即無三時諸教前後、約其多分即初成道花嚴等中說唯心是。 (ibid., 249b)
Based on the principle and the availabilities [of sentient beings], [if someone] gradually enters the way [to the Buddhahood], the great [vehicle] occurs from the small [vehicle]. Therefore the three period teachings are located in a sequence of time. For example, the consciousness-only [teaching] preached in Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra [belongs to the third period]. If entering the way [to the Buddhahood] is not gradual, the great [vehicle] doesn't [occur] from the small [vehicle]. Therefore the three period teachings aren't located in a sequence of time. In general, the mind-only [teaching] preached in Avataṃsaka[-sūtra] immediately after [Śākyamuni's] Enlightenment [belongs to the third period instead of the first].

Comparing these paragraphs with (4), it is clear that the three-period teaching classification belongs to the category of the great (or single) vehicle as entrance. In other words, the sudden teachings of the three period teachings were preached for people with nature predetermined for bodhisattva, the gradual teachings were for people with undetermined nature who had converted from the small vehicle into the great vehicle, and there is no teaching in the three-period teaching classification for people with nature predetermined for the small vehicle and without the capacity for any enlightenments. The relationship between the five natures and the three-period teaching classification can be illustrated as follows:

4. Conclusion

Misunderstanding over the single-vehicle theory of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school has been caused by the intentional confusion between the single-vehicle theory and the three-period teaching classification which ignored the single-vehicle as generator. Moreover, based on this misunderstanding, we could not correctly interpret other theories of the Fǎxiàng / Hossō school about emptiness, such as the three-nature doctrine, since the three-period teaching classification has an important role in the its understanding of emptiness.

