The Chinshō Yasha-hō 鎮將夜叉法 and the Adaptation of Tendai Esoteric Ritual

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the ritual of a peculiar scripture entitled Chinshō yasha-hō 鎮將夜叉法 (Ch. Zhenjiang yecha fa. “Tantric Ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa”). The Japanese deity Chinshō Yakṣa is a Tendai variation of Vaiśravaṇa (Ch. Pishamen/Jp. Bishamon 毘沙門), a heavenly king who vowed to protect Buddhism. The ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa is a major ritual in Tendai Esotericism. It has been traditionally accepted that this scripture was transmitted from China. Modern scholarship, however, suspects that this ritual is Saichō’s 最澄 (767–822) invention. This study examines the contents and characters involved in this ritual manual by comparing other ritual manuals of Vaiśravaṇa. In analysing its liturgical aspect, as well as its textual relationship with other ritual manuals, this paper illustrates how the Chinshō yasha-hō deviates from the other ritual manuals and evaluates the possible sources or origins regarding the formation of this ritual. Similar mudrās and mantras that appear in both the Chinshō yasha-hō and other texts were identified, implying that the Chinshō yasha-hō might have drawn from multiple sources. Moreover, judging from its similarity with Chinese Tiantai ritual manuals and other texts that were forged in the Tang dynasty, it is possible that Tang China and Japan saw a period of active ritual invention.

1. Introduction

This study aims to explore the ritual of a singular Japanese scripture entitled Chinshō yasha-hō 鎮將夜叉法 (Ch. Zhenjiang yecha fa, “Tantric Ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa”). The Japanese deity Chinshō Yakṣa is a Tendai designation for Vaiśravaṇa (Jp. Bishamonten 毘沙門天). Vaiśravaṇa was regarded as a protector of the north in a group of four heavenly kings guarding the four directions. Vaiśravaṇa is a vigorous demon subduer and leads his retinue of heavenly warriors. His image, as a martial figure, is easy to recognise—holding a pagoda in one hand and a jewelled spear in the other hand.

In East Asia, Vaiśravaṇa is closely associated with state-protecting sutras. The target audience of state-protecting sutras, such as the Golden Light Sūtra (T. 663; T. 665) and the Humane King Sūtra (T. 245; T. 246), is the rulership. The Humane King Sūtra, applicable to the governance of a Buddhist state, can be used in state rituals. A chapter of the Golden Light Sūtra is devoted to the worship of the four heavenly kings (Ch. Sitianwang, Jp. Shitennō 四天王), who promise to protect the kings together with their families and countries.1 Pishamon/Bishamon figures prominently in another sutra, the Heavenly King Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra (T. 1244), which was possibly forged in Tang China after domestic battles, where this scripture was used to chase away the enemies. The belief that Pishamon is efficacious in defeating an army is partly due to the legendary Siege of Anxi 安西 in the Tang dynasty. (Goble 2013) According to the legend, Amoghavajra (705–774) performed the ritual of Pishamon and miraculously won the victory. There is ample reason to regard this legend as a later construction, as will be discussed in a later section of this paper. Nevertheless, this story seems extremely important in the rise of the Vaiśravaṇa cult in China and Japan. The cult of Pishamon was brought to Japan by Saichō (767–822) and Kūkai (774–835), and it further developed in Japan.

Despite such a martial aspect, however, the dominant representation of Bishamonten in Japan is still a god of wealth. (Hashimoto 2008, p. 69) Bishamonten as a god of wealth corresponds to Buddhist scriptures such as the Golden Light Sutra. He is also one of the Japanese Seven Gods of Fortune (Jp. Shichifukujin 七福神).

As protector of the state, Chinshō Yakṣa, this particular variation of Bishamon in the Japanese Tendai school, appeared as a dual-bodied form, known as Sōshin Bishamon 雙身毘沙門.2 The image of Sōshin Bishamon consists of two affixed figures standing on a pedestal; it is said to represent the union of Bishamon (Vaiśravaṇa) and Kichijōten 吉祥天 (Śrī). (Iyanaga 2002, pp. 537–39; Faure 2016, p. 40) Furthermore, the Chinshō Yakṣa gave rise to various connotations. For instance, the deity has been incorporated into a certain system of astrology called Kyūsei-jutsu 九星術 in Japan.

The ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa is called the Chinshō yasha-hō ritual. This ritual soon became one of the four major Tendai Esoteric (Taimistsu 台密) rituals in medieval Japan, partly because of its practical effect of state protection. The four major Tendai Esoteric rituals include: Shijōkō-hō 熾盛光法, Fugen-enmei-hō 普賢延命法, Shichibutsu yakushi-hō 七佛藥師法, and Chinshō yasha-hō. According to the Tendai historical work Kōchō tendai shiryaku皇朝天台史略, this scripture was transmitted from the Chinese monk Shunxiao 順曉 (fl. 805) to Saichō 最澄 (767–822) during the latter’s visit to southern China.3 Major Buddhist dictionaries, such as the Mochizuki Buddhist Dictionary, state that the Chinshō yasha-hō text was conventionally regarded as being derived from Amoghavajra’s translation of the Beifang pishamen suijun hufa yigui 北方毘沙門隨軍護法儀軌 (T. 1247).4 Nevertheless, according to Misaki Ryōshū’s authoritative study of the socio-historical context of the Chinshō yasha-hō, it is very likely that this ritual was, in fact, an invention by Saichō. (Misaki 1980) Misaki convincingly suggests that Bishamonten was favorable to the Tendai school because Mount Hiei is located in the north of Kyoto and the Bishamonten is a god of the north.

Misaki’s study remains the most complete research on the historical provenance of Chinshō yasha-hō in Japan, and Faure’s study on the Japanese pantheon has provided several valuable visual images of Chinshō Yakṣa; the studies on this topic are otherwise scarce. Overall, compared to ample research on Bishamonten, the tiny amount of research on Chinshō Yakṣa is out of proportion. Built on previous scholarship, however, I add the aspect of Tendai ritualism to the field. The current study looks from a different perspective by analysing the liturgical aspects of this ritual manual, as well as its textual relationship with other ritual manuals. In the following sections, I will compare the ritual manual of Chinshō yasha-hō with other ritual manuals of Vaiśravaṇa. In this way, this paper will serve to illustrate how the Chinshō yasha-hō deviates from the other ritual manuals and to evaluate the possible sources or origins regarding the formation of this ritual.

2. The Japanese Catalogues and the Texts of the Vaiśravaṇa Rituals

First of all, let us take a look at the catalogues of Chinese scriptures composed by Japanese monks. Among all the catalogues of the eight monk travellers who visited China, the scriptures concerning the rituals of Vaiśravaṇa that they brought from China are: (Hashimoto 2008, p. 69)

• Saichō (767–822): Duomentian fa 多門天法, Qingmian beifang tuoluoni fa 青面北方陀羅尼經法.
• Kūkai (774–835): Pishamen tianwang jing 毘沙門天王經 (T. 1244), Mohefeishiluo monayeti poheluoshe tuoluoni yigui 摩訶吠室羅末那野提婆喝羅闍陀羅尼儀軌 (T. 1246).
• Jōgyō 常曉 (d.867): Beifang Pishamen tianwang niansong yaojing 北方毘沙門天王念誦要經.
• Engyō 円行 (799–852): Beifang Pishamentian suijun hufa zhenyan 北方毘沙門天隨軍護法真言 (T. 1248).
• Ennin 円仁 (794–864): Pishamen tianwang jing 毘沙門天王經 (T. 1244), Beifang Pishamen tianwang zhenyanfa 北方毘沙門天王真言法.
• Eiyun 惠運 (798–869): Beifang Pishamen tianwang ganlu taizi jing 北方毘沙門天王甘露太子經, Foshuo beifang Pishamen tianwang ganlu taizi nazha jufaluo mimi zangwang ruyi jiushe zhongsheng genben tuoluoni 佛說北方毘舍門天王甘露太子那吒俱伐羅秘密藏王如意救攝眾生根本陀羅尼.
• Enchin 円珍 (814–891): Pishamen tianwang jing 毘沙門天王經 (T. 1244).
• Shūei 宗叡 (809–884): Pishamen tianwang jing 毘沙門天王經 (T. 1244), Pishamen yigui 毘沙門儀軌 (T. 1249), Beifang Pishamen duowen baozang tianwang shenmiao tuoluoni biexing yigui 北方毘沙門多聞寶藏天王神妙陀羅尼別行儀軌 (T. 1250), Pishamen baozang tianwang shenmiao zhangju tuoluoni 毘沙門寶藏天王神妙章句陀羅尼, Nilanpo zhenzi 尼藍婆禎子, Pishamen zhenzi毘沙門禎子, Pishamen zangwang tuoluonifa 毘沙門藏王陀羅尼法, Nazha jubuo tuoluoni jing 那吒俱鉢陀羅尼經.

