The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies (152> Jburnal ofincfian andBucidhist &udies Vbl. 56, No.3, March 2008 The interpretation of Shi-mo-he-yan-lun (iS<ptE-ajMwh) of Saisen(}fime) seen mainly with Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kyo- ron-ken-klyo-sho(#}eeas=utthmastte) ToyosHiMA YUgo Introduction SZii-mo-he:yan-lun is one of the annotated books ofDa-cheng-qi-xin-lun (]JEckretsth), and describes the work ofNEgdnuna. It is a forgery, and thought to be approved by China or the Silla Kingdom in the first half of the eigtith century. Da-cheng-qi=xin-inn-:yiVi (LA: ftreffwheefl) written by Fa-chang (643-712, i15wt) and Da-cheng-qi-xin-lun:yi-shu (;A;inyg meEmb#en) written by Mian-shao (617-686, nee) are famous as the annotated books of Da-cheng-qi-xin-lun. Slzi-mo-he:yan-lun is also seen as an influence on Da-cheng-qi-xin- lun:yidi and is considered to be an annetated baok of the Kcgon study. Hewcver, S;ipi-mo- he:yan-lun sets up a new stmcture of 33 types of dharma and gates (fa-men, ttiPH) and the bu-er-mo-hen-yan (theabsolute teaching ofbuddha, JI<::1tesufi'f), fbr example. These are the original interpretations not seen in Da-cheng-gi-xin-lun. In Japan, Kukai (774-835, Zma) valued this work and it came to occupy an important position in the Shingon study. Saisen (nvma, 1025-1l15, who was the monk ofNinnasii (itfiIlr) temple at the end of the Heian era) also treated Shi-mo-he:yan-lun as an antheritic work written by Nagaziuna. He wrote the annotated books on the Shaku-ma-ka-en-ron-ketsu-gi-ha-nan-e-shaktt-sho (wtpa:ofM rv.VtfisteeEkwtW) and Shaku-ron-ryu-gi-bun-shaku (wtge.:iZmet"'M). I wrote the thesis i) cencerning Shaku-ron-ryu:gi-bun-shaku in 2005 . However, there is a lot ofother Saisen's writing. The whele image of the interpretation ofSaisen's Shi-mo-he:yan-tun is not clear. Moreover, at the end of the Heian era, the systematization ofthe [[bndai study had been almost completed by Annen (841-?, ftrt) ; however, the systematization was late in the Shingon study. And the system ofthe Shingon study was attempted while receiving Aimen's influence. Saisen was the pioneer and the trial and errer process is witnessed in his inter- pretation. In this thesis, I verify Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-dy,o-ron-hen-kyo-sho, and the contradic- tions between this and other writings is clarified. This comparison will clarify his pioneer's -1188- NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies The interpretation ofShi-mo-heoian-lun {wtSS'njtvith) ofSaisen (IIfme) (153) seen mainly with Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-lyo-ron-ken-dyo-sho (sescg= xthmastw) (Y. TbyosmMA) character. 1. The quotation ofShi-mo-he-yan-lun in Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kyo-ron: ln Ben-kon-mityu-ni-dyo-ron, Kukai tried to clairify that the difference between esoteric Buddhism (erX) and other fbrms ofBuddhisms <vatz) are rematkable, but esoteric Bud- dhism is supreme. For Confirmation, he discusses rnany esoteric Budchism sutras, among other things. Shi-mo-he-yan-lun is one ef the evidences. The quotation part of Shi-mo-he- sections. section consisting offive ofwords yan-lun dividesintotwo This types (Eilnttt'"-ge.), two types ofnames (=ptiSli!#), and ten states ofminds (-I"ptJrkNa) is taken up in the latter hal£ I would like to witness the interpretation of the all-one mind (e-,") and the one-- one mind (di"J") in ten states of minds. The ten states ofminds given by Shi-mo-he:yan- lun involve the five sensory otgans (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and five minds (consideration, manas, alaya-vljhdna, the all-one mind, the one-one mind) . Since the eight states ofminds are the same as the eight recognition theories among these, the details are omitted. However, the ninth mind and tbe tenth mind include the original theory ofShi-mo-he-),an-lun, as the fot- lowing explains. The all-one mind is called yi-qietl-i-yi yi-xin (the one mind has the feature that all minds are nv'enHP"ntJLh) one mind, and the one-olle mind is called yiji-yi yi-xin (the one mindhas the ---ARP--',ts) feature that an individnal mind is one mind, . These explanations' are raised in the interpretation seetion of the second volume for the analysis of the two types of dharma. These are the san-zi-Mah5ydna (Mahay5na thatdividesinto thfeeparts, =' nzaRiffi'i) and the -IZtteE'njrvf) yi-ti-Mahaytina (MahEyana that was integratcd into one, . In Shi-mo-he-yan-lun, the one mind is divided into two stages and, in addition, it divides from the viewpoint of the change gate (!ktwFS) and the truth gate (scaPFe) into two. These two MahaySna cor- respond to the change gate and the tmth gate ofthe second stage. Therefore, the alias ofthe san-zi-Mahayana corresponding to the change gate is the all-one mind, and the alias of the yi-ti-Mahayzana corresponding to the truth gate is the onc-one mind. Though the truth is assumed to be verbalized and net to be perceivable in Buddhisrri originally, it is assumed that it is expressed and perceival)le in S;I)i-mo-he-yan-inn. The five types ofwords, two types of flames, and ten states ofminds explain this. In this interpreta- tion the one-one mind expresses the truth, whereas the all-one mind cannot. Conversely, Ski-mo-he:yan-lun explains the bu-epmo-hen-yan is the absolute buddha's -1189- NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies (154> The interpretation ofShi-nee-he,yan-lun (wtwaalfi'ik) ofSaisen (Mme) seen mainly wirh Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kye-ron-ken-kyo-sho (eswaas LltsthmsenW> (Y.ToyosHiMA) teaching which is irrelevant to indrya (esK). It is aconcern whether the truth is the same as the bu-er-rno-hen-yan. This problem cannot be answered clearly from the text, and the interpretation is also a point of contention between researchers. In the structure of the 33 types of dharTna, these become the mind of the second stage. From the opinion of whether this relates to the truth, these two minds might relate to the bu-er-mo-hen-yan, if it is thought that the bu-er-mo-hen-yan is the same as the truth. In short, these two minds divide into the two types of classifications; the type seen from the tmth and the type seen from the structure of33 types of dharma. Kukai thought the bu-er-rno-hen-yan to be related to the tmth and interpreted esoteric 'was Buddhism as the bu-er-mo-hen-yan. He thought that it interpreted to correspond to the absolute bu-er-mo-hen-yan, esoteric Buddnism, and related the onc-one mind to this. Ku- kai considered that there is a gate to the absolute bu-er-mo-hen-yan and that the gate is the one-one mind. This interpretation was disregarded in the stmcture of 33 types of dliarma, and it influenced the following Shingon study. Naturally, Saisen also has succeeded Iimkai's interpretation. However, it comes to face the interpretation of the mind of the second stage that Kukai disregarded when Saisen annotatcs Shi-mo-hetyan-lun. Both ofthese two inter- pretations are used when his understanding of Shi-mo-he:yan-lun is observed, and a con- tradiction is created. I would like to clarify this point. 2. The Interpretation of the a}l-one mind and the one-olle mind in Ben-ken- mitsu-ni-kyo-ron-ken-klyo-sho: `L21-ige,t)Ngre=- - In Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kyo-ron-ken-kyo-sho there is one sentence, e mind ,t}`7ts iikdiJEIHUJ[titlEblFHZEilf'il(pafipa.･Naasl{whre･t!l"2)The all-one isdescribed J,as here as the san-zi-yi-in Mahayiina (Mahltyfina that divides into three parts on one mind, =- e zaF/njM) . The san-zi-yi-in MahAyaha is located in the mind ofthe first stage. Thercfore, it is understood that it is sincerely located in the highest rank, and the irrtempretation is different from Shi-mo- hetl?an-lun. "="waJl>ieiLreRPfiIJf:="bktwbeUi-tlL"3). Saisendescribestheone-one mind, The one- one mind is related to the the bu-er-mo-hen-yan. This interpretation is the same as Kukai's. Saisen located the all-one mind to the san-zi-yi-in MahfiyEna and the one-one mind to the bu-er-mo-hen-yan. The interpretation of Kukai's Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kyo-ron is thought to be a reason. In Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-kyo-ron, Kukai located the Kegon study below esoteric -1190- NII-Electronic Library Service The JapaneseAssociationJapanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies ofSaisen lheiiiterpretationofShi-mo-he:yan-lun (iSCEg}:'offi'iwh)(esre) (l55) =twwhmaeew) ToyosHIMA) seen rnainly with Ben-ken-mitsu-ni-dyo-ron-ken-lyo-sho ("lscM (Y. Buddhism, and considered the Kegon study to be the san-zi-yi-in MahayEna.. Therefbre, the al1-one mind corresponds to the san-zi-yi-in Mahayana beeause the one-one mind cor- responds to the bu-eFmo-hen-yan. Next, I will explain the interpretation of these two states ofminds of1lyu-gi-bun-shaku writing ofSaisen) and compare different (the , to their points. 3. The interpretation of the all-one mind and the one-one mind in Kyu-giLbun-shaku: "{it ---,"･--L---j `) It is explained ee Jl atSEiYf L!!g }ii J;L tht = FS ms }iri/ilBc-,Ct- ik gy, {?P C:･k {ll" "gg=atMtse'Jas"-`Jaslll= and 21i"5) by 1lyu-gi-bun-shaim.