Works Cited

Fukaura, Seibun [1954]
Yuishiki-gaku kenkyū 唯識学研究, Vol. 1. Nagata-bunshōdō.
Fuse, Kougaku [1942]
Nehan-shū no kenkyū 涅槃宗の研究. Tokyo: Sōbunkaku. Reprinted by Kokusho kankou kai, Tokyo in 1973.
Harada, Nobuyuki [1998]
“Hossō-kyōgaku to Konjaku-monogatari-shū 法相教学と『今昔物語集』.” Ritsumeikan Bungaku 立命館文学, 552.
Hirai, Shunei [1976]
Chūgoku han’nya shisō-shi kenkyū: Kichizō to Sanron-gakuha 中国般若思想史研究 吉蔵と三論学派 Tokyo: Shunjū-sha.
Hirai, Shunei [1978]
“Heian-shoki ni okeru Sanron Hossō kakuchiku wo meguru sho-mondai 平安初期における三論・法相角逐をめぐる諸問題.” Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Kenkyū kiyō 駒澤大学佛教学部研究紀要, 37.
Hirosawa, Takayuki [1999]
“Kongen yori nagarederu mono 根源より流れ出るもの.” Gendai Mikkyō 現代密教, 11+12.
Iwata, Taijō [1996]
“Hossō-kyōgaku to bungaku: Kotoni Konjaku-monogatari ni kanshite 法相教学と文学―ことに『今昔物語』に関して―”. Imanari, Genshō eds., Bukkyō bungaku no kōsō 仏教文学の構想. Tokyo: Shinten-sha.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1985]
“Daibucchōkyō no shingi ronsō to nanto rokushū no dōkō 『大佛頂經』の眞偽論争と南都六宗の動向”. Komazawa-shigaku 駒沢史学, 33.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1987]
“Enryaku-sōroku Kaimyō-den no shiryō-teki tokushitsu 『延暦僧録』戒明傳の資料的特質”. Komazawa-shigaku 駒沢史学, 37.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1990]
“Sanron Hossō tairitsu no shigen to sono haikei: Shōben no Shōchin-ron juyō wo megutte 三論・法相対立の始源とその背景―淸弁の『掌珍論』受容をめぐって”. Hirai, Shunei eds., Sanron kyōgaku no kenkyū 三論教学の研究. Tokyo: Shunjū-sha.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1991]
“Kū u ronsō no Nihon-teki tenkai 空有論争の日本的展開”. 駒大文学部研究紀要, 49.
Matsumoto, Nobumichi [1994]
“Daianji Sanron-gaku no tokushitsu: Dōji, Keishun, Kaimyō wo chūshin to shite 大安寺三論学の特質―道慈・慶俊・戒明を中心として”. Kodaishi-ronsō.
Matsumoto, Shirō [1982]
“Yuishiki-ha no ichijō-shisō ni tsuite 唯識派の一乘思想について”. Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Ronshū 駒沢大学佛教学部論集, 13.
Matsumoto, Shirō [1989]
“Shōman-gyō no ichijō-shisō ni tsuite 『勝鬘經』の一乘思想について”. Engi to kū 縁起と空. Tokyo: Daizō-shuppan.
Moro, Shigeki [1998]
“Hossō-shū no ‘ihijō-hōben-setsu’ saikō 法相宗の「一乘方便」說再考 [A Reexamination of the single-vehicle theory of the Fa-hsiang School]”. IBK 93 (47-1).
Moro, Shigeki [1999]
“Jiun Hossō-Zuinō no fukugen to kaishaku 慈蘊『法相髄脳』の復原と解釈 [The Original form and the Purpose of the Hossō-Zuinō]”. 東洋大学大学院紀要35.
Moro, Shigeki [2002]
“Chikō's Criticism of the Hossō Sect, and Wŏnhyo's Influence”. IBK 100 (50-2).
Ōta, Kyūki [1973]
“Nihon yuishiki kenkyū: Kūgyō no ichizuke 日本唯識研究―空教の位置づけ”. Komazawa-daigaku Bukkyou-gakubu Ronshū 駒澤大学佛教学部論集, 31.
Ōta, Kyūki [1979]
“Nihon yuishiki kenkyū: Ta-kyōgaku tono kakawari 日本唯識研究―他教学とのかかわり”. IBK 55 (28-1).
Suguro, Shinjō [1972]
“Kiki no Hokke-gensan ni okeru Hokekyō kaishaku 窺基の法華玄賛における法華經解釈”. Yukio Sakamoto eds., Hokekyō no chūgoku-teki tenkai 法華経の中国的展開. Kyoto: Heirakuji-shoten.
Tokiwa, Daijō [1930]
Busshō no kenkyū 佛性の研究. Heigo-shuppan.
Yoshimura, Makoto [1999]
“Genjō no daijō kan to santenbōrin setsu 玄奘の大乗観と三転法輪説 [Xuanzang's View of Mahāyāna and the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma].” Tōyō no Shisō to Shūkyō 東洋の思想と宗教, 16.
Yoshizu, Yoshihide [1997]
“Hossō-shū to iu namae no saikentou 「法相宗」という宗名の再検討 [The Reexamination of the Sect Name ‘Hossoshu’].” Bukkyō shisō bunkashi ronsō 仏教思想文化史論叢. Kyoto: Nagata-bunshō-dō.
Yūki, Reimon [1962]
Yuishiki-gaku Tenseki-shi 唯識學典籍史. Tokyo: Daizō-shuppan.
Wayman, Alex and Hideko Wayman [1974]
The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā. Columbia University Press.

Notes.

  1. Lecturer, Hanazono University.
  2. The term 法相 means ‘dharma-character’ or ‘characteristics of phenomena.’ As Yoshizu [1997] pointed out, originally Fǎxiàng / Hossō was a derogatory name. However, this term is adopted for want of something better.
  3. Hirosawa [1999] brought up the interesting question whether the theory of Yogācāra / Vijñpti-mātra could be the salvation of people.
  4. They have been called Nièpán-zōng or Nehan-shū 涅槃宗 (see Fuse [1942]) and regarded as a school. Based on the historical materials, however, it is difficult to consider them as a school or a sect.
  5. Based on Moro [1998].
  6. What Shiro Matsumoto argues is important: the single-vehicle and four-vehicle are not always inconsistent in the Indian Yogācāra Buddhism (Matsumoto [1982]).
  7. Fukaura [1954] and Hirai [1976] doubt whether the tradition was existent. However, Yoshimura [1999] places confidence in Divākāra since he came from Nālandā.
  8. For this controversy, see Ōta [1973, 1979], Hirai [1978], N. Matsumoto [1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994] and Moro [1999, 2002].
  9. See Tokiwa [1930], p. 220-230.
  10. According to Yuishiki-gi Shiki 唯識義私記, 義濱 regarded Hòuyán-jīng as Ārya-ghanavyūha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra 大乘密嚴經. See Yūki [1962], p. 26-27.


mailto: s-moroNO@SPAMhanazono.ac.jp
$Id: index.html,v 1.5 2008/04/24 00:52:51 moromoro Exp $