Explicating Shōji jissō gi: A Study of Interpretation, Debate, and Innovation in a Shingon Buddhist Commentarial Tradition

(1)

A 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 Winkelman 0918474

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

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

(2)

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.

(3)

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:

(4)

Introduction

The text Shōji jissō gi 声声声声声 (hereafter Shōjigi, KZ1 521-534) by Kōbō Daishi Kūkai 声声声声声声 (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 声声声) of esoteric Buddhism (mikkyō 声声), 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 声声, is an essential part of Shingon’s theoretical studies (kyōso 声声). In line with tradition that has precedents in Indian Buddhism, numerous commentaries have been produced 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)

(6)

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

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)

(7)

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 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

(8)

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 声声 (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, as far as I am presently aware, no other treatment of Shōjigi’s commentarial literature is available in English as of today.

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 声声 linguistic thought during the Edo period, see: Murphy 2009.

(9)

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.

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

(10)

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 声声声声声声声 in one volume, author unknown. Dated

1222.7_{(SZ 14, 37-48)}

 Shōji jissō gi shō kikigaki 声声声声声声声声 in two volumes, by Dōhan 声声

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

 Shōji jissō gi kaihi shō 声声声声声声声声 in two volumes, by Raiyu 声声

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

 Shōji jissō gi gusō声声声声声声声 in two volumes, by Raiyu. Dated 1280.

(ZSZ 17, 323-418) (2)

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)

(11)

 Shōji jissō gi kuhitsu 声声声声声声声 in five volumes, written by Genbō 声声 (1333-1398) and taught by Gōhō 声声 (1306-1362). Dated 1357 (SZ 14, 115-203)

 Shōji jissō gi shō 声声声声声声 in three volumes, by Yūkai 声声 (1345-1416).

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

 Shōji jissō gi kenshin shō 声声声声声声声声 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 of ritual initiation (kanjō 声声) 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

(12)

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, 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.

(13)

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.

(14)

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 声声声声声8_{is a linguistic treatise in which Kūkai}9_{explains the relation}

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

seppō 声声声声 - the notion that the absolute dharmakāya (hosshin), the Buddha

Dainichi 声声 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 声声 (“true speech”, Sk. mantra), a form of speech capable of speaking the truth as it is and in its totality (nyogi gonsetsu 声声声声).

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 声声) 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 声声声声声声 (KZ 1, 474-505). As evidence he pointed to a number of sutras already known in Japan before his time - notably the Nehankyō 声声声 (T374 12) and the Ryōgakyō声声声 (Sk. La kāvatāra sutraṅ , 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

(15)

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 声声声声; “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 声声声声). 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 声声声声声 (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 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

schools, notably those belonging to the sanron study group声声声, had in fact already acknowledged the possibility. (Fujii 2008, 209-234)

(16)

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 声声声声声声 (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 声声) 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 声声) that is expounded.12

The consensus of the contemporary kyōtai discourse held that this substance was formed by the elements of language, which were considered to be provisional 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 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)

(17)

dharmas (kehō 声声), 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 声声声声) , 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 声声).13_{Kūkai explains in Shōjigi that this activity takes place in all six fields}

of sensory perception (rikujin 声声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 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).

13 All things in existence, Buddha or otherwise, are endowed with the three mysterious activities of body (shinmitsu 声声), speech (kumitsu 声声), and mind (imitsu 声声). By synchronizing his activities to that of the deity (sanmitsu kaji 声声声声), 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声声 (“six domains”). These are: forms (shiki kyō 声声), sound (shōkyō 声声), smells (kōkyō声声), tastes (mikyō 声声), tactile objects (sokukyō 声声), and objects of thought (hōkyō 声声). Most commentators suggest that Kūkai chose to use rikujin because jin声 can mean dirt, suggest that their observation defiles the mind or that they are perceived from the point of view of the

(18)

