Otani University Academic Repository / 大谷大学学術情報リポジトリ

Robert F., Rhodes

Rhodes, Robert F.

T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  1114
J!kei sen “Yuishikiron jinshish!” no kenky#: Butsud! hen 貞慶撰『唯識論尋思鈔』の 
研究：仏道篇 (Study of the “Yuishikiron” Jinshish! Compiled by J"kei: Volume on the 
Buddha Way). By Kusunoki Junsh" 楠淳證. Kyoto: H"z"kan, 2019. xvi + 735 pages. 
Hardcover: ISBN 978-4-8318-6377-5.
R26)(1 F. R,2&).
J"kei 貞慶 (1155–1213), who lived from the end of the Heian 平安 period (794–1185) 
to the early years of the Kamakura 鎌倉 period (1192–1333), was one of the most 
renowned monks of the Japanese Hoss" 法相 school. Although he is famous as the 
author of the K!fukuji s!j! 興福寺奏状 (K"fukuji Petition), calling for the suppression 
of the senju nenbutsu 専修念仏 (exclusive nenbutsu) movement of H"nen (1133–1212), 
J"kei was actually an extremely serious Buddhist practitioner who immersed himself 
in the study of Buddhist doctrines, convinced that the way of scholarship provides an 
authentic path to buddhahood. In this important study, Kusunoki Junsh" focuses on 
J"kei’s “Yuishikiron” jinshish! 唯識論尋思鈔 (Extracts of Investigations into the Treatise 
on Consciousness Only; hereafter, Jinshish!), to examine this monk’s complex Buddhist 
thought. 
!e Jinshish! is a ten-fascicle-long compendium of Hoss" doctrinal issues taken 
up during debates (rongi 論議) held in conjunction with Buddhist ceremonies. Doc-
trinal debates were central to the life of scholar-monks, since appointment to high 
ecclesiastical positions depended on their ability to excel themselves at these debates. 
To educate their monks and prepare them for these events, the Japanese Buddhist 
schools incorporated debates into their own ceremonies. !e Hoss" school was no 
di3erent in this regard, and their annual ritual cycle included a number of debate-
centered ceremonies. !ese debates were serious a3airs; the participant prepared 
for them assiduously, and creative new interpretations of Hoss" doctrines were fre-
quently proposed and defended during such events. 
During the late Heian and early Kamakura periods, many notable collections of 
Hoss" debate topics and their interpretations were compiled. Besides the Jinshish!, they 
included the Bodai’in sh! 菩提院抄 (Bodai’in Extracts) by Z"shun 蔵俊 (1104–1180) 
and the famous “J!yuishikiron” d!gakush! 成唯識論同学鈔 (Extracts for Fellow Students 
of the Treatise on the Accomplishment of Consciousness Only; hereafter, D!gakush!) by 
J"kei’s disciple Ry"san 良算 (d.u.). Just one fascicle of the former work, saved only 
because it was incorporated into the D!gakush! to replace a lost fascicle, is extant. !e 
D!gakush! is extant and consists of over a thousand topics. It is a monumental com-
pilation of Japanese Hoss" doctrines, taking up nearly six hundred pages (sixty-eight 
fascicles) in the Taish" canon (T no. 2263, 66: 1–595b). In addition to these lengthy 
compendiums, shorter tanzaku 短釈 documents treating individual debate topics were 
B O O K  R E V I E W S 115
also composed, nearly two thousand 8ve hundred of which Kusunoki has identi8ed (pp. 
54–55).
According to the postscript found at the end of the Jinshish!’s 8rst fascicle, J"kei 
began plans to compile this work in 1197 but was unable to begin working on it for 
nearly four years. During these years, however, he discussed the structure and general 
content of the text with Ry"san and even had the latter compose the Manish! 摩尼抄 
(Maṇi Jewel Extracts) in thirty-two fascicles to serve as a draft for the Jinshish!. 
!en, for about 8fty days from the end of 1200 to the beginning of the next year, 
J"kei debated a number of Hoss" doctrines with several of his disciples and on that 
basis composed a draft of the Jinshish! consisting of over seventy topics. Later in 
the year he made additions to it and 8nally completed the work in the ninth month 
of 1201 (pp. 64–65). Despite its importance, however, the text of the Jinshish! is 
presently unpublished and even the most complete manuscripts (those held by the 
libraries of Minobusan and Otani universities) are both missing fascicles 5 and 9 (pp. 
68–69). 
Although there can be no question that doctrinal debates served as a major arena for 
developing and transmitting Buddhist thought in medieval Japan, research into this 
topic was long neglected by scholars of Japanese Buddhism. Fortunately, the impor-
tance of these debates has been recognized in recent years and scholars have gradually 
begun to analyze them at length. Kusunoki has been at the forefront of this renewed 
interest in doctrinal debates and this hefty (over seven hundred pages) monograph, the 