An examination of this list gives rise to four questions regarding the origin of Saichō’s ritual manual. First, among the scriptures listed, none refer to Chinshō yasha. Furthermore, the two texts that Saichō brought home, namely, the Duomentian fa and Qingmian beifang tuoluoni fa, cannot be found in the extant Buddhist canon. While it is possible that these titles may have appeared under different names, it is difficult to identify these texts and to testify that Saichō’s ritual manual was based upon these texts that he brought home.

Second, the standard categorisation of Bishamon texts does not normally include any Chinshō yasha texts. For example, Hashimoto Akihiko’s comprehensive study on the Bishamon cult has no mention of any Chinshō yasha texts. (Hashimoto 2008, pp. 61–64).

Third, it is worth remembering that, as mentioned earlier, the Chinshō yasha-hō text is traditionally regarded as being originated or derived from another ritual manual: T. 1247. And yet, T. 1247 is not seen here in any of the eight catalogues.

Fourth, many scriptures in the list above have been lost, and the relevant ones that are extant in the Buddhist canon, including one scripture (T. 1248) that Engyō brought back and two scriptures (T. 1249 and T. 1250) that Shūei brought back. It should be noted, however, that there is a considerable time gap of several decades between Saichō and Engyō’s visits to China. There is no clue suggesting whether Saichō had any knowledge of or access to the same scripture as Engyō. In other words, was Saichō aware of these texts that Engyō and Shūei saw? If Saichō had seen these texts, why did he not bring them or mention them? From the limited evidence available, it seems very unlikely that Saichō could have seen the same texts that Engyō and Shūei brought home. And yet, if Saichō did not have access to Engyō and Shūei’s texts, where did Saichō’s ritual manual come from?

Furthermore, for the Esoteric scriptures in Japan in particular, it is helpful to inquire into Annen’s 安然 (841–901) catalogue and examine how he ordered texts. (Misaki 1968, pp. 98–105) In Annen’s comprehensive catalogue, Shoajari Shingon mikkyō burui sōroku諸阿闍梨眞言密教部類總録 (A Catalogue of the Shingon Esoteric Buddhist Canons brought into Japan by Several Masters, T. 2176), there is a number of texts related to Vaiśravaṇa placed under the category of Angry Deities (Jp. Funnubu 忿怒部). In the section on Vaiśravaṇa, he listed eleven relevant scripture titles; since Annen gathered the scripture titles from the catalogues produced by eight monks who visited China, it provides the same information as the listing above.

On the other hand, because of the dubious origin of Chinshō Yakṣa from the outset, one may suspect that its iconographic features have been borrowed from another demonic figure, the Great General of Deep Sands (Jp. Jinja Daishō 深砂大將), who is also linked with the Grand General Ātavaka (Jp. Taigensui 太元帥) iconographically.5 Ātavaka is generally known as one of the sixteen yakṣa kings and one of the eight martial officers affiliated to Vaiśravaṇa, being either Vaiśravaṇa’s brother or Vaiśravaṇa’s retinue. (Iyanaga 2002, pp. 159–61; Rambelli 2002; Faure 2016, p. 29) The connection of these deities in the liturgical aspect will be discussed in a later part of this paper.

