CRITERIO VINCULACIÓN CON EL MEDIO

Though the historical discussion above illuminates one of the functions commentarial literature may have played in the tradition during this particular period of its history, it also leaves a number of questions unanswered. Why did Yūkai write five different commentaries on the text? Or why were commentaries on commentaries written?

In this chapter I suggest that the texts themselves furnish us with insights that may contribute toward answering these questions. Though commentarial texts are generally treated as textual scholarship, there is evidence to suggest that the composition of Shōjigi commentaries coincided with moments of oral knowledge transmissions (kuden 口伝), a form of knowledge transmission that is in Shingon’s esoteric systems valued above textual transmission.

Dangi lectures and the Commentarial Text

That there exists a close connection between Shōjigi’s commentaries and oral

knowledge transmission is apparent from the titles of the texts. Genbō’s commentary is titled Shōji jissō gi kuhitsu 声字実相義口筆, where one could render kuhitsu in English as something along the lines of “verbal notes.” Other examples of such titles are: kuketsu口決 (“oral definition”), kōen 講筵(litt. “lecture seat”), kikisho聞書

(“aural notes”), and so on.There is also a commentary titled Shōji jissō gi mondō 問 “

答 question-and-answer” (SZ 14, 37-48), where the mondō format is more than merely a literary device and, and as we shall see, likely denotes an actual question- answer session on the Shōjigi.

A more detailed inspection of the colophons of the various commentaries is even more revealing.The colophon of Raiyu’s first commentary states at the end that “the manuscript (sō 草) was finished in the “straw roofed hut“ (sōan草庵) at the Denbōin 伝法院 on Mt. Kōya, succeeding the Dharma lectures (denbōe dangi 伝法会 談義) in the third year of Kōan 弘安 (1280).”40 _{(SZ 14, 113) The Denbōin was an}

institution dedicated to such lectures that had been constructed by Kakuban somewhat earlier as part of his effort to reinstate such seminars. Moreover, the same colophon suggests that the commentary was still used for lectures on the Shōjigi after Raiyu’s his death. A priest named Ryōei良英 (dates unknown) copied the text during the

dangi conference of the Shōhōin 正法院 in Ōei 応永 27 (1420). (Ibid.) Though I have

not been able to ascertain whether the topic of the 1420 seminar was Shōjigi or not (he may also have copied it in preparation for the next year), it is at least clear that the occasion of the conference gave Ryōei the chance to do so.

Similar observations can be made for Dōhan’s commentary, where the

colophon states that “it was lectured on at the meditation hall (zenteiden禅定殿) from the twenty-third day of the tenth month [sic] to the fourth day of the tenth month of the first year of Ninji 仁治 (1240).” (SZ 14, 35) And, moreover, that “the seating arrangement (jōza常座) was that the precept master (risshi 律師) Bōjin 房信 was made to write down the teaching (hōmon法門) that was discussed, and so on (un’un

云々).“ (Ibid.) As we shall see below, it is not unlikely that the eventual commentary written by Dōhan was composed on the basis of notes such as those taken by Bōjin.

40 _{Unfortunately it is impossible to determine from the printed edition whether Raiyū himself wrote the}

Toganoo Shōun has treated these dangi seminars in some detail in his historical study of Shingon’s scholastic educational systems, though he is mostly concerned with those events held at Mt. Kōya and Mt. Negoro (Negorozan 根来山). (Toganoo 1982) Under the name of denbōe, such conferences had already been held by two of Kūkai’s direct disciples, Jichie 実恵 (786-847) and Shinzen 真然 (804-891), at the Tōji and on Mt. Kōya respectively. These initiatives came to a halt fairly quickly and it would not be until roughly two centuries later that serious, large-scale conferences came to be held again on Mt. Kōya at the initiative of Kakuban.41 _{As evidenced by Kakuban’s}

request to construct a larger venue, his sessions were immensely successful with crowds numbering hundreds of attendees. After Kakuban’s time, such conferences began to be held continuously in one form or another at different centers of learning. Though the specific names (e.g., dangi, denbōe, denbōdai’e 伝法大会) and formats for such sessions differed depending on time, place, and lineage, Toganoo concludes that a general template can be discerned that became increasingly rigid and

pronounced from the early Kamakura period onward, leading to highly ritualistic forms of lecture and debate towards the end of the period. (Toganoo 1982b, 394)