culmination of a lifetime of study dedicated to Hoss" debate texts, is a signi8cant con-
tribution to this still nascent 8eld of research.
!e volume is divided into three sections. !e 8rst section, “J"kei no butsud"ron” 
貞慶の仏道論 ( J"kei’s !eory of the Buddhist Path), discusses various issues related 
to this monk’s understanding of, and involvement with, Buddhist practice. Along 
with topics like the reasons behind J"kei’s retirement to the mountain con8nes of 
Kasagidera 笠置寺 north of Nara 奈良 in 1193, Kusunoki here provides basic informa-
tion about Hoss" debates, debate texts, and the Jinshish!. In this section, Kusunoki 
also notes that J"kei wrote a number of liturgical texts called k!shiki 講式 addressed 
to various buddhas, bodhisattvas, kami 神, and the Buddha’s relics, and notes that the 
main Buddhist 8gures worshipped by J"kei included Amida 阿弥陀, =#kyamuni, Mai-
treya, and Kannon 観音. Kusunoki argues that J"kei 8rst sought birth in Amida’s Pure 
Land but turned to =#kyamuni’s Pure Land of Vulture Peak after realizing how dif-
8cult it would be for an ordinary being (bonpu 凡夫) to attain birth in Amida’s exalted 
realm. At the same time, J"kei became attracted to Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven since it 
too was believed easy to reach for ordinary beings. However, by 1201, J"kei’s devotion 
gravitated towards Kannon. As Kusunoki notes, this indicates that the land in which 
J"kei sought to be reborn changed over the course of his life.
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  1116
!e second section, “J"kei ky"gaku (rongi) to butsud"” 貞慶教学(論義) と仏道 
(  J"kei’s Doctrines [Debate] and the Buddhist Path), constitutes the core of this vol-
ume. !is section is composed of three chapters of around a hundred pages each and 
in each chapter Kusunoki discusses in meticulous detail one central issue of Hoss" 
doctrine that was frequently taken up in the debates. !e 8rst of these three issues con-
cerns the distinctive Hoss" teaching of the 8ve lineages ( gosh! 五姓). It is well known 
that the Hoss" school maintains that all beings are by nature divided into 8ve distinct 
“lineages” or classes of beings: (1) the &r%vaka lineage; (2) the pratyekabuddha lineage; (3) 
the bodhisattva lineage; (4) the indeterminate lineage, or those who possess the poten-
tial to attain more than one of the spiritual attainments above; and (5) lineage-less 
beings or icchantikas—beings who forever lack the capacity to escape from the cycle of 
transmigration. !is is in marked contrast to the Tendai 天台, Kegon 華厳, and Sanron 
三論 schools, all of which held to the teaching of the one vehicle that maintains that 
all beings will attain buddhahood. !e question of whether the 8ve lineages or the one 
vehicle represents the true Buddhist position was bitterly debated by the Hoss" monk 
Tokuitsu 徳一 (d.u.) and the founder of the Japanese Tendai school, Saich" 最澄 (766 
[or 767]–822), in the early years of the Heian period. J"kei was committed to uphold-
ing his school’s position, but Kusunoki emphasizes that for J"kei, this was not just an 
academic problem: the monk was 8rmly convinced of the truth of the 8ve lineages 
teaching and that he himself did indeed belong to the bodhisattva lineage.
After a succinct survey of the scriptural sources for the Hoss" position, Kusunoki 
discusses several topics in the Jinshish! related to the doctrine of the 8ve lineages. !e 
8rst concerns the interpretation of the one vehicle teaching. Here J"kei argues that if 
one is attached to either the teaching of one vehicle or the 8ve lineages, seeing them as 
two di3erent things, they will inevitably be understood as being contradictory to each 
other. However, J"kei continues, if they are seen from a higher and more inclusive 
point of view, which he calls the standpoint of the “uncreated single principle” (mui no 
ichiri 無為の一理, p. 182), there is no contradiction between them.
Another related topic concerns the notion of the icchantikas of great compassion 
(daihi sendai 大悲闡提). !ey refer to bodhisattvas who have vowed never to attain 
buddhahood until all beings have been ferried over to liberation; since there is no end 
to the number of such beings, the icchantikas of great compassion are forever destined 
to remain in the realm of transmigration to work for the salvation of others without 
attaining buddhahood themselves. But Kusunoki explains that the position that these 
icchantikas can never attain buddhahood was contested during the Tang 唐 dynasty 
(619–907) by Chinese Faxiang (Hoss") scholars (p. 224). Ultimately, this led J"kei to 