In Annen’s catalogue, under the category of Angry Deities, in addition to the section on Vaiśravaṇa, there is also a section on Ātavaka. The display of Annen’s arrangement of texts, however, weakens the connection between Vaiśravaṇa and Ātavaka, judging from the distance of their sections. Under the category of Angry Deities, Vaiśravaṇa is in the second section, while Ātavaka is in the eleventh section.6 Unfortunately, there is no individual section on the Great General of Deep Sands.

As the catalogues do not provide sufficient information on the textual relationship between Saichō’s ritual manual and other possible sources that he could have drawn on, in the current paper, I will track down related texts and analyse their liturgy. Below is a list of texts relevant to the ritual of Vaiśravaṇa, which is divided into three categories. The first category includes those texts which mention Vaiśravaṇa’s mantra but do not focus on his ritual in particular. Texts in the second category are characterised by containing particular instructions on the rituals of Vaiśravaṇa as a major focus. The third category includes texts on the ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa that started in Japan from Saichō, specifically.

• Category I:

• Spirit Spells Spoken by the Seven Buddhas and Eight Bodhisattvas (Qifo bapusa suoshuo datuoluoni Shenzhou jing 七佛八菩薩所說大陀羅尼神呪經, T. 1332), anonymous translator in Eastern Jin.7
• Dhāraṇī Collection Scripture (Tuoluoniji jing陀羅尼集經, T. 901), translated by Atikūta (Ch. Adiquduo 阿地瞿多, fl.652).
• The Rituals of the Vaiśravaṇa Mantra, (Ch. Hongjiatuoye yigui/Jp.Ungadaya-giki吽迦陀野儀軌, T. 1251), translated by Vajrabodhi (Ch. Jin’gangzhi金剛智, 671–741).8
• Sovereign Kings of the Golden Light Sūtra (Jinguangming zuishengwang jing 金光明最勝王經, T. 665), translated by Yijing 義淨 (635–713).
• Heavenly King Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra (Pishamen tianwang jing 毘沙門天王經, T. 1244), translated by Amoghavajra (Ch. Bukong不空, 705–774).9

• Category II:

• Vaiśravaṇa of the North Defends the Dharma with his Army Liturgy (Beifang pishamen suijun hufa yigui 北方毘沙門隨軍護法儀軌, T. 1247), translated by Amoghavajra.10
• Vaiśravaṇa of the North Defends the Dharma with his Army Mantra (Beifang pishamen suijun hufa zhenyan 北方毘沙門隨軍護法真言, T. 1248), translated by Amoghavajra.11
• The Liturgy of Vaiśravaṇa (Pishamen yigui 毘沙門儀軌, T. 1249), translated by Amoghavajra.12
• Vaiśravaṇa of the North Wonderful Dhāraṇī and Separate Liturgy (Beifang pishamen duowen baozang tianwang shenmiao tuoluoni biexing yigui 北方毘沙門多聞寶藏天王神妙陀羅尼別行儀軌, T. 1250), translated by Amoghavajra.13

• Category III:

• The Chinshō yasha-shidai 鎮將夜叉次第.
• The Chinshō yasha-mihō 鎮將夜叉秘法 and the Chinshō yasha-nenjuhō 鎮將夜叉秘密念誦法 (Mostly identical).

3. Liturgy and Narratives in the Texts

3.1. Category I

Parts of the texts in the first category were remodelled and taken by the Chinshō yasha-hō texts, including the depiction of Vaiśravaṇa (T. 901; T. 1332; T. 665) or adaptation of similar liturgies (T. 901; T. 1251; T.665; T. 1244). In most of these texts, the mention of Vaiśravaṇa has a common feature that Vaiśravaṇa is regarded as a yakṣa (Ch. yecha/Jp. yasha 夜叉), a demonic protector of Buddhism. In the Spirit Spells Spoken by the Seven Buddhas and Eight Bodhisattvas, when Vaiśravaṇa appears, he enunciated a verse, which describes his incentive to protect the Dharma:

I practiced the bodhi [path] and became a demon king for the benefits of all sentient beings.

Sentient beings long resided in ignorance, and I opened their eyes with my golden blade.