Dangi conferences typically lasted a set number of days - Kakuban’s, for

instance, seem to have lasted fifty, though durations of twenty days were common as well - and were at times invoked as parallels to the yearly Indian Buddhist retreat for the monsoon.42 _{It was also not uncommon that two sessions were held sessions per}

year, one before summer and one after. The lectures were delivered by highly learned

41 _{Shinpo Ryūshō has compared the denbōe of Jichie, Shinzen, and Kakuban respectively. (Shinpo}

1992) Akatsuka Yudō and Henny van der Veere have discussed Kakuban’s denbōe in some detail. (Akatsuka 2007; Van der Veere 2007)

42 _{Genbō’s commentary, for instance, refers to the seminar on the Shōjigi as a “lecture for the retreated}

assembly” (rōshū dangi籠衆談義). Whether this actually means that a lecture was held for itinerant priests who had retreated to the Tōji for a certain period, as would be suggested by a literal

interpretation of the term “retreat” (komori 籠), cannot be determined from this. The term was also used to refer to a certain rank and status for scholar priests in the Shingon training program. (Toganoo 1982b, 356)

speakers and each conference typically focused on a certain text, be it sutra scripture, commentaries thereon, other treatises important for Shingon doctrine (e.g.,

Shakumakaenron釈摩訶衍論 (T1668 32)), or works by Kūkai. Each lecture session

was usually preceded by the necessary ceremonials, such as the chanting of the

sonshōdarani 尊勝陀羅尼 and related ritual proceedings, after which the headmaster

(gakutō) of the institute, or another scholar who had been invited to deliver the

lecture, presented a “reading” of the handout materials (haibun配文). He would comment on the proper readings of characters, the meaning of specific terms, and interpret passages from the text.

Mondō: explication through debate

Questions raised during the lectures were to be resolved by means of mondō “question-and-answer” sessions, where it became common practice to divide the assembly in a “question” group and an “answer” group. The division of the audience into groups was determined beforehand and the two groups would be seated

separately during the sessions. Debate thus focused on the text under discussion. Though initially freer in format and likely intended as a form of debate where students could demonstrate their skill at debate, the mondō-sessions later became more formalized developed standard debate progressions based on more elaborate divisions of roles in the debate.

The Shōjigi Mondō commentary provides some valuable glances and the

proceedings of such a session on Mt. Kōya. The text says that the session was held in the first year of Jōō 貞応 (1222). The participants listed are: Kakukai, Shinkan 信寛, Shōhen證遍, Genchō源朝, Hosshō法性, Shōso尚祚, and Dōhan who is already familiar. (SZ 14, 48) The Mondō reports:

“Subsequently, the following question was asked. With regards to [the section of the Shōjigi that reads] ‘The exposition of the Dharma by the nyorai如来

(Sk. tathāgata) necessarily depends on monji 文字,’ and so on. What is the extent (bunzai分齊) of ‘the exposition of the Dharma by the nyorai’?

The nyūji 入寺43_{Hosshō replied that with regards to the exposition of the}

Dharma that spreads throughout the world of passions (shaba sekai娑婆世界) Dainichi and Shakyamuni [and all other Buddha’s] can have no limitations.

The nyūji Dōhan criticized this by saying that Hōō’s 法応 [sic] statement that

the various Buddha’s cannot be limited [in their preaching] is too wide in scope (kōryō荒涼). It is explained somewhere that ‘on the side of samādhi

(jōhen定辺) there is no verbal expression (gonsetsu 言説), but on the side of

wisdom (ehen恵辺) there is verbal expression.’44 _{What about it if this is to}

mean that it is not possible for the hosshin of subsumed principle(ri hosshin

理法身) to expound the Dharma?

