Mohr Tokugawa Zen

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1994 21/4
Zen Buddhism during the Tokugawa Period

The Challenge to Go beyond Sectarian Consciousness
Michel M oh r
The transformation of Buddhism during the Tokugawa period has not

been sufficiently explored by modern scholars. In this essay I will attempt to
sketch an overall view of Tokugawa-period sectarian consciousness as
expressed in the relations between the various obediences of what is popu
larly called “the Zen sect, ” namely the Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku schools.
The question of lineage and identity is of central importance here, as this
issue is intimately connected with sectarian developments during the
Tokugawa period, and thus with the way in which theJapanese sects view
themselves today. By examining certain figures and tnevr writings, I will
focus on the extent to wnich Buddhist sectarianism grew stronger during
the Tokugawa period.
The transform ation o f Zen Buddhism during the Tokugawa period is

a topic that remains insufficiently explored by scholars in botn Japan
and the West. In Japan there is a growing body of research on single
figures，like Manzan Dohaku FB山萄白（1636-1715)，Mujaku Dochu
無著萄忠（ 1653-1745)，and Hakuin Ekaku 白隱慧鶴（ 1686-1769)，but
most such research focuses on the contributions of these individuals
to their respective sects. Although this approach is essential if we are
to handle the enormous amount of material that each of these mas
ters produced, it is hardly conducive to a synthetic view of the com
plex trends of the period. In the West, general studies of Tokusrawa
thought have tended to concentrate on Neo-Confucianism, with
Buddhist movements often viewed as decadent or of merely secondary
importance (e.g., Maruyama 1974 and Ooms 1985).1This interpretation
This article is a revised version of a paper delivered at the March 1994 Annual Meeting
of the Association for Asian Studies in Boston.
1 The notion of Tokugawa Buddhist decadence (darakuron 堕落論) is usually credited to
Tsuji Zennosuke i t 善之助 (1877-1955), although his work is not limited to that view. For
alternative perspectives see T a m a m u ro (1987), T a m am u ro and O kuwa (1979, 1986), and
W att (1982, 1984).
342 Japanese Journal o f Religious Studies 21/4
of Tokugawa Buddhism is gradually giving way to a richer, more

detailed evaluation of the transformations it underwent.
In this essay I will attempt to sketch an overall view of Tokugawa-
period sectarian consciousness as expressed in the relations between
the various obediences of what is popularly called “the Zen sect,”
namely the Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku schools. The question of lineage
and identity is of central importance here, as this issue is intimately
connected with sectarian developments during the Tokugawa period,
and thus with the way in which the Japanese sects view themselves
today.2 Although a full consideration of sectarian consciousness as it
persists in current religious behavior is beyond the scope of this
paper, the matter is deserving of further attention. Today’s Buddhists
in Japan appear in many respects to show a stronger awareness of sec
tarian affiliation than did their seventeenth-century predecessors.
The history of sectarian consciousness in Buddhism obviously did
not begin in the modern age. Although the samgha was originally sup
posed to be a harmonious and united whole— so much so that anyone
who created dissension among its members was considered guilty of
one of the most serious offenses against the vinaya— schisms started
appearing in the early Indian communities soon after the death of
Sakyamuni. The development of sectarian consciousness in Indian
and Chinese Buddhism is widely reviewed in a study by the Japanese
scholar M ano Shojun 真野正順（1892-1954)，but his section on
Japanese Buddhism is largely inconclusive and covers the subject only
as far as the Kamakura period (M ano 1964).
My focus will be much narrower, concentrating on the extent to
which Buddhist sectarianism grew stronger during the Tokugawa period.
Although it is hard to generalize on this subject (attitudes towards
other sects probably ranged from perfect tolerance to complete rejec
tion) , there are nevertheless signs of unprecedented transformations
during this period that have had enduring effects on Buddhist self-
consciousness. Such changes can also be detected in other areas, such
as the traditional arts, where the iemoto 豕儿 (head master) at the top
of each school’s hierarchy was accorded increasing importance.3
We find when studying the Tokugawa period that there was nothing
like a monolithic school of thought, even within the respective sects;
^ Existing surveys of Japanese religion mostly concern the average believer, and there is,
to my knowledge, no research describing how the priests or lay people engaged in serious
practice consider themselves. Cf. B asabe (1968) an d R eader (1991). Ia n Reader underlines
among the general features the “high levels of belonging and low levels of cognitive belief’
(p. 9). In other words, this amounts to sectarian awareness.
^ N ishiyama (1982) has noted a n u m b e r o f interesting similarities between the religious
world and such traditional arts as Kabuki, dance, and chadd.
M o h r ：Zen Buddhism during the Tokugawa Period 343
instead we see an incredible variety of positions with regard to the

central issues of the day. Much of the basic research in this area
remains to be done: a good portion of the period’s extant historical
material is still hidden in temple archives, and the basic editing work
on many documents just started a few years ago. At this point more
has been done on the Soto side, with the publication of source collec
tions like the Sotoshu zensho 曹洞宗全書 [Complete works of the Soto
school]; the more impecunious Rinzai school has done little to facili
tate access to its own Japanese sources.
A huge gap remains to be overcome— especially in Japanese schol
arship— between Buddhist studies per se (most of which deal with the
doctrines of the respective sects) and institutional or sociological stud
ies (which are often full of detailed descriptions of little interest to the
historian of religions). Tension also exists between the phenomeno-
loeical and Historical approaches in the study of Tokugawa Buddhism,
givine rise to fierce areuments among scholars; the tension is rather
stimulating, nevertheless, forcing us to recognize that the ground on
which we stana is constantly shifting and cannot be grasped through
fixed prescriptions, methodologies, or thought processes.
I will in this essay try to emphasize the history of ideas over the his
tory 01 institutions (though some factual description is unavoidable),
usine the concept of “sectarian consciousness” as a tool for investigat-
ine the extent to which the three Zen traditions of Soto, Rinzai, and
O baku saw themselves as independent religious denominations. I will
not try to reach a definitive conclusion, as the issue is large and would
require a cooperative analysis from several different scholarly perspec
tives. Rather, I will simply introduce a few aspects of sectarian con
sciousness that are revealed by an overall view of several individual
biographies.
Lineage しonsciousrwss in Its Historical Setting
The concept of “sectarian consciousness” is referred to in modern

Japanese as shuto ishiki 宗統意識，a closer translation of which might be
“lineage consciousness.” The first word, shuto, is a Classical Chinese
term pronounced zongtong that appears already in the fitth-century
Houhanshu 後漢書， where it signifies “the lineaee of the main [imperial]
family” (honke no keito 本家の系統）or “the line of [true] heirs” ( tekito
嫡統)：
Imperial virtue commands heaven and earth at will, restores

the original lineaere, praises virtue and rewards merit, and
makes the Nine Generations intimate and harmonious.

[Houhanshu, “Guangwu di j i ” 光武帝紀， Ershisi shi 二十四史，
Baina book 百衲本，second part of chapter 1 第一下）
In Japan the quest for legitimacy was linked to the imperial line, a
trait that apparently dates back to the dawn of history, with the earliest
chronicles echoing the strife between the Ise and Izumo traditions of
Shinto. Japanese Buddhism, too, developed in close association with
the imperial family and its regents. An important turning point in the
Buddhist world’s involvement with imperial concerns took place dur
ing the time of the Northern and Southern Courts (1336-1392)， when
Emperor Godaigo 後醒醐（1288—1339，r . 1318-1339) attempted to
reimpose direct imperial rule through the reforms of the Kenmu Resto
ration. Religious leaders like Daito Kokushi 大燈國師 (1282-1338)
avoided siding-with either the northern or southern camps, while
such thinkers as Kitabatake Chikafusa 北畠親房 (1293-1354) attempted
to legitimize one or the other of the factions. Ashikaea xak au ji 足利
尊氏 (1305-1358) skillfully exploited this quarreling and seized power;
he also became an important benefactor of Zen clergy. The most
significant aspect of this turmoil for the purposes of our discussion is
that “even though many of Go Daigo’s initiatives were later reversed,
the Kenmu Restoration marks the entry of the Zen institution into the
relieious and political mainstream of medieval Japan, a development
that Daito witnessed and facilitated” (K raft 1992, 23).
This early phase of Zen lineage consciousness was strongly affected
by developments in China, which the Japanese were kept informed of
by the wave of immigrant priests who arrived during the thirteenth
century. One influential figure on the continent was Zhu Xi 朱景
( 丄丄30—1200)，who in his interpretation of the しonfucian classics
stressed the necessity of recoverine the “orthodox tradition” 萄統 (dao-
tong) transm itted by the sages (De Bary 1981 ，pp. 4-6; 1989 ，pp.
11-20). Reformist tendencies appear to have dominated the political
and philosophical thought or the Northern Sone dynasty (9o0-1127),
as expressed in the Neo-Confucian ideal of fugu 復古 (Jpn. fukko),
“restoring the ancient order.” This term was later adopted by reform
ers in Tokugawa Japan.
During the Tokugawa period factors both external and internal
forced the Buddhist clersY to redefine its selr-imaee. The external fac
tors included the Bakufu’s increasingly restrictive religious policy as
well as the growing influence o f Neo-Confucianism , N ational
Learning, and new movements arising from Shinto. Internal pressure
was triegered by the emereence within Buddhism of new movements
concerned exclusively with the essentials of practice, the monastic
codes, the precepts, and textual study. The crystallization of sectarian