Once their eyes of wisdom are opened, they transcend life and death; since they have transcended life and death, they will ascend to nirvana.14

Here the Heavenly King Vaiśravaṇa has clearly stated that he is a demon king, with enormous compassion. The first paragraph in this scripture explains the effect of reciting this spirit spell (dhāraṇī):

This dhāraṇī can defeat all kinds of disasters, including natural disasters caused by disrupted sun and moon, unseasonable wind and rain, or famine. It can also chase away intruders to the country, subjugate rebellious ministers, and so on.15

The appeal of state protection is strongly emphasised in this scripture. It corresponds to the character of Vaiśravaṇa and the later development of the Pishamen/Bishamon cult in China and Japan. Similarly, the Heavenly King Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra (T. 1244) was regarded as an important scripture for state protection during the Tang dynasty. The efficacy of the military power of Vaiśravaṇa was reinforced by Amoghavajra’s invocation of Vaiśravaṇa during the An Lushan 安祿山 Rebellion (855 C.E.). Hence, regarding the function of this scripture, a great emphasis has been put on the benefits of state protection. 16 The liturgy in this text runs as Figure 1 (The outline of T. 1244).

The most distinctive feature of this liturgy is the consistent pairing of Vaiśravaṇa and Śrī. The paintings include this pair, as well as the mantras and mudrās. It is also noticeable that there is an offering of money in this liturgy, which does not occur in any other ritual manual in the current paper. Furthermore, according to Ishii Masatoshi, using textual analysis and comparison between this text and the “Chapter of Four Heavenly Kings” in the Sovereign Kings of the Golden Light Sutra (T. 665), it is evident that their liturgies are extremely similar. (Ishii 2019a, p. 197) It is therefore very likely that they had the same origin, or simply that the Heavenly King Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra imitated the Golden Light Sutra.

3.2. Category II

In the texts of the second category, the most striking feature is that all of these texts were translated by Amoghavajra. These texts are, however, rather different in several ways, and scholars have argued it is unlikely that Amoghavajra is the translator for all four. Rather, it is more likely that these texts were forged during the Tang dynasty. (Ishii 2015, p. 153).

3.2.1. T. 1247

The first text, the Vaiśravaṇa of the North Defends the Dharma with his Army Liturgy (T. 1247), is the shortest among the four. In the opening paragraph about the origination of this text, it is described that, on one occasion, the deity Naḍa (Ch. Nezha 哪吒) appeared instantly, holding a spear in his hand. He then proclaimed that he is the second son of the third child of Vaiśravaṇa; in other words, Naḍa is a grandchild of Vaiśravaṇa. Naḍa pleaded with the Buddha to permit him to teach those practitioners who need the mantra and rituals to subjugate rebellions and protect the state. The Buddha eventually permitted Naḍa’s plea because the wicked, who oppressed and persecuted other people for no good reason, were acting against Buddhist teachings and should be overthrown. The structure of this text runs as Figure 2 (The outline of T. 1247).

In the liturgy, one should recite the given mantra and then paint the portraits of Vaiśravaṇa and Naḍa. It is explicated in the instructions that the painting of Vaiśravaṇa must include a female yakṣa under his feet. It is noticeable, however, that this feature of having a female yakṣa changes over time and space; it is not always the case in other texts. As this text instructs, after painting the divinities, the practitioner must purify and cleanse the environment and then offer flowers and incense.

Generally speaking, it is a relatively short ritual manual with a focus on the purpose of protecting the state. To highlight the ritual of homa (Ch. Humo 護摩, Jp. Goma), the nine circumstances of the homa ritual include chasing away the menaces to monastics and rulers in particular or protecting oneself from those who are greedy, rebellious, or evil. This text also describes that this homa ritual defeated fifty thousand soldiers from five kingdoms in the past, so as to reinforce the efficacy of the rituals in the scripture.