Shōjigi develops its linguistic argument through exegesis of the term that makes up its title: shōji jissō 声声声声. This expression can be divided into three: shō 声, ji 声, and jissō 声声.15_{It can be traced back to a passage in the commentary on the}

Dainichikyō 声声声, 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

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}

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 声声声声by Zenmui 声声声 (Sk. Śubhakarasi ha, 637-735) and Ichigyō ṃ 声声 (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 声, particularly as it is deployed in the Shōjigi. (Matsunaga K 2014)

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

(19)

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 声. Reading ji 声 in the conventional sense of “character” which is used in, for instance “Chinese character (kanji 声声)”, does not suffice within such a framework; it is too limited. That shō can signify a certain meaning is predicated on mon 声 (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 声声. 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 声声), 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 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

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)

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 声声声 and Yugaron 声声声, as well as that of the Dainichikyō and Ichigyō’s commentary. (Henmi 1953)

(20)

The meaning that shō signifies in manifest form is jissō 声声, 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声声) 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.

(21)

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 声声), 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 声声声), set up at the Tōji 声声 temple and on Mt. Kōya (Kōyasan 声声声) - 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 声声 声声) and assuring practical benefits in the present world (genze riyaku 声声声声) at both the collective and individual levels. The lack of a single institutional center and absence of an overarching doctrinal authority - a situation that characterizes the entire

(22)

history of the Shingon tradition into the present day - facilitated the proliferation of numerous ritual lineages (ryūha 声声) 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 声声声 and the hirosawaryū 声声声, which developed around the organizations of the Daigōji temple 声声声 and Ninnaji 声声声 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 声声 (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 the importance of

jisō. (Van der Veere 1998) Kakuban’s scholastic work (kyōgaku 声声) systematically

treated a wide array of matters and attempted to tie up the loose ends left by Kūkai.

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.

(23)

Aside from this, his scholarship also reacted to new developments, such as then upcoming Amida nenbutsu 声声声声声 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 that this may have come about because his writings were by this time seen as the words of a

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 声声 (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 声声 (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.

(24)

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 声声声声) 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 声声 (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 声声) and notions of indigenous kami 声 as manifestations of Buddha’s (honji suijaku 声声声声) 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 声声, gakuryo 声声) formed a relative minority among the Shingon clergy, which also consisting of itinerant priests, worker priests, and so on. (Rambelli 2014, 28) Though the precise organizational structures differed depending on

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

(25)

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 声声) - 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声声声 on Mt. Kōya. Initiated into the chūinryū 声声声 lineages, his Shingon scholarship is largely inspired by the ideas of Kakukai 声声 (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 声声声声 and Amida’s nenbutsu. He is considered a member of the esoteric nenbutsu (himitsu nenbutsu 声声声声) movement and in his ideas about the nenbutsu drew inspiration from the work of previous esoteric thinkers such as his master Jōhen声声 (1166-1224), Jichihan, and Kakuban. Saliently, there are hardly any traces of Dōhan’s nenbutsu ideas to be found 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

(26)

shū nenbutsu shō 声声声声声声, (DBZ 43, 53c-54a). (Kushida 1964, 168, 213-219; Sanford 1994; Buijnsters 1999; Satō 1999; Satō 2001)

Raiyu 声声 (1226-1304), heir to the sanbōinryū 声声声声, operated first from Mt. Kōya, but left for Mt. Negoro (Negorosan 声声声) after conflict with other factions on the mountain. He is widely praised and looked up to as the founder of shingi Shingon 声声声声 (litt. “new interpretation Shingon), a faction that developed from his time on alongside its counterpart, the faction of kogi Shingon 声声声声 (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 声声声声 (“original base dharmakāya) or the kajihosshin 声 声声声 (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 声声 in present day Kyōto, they belonged to the sanbōinryū 声声声声. (MDJ, 530-31) Together with Gōhō’s master Raihō 声声 (1279-1330?), they have retrospectively become known as the “three jewels” (sanbō 声声) of the Tōji since their names end in the character for jewel: hō 声. 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}

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.

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).

(27)

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 声声声, and jimyōinryū 声声声声. (MDJ 2192) Yūkai not only criticized his contemporary Chōkaku声声 (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 声声声), criticizing in a text called

Hōkyōshō声声声 that it practiced on an incorrect interpretation of the Shingon maxim

30 For more on Yūkai, see the work of Rinzan and Kanayama. Rinzan 2005;2007; Kanayama 1973, 542-600.

(28)

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 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

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 声声, for being “heretical” as well because he was too interested in Tendai ideas. (Rinzan 2007, 111)

(29)

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 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:

(30)

“[Shōjigi says:] Hence the kaji 声声 of the nyorai 声声 shows a way to return to that domain.

[...]

Now, this kaji here is the kaji of the dharma form in its essential nature (jishō 声声). It is not the kaji of the juyū 声声 form and so on. [...] The point (i 声) of this is that in the state (i 声) of fundamental inner enlightenment (honji jishō 声声声声), 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 声声声), that the form (shin声) of the eight-petalled lotus of the taizō 声声

manifests from the virtue of the Buddha’s state of inner enlightenment (bodai jishō声声声声).”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 is endowed with the paths (dō 声) of the various jimon 声声. Hence we also call him the endowed kaji body (gukajishin 声声声声)”33

The point (i 声) 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 声声 of the nyorai 声声 shows

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

33 Raiyu here refers to a sentence in his own commentary on the commentary on the Dainichikyō, the

(31)

a way to return to that domain,” it refers to the Buddha who is endowed with the paths (dō 声) of the various jimon 声声. 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.

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 声声, 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.

(32)

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 声声声声) based on the

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

(“original nature form”), that is the body of the Dharma world (hokkai 声声, Sk. dharmadhātu) residing in the state of samadhi that characterizes all existence. Then there is the juyū hosshin 声声声声, that knows two aspects. As ji juyū hosshin 声声声声声 (“self-receiving function form”) it expresses the Dharma for its own enjoyment, while as ta juyū hosshin 声声声声声 (“other receiving function form”) it expounds the Dharma for the sake of others. As third, there is a “transformation form” (henge hosshin 声声声 声) that expounds the Dharma in historical environments such as the human world. And lastly there is the tōru hosshin 声声声声 (“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 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.

35 Later thinkers, such as Donjaku声声 (1674-1742) and Hōjū 声声 (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)

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 声声声声声 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 声声) that encompasses the others. Nevertheless, this very subtle difference in terminology became one of the fundamental interpretational differences 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 声声(?-1789) a shingi priest of the busan-ha 声声声 does and he follows Raiyu’s explanation by even quoting from that commentary. (SZ 14, 354b)

(34)

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 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 声声声声), and that their transmission is extra-canonical (kyōgai 声 声), 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

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)

(35)

were understood to have claimed - that their transmission took place outside of the canon (kyōgai 声声) and made no use of linguistic means. To state the matter in Shōjigi terms, they claimed that their teachings were of a different kyōtai 声声, 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 声声声声38_{), the nyogi gonsetsu}

声声声声 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 声声39_{transmitted it in a golden coffin (konkan 声声),}

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 声声, 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声) but [still] affirms it’s own position and negates that of others possibly be in accord with the truth (shōgi声声)!”

37 In this passage the Yuimakyō 声声声 is referred to by the term Jōmyō 声声, 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.声

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

types of language are: 1. “linguistic expression based on causal, external observation“ (sō gonsetsu 声声 声) 2. “linguistic expression based on dream experiences” (mu gonsetsu 声声声) 3. “linguistic expressions based on false views” (mōshū gonsetsu声声声声) 4. “linguistic expression based on [desires] without beginning“ (muji gonsetsu声声声声) 5. “linguistic expression in accordance with reality” (nyogi gonsetsu 声声声声). 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 声声 (Sk. Kāśyapa), often referred to as Daikashō 声声声/Makakashō 声声声声 (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)

(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 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