43 _{A rank for scholar priests in the service that were more advanced than regular students, but not yet at}

the level of a master (ajari 阿闍梨). (MDJ, 1708)

44 _{This is a passage taken from the Hizōki秘蔵記, a text that was originally attributed to Kūkai, but is}

now considered apocryphal. See: Ōsawa 2013. The whole passage from which this quote was taken reads: “The hosshin has two sides (hen 辺), that of samādhi (jō定) and that of wisdom (e 恵). If we liken this to water, its being crystalline clear and tranquil is samādhi and its reflecting of all forms and marks (shokusō色相) is wisdom. What the esoteric teachings explain is that there is no linguistic expression on the side of samādhi, but that there is linguistic expression on the side of wisdom. The water is crystalline clear and tranquil, and it reflects the forms and marks. Nevertheless, the winds of the vows and practices (gangyō願行) cause waves to appear and these waves make sounds. These are the sounds of seppō.”(KZ 2, 22)

Consequently, the following question was raised: ‘[But] are the hosshin of subsumed principle and the jōhen [from the quote] the same thing, or different things?’

In short, all those present agreed that these are the same. A correct

interpretation (shōgi勝義) was not yet accepted nor rejected (seibai成敗). [...]

The next day, following that Shōhen, Hosshō, Dōhan, and so on, come in, refined debate (seidan清談) was held again on the teachings (hōmon法門) of the previous day.”

(SZ 14, 46)

Leaving the doctrinal intricacies of this debate aside for now, some observations can be made with regards to how such ceremonies were conducted. Questions were raised, though it is not clear from the text whether this is by the audience, the master, or an appointed interrogator, and different scholars stepped forward and attempted to answer the questions. Their rank as nyūji suggests that the debaters were of advanced scholarly rank. When a difficult issue was raised, those present were asked to share their opinion as well, seeing as “all those present agreed”. Sessions could, moreover, last multiple days and unresolved issues were carried over to the next sitting. As becomes apparent by further reading of this commentarial passage, the debate has a certain flow and progresses by new questions being posed in response to answers given to other questions.

In Raiyu’s format, to take a contrasting example of one of the later developed rigid debate progressions, there seems to be little room for such an organic

progression of the discussion. As part of his effort to systematize the dangi and their mondō sessions before and after his move to Mt. Negoro in 1288, he developed a

mondō in three stages: the first stage comprised a brief question and a brief answer,

during the second stage the questioner would evaluate and negate, based on scriptural evidence, two possible positions. The answerer would then reply to this with his own interpretation by building on the opponent’s evidence and providing new evidence of his own. The third stage would comprise another attack from the side of the

interrogator. (Toganoo 1982b, 119-20) This is but one example of a practice that was developed in various learning centers of the tradition that had their own systems and approaches to the matter, but I think it gives a good sense of how such debates were carried out.

Because of the restriction posed by this format, Raiyu took some of the other elements out of the dangi sessions and dedicated separate moments. In order to let other prominent scholars share alternative views on the matters under discussion he developed dedicated sessions called rongi論議. He also extracted the examination element from the dangi and made it a separate occasion, ryōgi 竪義. (Toganoo 1982b, 121)

Mondō debate thus focused on a number of concerns. Establishing the correct

meaning of statements in the text, the meanings of certain words, exploring its ideas from different perspectives by moving somewhat away from the original statements and bringing in sections from other texts. That this is down with so much attention and dedication to detail may have been, as Toganoo suggests as well, to handhold new students present at the sessions. (Toganoo 1982b, 110-11) The lecture sessions and

accompanying the debates thus served didactic purposes for students at different levels. For those of the higher levels by letting them demonstrate their skill and knowledge during debate, while for those of less advanced level by providing them with the traditional interpretations of certain terms and a demonstration of how to construct those interpretations as an argument.

Writing Commentaries

So how exactly where these commentaries used and composed during the

dangi sessions? As suggested by its colophon, the Mondō-commentary just discussed

later became a template for future sessions. When Yūjitsu copied the text from the first manuscript he consulted, he wrote down that he copied it “because it was set as the textbook (haibun配文) for the seminar (gakudō学道) of this institution (tōin当

院) [i.e., the kangakuin勧学院in the southern valley of Mt. Kōya] next year.” (SZ 14, 44) This would seem to suggest that commentarial texts such as this Mondō can be linked to in dangi sessions in two ways: On the one hand as a record the proceedings and the interpretations established, and on the other to serve as textbook for future sessions.

A note in one of Raiyu’s commentaries supports this and gives more precise indications on how his composition of commentaries was closely intertwined with his teachings of denbōe sessions. He writes that the end of his second commentary: “The writing [of this text] was finished succeeding the lecture (dangi) of the denbōe

[conference] at [...] the Denbōin on Mt. Kōya at the beginning of the fifth month of the third year of Kōan 弘安 (1280). The questions by the assembly (daie大会) at that time were included therein. After the assembly had attended the debate session (rongi

What is suggested here, then, is that Raiyu first delivered a lecture on the

Shōjigi during which the audience raised questions. A number of these questions - or

all of them - would be taken up and discussed further in the mondō session that was part of the dangi, and thus written down in the commentary. After that, a debate session or rongi was held during which alternative interpretations and additional question were discussed. Raiyu then added these to the commentary. This conforms to Raiyu’s format for the denbōe as Toganoo discusses it, which emphasizes that Raiyu strictly distinguished the dangi and the rongi. (Toganoo 1982b, 122) The “results” of these separate events, however, were compiled into one resulting text: the

commentary. Significantly, the colophon suggests that this text too was copied for use as a haibun during dangi sometime later in 1488. (ZSZ 17, 369)

An additional salient detail is that both of the commentaries by Raiyu that are under investigation here are dated to the beginning of the fifth month of 1280. This suggests that they were likely written in connection with the same denbōe session on

Shōjigi. Their styles, however, differ somewhat. One of the two has a more

“narrative” style if you will, that explains the text and at times brings up questions, while the second commentary is more problem driven and predominantly takes these up in the form of mondō. It lists passages from the Shōjigi and then point by point matters (koto 事) for discussion that are all developed in the mondō fashion. In light of the text’s just discussed colophon that mentioned questions posed by the audience, as well as those that came up during the rongi I would suggest it is supposed to be an overview of the debate point of that seminar on Shōjigi. This is somewhat at odds with what Fabio Rambelli has suggested elsewhere.

In a brief article on Raiyu, Fabio Rambelli mentions in passing that Raiyu’s works with gusō愚草 (litt. “foolish notes”) were drafts on the basis of which Raiyu

delivered his lectured and which he would later rewrite into the final commentaries. (Rambelli 2002, 1231) This observation would not hold in the present case because the gusō very well did go through the whole process of revision. But it is likely that Rambelli is right in suggesting that Raiyu as well as other commentators did indeed lecture on the basis of draft commentarial texts to which they might later add points that came up during the lectures to produce the definitive version of the text. To return to Raiyu’s two commentaries of the same date, we can observe that though there is some overlap in their contents, both mention things that the other does not as well; they are two distinct texts likely composed for two different purposes.

Let us take a closer look at one more commentary, that of Genbō. Whereas Raiyu’s commentaries suggest that he himself wrote them in light of lectures he delivered, Genbō wrote his commentary on the basis of lectures delivered by his master Gōhō, for which he even recorded the dates of the sessions and noted the names of those present/absent for a certain session.45 _{It is, as already mentioned, a}

kuhitsu, or collection of verbal notes. It is also easily glanced from remarks in the text

that Genbō wrote the commentary during the lectures of his master Gōhō. He wrote these notes, as suggested by remarks in the text, rather hurriedly during the sessions themselves and read completed them in his room afterwards. His master Gōhō would then annotate this kuhitsu in order to create the final commentary. (SZ 14, 115, 127)

If the process indeed proceeded as is suggested here, this has interesting implications for certain occurrences in the commentary. Both the scholarship of Genbō and of Gōhō are characterized by moments of personal interpretation signified by expressions such as “shiki私記”or “watakushi iwaku 私云.” This presents the

45 _{At the beginning of the commentary Genbō writes that it is the first dangi for an ordinand called}

reader of the commentary with a conundrum: does the “I” in the commentary refer to

Genbō the author, or to Gōhō the teacher?

The commentaries under discussion here provide concrete evidence that they were written and later reproduced during and for the aforementioned Dharma

seminars (denbō dangi 伝法談義) that were held periodically. The express goal of these seminars was to train the scholastic clergy by means of lecture and debate, where advanced students demonstrated their skill in debate (a form of examination), while those of lower level in the audience learned by listening.46 _{Composed in such an}

environment, commentaries seem to serve a primarily didactic purpose that aims to instill in students an understanding of the original text, but also attempts to answer their questions. Lecturers incorporated the questions discussed the seminars into the definitive editions of their commentaries, improving their educational value even