3.2.2. T. 1248

The second text, Vaiśravaṇa of the North Defends the Dharma with his Army Mantra (T. 1248), starts with a long mantra in the very beginning and ends with a short mantra in the very last paragraph. The structure of this text runs as Figure 3 (The outline of T. 1248):

According to the liturgy, after the mantra recitation, the practitioner must proceed to paint the portraits of Vaiśravaṇa and Naḍa. It is indicated here that the painting of Vaiśravaṇa must include two demon yakṣas under his feet instead of one female yakṣa. Vaiśravaṇa holds a spear in one hand and has the other hand on his hip. He sent his third son, Naḍa, to protect the Dharma and the state. He instructed the practitioner to purify himself and cleanse the ritual space with cow dung. Rituals of flower and meal offerings were then to be conducted. After the mantra was recited a hundred thousand times, Vaiśravaṇa appeared. It also describes alternative scenes where Vaiśravaṇa does not appear and explains that the practitioner should simply recite the mantra seven more times to complete this procedure.

It then lists forty-two certain circumstances under which this mantra shall be efficacious in reversing the situation. Among these forty-two circumstances, twenty-two of them concern personal diseases, such as a headache and insect bites. The other ones are mostly related to the fulfilment of personal wishes, such as becoming respected by other people. These descriptions are then followed with instructions on the mudrās of Vaiśravaṇa and Mahāśrī. The whole text is concluded with a short mantra in the final section.

This text contradicts the previous scripture regarding the identity of the deity Naḍa. In the section on the offering ritual, Naḍa is referred to as the third son of the Vaiśravaṇa, while in text T. 1247 mentioned previously, Naḍa was a grandchild of Vaiśravaṇa.

This text is also different in the sense that it does not emphasise the effect of state protection as strongly as the previous one. Only two out of forty-two entries on the rituals serve the purpose of defeating the army, and the rest are to be performed for personal purposes like diseases and personal wishes. Therefore, the function of this ritual manual is remarkably different from the previous text.

Lastly, it should be noted that the existent text in the Taishō canon is an edition that was transcribed by Kaidō 快道 (1751–1810) and Jijun 慈順 (d.u.) in 1801 C.E. Hence it is possible that this text had gone through a heavy editing process over its long history.

3.2.3. T. 1249

The third text, The Liturgy of Vaiśravaṇa (T. 1249), is rather peculiar in several ways. The text can be divided into three parts that seem to lack coherence as a whole. The structure of this text runs as Figure 4.

The first section of the ritual instructions is very short and concise. It starts with a set of nine mantras. These nine short mantras are followed by succinct instructions for the preparation of the altar (tanzuofa 壇作法), which includes spreading cow dung on the ground for purification and arranging the offering of water, incense, flowers, fruits, porridge, and milk. In the final step, various types of incense are to be mixed with honey. Then, the practitioner is to recite the ‘incense mantra’ one-hundred-and-eight times in front of the statue of Vaiśravaṇa.

The second section is devoted to the origination story of this scripture. The story is about a battle that happened in the first year of the Tianbao 天寶 era (742–756) in the Tang dynasty.17 The city of Anxi was attacked and pleaded that the court send an army for protection. Thereupon, according to the text, Master Yixing 一行 (683–727) suggested the emperor entreat the deity of Vaiśravaṇa for help. When the emperor asked more about it, Yixing advised him to call upon the foreign master Amoghavajra. Amoghavajra came and performed the ritual. After Amoghavajra recited the mantra almost fourteen times, a divine army consisting of around two to three hundred warriors arrived. This army, as Amoghavajra explained, was led by Vaiśravaṇa’s second son, Dujian 獨健. Amoghavajra further explained that Vaiśravaṇa followed the Buddha’s command to protect the Dharma and to summon his third son, Naḍa, to accompany him while holding a pagoda in hand. At the end of the battle, Vaiśravaṇa became visible on the roof of the northern gate, emitting bright light and announcing loudly that the elderly and weak must be released at once.

This narrative has invited scholarly suspicion that it was forged in China. (Matsumoto 1939, pp. 1–34; Komoro 2003, pp. 263–78; Ishii 2019b, pp. 190–93) The first reason is that this scripture cannot be found in the Biaozhiji 表制集 (full name: Daizong chao zeng sikong dabianzheng guangzhi sanzang heshang biaozhiji代宗朝贈司空大辨正廣智三藏和上表制集. T. vol. 52, no. 2120), nor in the Catalogue of the Zhenyuan Era (Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新訂釋教目錄. T. vol. 55, no. 2154). Hence, its relationship with Amoghavajra cannot be confirmed. Another notably odd point is the sentence “The Master Great Guangzhi said…” (Sanzang Daguangzhi yun 三藏大廣智云)18: it is rather unlikely that Amoghavajra would call himself the honorary name given by Emperor Daizong 代宗 (927–779). For the above reasons, scholars have come to an agreement that the text was not translated by Amghavajra but forged by someone else in the Tang dynasty.

Last but not least, regarding the editorship, it should be noted that the edition that came down to us was transcribed by Kaidō and Jijun in 1801 C.E., just the same as T. 1248. Even though, in the Japanese catalogues mentioned earlier, this text was said to be brought to Japan by Shūei in 815 C.E., it could have been heavily edited after Shūei through time. As Ishii Masatoshi argues, the second section, which he calls the ‘Kōzanji 高山寺 edition,’ had likely existed in Japan when Kaidō transcribed it in 1801 C.E. (Ishii 2019b) Ishii calls the one Kaidō transcribed the ‘Hase-dera 長谷寺 edition,’ and argues that the third section of “private notes” (Jp. Shiki 私記) in the current version was added to the pre-existing Kōzanji edition by Jijun and Kaidō. Furthermore, the third section of the “private notes” contains ritual instructions to be performed under nineteen circumstances. These rituals are all similar or identical to those ritual instructions in T.1248. The main difference is that T. 1248 includes more entries, which add up to forty-two circumstances in total.

3.2.4. T. 1250

The fourth text in this category, the Vaiśravaṇa of the North Wonderful Dhāraṇī and Separate Liturgy (T. 1250) is different from the other three in several aspects. Let us first glance through the structure of the text in Figure 5 (The outline of T. 1250).

In the first section, effectively an introduction to the whole scripture, Vaiśravaṇa addresses the audience about his vows to protect monastics and lay Buddhists. Compared to the narratives in the other texts in Category II, it is noteworthy that in T. 1250, there is no mention of Naḍa or any sons of Vaiśravaṇa at all. It focuses on explicating all the benefits that Vaiśravaṇa promises to fulfil for the practitioners. Emphasis is given to the protection of monks and rulers.

In its second section on setting up the altar, it merely mentions that the offerings should be put at the four corners, respectively. Likewise, the paintings should be posed at each spot on the altar. There is no instruction on how one should paint the portrait of Vaiśravaṇa. Instead, it is requested that the statue of Vaiśravaṇa must face southward and the practitioner must face northward. Even though this is a concise instruction, the objects of the offering are more sumptuous than the previous scriptures. This is followed by mantras and eight mudrās. In contrast with all the previous texts that include fewer mudrās, this scripture stands out in the way it elaborates on all the mudrās. These mudrās are (1) the earth mudrā (Ch. Dijieqi 地界契), (2) the mudrā of four directions (Ch. Sifangjieqi 四方界契), (3) the empty-sphere mudrā (Ch. Xukongjieqi 虛空界契), (4) the incense and flower mudrā (Ch. Xianghuaqi 香華契), (5) the meal mudrā (Ch. Yinshiqi 飲食契), (6) the lamp mudrā (Ch. Dengqi 燈契), (7) the mudrā of four heavenly gods (Ch. Sitianwangjieqi 四天王界契), and (8) the invocation mudrā (Ch. Zhaoqingqi 召請契).19

After all the mudrās are performed, Vaiśravaṇa will appear and present a dhāraṇī. If a practitioner recites it thirty thousand times, all his wishes will be fulfilled. The ‘Heart Mantra’ of Vaiśravaṇa is then given in the following section, as well as a description of all the effects of this mantra recitation. The text concludes with an explanation of the benefits of the diligent practice of the rituals.

This text has several remarkable characteristics. First, this text differs from all the previous texts regarding the absence of Naