Nanzan UniversityJichihan and the Restoration and Innovation of Buddhist PracticeAuthor(s): Marc BuijnstersReviewed work(s):Source: Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1/2 (Spring, 1999), pp. 39-82Published by: Nanzan UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30233608 .Accessed: 19/10/2012 12:43Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. .Nanzan University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Japanese Journal ofReligious Studies.http://www.jstor.org
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1999 26/1-2 Jichihan and the Restoration and Innovation of Buddhist Practice Marc BUIJNSTERS The various developmentsin doctrinalt houghta nd practiced uring the Insei and Kamakurap eriodsr emaino ne of the mosti ntensivelyr esearched fields in the study ofJapaneseB uddhism.T wo of thesed evelopmentsco n-cern the attemptst o restoret he observance of traditionalB uddhiste thics, and thep roblemo f howP ureL and tenetsc ouldb ei nsertedin to thee soteric teaching.A pivotal role in bothd evelopments has beena ttributedt o the late-Heianm onkJ ichihan,w how as laudedb yt her enownedK egons cholar-monkG y6nena s "ther estorer of the traditional precepts"an d patriarcho f JapaneseP ureL and Buddhism. "A t first glance, availables ourcess uch as Jichihan's biographies hardlys eem to justify thesep raises. Severaln ewly discoveredt exts and a moree xtensiveu se of various historicals ources, however, shouldm akei t possiblet o provideu s with a muchm orea ccurate and completep icture of Jichihan's contributiont o the restorationa nd innovation of Buddhist practice. Keywords: Jichihan - esoteric Pure Land thought - Buddhist reform - Buddhist precepts As WAS NOT UNUSUAL in the late Heian period, the retired Regent- Chancellor Fujiwara no Tadazane 8m$,).g (1078-1162) renounced the world at the age of sixty-three and received his first Buddhist ordi-nation, thus entering religious life. At this ceremony the priest Jichi-han officiated as Teacher of the Precepts (kaishi fi@; K6fukuji ryaku nendaiki f.#.RRt{,yM6E, Hoen 6/10/2). Fujiwaran o Yorinagam .PMA (1120-1156), Tadazane's son who was to be remembered as "The Wicked Minister of the Left" for his role in the H6gen Insurrection (1156), occasionally mentions in his diary that he had the same Jichi-han perform esoteric rituals in order to recover from a chronic ill-ness, achieve longevity, and extinguish his sins (Taiki' M=TK 6ji 1/8/6, 2/2/22; Ten'yo 1/6/10). Although a fair number of his public perform-
40 JapaneseJo urnalo f Religious Studies2 6/1-2 ances have been recorded, it remains rather obscure what contempo-raries thought of the late Heian monkJichihan " (ca. 1089-1144),' founder of the Nakanokawa temple 41' i and of the branch in the Shingon school that bears the same name. The fact that he never held a position of importance in the clerical hierarchy, that his biographies are extremely succinct, and that quite a few of the works attributed to him seem to have been lost, not only creates the impression that much of his thought was opaque, but also inclines one to think that it was mediocre. A fair number of renowned monks from the Kamakura period (1185-1333), whose religious background varied considerably, however, convey an entirely different image. The Genko shakusho c;~5 (p. 135b), composed in 1322, describes the history of Buddhism in Japan and contains Jichihan's oldest biography; it mentions that the famous Hoss6 priest J-kei 0M (1155-1213) praised his Daikyoy6gishotk wA TA - , an extensive commentary on one of the fundamental esoteric scriptures, the Dainichikyo tk H . The Taimitsu monk Shufra *A (n.d.), on the other hand, criticized Jichihan's view on Tendai esoteric Buddhism in the same commentary, because Jichihan rejected Enchin's PHI (814-891) and Annen's (841-915?) objections against Kfikai's ?i'P (774-835) classification system (kyohan ~[1J).2 The renowned Kegon scholar monk Gyonen yM (1240-1321) show-ered Jichihan with exuberant praise and considered him both the restorer of the traditional precepts (kaiho chitko . -A .; Risshit gyokanshof~ , . , p. 18b), and one of the six patriarchs (so fil) or sages (tetsu T) of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism (J6do homon genryuisho iwi-~,fMiT*, p. 196a). The founder of the Japanese Pure Land school, Honen (1133-1212), is claimed to have said thatJichihan instructed him in the precepts (Enko daishi gy6j6 ezu yokusan WiY7t~5k IAMXR., p. 144; TANAKA 1912, pp. 939-48).s Finally, Shingon priests such as Kakuban kl (1095-1143), Dohan ~Mi (1178-1252), 1 His name is also pronounced as '"Jippan"o r 'Jitsuhan". I have followed Nakano Tatsue in his explanation that in the Shingon school the name 3ti is read as 'Jichihan" (NAKANO 1934, p. 286). 2 Although this commentary, considered to be his magnum opus, has played a rather significant role in the controversy between the Shingon and esoteric Tendai schools about Kfikai's classification system, it has hardly received any attention in the various studies on Jichihan. The only exception is the article by SHISHIOE nshin, who concludes that although Jichihan ardently defended Kfikai's point of view, his interpretation of Enchin's and Annen's arguments was erroneous (1930). According to the Mikkyo daijiten, Shfira belonged to the Homan-ryii liAL, one of the fifteen Taimitsu branches.Jichihan's brother, S6jitsu, is considered the founder of this branch. s This claim is clearly a fabrication. When Jichihan passed away in 1144, Honen was only 12 years old and his religious career at Hieizan had yet to start.
BUIJNSTERS: Jichihan 41 and Raiyu Mi~ (1226-1304) each acknowledged the value of Jichi-han's esoteric Pure Land thought. A more recent appraisal of Jichihan comes from Kuroda Toshio. In his much acclaimed works on medieval Japanese religion, Kuroda argues that, contrary to the prevailing view, medieval religious life was not dominated by the ideologies of the newly founded Kamakura schools, which he characterized as marginal and heterodox currents (itan-ha .ORw), but by the ideological system of the already existing Nara and Heian schools. As a whole he calls this the exoteric-esoteric system (kenmitsut aisei RIVIUJ), which he designates as the orthodox movement (seito-haE fbR). In between these two groups, he distin-guishes a group of reformers whose ideas and activities did not cross the boundaries of orthodox thought (kaikaku-haE ikIr). KURODAco n-siders Jichihan, on account of the efforts he made to restore the observance of the traditional precepts (kairitsuf ukk5o~ iif ), as one of the earliest representatives of this reformist group (1994, pp. 212, 243). Nevertheless, sobriquets like "restorer of the traditional precepts" and "patriarch of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism" require further explanation. As for the first sobriquet, until recently only two of Jichi-han's works were known in which he described the initiation in the Buddhist precepts: the Todaiji kaidan-in jukai shiki #*l,~y19M (T. 74, no. 2350; hereafter Todaiji shiki) and the Shukke jukaiho Ww* Ik~t (NDKS 3, no. 316). Since these works are manuals in which Jichihan mainly relied on commentaries of former times, they hardly tell us anything about his own kairitsu thought. There is a rather miraculous tale in most of Jichihan's biographies about his initiation in and subsequent propagation of the traditional precepts, but the credibility of the tale has been doubted by modern scholars (OYA 1928a, p. 236). This lack of substantial sources compels us to question whether the claim of Jichihan being the "restorer of the traditional precepts" can be justified. Besides, one could also wonder if the miraculous tale in Jichihan's biographies really should be dismissed as a complete fabrication. Through an analysis of the postscript to the T6daiji shiki, a review of the Jubosatsukaiho 3MM k and the Fusatsu yomon 2fi'Ir , two newly published manuscripts on the precepts (KODERA1 978, 1979), as well as an examination of several related his-torical sources, I hope to shed some light on these problems. The lack in quantity of materials has made it difficult to determine on what grounds Jichihan could have been considered "a patriarch of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism." One of the first Japanese catalogues that enumerated the scriptures, commentaries, and annotations on Amida and the Pure Land was the J6do ehyo kyoronshosho mokuroku
42 JapaneseJo urnalo fR eligious Studies2 6/1-2 S, _~M it[w (DBZ-SGZ 96, no. 907), which was compiled by the Jodo priest Chosai A _ (1184-1266). In this catalogue, six titles are attributed to Jichihan (pp. 143-50), but only one of these seems to be still extant: the By6chus hugy6ki A. In this workJ ichihan explains how one's final moments should be used to secure rebirth in a Pure Land, but the alleged ambiguities in the way he expressed himself or in the doctrinal points of view he took, have contributed to a vari-ety of opinions among modern scholars about whether his Pure Land thought belonged to the Tendai or Shingon tradition, and whether the Byochii shugy6ki contained any innovative elements. Fortunately, two of Jichihan's Pure Land works have been rediscovered (SATO 1956, 1965, 1972), while fragments of two previously unknown works are quoted in the writings of several Shingon and Jodo priests. This extension of textual sources provides the opportunity to sketch a clearer picture of the development of Jichihan's Pure Land thought and to find an explanation for the reason why he was called "a patri-arch ofJapanese Pure Land Buddhism." Jichihan's Personal Background and Training Although none of Jichihan's biographies, nor any other source, men-tions the year in which he was born, it is possible to make a fairly accu-rate guess. The Genkos hakushoin forms us thatJ ichihan was the fourth child of Councillor Fujiwara no Akizane k.MA.# (1049-1110). The Sonpi bunmyaku VV-5R (Compilation of genealogies) confirms that Akizane had six sons, of which the fourth one was Jichihan (p. 12). The third son, S6jitsu fw, was a Tendai scholar monk who, at the age of 78, passed away in 1165, which implies that he was born in 1088. Because there is no indication whatsoever that S6jitsu and Jichihan were twins, nor that they were born from a different mother, Jichihan must have been born after 1088, probably the following year or the one thereafter (SATO1 965, p. 23). This would fit the date of his first known public performance. In the first month of 1110, Jichihan par-ticipated as an assistant in the Goshichinichin o mishuho6f- L , a yearly ceremony at the imperial palace that was held for the health of the emperor and peace of the country (Kakuzensho V01/, Tennin 3/1/8). Jichihan's task as Protector of the Relics (sharimori ~ilJ) was of minor importance and one befitting a twenty-year-oldpr iest (KUSHIDA 1975, p. 117). Jichihan first entered Kofuku-ji Rli, where he was instructed in the teachings of the Hosso school. The Genko shakusho mentions that his first teacher was the Shingon priest Genkaku (1056- 1121) of Daigo-ji NMiI, from whom he received the abhiseka initiation (denbo
BUIJNSTERS:Jichih an 43 kanjo {Mi~I~) in 1116. The sequence of first studying in K6fuku-ji fol-lowed by this abhiseka initiation, however, is incomplete. This is sus-tained by the fact that some four years before, Jichihan had founded the Nakanokawa temple, which implies that in 1116 he already must have been an initiated Shingon priest. Jichihan's abhiseka initiation is also recorded in the Kechimyakuru ijftki M(Record of method-ologically classified transmissions of the teaching), in which it is con-firmed that at that time Jichihan already was an initiated disciple of Ky6shin RA (?-1126?), a resident of K6my6-ji 5 W@y (p. 102). Kyo-shin was a disciple of Meizan HAR (1021-1106) of Mt. K6ya's Chutin 4Ri branch. The Kechimyakuco ntains a chart of transmissions of this branch in which the teacher-disciple relationship between Kyoshin and Jichihan is confirmed as well (pp. 120, 350, 406). Nothing else is known about Kyoshin's residence in K6myo-ji, but this temple and its inhabitants were closely related to Jichihan's activities (SATO 1972, pp. 61-67; KUSHIDA19 75, pp. 135-43). There are, however, several sources that provide some additional information about the relationship between Ky6shin and Jichihan. The first part of the training of a Shin-gon monk contains the course on shomyoP -w , in which the correct pronunciation of esoteric texts and the writing of shittan t*, a style of Sanskrit used for the rendering of esoteric syllables, are taught. One of the shomyo traditions in the Shingon school is named after Shutkan '78 (fl. 1144). The lineage of transmissions in this tradition shows that Shilkan received his initiation from Jichihan, while the lat-ter was trained in it by Kyoshin. This corroborates once more the like-lihood that Jichihan started his study of mikkyow ith Kyoshin (OYA 1928a, pp. 248-51). The year in which Jichihan was initiated by Kyoshin is not known, but the two are recorded to have met in the Ryiiko-in R#%ERon Mt. K6ya, one of Ky6shin's other abodes: The ajari Kyoshin of Mt. K6ya saw in a dream a golden Kongo-satta, who climbed the winding path to the supreme gate and entered his dwelling. When he awoke, he was excited and won-dered if someone capable of learning the esoteric teaching would come to him. Then, this saint [Jichihan] came and told him that it was his wish to be instructed in the esoteric teaching. Thereupon he instructed him completely, without keeping back anything at all. (Shinzokuz akkim ond6sh6w {^w PwrM,wn o. 24/29) There is no substantial proof that Ky6shin influenced Jichihan's ideas either on the Buddhist precepts or on Amida and the Pure Land. The only indication that could point in the direction of the former is that
44 JapaneseJo urnalo f Religious Studies2 6/1-2 Kyoshin, too, was apparently involved in the study of the Buddhist rules of conduct. He wrote an abbreviated manual on the initiation in the bodhisattva-precepts (Jubosatsukai ryakusaho 7{-~'-& ), which still survives in a single manuscript (ISHIYAMADERA1991 , p. 450). Jichi-han wrote about the bodhisattva-precepts as well, but a possible rela-tion between their ideas remains uncertain, because the contents of Kyoshin's manual are as yet unknown. More proof of influence can be found in the case of Jichihan's other Shingon teacher, Genkaku. Some of the details of Jichihan's esoteric Pure Land thought were recorded by the Shingon priest Raiyu. In his Hisho mondo6f iWAJ4 (Collected questions and answers on esoteric matters), he gives an account of Jichihan's initiation in Amida's fundamental mudra and mantra (Amida konpon ingon I~q~3ft Vw4Z:P) by Genkaku: Initially, the saint Jichihan was someone of the Hoss6 school. Afterwards he relied on Shingon. At the occasion of his initia-tion in the fundamental mudra and mantra of Amida, he learned the oral transmission that [Amida's] mudra arouses the Buddha-natured lotus mind in one's state of illusions and defilements that cause the perpetual cycle of rebirth and death. Faith was engraved in his inmost heart and overwhelm-ing joy remained in his body. Finally, he took Genkaku of the Kajuji as his teacher and he mastered a deep knowledge of the esoteric teaching. (T. 79.308c) Even if this initiation meant the awakening of Jichihan's faith in Amida, which, as we will see, is dubious, this description still lacks details about its doctrinal contents. Amida's fundamental mudra and mantra are explained in the fourth chapter of the Rishushaku _~~iRA (T. 19, no. 1003) and in the Mury6ju nyorai kangyo kuyo giki Pfi4l1*M~rTMf , (T. 19, no. 930). One of Raiyu's contemporaries, however, provides some additional but puzzling information about Jichihan's initiation. In his Dato hiketsusho UBBfj YR ,,the Shingon priest Gaho fi, (?-1317) claims that during the ceremony, Genkaku referred to a phrase in the Medicine King chapter (Yaku6 bon "I-oE1) of the Lotus Sittra, which he said corresponded to the meaning of Amida's funda-mental mudra (p. 274). It is a mystery why Genkaku would have referred to this Medicine King chapter, because it is unrelated either to Amida or to the concept of mudra. The previously quoted Hisho mondo contains one other bit of relevant information about this initia-tion, which seems to be more credible: Manual [on the Amida ritual] from [Jichihan of] Nakano-kawa: the meaning... of [A]mida's mudra and mantra are
BUIJNSTERS:Jic hihan 45 according to the explanation transmitted by my teacher. It can be found in the Rishushakuet cetera. (T. 79.308c) According to the Genkos hakusho, Jichihan also went to Myoken HAN (fl. 1098) from Yokawa 1,l1I, with whom he studied the Tendai doc-trines. At that time, Yokawa was a centre of Tendai Pure Land studies and there are strong indications that, initially, Jichihan's Pure Land thought was influenced by this teacher. The previously mentioned cat-alogue by Chosai also includes three works that are attributed to My6- ken, but none of them has been transmitted. One of these works bears the title Ojoron gonenmon shigy6gi ri { (Personal manual on the fivefold practice leading to rebirth in the Pure Land [as explained] in the Ojoron). One of the six works by Jichihan that are listed in the same catalogue is titled Ojoron gonenmon gyoshiki 9HMwi 'EPM . Although this work has not been transmitted either, the similarity between both titles suggests that Jichihan's work was written as a result of the instruction he had received from Myoken. As will be discussed hereafter, a newly discovered manuscript that bears the title Nenbutsu shiki RR, contains an explanation of this fivefold practice and has been designated as a later copy of Jichihan's Ojoron gonenmon gyoshiki. The doctrinal thought in this manual is clearly based on Tendai Pure Land doctrines. The contents of Jichihan's remaining four works that are listed in Chosai's catalogue are as yet unknown, but a glance at their titles suggests that they bear a strong Tendai influence as well.4 The origins of Amidist practices in the Tendai school can be traced to the jogyo zanmai 'Aiw_ (constant walking meditation), which is described in one of the school's basic texts, the Mo-hoc hih-kuanT qwlME (Jpn. Makashikan). Jichihan's biography in the Sh6dai senzai denki 1N rARwR- Pisso mewhat more specific about his study with Myoken and mentions that it contained the study of the [Maka] shikan (p. 245b). The particulars of Myoken's life and works are largely unknown, but Fujiwara no Munetada .'k,,. (1062-1141) occasionally men-tions him in his diary, the Chuyutki43 f42. On one occasion he refers to an event in 1098 when, according to Munetada, Myoken was 73 4 The Kanmury6juky6k amon 04A.1 is probably based on a commentary on the Kanmury6jukyoby either the Chinese Tendai patriarch Chih-i or the Chinese Pure Land mas-ter Shan-tao. The Hanjuzanmaikyo kannen amida butsu 4 AN L is possibly a commentary on the j6gyo zanmai practice that is explained in the Mo-ho chih-kuan. The Miken byakugoshutM siR~It is most likely based on Genshin's Amida butsu byakug6k an N-101frL 8l- and the corresponding part in his Ojoyoshis( SATO1 972, p. 73). A manuscript of the RinjityomonM w..IZ seems to be still extant (KUSHIDA19 75, p. 169), but it is not clear if this text is based on Genshin's Ojoyoshut(O TANI1 966, pp. 43-45), or that its contents are in the line of the Byochiis hugyoki( KUSHIDA19 75, p. 159).
46 JapaneseJo urnalo f Religious Studies2 6/1-2 years old (Jotoku 2/8/27). This implies that when Jichihan received his initiation from Genkaku in 1116, Mydken would have been 91 years old. Although neither the year thatJichihan went to Yokawa, nor the year that My6ken passed away, have been recorded, it is rather implausible that Jichihan only started his study with Myoken when the latter would have been 91 years old. It is therefore safe to assume that Jichihan's initiation in Amida's fundamental mudra and mantra was preceded by his study of Tendai Pure Land doctrines with Myoken. Altogether, three priests-Kyoshin, Myoken, and Genkaku-have been designated as Jichihan's teachers.5 Of these three, only Kyoshin was engaged in the study of the precepts. The contents of his only known work on this subject are as yet unknown, but the fact that both he and Jichihan wrote about the bodhisattva-preceptssu ggests a possible influence of the former on the latter. On the other hand, although Jichihan's biographies are mainly preoccupied with his involvement in the Buddhist precepts, they do not include one single word on Kyoshin. There are strong indications that, through Myoken's tutelage, Jichi-han's Pure Land thought was initially influenced by Tendai Pure Land doctrines. Of the six works that are listed in Ch6sai's catalogue, five seem to be related to the Pure Land thought of Hieizan. Only the By6chiss hugyokis hows a development towards new ideas. Almost two decades before he wrote this work, Genkaku instructed him in the esoteric meaning of Amida. Prosperity and Decay of the Traditional Precepts After several failed attempts, the Chinese priest Chien-chen A (Jpn. Ganjin 687-763) finally reached Japan in 754, where he founded the Japanese Ritsu school. The ideology of this school sets forth the monastic rules in four divisions (shibunritsuV 3I~) and is based on the premise that the observance of the sanjuj6kai ~iJF9 (the three ideals of a bodhisattva: keeping the precepts, practicing virtuous deeds, and displaying mercy to all sentient beings) forms the seed for the realization of Buddhahood. Ganjin erected the first ordination 5 Scholars have argued that either Hanjun f{wEo f Mandara-ji 1,* r (1038-1112) or Hogen - of Ninna-ji 4-fVh# (fl. 1096) could have been one of Jichihan's teachers (SATO 1972, p. 59; OTANI1 966, p. 55; KUSHIDA19 75, p. 123-26). There is no substantial evidence at all, however, to support these opinions. As Kushida has pointed out, Hanjun was already too ill in 1102 to perform the initiation of Genkaku. Besides, the Kakuzenshor emarks that at the time of the Goshichinichin o mishuh6i n 1110, Hanjun was replaced by Genkaku as master of the ceremony because of the former's indisposition. There is a chart of transmissions of the teaching in which Jichihan is referred to as a disciple of H6gen (NAKANO19 34, p. 288), but records that could support this alleged relationship are not available.
BUINSTERS: Jichihan 47 platform at T6dai-ji ik,- and some time thereafter he was assigned to T6shodai-ji AIIIR, y, which had been built for the study of the Bud-dhist precepts. These precepts consist of kai (Skt. sila), which denote the rules for the prevention of evil deeds by one's body, speech, and mind; and of ritsu wgt (Skt. vinaya), which comprise the commandments for the restraint of all passions that delude one's mind. Together they form the stipulations that a fully-fledged male or female member of the Buddhist community (biku[ni] JtLw_[f E]) must observe. The number of kai and ritsu differed depending on whether one was a layman, a novice, or fully ordained, but a biku had to observe 250 command-ments, while for a bikuni there were even 348 rules of conduct. Full ordination in the precepts (gusokukai ,t) had to be officiated by three Masters of the Precepts and witnessed by seven others (sanshi shichisho - i _ tU) . After Ganjin'sd emise, the kairitsut raditionw as carried on by Hoshin ilAt (709-778), Nyoho 0a2it (?-815), and Buan 1 (?-840), but from the beginning of the Heian period onwards, the study of the precepts, and the ordination ceremony that went with it, gradually started to decline. A major reason for this development was the propagation of a different set of precepts by the founder of the Japanese Tendai school, Saicho RiA (767-822). This new set consisted of only 58 command-ments, and it is easy to imagine that it was much more attractive to abide by a lesser number of rules. Saicho asked the court's permission to build an independent ordination platform, which caused a heated debate between Enryaku-ji )@ and the Nara schools. Some of the details of this debate will be discussed in the third section of this essay. Finally, the court decided to grant Saicho's request and the construc-tion of the new ordination platform started shortly after his demise. Not only the traditional kairitsu ordination fell into disuse; many sources give evidence that even the observance of the precepts as such began to deteriorate. The Nihon sandai jitsuroku HEt xl, (Verita-ble record of three generations [of emperors] in Japan) emphasizes that the ordination of the priest E'un Vi_ in the third month of 865 was still conducted in the old-fashioned way, but it also laments the fact that already many novices neglect their study, that they do not know the difference between observing and violating the precepts anymore, and that they dishonor both Masters of the Precepts and government officials (J6ogan 7/3/25). The most obvious examples of repeated violation of the precepts were, of course, the numerous conflicts between the armed monks (s5hei 404) of the large monaster-ies. In the first year of Tenroku (970), the Tendai abbot Ryogen .IJ (912-985) wrote a petition in which he observed that groups of
48 JapaneseJo urnalo fR eligious Studies2 6/1-2 armed monks at Hieizan threatened the scholar priests and kept them from their studies. To stop this oppression, Ry6gen warned that it was forbidden for monks to wear arms, to conspire, or to kill sentient beings (Tendai zasu Ryogen kisho ). In other cases, monks were accused of clandestine romances and even of marriage (Kojidan T Mt, p. 66; Zoku honcho ojoden & ) w& w, p. 25). The author of the Mizu kagami 71yN, Nakayama Tadachika l UPP.U (1131- 1195), could not help complaining that the ignorance of the regula-tions was the reason that priests and laymen lately even wanted to drink sake (Kirei mondow _R R, p. 449). A full account of the degeneration process in the Ritsu school is recorded in Gy6nen's works on the history of this school: The Ritsu school had its place in all of the seven large monas-teries [of Nara], but during later generations this was gradually discontinued and the exposition [of the precepts] fell short. From the demise of Buan [in 840] until the reign of Emperor Sanjo [from 1011 to 1016], more than 170 years went by and in this period the observance of the precepts became little by little neglected and unpracticed. From that time until the reign of Emperor Toba [from 1107 to 1123], more than one hun-dred years passed by and in this period the observance of the precepts went out and they were no longer practiced. (Risshu- gy6kansho6i-, T.lti, p. 52) Gydnen also described the failing process of succession in the Ritsu school: Since the high priest Ganjin transmitted the Buddhist pre-cepts, the Preceptor has been considered the continuator of the Ritsu school.... This has been the case for a long time with-out interruption. The Ritsu school has been represented in the various temples, but since ancient times it has been [To]shodai-ji that carried on [its tradition] .... From the first year of Emperor Suzaku's reign [in 930] onwards, the Precep-tors have resided in this temple, carried on the Ritsu tradition, and the school's continuity was uninterrupted and many-branched. The [Preceptors'] names and deeds, however, were not recorded, which makes it difficult to know who they were. Nevertheless, the study [of the precepts] continued and the school's successors followed each other. Since the year 931 until the first year of Emperor Toba's reign [in 1108], 178 years have passed, but the names of those who have continued the teaching are unknown. (Sangoku buppo denzi engi =_H4l htk , pp. 19-20)
BUIJNSTERS:Jic hihan 49 In both works, Gydnen leaves no doubt that it was because of Jichi-han's efforts that this ongoing deterioration came to a halt. The various biographies ofJichihan contain two narratives, interrupted by a short interlude, in which his involvement in the restoration of the tradition-al precepts is described. In chronological order, these biographies tell the following story: Jichihan was already studying the Hosso, Shingon, and Tendai teachings, but he lamented the fact that he was not able to find a Mas-ter of the Precepts who could initiate him in the monastic rules. In the year 1109 (T6shodai-ji engi nukigaki ryakushwitI~ : E'i, p. 106b) or 1111 (Shodaisenzai denki, p. 275a), he went to the Kasuga 4 H Shrine to pray for an oracle. On the night of the seventh day he had an auspicious dream in which he saw pure water flowing through a brass pipe that led from T6shodai-ji to Nakanokawa. When he awoke, he thought the dream was a good omen. The next day he left for T6shddai-ji, but when he arrived he saw that its buildings were ruinous and uninhabited. Part of the temple compounds had been turned into cultivated fields and one low-ranking monk who had remained was plowing them. When Jichihan asked him if there were not any biku in the temple, the anonymous monk answered that, although he had not fully mastered them, the Preceptor Kaik6 AY once instructed him in the fundamental scriptures on the precepts.6 Thereupon they went into Ganjin's commemoration hall and at his request, Jichihan was ordained in the precepts. Afterwards, Jichihan went back to the Nakanokawa temple, where he started to lecture on the kairitsu and performed the ordination ceremony. As a result, the study of the precepts began to flourish again (Genkos hakusho, p. 135b). When the building of the Joshin-in k 4'R-, the main hall of the Nakanokawa temple, was finished, Jichihan went back to T6shodai-ji in the year 1116 and he asked the court's permission to make repairs. In the third month of the following year, thirty-eight monks, among them Gyoson iT* and Kakugyd C, were ordained in the bodhisattva precepts at the T6dai-ji ordination platform (T6shodaiji engi nukigaki ryakushui, p. 106b; Shodai senzai denki, p. 245c). In the third year of Hdan ,Ic (1122), during the Eight Lectures on the Lotus Sfitra (Hokke hakko w,ik-) in the Kasuga Shrine, scholar monks were discussing the situation of the kairitsu study. They con-cluded that this study, traditionally a specialty of the assistant monks 6 The Genko shakusho is the oldest source that mentions this anonymous monk. The Sho-dai senzai denki is the only source that mentions both the anonymous monk and the Precep-tor Kaiko as his teacher. In the T6shodaijigea nd the Denritsuz ugenshui the anonymous monk and the Preceptor Kaik6 turn out to be the same person.
50 JapaneseJo urnalo fR eligious Studies2 6/1-2 (doshu V:) who resided in the main halls of K6fuku-ji and T6dai-ji, had decayed and that for that reason the ordination at the T6dai-ji platform had virtually come to a halt. They ventured the opinion that if a learned priest would be willing to study the tenets of the Ritsu school, the teaching of the precepts and the ordination of biku could become prosperous again. When the assistant monk Gonzai Jik- of the Western Hall of K6fuku-ji heard of this he decided that, because he knew of such a learned priest, he would pay a visit to Jichihan of the Nakanokawa temple. There he pleaded for his help to restore the study of the precepts. Jichihan complied with his request and in the eighth month of that year he wrote a manual on the ordination in the precepts (the T6daiji shiki). Afterwards, the tradition of the Ritsu school gradually began to prosper again (Denritsu zugengesh tM N, A~ , p. 311b; ToshodaijigeT --AMV ,, p. 151c). The high priest Zoshun OJ{ (1104-1180) of K6fuku-ji studied the kairitsu under Jichihan and the tradition of the Ritsu school contin-ued when Z6shun was ordained by him (Risshi koyok w C ,A , p. 379; T6shodaiji engi nukigaki ryakushui, p. 106b). This summarizes the story of Jichihan's contribution to the restora-tion of the kairitsu tradition according to his various biographies. The obvious question is, of course, to what extent the details of this story can be verified. Even more important is the question whether Jichi-han's efforts really led to the restoration of the old kairitsu tradition. Fact and Fiction infichihan's Biographies The story of Jichihan's visit to T6shddai-ji and his subsequent ordina-tion in the old kairitsu tradition by an anonymous monk is, in spite of its being recorded in his oldest biography, generally considered as fictional (OYA 1928a, p. 236). In fact, the history of the Ritsu school between the demise of the Ritsu priest Buan in 840 and Jichihan's time, seems like the proverbial terra incognita. It is not surprising, then, that not one single substantial fact can be found about the anonymous monk, or the Preceptor Kaiko, or their immediate prede-cessors. Still, this does not mean that this part ofJichihan's biography should be dismissed as pure nonsense. It can be argued on three points that it is very likely that Jichihan indeed visited T6sh6dai-ji in 1109 or 1111 to study the precepts. The first point concerns the situation of T6shodai-ji at that time. One of the main arguments against the story in the Genk6 shakusho and similar biographies has been that, if Tosh6dai-ji was in such a ruinous state, uninhabited and its grounds partly turned into rice
BUIJNSTERS:Jichih an 51 fields, the presence of a priest who could teach and ordain Jichihan in the precepts would be very unlikely. Another interpretation, however, is also possible. The description of T6shddai-ji and Gydnen's account of the situation of the Ritsu school during the latter part of the Heian period could easily have been exaggerated in order to make the con-trast with Jichihan's laudatory efforts even more outstanding. Presum-ably, the situation of T6sh6dai-ji had not deteriorated to the extent as suggested, nor did the place lack residents. Several sources support this argument. The Honcho seiki *#AWiB mentions that the annual lec-ture on the Ninnogyo 4-E for the year 1099, which was intended as a prayer to end the turmoil in the country, was to be performed in twelve shrines and twelve temples. Among the names of the respective shrines and temples listed is T6shodai-ji (p. 304). A certain Oe no Chikamichi LiIww. made pilgrimages to the seven great monasteries of Nara both in 1106 and in 1140, of which he kept a personal record: the Shichidaiji junrei shiki -EZAtw! E. One of his travels led him to T6shodai-ji, and he described its various temple halls and Buddhist images in great detail (NARA 1982, pp. 190-205).7 There is even a stronger indication that, at the time of Jichihan's supposed visit, T6sh6dai-ji was still operating. When the novice Genkai 4iq received his full ordination at the T6dai-ji kaidan-in in 1109, this ceremony was officiated by the prescribed Ten Masters of the Precepts, one of them being the priest H6jdo X of T6shodai-ji (Kong6-ji monjo ,,NJZ, Tennin 2/12/10). The second argument that can be made concerns the chronology of Jichihan's whereabouts between 1109 (or 1111) and 1116, during which he may have visited T6shodai-ji. The Genk6 shakusho mentions that, after his initiation, Jichihan returned to the Nakanokawa temple. The text continues with a description of this temple's foundation: Initially, Jichihan lived in [Enjo-ji at] Ninjoku-san. Picking flowers he reached the fields and mountains of Nakanokawa. When he saw its superb environment he asked the court's per-mission to build a temple. He named it Joshin-in. Afterwards he went back again to T6sh6dai-ji. (p. 135c) If this sequence can be believed, Jichihan visited T6sh6dai-ji for the first time in either 1109 or 1111. Then he had the J6shin-in built, after which he went back to T6shddai-ji in 1116. The next question is, of course, when the Joshin-in, the main hall of the Nakanokawa temple, 7 In addition, there is also a tale in the Konjaku monogatarishu-ity (part 16, tale no. 39), which relates about the theft of a Kannon statue of T6shodai-ji. The Konjaku monogatari-shit was written shortly after 1106, but this tale cannot be dated.
52 JapaneseJournalofR eligious Studies2 6/1-2 was built. Unfortunately, documents about the financing of this tem-ple hall or the court's permission to build it have not been preserved. The answer, however, can be found in a manuscript with the title Shunkas hftgetsus hoso6 t)A1 In this work, which was written by the high priest Sdsh6 /'V1 (1202-1278) of T6dai-ji, one chapter is dedi-cated to the commemoration ofJichihan: In the third year of Ten'ei (1112), the saint Hongan (Jichi-han) was impressed by this environment and had a temple hall built. (HoRIIKE19 57, p. 51) Obviously, the construction of the Joshin-in started in 1112 and, judg-ing from the date mentioned in a list of inscriptions in temple bells, it was close to completion in 1114 (HORIIKE19 57, p. 51). This sequence links up very well with the timing ofJichihan's two visits to T6shddai-ji. The third and most convincing argument can be found in the post-script of the Jubosatsukaiho,Ji chihan's earliest work on the Buddhist precepts: This was written and completed in Ten'ei 4 (1113), second month, twenty-secondd ay, kinoet atsu (zodiacals igns), during the hour of the horse (11 a.m.-1 p.m). I pray that transferring my merits to the realm of the cosmic law and that fulfilling the precepts, will promptly lead me to Buddhahood. Buddha's dis-ciple Jichihan. (KODERA 1978, p. 93) This leaves no room for doubt that around or before 1113, nine years before he wrote the T6daiji shiki, Jichihan was already involved in the study of the Buddhist precepts. Another manuscript, of which only fragments have been preserved, has been identified as an incomplete copy of the Jubosatsukaihoan d is notably stored in T6shodai-ji (KODERA 1978, pp. 79-80). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the story aboutJichihan's visit to T6shodai-ji is, on the whole, credible. It seems, however, that the problem is located somewhere else. The main point of the story in the biographies is thatJichihan was ordained in the same kairitsu tradition that was brought to Japan by Ganjin. In Jichihan's time, this tradition only existed in name. It is precisely for that reason that the anonymous monk and the Preceptor Kaiko were put on stage, because by doing so an uninterrupted and authentic transmission of this tradition could be suggested. This obvious fabrica-tion will be discussed in the fourth section of this essay. Next comes the intermezzo ofJichihan's request to the court in 1116 to make repairs, which was followed by the ordination of thirty-eight monks at T6dai-ji the next year. Because there are no records that could either confirm or refute the first event, this matter has to
BUIJNSTERS:Jic hihan 53 be left untouched. More can be said, however, of the reputed ordina-tion of the thirty-eight monks. Of this group, only Gyoson fiT- (1057-1135) and Kakugyo ~1i (1075-1104) are mentioned by name, but it will be clear that Kakugyo, because of the year that he passed away, could not have been among them. Another argument against this part of the story has been that, while these monks were said to have receivedthe traditional, full ordi-nation, it was not until 1122 thatJichihan wrote about the gusokukaiin his T6daiji shiki (ISHIDA 1963a, p. 492). The source on which Ishida's argument is based was written in the eighteenth century, long after Jichihan's demise. There is, however, a much earlier source that has been overlooked and that refers to this event as well. According to the T6shodaijie ngi nukigaki ryakushut, which was compiled in 1395, the thirty-eight monks were not ordained in the gusokukai but in the bodhisattva precepts, about which, as we have seen, Jichihan wrote a work in 1113 (p. 106b). The dearth of sources makes it difficult either to confirm or to dismiss the veracity of the events in 1116 and 1117. Because it has been demonstrated that Jichihan's study of the precepts in T6shodai-ji in itself is plausible, it only seems natural that after his initiation, Jichi-han for his part started to teach and ordain others in the precepts as well. This is confirmed by the Genkos hakusho( p. 135b). The events of 1122 and thereafter, when Jichihan was asked by one of the assistant monks of K6fuku-ji to restore the study and obser-vance of the precepts, which led to his compilation of the T6daiji shiki, have considerably more verifiable clues. During the Heian period, the community within the compounds of the large monasteries developed into groups of a different social standing, each with its own specialty. One of these groups was that of the assistant monks (doshu), who served the scholar monks and were responsible for the maintenance of the temple halls. Traditionally, their specialty was the study of the precepts, and the position of Preceptor was granted to someone of this group (Nanto sozoku shokufukuki N~ " -, p. 237b). The assistant monks of K6fuku-ji resided in the Eastern and Western Main Halls (Kbfukuji tozai kondo fM.,ii@ ,i~t). The identity of the person or persons who went to Jichihan with the request to help restore the kairitsu tradition is slightly confusing. Most sources speak of a certain Gonzai I)fkN,a lias Nanshobo61M , who belonged to the Western Main Hall of Kofuku-ji.O nly the T6sh6daijigesp eaks of someone called Kaiz6 '['t1 (p. 151c). There are, however, records that confirm the his-toricity of both monks.8 8 Only TANAKA Minoru makes a distinction between Gonzai and Kaiz6 (1976).
54 JapaneseJo urnalo fR eligious Studies2 6/1-2 In 1170, a conflict erupted between Kakunin ~tI (fl. 1127-1201), head of T6dai-ji, and the doshu of K6fuku-ji. Documents about this conflict reveal that daihoshi Gonzai tiiJ