identity that occurred during the Tokugawa period may thus be attrib
uted to a distinctive convergence of Bakufu policy and trends arising
within the respective schools.
One result was a complex attempt by Zen Buddhism to redefine its
place in society, an effort that involved political factors as well as finely
nuanced philosophical considerations. The distinctions in the stand
points of the various thinkers concern nuances that render completely
inappropriate the convenient labels— “progressive，，“conservative，
，，，
etc.— so often used to describe the tendencies of the period. Similarly
inappropriate is the application of present-day criteria to the times,
which almost invariably results in a complete misinterpretation of
Tokugawa power games. Although the ever-present rivalry between
the Bakufu and the imperial court was the backdrop in front of which
the religious actors moved, to interpret their behavior solely in terms
of ideological submission obscures their true intent, given that they
had no real alternative.
The Importing of M ing Buddhism toJapan
The distinctive forces that helped shape the times are especially visible
in the Japanese reactions to the arrival of the Huangbo (Obaku) school
of Chinese Zen,4 brought by the seventeenth-century priest \lnyuan
Longqi 隱元隆琉 (Jpn. Ingen Ryuki, 1592-1673)，who claimed to rep
resent the true Rinzai lineage. Let us begin with a brief review of the
events on the continent that led to the transmission of the tradition to
Japan, since these form a crucial background to the later events.
In the early seventeenth century the Ming dynasty was dismtegrat-
ine politically. In 1616 it faced a new threat when the Manchus pro
claimed their own emperor in the northeast. Beijmg fell m 1644，
accompanied by the suicide of the last Mine emperor, Yizong：毅示
(Chongzhen 崇禎 1610-1644，r . 1627-1644) .5 Manchu rule extended
only auite gradually to the south, however. There, in the coastal regions
of what is modern Fujian, we find W anfusi 萬惟寺， 6 the temple from
A # #
^ It should be kept in m ind that the Obaku lineage has been recognized as an indepen
dent school only since 1876 (ZGD, p. 123d), and that during the Tokugawa it was referred
to as the Rinzai shu Obaku ha 臨濟宗黄檗派（ Obaku b ran ch o f the R inza i s c h o o l). Priests
belonging to this tradition, however, called it the Rinzai shoshu 臨濟正宗 (True Linji lineage).
5 See G ernet 1972, pp. 405-409. The religious and political situation in China at that
tim e is well described in H su 1979.
^ Wanfusi stands on Mt Huangbo 黄檗山 in Fujian, southwest of Fuzhou Province 福州県
{ZGD, p. 123b-c).
which stemmed the new Dharma transmission that was to reach Japan.
\lnyuan landed in Japan on the fifth day of the seventh month,
1654 (Shoo 承應 3),7having accepted the invitation of his predecessor,
YiT3.n Xingrong 逸然性融（ Jpn. Itsunen Shoyu, 1601-1668)，who was
already installed at Kofuku-ji in Nagasaki (ZGD, p. 588d; O tsuki
1975). Although \lnyuan was not the first priest to have arrived in
Japan during the Tokugawa period of national seclusion, he and his
much-publicized trip made the deepest impression on the seven-
teenth-century Japanese. This fact was certainly connected to his later
recognition by the Bakufu, which granted him protection and provid
ed land in Uji to build the new Obaku temple of Manpuku-ji离福守.
Many unresolved questions surround \lnyuan， s decision to cross
the sea. As explained in H irakubo (1962，pp. 67-89)，the fall of the
Mine is not a sufficient explanation, \lnyuan did not leave China with
the intention of staying in Japan, since he said to his disciples upon
his departure that he planned to return after three years (Takenuki
1989，p. 213 and S chw aller 1989，p. 18). The Zenrin shuheishu 禪林
幸丸弊集[Record of attachment to errors in Zen forests], a polemical
text published in 1700 by Keirin Sushin 桂林崇琛（
1653-1728)，proposes
another interpretation of the event:
I hear it said that people like Ymyuan 隱兀，Muan 木養，Cefei
即非 and Gaoquan 高泉 are am ong the most outstanding
figures in modern China. Yet the fact that they lightly took up
their priests’ staffs and wandered to this country has nothing
to do with a selfless desire to spread the Dharma. [What actu
ally happened is that] Feiyin 費隱 from Jing shan 徑山 [had a
dispute with] the Caodong [monk] Yongjue 永覺 from Gushan
政山. They appealed to the authorities [concerning] their dis
pute about the fundamental principle8 [of their respective
schools]. Feiyin was humiliated m front of the government
court, and for this reason his disciples became discouraged. It
is at this point that they accepted the invitation [conveyed] by
the trading ships and made the long [journey] all the way to
Japan.
プCf. H ira k u b o (1962, p. 275) an d S c h w a lle r (1989, pp. 17-18).

8 Fundamental principle (sh ushu 宗趣，Skt. siddh anta-naya). This term has a long history,
already appearing in the translation of the L ankavatara sutra 榜伽經 by Siksananda 実叉莫隹陀
(652-710) [T 16, no. 672, 609al7, a21, and a25]. In this early context it refers to the
“suprem e in te n t” or “suprem e teaching,” as distinguished from the “verbal teaching” (gon-
setsu , 旨説 Skt. desan a-n aya). The term is also used in the preface by Peixiu _ 休 (797-870) to
the C hanyuan zhuquan jid u xu 禪源諸f全集都序 of Zongmi Guifeng 宗密圭峰（ 780-841)，where
it already seems to be associated with the central doctrines specific to each school[T 48, no.
2015, 398c23; Zen no goroku 9, p. 4 and note p .11].
The two rival priests m entioned by Keirin are Feiyin Tongrong

費隱通容（ 1593-1661) and Yongjue Yuanxian 永覺兀賢（1578-1657).
I eiyin was the master of Yinyuan, so that the above assertion, if true,
would have severe implications for Yinyuan， s credibility. However, the
sarcastic tone adopted by Keirin suggests mere calumniation against
the Obaku movement (see H irakubo 1962，p. 71).
There might, nevertheless, be some truth behind Keirin， s pseudo
history. Towards the end of the Ming, members of the various Chan
Buddnist lines began compiling continuations of the biographical
utransmissions of the lamp，，
，which provided them with the opportunity
to privilege their respective schools.9 The last of the “lamp” antholo
gies had been the Zengji xu chuandenglu 増集續傳燈録 [Augmented con
tinuation to the transmission of the lamp] (Z 142)，published by Linji
representatives with a preface dated 1403.I h e earliest systematic
attempt to update its contents was the Wudeng huiyuan xulue 五燈會兀
$賣略 [Abridged continuation from the compilation of the source of
the five lamps] (Z 138) by the Caodong priest Yuanmen Jinezhu
遠門淨柱（ 1601-1654)，with a preface dated 1648 (ZGD, p. 354a and
Yanagida 1967，pp. 70-71).Peiyin, who was in firm opposition to the
version presented in this anthology, composed in succession the
Wudeng yantong 五燈嚴統 [The strict lineage of the five lamps]10 and
the Wudengツひ咐籠びjiehuo pian 五燈嚴統 M 惑篇 [Removing doubts about
the strict lineage of the five lamps] \L 139). These works virulently
attacked Yuanmen， s work，denying the existence of a Caodong lineage
subsequent to Tiantong Rujing 天童如淨（ 1162-1227) ノ1
^ About this time the word shu to came to be used with increasing frequency by Zen
Buddhists in both China and Japan. The term appears, for example, in the title of several
books. In China, for example, the Zongtong- biannian 宗統編年，written by Xiangyu Jiyin 許目雨
紀蔭 (n.d.) an d published in 1690 (preface dated 1679 [Kangxi 康熙 18]; Z 147 pp. 1-511),
defended the “true L in ji lineage” (L inji zhengzong 臨濟正示) in disputes with the C aod o ng
sect. One interesting feature of this document is the parallel it draws between imperial lin
eage and religious lineage; a list of Chan masters is followed by a dynastic chart that con
cludes with the expression “the Qinff court: one lineage of ten thousand years” {huangqing-
y ito n g w an n ia n 皇清一統萬年，Z 147，p. 10b). In Japan the Shutdroku 宗統録，a commentary on
the B iya n lu 碧巖録，was published in 1683. The com piler was Ryukei Shosen 龍溪性潛
(1602-1670), one of the more controversial figures of the time because of ms switch from
the Myoshin-ji to the Obaku line (ZGD, p. 563d and OBJ, pp. 380b-84a). Another Obaku
publication was the Obaku shukanroku 黄檗宗鑑録，wnich charted the Dharma lineage from
Sakyamuni to the current abbot o f Manpuku-ji. It was compiled by Gaoquan X in gd un
高泉性激《 (JPn . Kosen Shoton [1633-1695])，the fifth abbot, and first published in 1693. In
the Rinzai school, the Shuto hassoden 宗統八祖傳，with a postface dated Hoei 寶永 8 (1711),
gives the biographies of the Myoshin-ji abbots from Toyo Eicho 東陽英朝（ 1428-1504) to
Gudo Toshoku 愚、堂東宴 (1577-1661), the eight abbots not mentioned in the Shobozan roku-
•sMm 正法山六祖傳（ 1640) (see O g isu 1979).
10 Z 139 (Cf. 05/316a-b).
I l l have followed I shii (1987, 565) with regard to T ia n to n g ’s dates.
There is no need to go into the particulars of Feiyin， s works. It is

sufficient to note here that they led to a lawsuit and then to a conflict
with the Caodong priest Juelang Daosheng 覺浪萄盛（ 1592-1659)，as a
result of which the wood blocks for Feiym’s books were burnt. The
matter was thus more or less settled on the continent. But, as
Yanaeida notes, one of Yinyuan’s first projects upon his arrival in
Japan was the reprinting of his master’s foroidden book，which was
accomplished in 1657.12 The hidden agenda implicit in this act sug
gests a motivation for Mnyuan’s trip somehow more plausible than the
purely unselfish interpretation accepted by Hirakubo. The incident
also provides fu rth e r evidence that seventeenth-century Zen
Buddhism in Japan cannot be fully discussed without taking into
account Ming Chinese Buddhism and its Qine-dynasty successor.
The coming of \lnyuan had a significance for modern Japanese
religion that added up to far more than the deeds of a single individ
ual. In a sense it can be said that with \lnyuan， s disembarkation on
Japanese soil Ming Buddhism as a whole set foot on the islands. Ym-
yuan brought with him the distinctive contradictions and sectarian
consciousness that had arisen in China since the Song dynasty. We see
something of the confusion and vain polemics that characterized so
much of Mine Chan in the sharp critique of the poet Qian Muzhai
錢牧■ (1582-1664) (see Yoshikawa 1960 and Yanagida 1967，70-74).
^jian, a lay practicer, had great respect for a num ber of contempo
rary priests, particularly his own master H anshan D eqine 憨山徳清
(1546-1623)，but his insider’s perspective may have motivated him all
the more to denounce the trends of his time, which included a heavy
emphasis on factionalism. Qian’s viewpoint is eloquently expressed in
a letter to Juelane Daosheng ：
Ah, pernicious and destructive [tendencies] in Chan practice
have reached a climax in recent times. Evil people are ram
pant in the country of Wu 呉，preaching to the deaf and lead
ing the blind; followers are as numerous as marketgoers•… I
denounce and dismiss [these windbags]; if you wonder where
they have gone wrong, it’s not really hard to discern. [These
preachers] pick up hammers and raise whisks [pretending to
teach, but theirj indiscriminate shouts and stick-waving are
mere matters of form; they are like clowns playing their roles.
They put on airs when entering the hall and descending from
their seat, but their explanations differ not a whit from the
harangues of storytellers on the street. In their delusion they
Ymyuan added a postface dated hinoto tori 丁酉（

the third year of Meireki 明暦）（
Z 139，
p. 1043b09).
set up patriarchal lineages (zongtiao 宗f兆）

；recklessly they pro
mote branches and factions (zhipai 枝派 ) . If one priest claims
to be a direct descendant (disun of Linji, another accuses
him of being illegitimate (yiasi feffflRJ).
( Chuxueji 初學集，p. 86)13
Rinzai Reactions to the Founding of Manpuku-ji
Mnyuan’s arrival soon caused members of both the Rinzai and Soto
sects to define their attitudes by either welcoming or rejecting the new
transplant. As long as \lnyuan confined his activities to Nagasaki he
could be safely ig no re d，but the start of construction work on
Manpuku-ji m Uji south of Kyoto in 166114 signaled that his school
would endure. Tms comprised a particular threat to Japanese Rinzai,
since the Obaku school claimed to represent the true Rinzai lineage.
The Bakufu apparently intended this Chinese presence at Uji, near
the imperial palace in Kyoto, to be a counterbalance to the Zen tem
ples traditionally close to the court. The situation was more complex,
however: in addition to his Bakufu patronage，Yinyuan had also
obtained the recognition of the retired emperor Gomizunoo 後水尾
(1596-1680, r . 1611-1629) (Kagamishima 1958，p. 9 0 ; 1978，p. 46).
The piece of land chosen for Manpuku-ji had formerly belong to the
Konoe 近俾r family, though it had also been used as the site of a sec
ondary residence for G om izunoo， s m other (Hirakubo 1962，p. 132).
Following Yinyuan5s arrival in Nagasaki, a clear polarization
occurred within the main branches of the Rinzai school between
opponents and supporters of his cause. The opposition in the Myoshm-
ji branch was led by Gudo Toshoku 愚堂東宴（ 1577-1661) and Daigu
Sochiku 大愚宗築（ 1584-1669)，two of the most eminent Zen authori
ties of the time. Gudo and Daigu were engaged in their own attempts
to restore the true Dharma (shobo 正法），having already formed a
group in 1606 to consult all living Zen masters (ketsumei hensan 結盟
遍參）(Takenuki 1989，p. 197). Their central purpose was to promote a
“return to the origin” (i.e., Myoshin-ji^ founder Kanzan 関山），an
undertaking that could hardly be expected to accommodate Yinyuan5s
claim to represent the true lineage.
The faction supporting Yinyuan initially included Ryukei Shosen
育I 溪性潸（ 1602-1670)，Tokuo Myoko 秀翁妙宏（ 1611-1681)，and Jikuin
し I have relied in part o n Yanagida’s paraphrase (1967, p. 72). This passage was first
cited by Yoshikawa (1960, pp. 742-43).
The inau g uratio n o f M anpuku-ji in 1663 can be considered the b e g in n in g o f O b a k u 5s
official history. See Schw aller 1989, p. 5.
Somon 竺印祖門（1611-1677);15Tokuo and Jikuin later separated from

Ryukei and ceased overt support for Yinyuan (H irakubo 1962，pp.
135-36). The case of Jikuin and ms spiritual heir, Mujaku Dochu,
requires particular attention, jikuin occupied a prominent position,
b o th as the he ad o f Ryuge-in 育 I 華院 a n d as the 223rd a bb o t o f
Myoshin-ji. M ujaku, his successor at Ryusre-in, was a renowned
scholar.16Jik u in ，
s initial attitude towards \lnyuan was one of active
support, and he used his influence to mediate in favor of the Chinese
immigrants. Although there was later a cooling ofi in his relations
with Yinyuan, m ainly due to his falling out with Ryukei, Jik u in
rem ained a lifelong supporter of the O baku branch (Kagamishima
1960b, p . 198).
In contrast to his master’s position, the stance adopted by Mujaku
was resolutely anti-Obaku. The reasons for this stand are many, but
they can be traced back to ms desire to revive the original form of
Rinzai monastic life, and to his consequent distaste for the syncretism
characteristic of Mine Buddhism. At the aee of thirty-two Mujaku
completed his version of the Rinzai monastic codes, the Shosorin ryaku-
•s/wVzgY•小叢林略清規（T 81，no. 2579)，conceived of as a response to Yin-
yuan’s Obaku Codes ( Obaku shingi 黄檗清規）published in 1672，one year
before Yinyuan5s death.17 Mujaku5s zealous study of Obaku texts for
the purpose of refuting them is evident in his Hakumdroku 录U妄録，
wnich contains annotations on the Obaku Codes.18
I 。Cf. OBJ, pp. 141a-142b. The date for his birth is the thirty-first day, twelfth m onth of
the fitteenth year of the Keicho 慶長 era. This corresponds to 12 February 1611. The pro
nunciation o f his religious surname (Dogo 萄亏）as “Jikuin” follows OBJ, while App has
“Chikuin” （
1987，p. 157).
lo ZGD, p. 935b, OBJ, p p . 345b-346b, Y a n ag id a 1966 a n d 1967, a n d App 1987 ，p p .
155-82. The date of Mujaku’s death must be corrected in ZGD, OBJ, and App 1987 (p. 155),
while it is given correctly in Yanagida 19b7 ( p . 1 ) . A ccording to OBJ, he d ied o n the twenty-
third day of the twelfth m onth of the first year of the Enkyo 延享 era, at the age of 92. This
corresponds to 25 January 1745.
I >7 # # .
1 / It is significant that Mu]aKu5s codes are still in use in Japanese monasteries after more
than three centuries, despite the widespread acceptance of meat consumption and marriage
( nikujiki sa ita i 肉食妻市）that emerged in ordinary temples d u rin g the M eiji period.
Interestingly, although IVmjaku’s Rinzai codes were published only in 1684, twelve years
after their Obaku counterpart, the Soto school was several years ahead of Obaku in issuing a
treatise o n m onastic discipline. This was the Eihei-ji Codes (Eihei s h i n g i , attributed to
Dogen and first printed in 1667 by Kosho Chido 光紹智堂（
d . 1670)，the thirtieth abbot of
Eihei-ji (ZGD, pp. 88c and 849b). Another edition, reproduced as T 82, no. 2584, is based
on a wood-block edition dated 1794 and includes a preface by Gen to Sokuchu 玄透即中
(1729-1807, the fiftieth abbot o f Eihei-ji, who is revered as its “reviver” [chuko 中興]).
1O _. #
10 Z e n b u n k a Kenkyujo (H anazon o University) m icrofilm no. 21-53, p. 14b. O n the evo
lu tio n o f m onastic codes since the so called B aizhang Code, see F o u lk 1987.
Despite Mujaku5s critique of Obaku, he was not someone who gen

erally drew sharp distinctions between the sects. His views on the mat
ter are reflected in the preface he wrote for his Shobogenzo senpyd
正法眼藏僭評：
I think that [the positions of] the Rinzai and Soto schools
within the Zen [tradition] are similar to those of Madhyamika
and Yogacara within classical Buddhism. In Soto there is no
talk of wonderful awakening, just deep discussions on entry
into the principle. In Rinzai, wonderful awakening is all that is
discussed, and only when [one is] thoroughly awakened does
the subtlety and greatness of [this] Dharma gate appear, of
itself and in all limpidity. It is precisely because both houses
[schools] complement each other that the Buddha Dharma is
perfectly clear.19
Like most of his contemporaries, Mujaku upholds the view that Zen
does not differ from classical Buddhism (kydzen itchi 教脾一致）. W ith
his commitment to learning he can thus stress the fundamental unity
from which Rinzai and Soto derive. On the other hand, this does not
prevent him from attacking Soto or Obaku when their positions
oppose what he sees as the authentic Dharma, which for mm is virtu
ally equivalent to Myoshm-ji orthodoxy.
In the shobogenzo senpyd Mujaku tries in particular to show that the
attacks on Dahui Zonggao 大慧宗杲（1089-1163) and other Rinzai
patriarchs that appear in the Shobogenzo were not the work of Dogen
but were later additions. Mujaku reached this conclusion by compar
ing three different versions of the text using his pioneering philologi
cal method. He decided on the basis of his study that the sixty-chapter
Shobogenzo was the original text, and that the eighty-four-chapter ver
sion (the one with the attacks on the Rinzai masters) contained the
work of later figures. His conclusions were a convenient way to recon
cile Rinzai and Soto, although they are viewed as mistaken by modern
textual scholars, who cite his lack of access to certain of the relevant
documents (Kagamishima 1960b，p. 200).
Mugaku’s erudition is only the most visible result of the resurgence
of learning and other reformative tendencies that occurred in Rinzai
during the Tokugawa period，encouraged by Bakufu policies. I h e
effects can also be seen in the work of Mangen Shiban FB兀師蠻
(162b-l7l0), who compiled two vast biographical collections on the
priests of Japan. The Enpd dentdroku 延寶傳燈録，completed in 1678 and
1 9 八 photographic reproduction o f the S hobogenzo sen p yd is kept at the Zenbunka

Kenkyujo, m icrofilm no. 37-76, p . 1 . See also Kagamishima 1960b, p . 1 ; Kagamishima 1961,
p. 226; an d Yanagida 1966，p. 33.
published in 1706，comprised forty-one chapters. Mangen was still not

satisfied, however, and subsequently undertook the redaction of the
more comprehensive Honcho kosoden 本草月局僧傳 in seventy-five chap
ters, which he completed in 1702. These works may also have been
intended to counterpose the two biographical anthologies written by
the Obaku priest Gaoquan X ingdun 咼泉性被 (Jpn. Kosen Shoton,
1633-1695). Gaoquan had published the Fuso zenrin soboden 扶桑禪林
僧寶傳 in 1675，followed in 1686 by the Zoku fuso zenrin soboden.
The fruits of this early inclination to chanee in the Rinzai school
were later reaped by Hakuin Ekaku and his disciples, who devised
their own approach to Zen by reformulating the essentials of practice
and revitalizing the monastic institution. When we consider the issue
of sectarian relationships in Tokugawa Japan we should not overlook
the convergence of Hakuin’s line with that of Kogetsu Zenzai 古月所早材
(lbo7-l751) through the shift of Kogetsu， s disciples to Hakuin.
Kogetsu, who is noted for his stress on the precepts, inherited the
Dharma from Kengan Zen’etsu 賢嚴禪悦（ 1618-1696)，who had been
close to the Chinese Obaku immigrants \lnyuan, Muan, and Daozhe
Chaoyuan 萄者超元 (Jpn. Dosha Chogen, 1602-1662)20 (ZG D, p.
672c-d，OBJ, p. 106a-b，and S chw aller 1989，p. 9).21
An interesting side effect of this heightened Chinese influence at a
time of limited outside contact was increased reflection on the nature
of the Japanese national identity. An early example of this type of
nationalist response was the Chichihen 失ロ♦ 扁 [About knowing shame],
published in Nagasaki by Mukai Gensho 向井元升（1609-1677) in
1655，a year after Yinyuan5s arrival. Mukai practiced medicine and
advocated his own blend of Confucianism, Shinto, and nativist ideas.
He utterly rejects foreign influences, and gives several examples of the
disastrous effects of Christianity before its suppression. Buddhism is
accused of havine facilitated the reception of Christianity: “The com
ing of the evil kirishitan teaching to this country and its misleading of
the Japanese people can be traced to the Buddhist Dharma” (Kaihyd
sosho ed. ，p. 12). Mukai moves on to a detailed and critical account of
Yinyuan5s influence. Though the critique is not completely devoid of
respect for Yinyuan, who is referred to by the title “Zen master，，
，it
essentially deplores the infatuation of the Japanese for foreign man
ners and customs (Jugi 風僅） :
In our country Japan, the Way of Heaven is not transgressed,
the affection of the kami is clear, and the efforts of the people
^ Daozhe’s dates follow those given in OBJ, p. 263a-b.

Further information on the complementarity between the Hakuin and Kogetsu lines
can be fo u n d in A kiyama 1983, pp. 146-53.
are satisfactory. We have been preserved from disgrace precisely

because we are not contaminated by foreign customs. {Kaihyd
sosho ed., p . 1)
The Japanese monks under Master Yinyuan have all aban
doned the priestly ways of their own country and adopted the
customs of China. Their behavior is ridiculous, and [they]
should be ashamed. I consider it disgraceful that they have
without good cause altered the proper lifestyle followed by
Japanese priests since times of old. If this is something that
Master \lnyuan has encouraged, I can only wonder about his
inner intentions. {Kaihyd sosho ed., pp. 24-25)
The Development of Soto Reforms
Among the factors that prompted changes in the Soto tradition ，exter
nal elements appear to have been the most decisive.
One such factor was the increased government regulation of Soto
activity that took place during the Tokugawa period. In contrast to the
Middle Ages, when the expansion of the sect in the provinces had
been left to the initiative of the respective branches, the Tokugawa
period was marked by Bakufu attempts to reinforce its control on Soto
by centralizing and unifying the temple hierarchy system (honmatsu
似ゐ本末制度）（ Takenuki 1993，pp. 309-19). According to ordinances
passed in 1612 and 1615, only the two main temples of Eihei-ji水平寺
and Soji-ji總持寺 were entitled to decide who had the right to wear the
“purple robe” (Takenuki 1989, p. 204); priests were also to show a
thorough acquaintance with the practice and teaching of their school
before being permitted to head a temple. In addition, the decla
ration stipulated that only priests who had successfully undergone
thirty years of practice would be permitted to teach the Dharma
(Kagamishima 1993，p. 4). The severity of the requirements was one
factor that encouraeed the creation of two Soto academies (gakuryo
學寮）in Edo: the Sendanrin 梅檀林 on the precincts of Kichijo-ji
吉祥寺，and the Snishikutsu 獅ナ窟 on the precincts of Seisho-ji青松寺
(Takenuki 1989，p. 204).
The other external factor encouraging reform was the increased
contact with Chinese priests that followed the emergence and spread
of the Obaku tradition. Many of these contacts involved Obaku priests
other than Yinyuan; one im portant figure was Daozhe, who had
arrived m Nagasaki four years prior to Yinyuan. Among the Soto
priests most influenced by Obaku were Dokuan Genko 獨菴义尤
(1630-1698) and Manzan Dohaku, who were to push for reforms in
the Dharma transmission rules of the Soto school (we will return to
this important issue in the final section of this paper) ,22 Dokuan spent
almost eight years under Daozhe, while Manzan was a good friend of
Choon Dokai 潮音萄海（1625-1695)，an Obaku monk who was a disci
ple of Muan.23 Manzan’s teacher, Gesshu Soko 月舟宗胡（ 1618-1696)，
also maintained rnendly ties with Obaku. Dokuan and Manzan were
influenced by Obaku notions of monastic discipline and by Obaku
criticisms of Dharma transmission abuses, but fundamentally they saw
their reform movement as a “restoration of the past” (fukko undo
復古運動），that is, as a return to the original position o f the Soto
school. As we shall see, Manzan (thoueh not Dokuan) was particularly
inspired by the writings of Dogen.24
During the reform process Soto priests became progressively more
divided between the defenders and the adversaries of change. At the
same time, the leaders of the respective Soto factions had to adopt a
position either for or against the novelties brought by the Obaku new
comers during the period of assimilation following ^n y u a n 5s arrival.
Ih e two issues were not necessarily connected, and in the course of
time various of the positions were reversed (another reason I avoid
speaking of “conservative” and “progressive” factions, since the stand
points adopted by the different protagonists can be viewed from both
angles; it might also be pointed out that the slogan “restoring the
past” is a rather paradoxical expression to denote innovation).
Or interest for our inquiry into sectarian consciousness is the fact
^ Dokuan also had close contacts with another Chinese immigrant, the Caodong priest
Xinyue Xingchou >こ、
越興i罱 (Jpn. Shin’etsu Kochu, 1639-lb95, also known by his surname
Donggao 東皐，Jpn. Toko). The fate of the Shouchang (Jpn. Jusho) branch 詩昌派 of the
Caodong school broueht to Japan by Xinyue, including the protection it received from its
powerful patron, Tokugawa Mitsukuni 徳川光園（ 1628—1700)，forms an interesting episode
o f this perio d (see N agai 1979 an d 1993). The role o f M anzan in the Soto reforms is now
relatively clear, thanks in particular to the work o f K agam ishim a (1978, 1986) an d B o d ifo r d
(1991).
烈 C o nce rn ing C h o o n see S c h w a lle r 1988. A bo ok o n C h o o n by the same autho r is in
preparation. For C h o o n 5s contacts with M anzan see B o d ifo rd 1991, p. 431.
24 This m ovem ent has been greatly idealized in later Soto chronicles, with most
accounts relying on the S huto fuk ko sh i 宗統復古志，a d ocum ent published in 1760 by
M a n za n ’s disciple Sanshu Hakuryu 三洲白龍 (1669-1760). This text is, according to
B o d ifo rd , “a hagiographical history o f M a n zan 5s ca m p aign,” tho u g h it is nevertheless “the
prime source for studying the reform movement” (1991, p. 424). Despite the value of the
Shuto fukkoshi, particularly for its repro ductio n o f some o f the correspondence between the
reformers and the shogunate5s J ish a bugyd 寺社奉行 (Office of Temples and Shrines), it
should be complemented by Manzan5s own writings and by a historical examination of the
various forces that influenced Manzan and his predecessors. It is also important to examine
the writings of those who opposed the reforms of Manzan and his supporters. In this regard
the thought of Tenkei Denson 天桂傳尊 (1548-1736), a rather marginal Soto thinker, is of
great value.
that the early supporters of “restoring the past” were generally well
disposed towards Obaku, while later proponents gradually adopted a
more critical stance (though they shared the same views on Dharma
transmission). This attitude of rejection commenced with Sonno
Soeki 損翁宗益（ 1650-1705)， 25 who harshly criticized D okuan’s Obaku
connections, and culminated under his successor, Menzan Zuiho 面山
瑞方（ 1683-1769)， who made a systematic attempt to obliterate all traces
of the O baku legacy (Kagamishima 1978，p. 69，Nakao 1993，p. 383).
Also or interest is the influence of certain Rinzai priests opposed to
the current infatuation with Obaku customs. Let us now turn to a
brief examination of this point.
Rinzai and Soto Contacts
Earlier we noted the relative open-mindedness that Mujaku Dochu

displayed towards the Soto tradition in his preface to the Shobogenzo
senpyd. Mujaku also maintained amicable contacts with several Soto
priests, particularly Baiho Jikushin 梅峰竺信（1633-1707)，one of
Manzan’s closest allies in the “restore the past movement.，，
26 Mujaku’s
direct acquaintance with more than a dozen contemporaneous Soto
personalities is likewise well established (see Shibe 1983，p. 249).
Owing to his prodigious study habits, Mujaku was surely thoroughly
familiar with Soto writings as well, including those connected with the
heated Soto debate about Dharma succession. This opens the possibil
ity of an intellectual connection between Mujaku and the Soto thinker
Tenkei Denson 天桂傳尊（ 1648-1736)，an unorthodox priest opposed
to the reform movement of Manzan and Baiho (see note 24). The
criticism of Dogen^ Shobogenzo that appears in Mujaku’s Shobogenzo
senpyd reflects in many ways the position taken in Tenkei’s Shobogenzo
benchu 正法眼藏辨註，published in 1729. This suggests that M ujaku
might have read the latter work. Although the Shobogenzo senpyd is
thought by some scholars to have predated the Shobogenzo benchu
(Yanagida proposes 1713，the year Mujaku was first appointed abbot
of Myoshin-ji),27 the dates for its redaction are not in fact known—
For the reading o f S o n n 6 ’s surnam e I have followed N akano (1982, p. i) rather than
the ZGD.
% M ujaku’s friendly relations with Baiho may have resulted in part from the admiration
o f M u ja k u ’s m o th e r for this Soto priest (K agam ishim a 1958, p. 85)
(sh in ju 晋住），taken in
Yanagida holds that the decision to n o m in ate M u jak u as abbot
Shobogenzo senpyd, while his new m andate (sa iju 再1王j
1713, coincides with his writing o f the
in 1720 coincides with the redaction of the Obaku geki (1966, p. 40). The OBJ speaks only of
his second nomination, in 1714, as 314th aobot at the age of 62. These accounts seem con
tradictory, but can easily be reconciled. M ujaku’s first nom ination occurred in 1707, at the
Shibe notes that the year 1713 is mentioned in the part of Iid a ，
s m an
uscript copy containing corrections to the Shobogenzo (Eihei Shobogenzo
koka 永平正法眼藏校議），b u t does not seem to appear elsewhere (1983，
247-48).28
Another Rinzai figure who maintained good relations with several
of the most influential Soto people of his time was Keirin Sushin,
mentioned above in connection with his remarks on Feiym in the
Zenrin shuheishu (see above). In 1693 Keirin became the abbot of
Hoshun-in 保春院 in Senaai, and the following year succeeded his
master as head of Zuiho-ji 瑞鳳寺 in the same city. As a resident of
Sendai he became acquainted with Sonno Soeki, who in 1697 had
assumed the abbacy of the Sendai temple of Taishm-in 泰心院• Keirin
was also the 313th abbot or Myoshin-ji,a position that required him to
make occasional brief stays in Kyoto. There he kept up a friendship
with Manzan Dohaku, then in retirement at the small hermitage of
Genko-an 源光菴 in Takagamine 鷹峯 north of the city.
keirin，s ties with the two Soto priests are also reflected in their writ
ten works. K eirm ，for example, wrote the preface to M anzan’s
Zen’yotdkd 所早餘套稿，published m 1714，while Manzan maintained a
correspondence with Keirin that has, in part, found its way into
Manzan5s recorded sayings.29 Sonno5s [Oshu Sound ronin] Kenmon hoei-
ki 見聞寶 7X記，compiled by his disciple Menzan in 1744，mentions
Keirin’s full name and his Zenrin shuheishu. It is perhaps not mere
coincidence that this particular passage, which also contains criticism
of Manzan, is missine from the Zoku Sotoshu zensho text.30
Keirin remained rnendly with both Manzan and Sonno, although
the positions of the latter two were widely divergent in several impor
tant respects. Although Manzan and Sonno were in agreement on the
central issue of Dharma succession, they were, as mentioned above, of
quite different opinions when it came to the question of Obaku
influence. Keirm was close to Sonno on tms issue; ironically, Keirm’s
age of 55 (Iida 1986, p. 129). The second occurred in 1713，but went into effect only in
1714 when M ujaku was 62 (I id a 1986, p. 162). A third n o m in a tio n occurred in 1720 (I ida
198b, p. 187), w hen he was 68. A n im p o rtan t aspect o f M u ja k u 5s first n o m in a tio n is the fact
that he succeeded Keirm Sushin as head of Myoshin-ji.
四 The photographic reproduction at the Zenbunka Kenkyujo is undated. Shibe proposes
that it was compiled after 1719, and most probably around 1725, since the preface contains
a quote from the Sorin yak uju 叢林藥樹 by Sekiun Yusen 石雲融仙（ b . 1677), published in
1719. Sekiun Yusen was a disciple of Dokuan Genko {ZGD, p. 1244a, no. 2).
29 One letter is included in his M anzan osho 々う FB山和尚廣録[Sayings] (Sotoshu zensho:
Goroku 2, p. 656). There is also a short letter in Sotoshu zensho: Goroku 3 (p. 217b) .
30 It is in clu d e d in N akano 1982 (p. 189). The missing passages in the Zoku Sotoshu zen
sho (vol. “H 6 g o ，，
， p. 437) correspond to num bers 86, 87，an d 88 in N a k a n o ’s edition.
call to purge the influence of Obaku found a ready audience in

Sonno and Menzan of the Soto school, while his efforts went com
pletely ignored in his own Rinzai school.
The final example of Soto-Rinzai exchange I will examine is that
between Tenkei Denson and Bankei Yotaku 盤挂永琢（1622-1693)，
both of whom have been regarded as “heretics” m their respective
sects. The ties between the two have been examined by many scholars,
including Suzuki (1941，pp. 281-82)，Kagamishima (1961，p. 127), Fuji-
m oto (1971，pp. 415-16)，F u ru ta (1974), and Shibe (1985 and 1992).
According to the Tenkei osho nenpu 天桂和尚年譜 [Biography of Ten
kei], the two men met at least twice, m 1d85 and 168b. An additional
meeting is mentioned in the Zeigo 贅語，edited by Bankei， s disciple
Sando Chijo 山堂智常（ 1668-1749)，though no date is specified.31 The
Zeigo speaks of Tenkei， s support for Bankei, but since this is an apolo
getic text written in 1747，more than fifty years after Bankei’s death, it
should be treated cautiously.
The teachings of the two masters are similar in several respects, but
it is not clear if this is mere coincidence or the result of one master’s
influence upon the other. Both masters underw ent a period of
intense asceticism, followed by a deep realization of the absurdity of
their efforts. This led them to negate the kind of severe practice that
they themselves had engaged in and to stress the attainability of
awareness even in the midst of lay life. This was meant to encourage
ordinary people to practice Zen, since reaching a popular audience
was a priority for both priests (Shibe 1992，pp. 111-12).
Even their vocabulary is sometimes similar: Bankei exhorted his fol
lowers to realize their “unborn Buddha heart” {fusho no busshin 不生の
佛心），while Tenkei asked his to perceive their “undeluded heart” {fumei
no jishin 刁ヽ述の自七、 j. Both m en’s teachings about the attainability of
Buddhahood were aimed not only at men but at women as well, as
both stressed that no difference existed in their religious potential.
Although Tenkei was hardly a cham pion of equality and sometimes
expressed views implying the superiority of males, he believed with
reeard to realization that “in the absence of delusion itself there is no
difference between man and woman” (mayowanu jita i ni danjo no sha-
betsu wa n a i 迷ワヌ自體ニ男女ノ差別ハナイ）（ Hokke yokai fuchoki法華要解
風調記 5，p. 8; cited in Shibe 1992，p. 115).
The similarity of Bankei’s and Tenkei’s styles has even eiven rise to
a stranee confusion concerning the paternity of a certain commen-
In c lu d e d in Suzuki 1941 (p. 150). See the English translation by W addell (1984, p.
142). The dates o f Sando Chijo are those in H askel (1984, p. 196), b u t should be checked
as I could find no confirmation in other sources.
tary on the Heart Sutra.1 his text is referred to as the Hannya shingyd
shiteisen 般若心經止啼錢 when attributed to Tenkei, and as the Shin-
gyosho 心經鈔（ and later the Shingyd nensai 心經燃犀）when credited to
Bankei. The philological debate on this question is too complex to be
summarized here, but the latest consensus is that the work is Tenkei’s
(Shibe 1985, pp. 250-54).
In this section I have examined only a few of the better known con
tacts between Rinzai and Soto priests. Many others obviously existed—
Yoshida (1993) gives a systematic review of such contacts involving
Rinzai priests in nine of the fourteen branches of Rinzai Zen; he also
lists contacts between Obaku priests and Rinzai priests without regard
to branch affiliation. Am ong the many personalities who played
important roles in these interactions, the two Soto priests Bannan
Eishu 萬安英種（1591-1654)，reviver of Kosho-ji 興聖寺，and Banjin
Dotan 萬イ刃萄坦（ 1698-1775) must not be overlooked; also important
was the above-mentionea Obaku follower Choon Dokai.
The Issue ofDharma Succession
Ih e nature of sectarian consciousness at any particular time is espe

cially evident in the prevailing attitudes toward Dharma transmission,
since it is through the transmission process that the identity and
integrity of the lineage is preserved. This is particularly important in
view of the fact that during the Tokugawa period the misuse of
Dharma-succession practices had become a plague that affected the
credibility of the entire Zen Buddhist clergy.
From the Buddhist perspective, of course, the Dharma cannot be
transmitted，but only authenticated or acknowledged. Furthermore,
there is almost always a hiatus between the existential breakthrough
that is the primary purpose of practice and the acknowledgement of
this personal authentication by another individual or by an institu
tion. Stated simply，Dharma transmission has been of two principal
types: transmission based on spiritual recognition (inshd 印H登) ，and
transmission according to temple lineage (garanbo 仂ロ藍法) . Both types
are used by the respective z,en schools, although their significance is
understood m sliehtly different ways.
In the Rinzai school the issue of Dharma transmission is essentially
subjective, that is，left to the discretion of the master，and the ambiguity
of terms such as “successor in the Dharma” ( hassu 法 B司) has persisted
down to the present. According to the context or the circumstances, it
can signify either spiritual recognition or inheritance of a temple
lineaee. Even in the biography of Hakuin the words “entrust the
Dharma” {fuho 附法）merely indicate that charge of a temple has been

confided to a certain priest (Kato 1985, 33-34). Although this usually
implies that the chosen priest is of a certain level of accomplishment,
it must be distinguished from the full recognition conferred by a mas
ter upon a disciple whom he intends to make his successor. The latter
type of recognition sometimes takes the form of written certification
(inka 日Pロ：) ，but there have been cases of true acknowledgement in
which no document has been bestowed. From the Rinzai perspective,
true realization {jissho ) and succession to a master (shijo Brp7#c) are
two different stages in the course of practice，the latter implying a
comprehensive integration of awakening in the activities of everyday
life.32
One of the most controversial transmission practices that emerged
in Zen was a form of garanbo succession known as in 'in ekishi 因院
匆 _] (changing lineage according to the te m p le ). In in 'in ekishi a
priest would, upon being appointed head of a temple, abandon the
Dharma lineage that he had inherited from his real master and adopt
the Dharma lineage associated with his new temple，even if he had no
previous links with that line whatsoever. In the Rinzai school Keirin
was particularly active in denouncing the improper practice oi m ， in
ekishi，devoting the second article of his Lenrin shuheishu to an expla
nation of why one “should not change indiscriminately one’s Dharm a
lineage by choosing a temple.”
It was in the Soto school, however, that the problem of lineage
change reached crisis proportions and âve rise to a complete remold-
ine of the rules to be observed in Dharma succession. Tms was the
central issue in the reforms led by Manzan and Baiho. By the seven
teenth century in ， in ekishi had lone been standard practice in the
school; Manzan and the other reformers felt that this was contrary to
the teachings of their founder Dogen, and pushed for rule changes
that would require transmission to be based on direct contact between
master and disciple, and would restrict succession to a single individ
ual. The issue mieht have remained only a passionate debate within
the confines of the Soto school had not the inertia of Eihei-ji and Soji-
ji caused the reformers to appeal directly to the Bakufu. Their com
plaint finally led to a ruling {sadamegaki 足書 ) in 1703 in favor oi the
reformers’ position.33
The transmission debate led to a deep split between those Soto Zen
3‘ A detailed exposition of the different aspects of “post-awakening” practice can be

fo un d in the Shum on m u jin to ron 宗門無盡燈論 by H a k u in ’s disciple Torei Enji 東嶺圓慈
(1721-1792). T 8 1 ,no. 2575.
^ B o d ifo rd gives an account o f this ruling , alth o ug h n o t a translation (1991 ，p. 449).
thinkers in favor of changing the transmission customs and those who

felt that this would only lead to further degeneracy. It also contributed
to increased textual study, since both factions turned to the writings of
Dogen to justify their respective positions (the three chapters of the
Shobogenzo most relevant to the discussion were “S hisho” B司書
[Succession document], “M enju” 面授 [Face to face transmission],
and “Juki” 授記 [Assurance of awakeningl).
Though the Bakufu， s ruling legally settled the question of undue
changes in Dharma affiliation，the details of how to determine proper
succession were yet to be worked out. The standpoint of Manzan on
this issue is often summarized by the laconic formula go migo shiho
悟未fe 冊司法，which can be translated “To inherit the Dharma, whether
awakened [or] not yet awakened.MThis expression is one that can eas
ily be misunderstood, and may even appear to contradict the funda
mental aim of Buddhist practice. Manzan5s position has, indeed, been
characterized as a “devaluation of the enlightenment experience”
(Bodiford 1991，p. 451). Let us consider whether this was really so.
Manzan explains ms position in his Taikyaku zuihitsu 對客随筆
[Notes to visitors], published in 1704 after the victory of ms faction in
the appeal to the Bakufu.34 The work lists eight objections still being
made at that time to ms reforms, and gives his answers to each of the
remonstrations. Here is the sixth question:
Point 6. People say there can be no discussion on the proposi
tion that transmission [must] be based on awakening, [when]
the understanding of master and disciple match (shishi shoken
師資相見）；they further say that in today’s world awakened
people are so few that Dharma succession is inauthentic and
[priests] change their line according to the temple. I do not
understand what they mean by this.
( Tokai itteki shu, 1704 edition p. 36B)
In his answer Menzan quotes the “Assurance of Awakening，

，and
“Succession D ocum ent” chapters of the Shobogenzo. The section con
taining the first quote is im portant enough to examine closely:
The teacnmgs of both Soto Zen and Rinzai Zen on the

relation between master and disciple hold that transmission
after awakening represents spiritual certification by a single
master, and that the document of succession is an expression
34 This text is included in Tokai itteki shu 東海一滴集. It also appears in the later M anzan
osho tom on ejoshu, FB山和尚洞門衣枷集，reprinted in Eihei shobogenzo shusho taisei 永平正法眼蔵
蒐書大成，v o l.20.
of confidence.35 Even if transmission is obtained before awak

ening, this too represents spiritual certification by a single
master, and the document of succession represents an expres
sion of confidence. There are people who are awakened and
people who are not yet awakened, but in the Dharma this dis
tinction does not exist. This may be regarded as an expedient
teaching, but the fact that there is no talk of “awakened” and
“not yet awakened” [shows that] they are manifestations of the
same thing. Generally speaking, at the time of Dharma succes
sion there is no need to debate whether awakening has
occurred or n o tw h e n the necessary conditions appear this
extraordinary apprehension takes place in stillness.
Therefore it is said in the “Assurance of Awakening” chapter
of the Shobogenzo: “Do not say that the assurance of awakening
must not be given to someone who is not yet awakened.
Although ordinarily we are taught that the assurance of awak
ening should be conferred only when the merits of cultivation
are complete and the realization of Buddhahood is complete,
this is not the way of the Buddha. It is possible to obtain the
assurance of awakening upon hearing a phrase from the scrip
tures or a word from a master. ( Tokai itteki shu, pp. 36B-37A)
Since Manzan reconstructs the original Japanese of the Shobogenzo into

kanbun, it is im portant to check if the rendition is faithful to D6gen5s
text. With the exception of a minor inversion of words, this appears to
be the case.36 This perspective on the “assurance of awakening” is not
entirely original to Dogen, however, as he m ight well have been
inspired by the Mahdydnasutrdlamkara (大來壯嚴經論），attributed to
Asariga. This Indian text gives a detailed explanation of the various
types of “assurance of awakening，，
’ listing fourteen different classes.37
It is interesting to note that the first class is ''assurance「given] before
producing the thought of bo d hi” (mihosshin ju k i 未發心授記）. One
significant point in this passage is the equivalence Manzan establishes
between the assurance of awakening and succession in the Dharma,
35 The expression biaoxin 表信 appears in the Chan classics, particularly in the story of
the Sixth Patriarch. The patriarch, pursued by a senior monk, lays the robe he has received
from the Fifth Patriarch on a rock, saying that “this robe represents confidence” (T 48, no.
2005, p. 295c24). I avoid the word fa ith in the translation, as I feel that con fid en ce better con
veys the nuance of “trust in the true nature.” In Soto Zen, the succession document {shisho
嗣書）is regarded as having the same m etaphoric meaning (Y o s h i d a 1991, p. 98).
% I have followed M iz u n o (1990, v o l . 2, p. 64). The text is identical to T 82 ，no. 2582,
147b20-b26.
山 T 3 1 ,no. 1604, p. 652al8-bl0. The Sanskrit equivalent for the Chinese shouji 授記 is
usually either vyakarana or vyakrtya, the form er being translated as “prophecy, p re d ic tio n ”
(E d g e rto n 1953，v o l.2, p. 517a).
adopting D6gen， s radical conception of time as “the taking place

(々3^ワ以々从經歴）of all beings” (Stambaugh 1990，p. 26).
Thus the position of Manzan and Baiho is by no means a simple
negation of the centrality of awakening. Their view must be consid
ered in terms of the characteristic Soto Zen notion of the nonduality
of cultivation and authentication, a position largely derived from the
Tendai doctrine of original enlightenm ent. If their advocacy of
“inheriting the Dharma whether awakened or not yet awakened” led
subsequently to a formalistic attitude towards succession in the Soto
school, this was probably not their intent. Manzan and Baiho5s central
purpose— one supported, incidentally, by Keirin~was to halt reckless
changes of lineage，and the standards that they devised to effect this
included go migo shiho, anchored in a nondualistic view of awakening.
If, however, one follows Ishitsuke (1964，p. 259) in his attempt to
step down to the relative level where there is a distinction between
awakened and not awakened，one can cite four different patterns of
transmission:
1 ) The master is awakened, the disciple is not.

2) Neither the master nor his disciple are awakened.
3) Both master and disciple are awakened.
4) Neither master nor disciple are awakened, but the disciple later
awakens by himself.
Fear of case 2一 obviously the worst possibility~is what gave rise to

most of the criticism of Manzan and his supporters, although case 3
was undoubtedly the ideal that they were aiming for. Since the actual
ization of this pattern is a matter of individual experience, it was virtu
ally impossible to institutionalize into a set of regulations and
inevitably gave rise to difficulties.
What, then, was the perspective of the Soto outsiders Dokuan
Genko and Tenkei Denson? although both priests agreed on the
need to reform the regulations ffovernine Dharma transmission, both
were also opposed to certain aspects of Manzan’s proposals (Dokuan
to Manzan’s stress on the importance of Doeen, Tenkei to Manzan’s
rejection of garanbo). The com m on ground of their respective posi
tions was the view that realization constituted the prerequisite for any
real D harm a succession, and that transmission certificates and horse
hair whisks (hossu 拂子）were nothing more than auxiliary symbolic
devices. Dokuan even asserted that wisdom-life 慧命），supposedly
inherited in the ritual of Dharma succession, was at that time just a
word devoid of reality, and that the only persons who kept the torch of
wisdom alive were those who awakened without a master:
When I carefully observe the transmission of the robe and the

entrusting of the Dharma in the Zen school nowadays, [I see
that] the name survives but the reality has long since disap
peared. Today, those who inherit the wisdom-life of the
Buddhas and patriarchs depend upon awakening by them
selves without a master. Even if the name disappears, they are
the only ones who inherit the reality.
(“Zokudan” 俗談，maki no jo in the GoMs滅護法集，
quoted in Yoshida 1981, p. 99)
D okuan5s seemingly pessimistic view is meant to underline the scarcity

of true masters in his time. It should not be understood as praise of
“those who awaken by themselves without a master”一 the next section
of Dokuan5s text shows that he considers solitary, unconfirmed awak
ening as potentially self-deluding. Still, he believes that “awakening
without a master” （服 ^ z) 如無師自悟）is preferable to “having a mas
ter w ithout aw akening” (usm mugo 有師無悟 ) . A stress u p o n inner
attainment and an unyielding rejection of formal compromises are
two of the characteristics that Dokuan and Tenkei share.
Returning to the problem of sectarian consciousness, we see that
Manzan and his followers, as well as those reformers with different
views, were all searcnmg for the best way to ensure the survival of the
“wisdom-life of Buddhas and patriarchs,Mand not simply tryine to pro
mote the Soto sect. Each party soueht reform in its own way, and the
opposition they met was from conservative priests within the establish
ment of their own school, such as Jozan Ryoko 定山艮光 ( d .1736). Not
only did Manzan (as well as many other of the reformers) maintain
good relationships with Rinzai priests, but Dokuan was clearly in favor
of a return to the “Chan of the Sixth patriarch” (Sokeizen 曹豁禪），
before its division into the Caodong (Soto) and Linji (Rinzai) cur
rents (see Yoshida 1981, p. 97).
Conclusion
One of the characteristics of seventeenth-century Tokueawa Zen that

emerges from our consideration of the figures and movements above
is a quite wide diversity of positions, even within the respective sects
(surpnsmely so for a reputedly moribund tradition). This essay is, of
course, nothing more than a preliminary study or the main trends of
the period，but even so we can see the outlines of certain general fea
tures starting to appear.
O f particular interest for the evolution of sectarian consciousness is
the catalyst role played by developments in しhina. In the first section
we saw the influence of Neo-Confucian thought on the “identity cri

siswthat affected Chinese and Japanese Buddhism during the seven
teenth century; one of the more visible signs of this influence was the
terminology (e.g., shuto, fukko) used by the Japanese reform move
ments, especially in the Soto school. The arrival of the Obaku line—
the last main phase in the transmission of Buddhism from China to
J a p a n w a s also important, with the immigrant Obaku priests convey
ing certain of the conflicts about lineage and orthodoxy that had
rocked the Chinese Linji and Caodong schools. The reception of
Obaku was largely characterized by a fascination for things foreign;
the true implications of the doctrinal debates going on in China were
probably understood only by a few educated people.
D uring the first half of the Tokugawa period external stimuli
encouraged the adoption of new attitudes, and the Chinese presence
at the Manpuku-ji played an essential role in maintaining these initia
tives. The ultimate fate of the Obaku tradition is also quite instructive
for our review of the emergence of Tokugawa sectarian consciousness.
The initial policy of Manpuku-ji was to nominate only Chinese priests
for the abbacy, but the discrimination that this implied eventually led
to the isolation of the new movement and its gradual weakening. The
fascination exerted by this exotic current of Zen declined, and eventu
ally Japanese abbots had to be named. The final turning point in this
process came near the end of the Tokugawa, when Ryochu Nyoryu
良忠如隆（1793-1868) was appointed thirty-third abbot in 1851.
Ryochu, though formally incorporated into the Obaku lineage, was
actually a product of the Hakuin’s line, havine received certification
from Takuju Kosen 卓洲胡僭（1760-1833) (ZGD, p. 995d; OBJ, pp.
388a-89a; and Murase 1982). The monopoly of Hakuin， s successors
has continued unbroken since that time, so that the Obaku lineage
has been de facto absorbed into the Rinzai school.
Likewise, Soto orthodoxy grew stronger after Menzan, and few dis
cordant voices have appeared m that lineage since the nineteenth
century. Interestinely, though, descendants of Tenkei， s line still exist
today (see Shibe 1992，p. 117).
Most Japanese priests from the main Rinzai and Soto lines, like
Mujaku, Hakuin, Keirm, Manzan, and Sonno, showed a propensity to
go beyond the borders of their respective sects, unlike their col
leagues on the continent. This tendency was even clearer when they
cooperated m order to resist the influence of a third party (that is,
Obaku). The trianeular relation between Keirin, Manzan, and Sonno
provides a clear instance of how lineage constraints could be over
come for a specific purpose.
The nature of the exchanges between such individuals as Bankei

and Tenkei，Dokuan and Daozhe, and Keirin with Manzan and Sonno
suggests either that their level of sectarian consciousness was still rela
tively low or that factional consciousness loomed larger than sectarian
consciousness. New religious policies adopted by the Bakufu encour
aged individuals to define more precisely their own positions and
affiliations，but a simultaneous sense of crisis seems to have fostered a
feeling of togetherness among Zen Buddhists, who may have placed
concerns about the survival of meaningful Buddhist practice above
considerations of sect.
Still, the necessities of the times may have been disguising an under
lying attitude of narrow-mindedness. The establishment of a sort of
“orthodoxy” specific to each sect began to materialize as the “foreign”
elements were gradually excluded and the notion of a pure lineage
became widely recognized. Because of the paucity of clear textual evi
dence it is difficult to ascertain the exact time of this transformation,
but one might locate it as “post-Hakuin” for the Rinzai tradition and
“post-Menzan” for the Soto tradition. This is not to say that the respec
tive schools up to and including the time of Hakuin and Menzan were
free of sectarian militancy. There was, however, an active communica
tion between representatives of Rinzai and Soto through the eigh
teenth century, although from the beginning of the nineteenth century
the attitudes of the two sects definitely began to stiffen. Further study
of sectarian developments during the late-Tokugawa and Meiji periods
is thus a major priority in future Zen Buddhist studies. A necessary
part of this study will be the further investigation of the background
provided by Ming and Qing China, an effort that will certainly unveil
new aspects of the enduring influence of Chinese factors on sectarian
awareness in Japan.
REFERENCES
ABBREVIATIONS
T Taisho shinshu 大正新修大蔵経，100 vols. Takakusu
Junjiro 高楠順次郎 et al.，eds. Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai
and Daizo Shuppan, 1924-1932.
OBJ Obaku bunka jinmei jiten 黄檗文化人名辞典，Otsuki Mikio 大槻幹郎，
Kato Shoshun カロ藤正俊，and Hayashi Yukimitsu 林鬟光，eds.
Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 1988.
Z Zokuzdkyd 續藏經，150 vols. Taibei: Xinwengeng, 1968-1970
(reprinted from the Dainihon zokuzdkyd 大日本續藏經，Kyoto:
Zokyo Shoin, 1905-1912).
ZGD Zengaku daijiten 脾学大舌辛典，new ed., Zengaku Daijiten Hensan-

sho 禪学大辞典編纂所，ed. Tokyo: Taishukan, 1985.
PRIMARY SOURCES (in chronological order)
Houhanshu 後漢書，“Guangwu di j i ” 光武帝紀，Ershisi shi 二十四史，Baina

book 百納本，pp. 2614b-2615a.
Chichihen 知命篇.3 kan, by Mukai Gensho 向井元升，published in 1655; a
copy of the original edition is kept at the Main Library affiliated
to Kyoto University (Fuzoku toshokan 附属図書館） . It is reprinted
in Kaihyd sosho 海表叢書 v o l.1，supervised by Shinmura Izuru
新村出 (1876-1967)，pp. 1-117，published by Koseikaku Sogyo
更正閣叢行 in 1869 (no place given).
Takkakubun 答客問 . 1 kan，by Mumon Genshin 無門原眞，composed in
1667.
Mukai nanshin 霧海南針. 1 kan，by Choon Dokai, published in 1672，re
produced in Zenmon 滅禪門法語集 v o l.3，pp. 145-70.
Fuso zenrin 扶桑禪林僧寶傳. 10 kan，by Gaoquan Xingrdun 高泉性激，
published in 1675，reproduced in D ainihon bukkyd zensho
大日本仏教全書， vol. 109.
Shutdroku 宗統録.5 satsu, by Ryukei Shosen 育 I 溪性潜，published in 1683，
modern ed. by the Ryukei Zenji Hosankai 竜渓禪師奉賛会編，enti
tled Kundoku shutdroku 訓讀宗統録 . Kyoto 1970: Kichudo.
Zoku fuso zenrin soboden 續扶桑禪林僧寶傳. 3 kan, by Gaoquan Xingdun,
published in 1686，reproduced in Dainihon bukkyd zensho, vol. 109.
Gohdshu 護法集. 16 kan including the additional part (zokushu 續集），by
Dokuan Genko 獨菴玄光，published in 1697，reproduced in
Sotoshu zensho: Goroku 1 曹洞宗全書• 語録一.
Tomon gekitan 洞門虜!l譚 . 1 kan, by Baiho Jikushin 梅山条竺信，published in
1700，reproduced in Sotoshu zensho: Shitchu 曹洞宗全書• 室中.
Zenrin 禮林執弊集. 2 kan, by Keirin Sushin, published in 1700.
Shobotekiden shishi ikku shu 正法嫡傳獅子ー吼集. By Jozan Ryoko 定山良光，
published in 1702，reproduced in Sotoshu zensho: Shitchu. (A
refutation of the Tomon gekitan by Baiho).
Shobotekiden shishi ikku shu benkai 正法嫡傳獅子一吼集搏解. 1 kan，by Keirin
sushin, Dublished m 170^. (A response to Jozan5s Shobotekiden
snishi ikku shu).
Rinkyu kyakuwa 林丘客話 . 2 kan, by Baiho Jikushin, published in 1705,
reproduced in Sotoshu zensho: Shitchu (quoted by Mujaku Dochu
in his Kinben shigai 金鞭指街17).
Enpd dentdroku 延寶傳燈録. 41 kan, by Mangen Shiban FB元師蠻，compiled
in 1678 and published in 1706，reproduced in Dainihon bukkyd
zensho, vols. 108-109.
Honcho かn 本朝高僧傳. 75 kan, by Mangen Shiban, preface dated 1702，

published in 1707，reproduced in Dainihon bukkyd zensho, vols.
102-103.
Shuto hasso den 宗統八祖傳. 1 kan, ed. by Settan Fugiku 雪潭風枉，published
in 1902 by Shotakuan 聖澤菴.
Zen’yotdkd 禪餘套稿. 1 kan，by Manzan Dohaku FB山萄白，ed. by Menzan
Zuiho 面山瑞芳，published in 1714 by the bookstore Ryushiken
柳枝軒 in Kyoto.
Zensekishi 禪籍志. 1 kan，by Shoboku Gitai 聖僕義諦，preface dated 1693，
published in 17lb, reproduced in Dainihon bukkyd zensho, v o l.1，
p p .271-320.
Obaku geki 黄檗外g己. Manuscript, by Mujaku Dochu, completed in 1720，
reproduced in Kagamishima 1960b，145-72.
Zenrin som 禪林飯瓦 . 1 kan，by Gimoku Genkai 宜黙玄契，published in
1741，reproduced m Zoku Sotoshu zensho: Shitchu.
Manzan osho koroku FB山和尚廣録，49 kan, ed. by Sanshu Hakuryu 三洲白育S
et al., published in 1740，reproduced in Sotoshu zensho: Goroku 2.
Oshu Sound ronin kenmon Hdeiki 奥州損翁老人見聞寶永記. 1 kan，sayings of
Sonno Soeki 損翁宗益，ed. by Menzan Zuiho 面山瑞方，redaction
completed in 1744，reproduced m Zoku Sotoshu zensho: Hogo,
vol.9，pp. 411-45.
Zenshu shussehan jik i 禪宗出世班次記. 1 kan，by Mitsuun Genkai 密雲彦契，
published in 1746，Baiyo Shoin 貝葉書院.
Shuto fukko shi 宗統復古志. 2 kan, orally transmitted by Sanshu Hakuryu
三洲白龍 and written down by Mankai Sosan FB海宗珊，published
in 1760，reproduced in Zoku Sotoshu zensho: Shitchu, pp. 533-602.
SOURCES WITHOUT DATES
Chuxueji 初學集. 110 juan，by Qian Muzhai 錢牧齋（ also known as Qian

Qianyi 錢謙益），included in the collection Shibu sokan 四部叢刊
shubu 集咅R section no. 1625 (anthology of texts composed on
various occasions).
Shobogenzo senpyd 正法眼藏僭評. Manuscript, by Mujaku Dochu, reproduced
in Kagamishima 1960b, 1-144；1961, 226-89.
Hakumdroku 录U妄録 . Manuscript, by Mujaku Dochu, microfilm at the
Zenbunka Kenkyujo (Hanazono University).
REFERENCES CITED
Akiyama Kanji秋山莧治
1983 Shamon H akuin 沙 PI白隱 . Shizuoka: Published privately by
Akiyama Aiko 秋山愛子.
A pp, Urs
1987 C han/Zen， s greatest encyclopaedist Mujaku Dochu. Cahiers
dÊxtreme-Asie 3:155-74.
Basabe, Fernando M.
1968 Religious Attitudes ofJapanese Men: A Sociological Survey. Tokyo:
Sophia University and Charles E. Tuttle.
Bodiford , William M.
1991 Dharma transmission in Soto Zen: Manzan Dohaku^ reform
movement. Monumenta Nipponica 46: 423-51.
1993 Soto Zen in MedievalJapan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
D e Bary, William Theodore
1981 Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning of the Mind-and-Heart.
New York: Columbia University Press.
1989 The Message of the Mind in Neo-Confucianism. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Edgerton , Franklin
1953 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. London:
Yale University Press, (reprint by Rinsen Book, Kyoto, 1985)
Foulk , Griffith
1987 The “Ch’an School” and its place in the Buddhist monastic tra
dition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Fujimoto Tsuchishige 藤本植重
1971 Bankei kokushi no kenkyu 盤挂国師の研究. Tokyo: Shunjusha.
Furuta Shokin 古田紹欽
1974 Hannya shingvo no chushakuhon o megutte: Bankei to Tenkei
般若心経の註釈本をめぐって一盤挂と天桂. Zenbunka kenkyu kiyd
禅文化研究紀要 6: 257-64.
G ernet, Jacaues
1972 Le Monde Chinois. Paris: Armand Colin, (second revised ed. 1980)
H askel, Peter
1984 Bankei Zen: Translations from the Record of Bankei. New York:
Grove Press.
Hirakubo Akira 平久保章
1962 Ingen 隱元. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan. (revised ed. 1974)
Hsu, Sung-peng
1979 A Buddhist Leader in M ing China: The Life and Thought of H an
shan Te-ch'ing, 154b-1623. University Park and London: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Iida Rigvo 飯田利行
1986 Gakusho Mujaku Dochu 学聖無著萄忠. Kyoto: Zenbunka Kenkyujo.
Ishii S hudo 石井修萄
1987 Sodai zenshushi no kenkyu 宋代禅宗史の研究. Tokyo: Daito Shuppan.
I s h its u k e S h o r y u 石附勝育 I
1964 Shiho ronko: Baiho osho no migoshiho kan 嗣法論考一梅峯和尚
の未悟嗣法觀. Indogaku bukkydgaku kenkyu印度学仏教学研究 12/2:
256-60 (726-30).
1967 Edoki ni okeru Sotozen no jik a k u 江戸期における曹洞禮の自覺.
Indogaku bukkydgaku kenkyu 15/2: 350-52 (824-26).
J a f fe , R ic h a r d
1991 Ingen and the Threat to the Myoshinjiha. Komazawa daigaku zen
kenkyusho 駒沢大学禅研究所年報2 :1-35.
K ag am ishim a G e n r y u 鏡島元隆
1958 Keirm Sushm ni tsuite: K m se i1 ozai kosho shi no issetsu
桂林崇探について一近世洞済交渉史の一節. Indogaku bukkydgaku
kenkyu 7 / 丄 (13): 8b-9S. (later included in Dogen zenji to sono
monryu, Dp. 196-213)
1960a Mujaku Dochu to Tomon no kosho 無著萄忠と洞門の交渉 .
Indogaku bukkydgaku kenkyu 8/1(15) :198-201. (later included in
Dogen zenji to sono monryu, pp. 216-23)
1961 Dogen zenji to sono monryu 萄元禅師とその門流. Tokyo: Seishin
Shobo.
1967 Nihon zenshushi: Sotoshu 日本禅宗史一曹洞宗. I n 沿 zazm 講座禅
4，Zen no rekishi: Nihon 禅の歴史— 日本，dd. 89-125. Tokyo:
しhikuma ^hobo.
1978 Manzan, Menzan FB山 •面山 . Nihon no zengoroku 日本の禅語録
18. Tokyo: Kodansha.
1985 Dogen zenji to sono shuhen 萄元禅師とその周辺. Tokyo: Daito Shuppan.
1986 Gesshu to Manzan: Sotoshu 月舟と？ B山 •曹洞宗 . In Shuhabetsu
Nihon bukkyd: Hito to oshie 宗派別日本仏教•人と教え 7，pp. 199-238.
Tokyo: Snogakukan.
1993 Sosetsu 総説 . In Dogen shiso no ayumi 萄元思想のあゆみ 3，Edo
プzd似•江戸時代，pp. 3-19. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
K a g a m is h im a G e n ry u , ed.
1960b Shobogenzo senpyd, Obaku geki: M ujaku Dochu sen
正法眼藏僭評•黄檗外記一無著萄忠撰. Tokyo: Komazawa Daigaku
Zenshu Jiten Hensansno.
K a t o S h o s h u n 加藤正俊
1985 Hakuin osho nenpu 白隱和尚年譜. Kyoto: Shibunkaku.
K r a ft , K e n n e th
1992 Eloquent Zen: Daito and Early Japanese Zen. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
M a n o S h o j u n 真野正順
1964 Bukkyd ni okeru shu kannen no seiritsu 仏教における宗観念の成立.
Tokyo: Risosha. (posthumous publication of a 1954 Ph.D. dis
sertation entitled “Bukkyd ni okeru shuha ishiki no keitai”

仏教における宗派意識の形態）.
M a r u y a m a M asao
1974 Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan. Hane Mikiso，
trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
M iz u n o Y a o k o 水野弥穂子，ed.
1990 Shobogenzo正法眼蔵. 4 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
M urase G e n m y o 村瀬玄妙
1982 R in zai no Shoshu bakumon n i okoru 臨済の正宗檗門に興る .
丽 M 禅文化 104: 72-77.
N a g a i M a s a s h i 永井政之
1979 Toko Shin’etsu kenkyu josetsu 東皐心越研究序説. In Zenshu no
獅 mte•禅宗の諸問題， Imaeda Aishin 今枝愛眞，ed., pp. 365-85.
lokyo: /uzankaku.
1981 Dokuan Genko o meguru shomondai: Sono chugokuzen riKai
ni tsuite 独庵玄光をめぐる諸問題一その中国禅理解について. SMtgaku
kenkyu 宗学研究 23: 257-72.
1993 Sotoshu Jushoha to sono seisui 曹f同宗寿昌派とその盛衰. In Dogen
shiso no mumi 萄元思想のあゆみ 3，Edo jidai, pp. 120-54. Tokyo:
Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
N a k a n o T o e i中野東英
1982 Sonno zenwa: Menzan cho “Oshu Sonno ronin Kenmon hoei-
k i” s a n 損翁禅話一面山著「奥州損翁老人見聞宝永記」賛 . Kyoto:
Dohosha. (first ed. in 1935)
N a k a o R y o s h i n 中尾良信
1993 Dokuan 独庵. In Dogen shiso no ayumi 3，Edo jidai, pp. 383-98.
Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
N ishiyam a M a ts u n o s u k e 西山松之助
1982 Iemoto no kenkyu 家元の研究. In Nishiyama Matsunosuke chosaku-
从公西山松之助著作集1.Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
N o g u c h i Z e n k v o 野ロ善敬
1985Hun Tsuyo no Rinzai-zen to sono zasetsu: Mokuchm Dobm to
no tairitsu o megutte 費隱通容の臨済禅とその挫折一木陳萄态との
対立を巡って. Zengaku 禅学研究 64: 57-81.
Nosco Peter, ed.
1984 Confucianism and Tokugawa しultv/rc. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
O g is u J u n d o 荻須純萄
1979 Shobozan rokusoden kunchu 正法山六祖伝訓註. Kyoto: Shibunkaku.
O oms H erm an
1985 Tokugawa Ideology: E arh Constructs, 1570-1680. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
O t s u k i M i k i o 大槻幹郎
1975 Shoki Obaku no gaso: Itsunen Shoyu ni tsuite 初期黄檗の画僧•
逸然性融について. Zenbunka 78: 66-73.
R e a d e r , Ia n
1991 Religion in Contemporary Japan. Honolulu: Jniversity ot Hawaii
Press.
S c h w a l l e r , D ie te r
1988 Der Text Mukai Nanshin der Japanischen Zen-Monchs Choon
Dokai. Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques 42:107-19.
1989 Der Japanische Obaku-Mdnch Tetsugen Doko: Leben，Denken，
Schriften. Schweizer Asiatische Studien/ Etudes Asiatiques
Suisses 9. Bern: Peter Lang.
Shibe K e n ’ic h i 志部憲ー
1982 Shobogenzo senpyo no ichikosatsu 正法眼蔵僭評の一考察 .
Shugaku kenkyu 24: 72-77.
1983 Shobogenzo senovo to Edoki shugaku no kanren 『
正法眼蔵備評』
と江戸期宗学の関連. Shugaku kenkyu 25: 246-61.
1985 Tenkei Denson no chosaku ni tsuite 天桂伝尊の著作について.
Shugaku kenkyu 27: 247-70.
1990 Tenkei Denson no chosaku ni tsuite (2) 天桂伝尊の著作について
(ニ）. Shugaku kenkyu 32:163-68.
1992 Tenkei Denson to Bankei Yotaku ni tsuite 天桂伝尊と盤挂永琢
について. Komazawa daimku zenkenkyusho nenpd 3:103-20.
St a m b a u g h , J o a n
1990 Impermanence Is Buddha-nature: Ddgen’s Understanding of
Temporality. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
S u z u k i D aisetsu 鈴木大拙，ed.
1941 Bankei zenji goroku: Fu Gyogoki 盤挂禪師語録•附行業記. Tokyo:
Iw a n a m i M io te n . ê le v e n th e a .1 9 8 d j
T a k e n u k i G e n s h o 竹貫元勝
1979 Kinsei ni okeru Daitoku-ji kyodan: Enkyo no matsujicho o
c h u s h in to s h i t e 近世における大徳寺教団 • 延享の末寺帳を中心として .
In Tam am uro and O kuwa 19 79 ， pp. 14 5 -1 7 5 . Tokyo:
Yuzankaku.
1986 Kinsei srozanha kyodan: Tenmei, Kansei ju n honmatsucho o
c h u s h in t o s h i t e 近世五山派教団一天明 • 寛政寺院本末帳を中心として .
In Tam am uro and O kuw a 1986 ，pp. 271-303. Tokyo:
Yuzankaku.
1989 Nihon Zenshushi 日本禅宗史. Tokyo: Daiz6 Shuppan.
1993 Nihon Zenshushi kenkyu 日本禅宗史研究. Tokyo: Yuzankaku.
T a k e n u k i G e n s h o , ed.
1990 Kinsei Obakushu matsujicho shusei 近世黄檗宗末寺帳集成. Tokyo:
Yuzankaku.
T a m a m u ro F u m io 圭室文雄
1987 Nihon bukkydshi: Kinsei 日本仏教史 • 近世 . Tokyo: Yoshikawa
Kobunkan.
T a m a m u ro F u m io a n d O k u w a H ito s h i 大桑斉，eds.
1979 Kinsei bukkyd no shomondai 近世仏教の諸問題. Tokyo: Yuzankaku.
1986 Ronshu Nihon bukkydshi 論集曰本仏教史 7: Edo jid a i 江戸時代 .
lokyo: fuzankaKu.
T o r ig o e B u n p o 鳥越文邦
1986 五燈嚴統. Omuta:
H iin zenji to sono cho: Gotogento 費隱禅師と其の著，
Daijizan Enichi Zenji 大慈山慧日禅寺.
W addell, N o rm an
1984 The Unborn: The Life and Teaching of Zen Master Bankei
(1622-1693). San Francisco: North Point Press.
W a t t , P a u l B ro ok s
1982 Jiun Sonja (1718-1804): Life and thought. Ph.D. dissertation,
Columoia University.
1984 Jiu n Sonja (1718-1804): A Response to Confucianism within the
Context of Buddhist Reform. Peter Nosco, ed., pp. 188-214.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Y a n a g id a S eizan 柳田聖山
1959 Mujaku osho no gakumon 無著和尚の学問. Zenbunka 15-16: 81-86.
1966 Muiaku Dochu no gakumon 無著萄忠の学問. Zengaku kenkyu 55:
14-55. (later included in Chokushu Hyakujo shingi sakei: Hosho
敕修百丈清規左觴• 庸峭徐録，pp. 1335-76. Kyoto: Chubun
Shuppan, 1977)
1967 Chugoku zenshushi: sono ichi 中国禅宗史一その一 . Kyoto:
Hanazono Daisraku Gakusei Bukkvo KenkyuKai.
Y o s h id a D o k o 吉田萄興
1981 Dokuan Genko to Tenkei Denson no snihokan 独養玄光と
天桂伝尊の嗣法観. Shugaku kenkyu 23: 95-101.
1993 Sotoshu to Rinzai, Obakushu to no kosho 曹洞宗と臨済•黄檗宗
との父7歩. Dogen shiso no ayumi 3 ，Edo iiaai, pp. 155-96. Tokyo:
Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Y o s h ik a w a K 6 j ir 6 吉川幸次郎
1960 Koji to shite no Sen Bokusai: Sen Bokusai to bukkyo 估士としての
錢牧齋一錢牧齋と佛教. In Fukui hakase shoju kinen: Toyo shiso ron
shu 福井博士頌壽記念•東洋思想論集，pp. 738-58. Tokyo: Fukui
Hakase ^hoju Kinen Ronbunshu Kankokai.

Mohr Tokugawa Zen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mohr Tokugawa Zen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mohr Tokugawa Zen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1994 21/4

Zen Buddhism during the Tokugawa Period

The transformation of Buddhism during the Tokugawa period has not

The transform ation o f Zen Buddhism during the Tokugawa period is

of Tokugawa Buddhism is gradually giving way to a richer, more

instead we see an incredible variety of positions with regard to the

Lineage しonsciousrwss in Its Historical Setting

The concept of “sectarian consciousness” is referred to in modern

Imperial virtue commands heaven and earth at will, restores

makes the Nine Generations intimate and harmonious.

codes, the precepts, and textual study. The crystallization of sectarian

The Importing of M ing Buddhism toJapan

プCf. H ira k u b o (1962, p. 275) an d S c h w a lle r (1989, pp. 17-18).

The two rival priests m entioned by Keirin are Feiyin Tongrong

There is no need to go into the particulars of Feiyin， s works. It is

Ymyuan added a postface dated hinoto tori 丁 酉 （

set up patriarchal lineages (zongtiao 宗f兆）

Rinzai Reactions to the Founding of Manpuku-ji

Somon 竺 印 祖 門 （1611-1677);15Tokuo and Jikuin later separated from

Despite Mujaku5s critique of Obaku, he was not someone who gen­

1 9 八 photographic reproduction o f the S hobogenzo sen p yd is kept at the Zenbunka

published in 1706，comprised forty-one chapters. Mangen was still not

^ Daozhe’s dates follow those given in OBJ, p. 263a-b.

are satisfactory. We have been preserved from disgrace precisely

The Development of Soto Reforms

Rinzai and Soto Contacts

Earlier we noted the relative open-mindedness that Mujaku Dochu

call to purge the influence of Obaku found a ready audience in

The Issue ofDharma Succession

Ih e nature of sectarian consciousness at any particular time is espe­

Dharma” {fuho 附法）merely indicate that charge of a temple has been

3‘ A detailed exposition of the different aspects of “post-awakening” practice can be

thinkers in favor of changing the transmission customs and those who

In his answer Menzan quotes the “Assurance of Awakening，

The teacnmgs of both Soto Zen and Rinzai Zen on the

of confidence.35 Even if transmission is obtained before awak­

Since Manzan reconstructs the original Japanese of the Shobogenzo into

adopting D6gen， s radical conception of time as “the taking place

1 ) The master is awakened, the disciple is not.

Fear of case 2一 obviously the worst possibility~is what gave rise to

When I carefully observe the transmission of the robe and the

D okuan5s seemingly pessimistic view is meant to underline the scarcity

One of the characteristics of seventeenth-century Tokueawa Zen that

we saw the influence of Neo-Confucian thought on the “identity cri­

The nature of the exchanges between such individuals as Bankei

ZGD Zengaku daijiten 脾学大舌辛典，new ed., Zengaku Daijiten Hensan-

PRIMARY SOURCES (in chronological order)

Houhanshu 後漢書，“Guangwu di j i ” 光武帝紀，Ershisi shi 二十四史，Baina

Honcho かn 本朝高僧傳. 75 kan, by Mangen Shiban, preface dated 1702，

SOURCES WITHOUT DATES

Chuxueji 初學集. 110 juan，by Qian Muzhai 錢 牧 齋 （ also known as Qian

sertation entitled “Bukkyd ni okeru shuha ishiki no keitai”

You might also like

Ymyuan added a postface dated hinoto tori 丁酉（

Somon 竺印祖門（1611-1677);15Tokuo and Jikuin later separated from

Despite Mujaku5s critique of Obaku, he was not someone who gen

Ih e nature of sectarian consciousness at any particular time is espe

of confidence.35 Even if transmission is obtained before awak

we saw the influence of Neo-Confucian thought on the “identity cri

Chuxueji 初學集. 110 juan，by Qian Muzhai 錢牧齋（ also known as Qian