assert that icchantikas of great compassion may be said to both attain and not attain 
buddhahood, arguing that from the perspective of the gate of wisdom, they can be said 
to attain buddhahood, but from the perspective of the gate of great compassion, they 
B O O K  R E V I E W S 117
can be said not to attain buddhahood (p. 231). At the end of this chapter, Kusunoki 
also points out that J"kei emphasized the importance of faith, inasmuch as faith in the 
Buddhist teachings was taken to be a sign that one was not an icchantika. (!e lack 
of faith in the Buddhist Dharma was considered to be a de8ning characteristic of an 
icchantika that can never gain release from the cycle of rebirths.)
!e next chapter focuses on the Hoss" teaching that it takes three asaṃkhya kalpas 
to attain buddhahood. !e Hoss" school holds that the path of bodhisattva practice 
consists of forty-one stages, consisting of the ten abodes (  j#j# 十住), ten practices 
(  j#gy! 十行), ten merit-transferences (   j#ek! 十回向), ten grounds ( j#ji 十地), and the 
stage of sublime awakening (my!gaku 妙覚). During the 8rst asaṃkhya kalpa, bodhi-
sattvas ascend through the 8rst thirty stages; during the second asaṃkhya kalpa, they 
progress from the 8rst ground to the seventh ground; and during the third asaṃkhya 
kalpa, they start from the eighth ground and 8nally reach the stage of sublime awaken-
ing. However, in the Mah%y%na-saṃgraha by Asaṅga (ca. 320–ca. 390), an important 
Hoss" text, there is a line that says, “(One must) vigorously and quickly take refuge 
in the shores of virtue” (T 1594, 31: 143c). In his comments on this line, Asvabh#va 
(450–530) asks why the term “quickly” is used here and replies that the length of time 
can be perceived as long or short depending on one’s mental discrimination. For exam-
ple, one may experience having lived a long time in a dream but when one awakes, 
one realizes that only an instant has passed. In the same way, a long period of time 
can be encompassed in one moment (T 1598, 31: 419a). Since these words can be 
interpreted to mean that one can attain the fruit of buddhahood in just one moment, 
it became necessary to reconcile Asvabh#va’s words with the notion that it takes three 
asaṃkhya kalpas to achieve buddhahood. !is topic, known as “sh!zai ichisetsuna” 
摂在一刹那 (“[three asaṃkhya kalpas] are encompassed within one moment”), was 
often taken up in Hoss" debates. J"kei reconciles these two positions by arguing that, 
since all dharmas are empty and devoid of self-natures (  jish! 自性), concepts like “long” 
and “short” do not contradict each other and are mutually encompassing. !is is why 
Asvabh#va stated that the three asaṃkhya kalpas can be encompassed in one instant, 
and his words do not necessarily support the position that one can attain buddhahood 
instantaneously. 
Another interesting topic that Kusunoki takes up in this chapter concerns the ques-
tion as to whether one must study under many di3erent buddhas during the course 
of one’s practice, or must continue to serve just one buddha until one attains bud-
dhahood. J"kei maintains that the former position is the correct one, arguing that 
since it takes bodhisattvas three asaṃkhya kalpas to attain buddhahood, they must 
inevitably study under multiple buddhas during this extremely long period of time. 
Although this may seem like an arcane problem, Kusunoki holds that it is actually 
of great signi8cance, since it is deeply related to J"kei’s criticism of H"nen’s exclusive 
T H E  E A S T E R N  B U D D H I S T  2 ,  1118
nenbutsu teaching. (As noted above, J"kei attacked H"nen’s Pure Land movement and 
had written the K!fukuji s!j! calling for its suppression.) It is well known that H"nen 
rejected the need to rely on any other buddha besides Amida to be saved. Accord-
ing to Kusunoki, it was to counter this monk’s emphasis on exclusive reliance on 
Amida that J"kei adamantly upheld the need to worship many buddhas. As Kusunoki 
notes, the di3erence in opinion between the two monks on this matter highlights 
their con<icting approach to Buddhist practice. H"nen famously held that anyone 
can attain birth in Amida’s Pure Land just by reciting the nenbutsu. Since in H"nen’s 
view, Amida’s Pure Land is a recompense land (h!do 報土) that lies beyond the world 
of transmigration, this means that anyone, even someone who has not engaged in 
any Buddhist practice, can transcend the cycle of transmigration all at once by the 
simple act of reciting the nenbutsu. Such a view is, of course, totally incompatible 
with the Hoss" position that three asaṃkhya kalpas of rigorous practice is required 
to reach buddhahood. From J"kei’s perspective, because H"nen’s teaching downplays 
the importance of practice, it would bring about the demise of the Buddhist Dharma 
in Japan if left unchecked. It was for this reason that J"kei was impelled to oppose 
H"nen’s nenbutsu movement.
!e next chapter takes up J"kei’s interpretation of the Pure Land. Although his 
understanding of the pure lands of =#kyamuni, Maitreya, and Kannon are also ana-
lyzed in this chapter, the main focus is on Amida’s Pure Land. According to the Hoss" 
school, Amida’s Pure Land is a recompense land that can only be perceived by bodhi-
sattvas who have ascended to the ten grounds. In other words, this Pure Land is 
accessible only to extremely advanced bodhisattvas who have undertaken Buddhist 
practices for a long time. !is naturally implies that ordinary beings still mired in 
delusion are incapable of being born in the Pure Land. In Hoss" thought, the only 
kind of buddha land in which such beings can be reborn is a transformed land (kedo 
化土), a less exalted type of buddha land. J"kei, however, felt this was problematic 
since he was convinced that Amida created his Pure Land speci8cally as a place where 
such ordinary, delusion-ridden beings could be reborn and thus saved. If Amida’s land 
was a recompense land, J"kei reasoned, ordinary deluded beings like himself would 
not be able to be born there and this contradicts Amida’s vow to save all beings. J"kei’s 
solution was to argue that Amida’s Pure Land is both a recompense land and a trans-
formed land, since these lands are ultimately one in their substance. 
At the end of this chapter, Kusunoki discusses J"kei’s understanding of how one 
should mentally compose oneself when faced with death. !is was an important 
issue since the right state of mind at the moment of death was believed to deter-
mine where one would be reborn in the next lifetime. Based on the major Hoss" 
treatise Yog%c%rabh#mi, J"kei 8rst argues that one enters the state between rebirths 
(antar%bhava) after one dies due to one’s attachment to oneself (  jitai ai 自体愛); simi-
B O O K  R E V I E W S 119
larly, one is reborn in a new body after one’s period in the state between rebirths is 
over due to attachment to things around oneself (ky!gai ai 境界愛, p. 450). However, 
he further states that by maintaining the correct state of mind at the moment of death, 
one can create wholesome karma and, assisted by the power of the !ree Treasures, be 
reborn in a buddha realm (pp. 454–55).
Finally, in the last section of the volume entitled “‘Yuishikiron’ jinshish! no honkoku 
dokkai kenky$”『唯識論尋思鈔』の翻刻読解研究 (Transcription and Reading of the 
“Yuishikiron” Jinshish!), Kusunoki provides transcriptions, along with running com-
mentaries, of four topics taken from the Jinshish!: (1) “sh!zai issetsuna” related to 
the Hoss" argument that it takes three asaṃkhya kalpas to attain buddhahood; (2) 
“ichibutsu keizoku” 一仏繋属 ([Being in] the Retinue of One Buddha) concerning 
the question of whether one may or may not study under one buddha during the 
three asaṃkhya kalpas it takes to attain buddhahood; (3) “henge ch!ji j!do umu” 変化 
長時浄土有無 (!e Existence or Nonexistence of the Pure Land Transformed for a 
Long Period of Time) concerning the nature of the Pure Land; and (4) “my!j# shin’y!” 
命終心用 (Points to Keep in Mind at Death) on the proper state of mind of a person 
facing death.
In conclusion, it may be said that Kusunoki’s monograph, the 8rst sustained analy-
sis of Hoss" doctrinal debates, is a groundbreaking study that opens up a whole new 
8eld of research in Japanese Buddhism. At several places in the volume, Kusunoki 
announces that a sequel volume, to be entitled J!kei sen “‘Yuishikiron’ jinshish!” no 
kenky#: Ky!ri hen 貞慶撰『唯識論尋思鈔』の研究：教理篇 (Study of the “Yuishikiron” 
Jinshish! Compiled by J"kei: Volume on Doctrine), is being prepared for publication. 
Everyone interested in the development of Japanese Buddhist thought will look for-
ward with anticipation to this volume as well. 
Shinra My!jin and Buddhist Networks of the East Asian “Mediterranean.” By Sujung 
Kim. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2020. xi + 180 pages. Hardcover: ISBN 
978-0-8248-7799-6.
A%%+ A%&())*+
!e study of medieval Japanese religions and Buddhism continues to yield new dis-
coveries. If one were to seek complexity, vast terrains of imagination, and occasional 
(or more likely, continuously present) bursts of frustration, it is a 8eld that never fails 
to disappoint. All of these aspects stem from the fact that medieval Japan’s religiosity 
has survived to our times in forms and representations that can rarely be accessed or 


BOOK REVIEWS Kusunoki Junshō. Jōkei sen “Yuishikiron jinshishō” no kenkyū: Butsudō hen (Study of the “Yuishikiron” Jinshishō Compiled by Jōkei: Volume on the Buddha Way)

井内, 真帆

イウチ, マホ

IUCHI, Maho

An Annotated Japanese Translation of the Medium-Length Version of the Biography of Rin chen bzang po by Khyi thang pa Ye shes dpal (2)

Romaric, Jannel

Jannel, Romaric

ARTICLES Nāgārjuna’s Tetralemma in Yamauchi Tokuryū’s Philosophy

池田, 向一

大悲の浄土　—鈴木大拙の浄土教観—（学位論文審査報告書）

板先, 唯人

イタサキ, タダヒト

ITASAKI, Tadahito

The True Meaning of “Ultimate Attainment” (kasui) in the Twentieth Vow of Amida according to the “True Gate”

光川, 眞翔

Mitsukawa, Makoto

A Reconsideration of the Understanding of Practice and Acceptance: Based on Shinju-in Jungei and Soga Ryōjin

和田, 英信

ワダ, ヒデノブ

WADA, Hidenobu

Shihua (詩話 Essays on Poets and Poems) in China and Japan

上野, 牧生

ウエノ, マキオ

UENO, Makio

A Tentative Translation of the Bu ston chos 'byung(3)

江森, 英世

エモリ, ヒデヨ

EMORI, Hideyo

Jñātatā of Message in Mathematical Communic Mathematical Communicative Competence as the Power to See an Invisible Thing

Murayama, Yasushi

Elizabeth, Kenney

Michael, Conway

Heresy and Freedom of Inquiry in Interpreting the Pure Land: An Introduction to Kaneko Daiei’s “My Shin Buddhist Studies”

Not a member yet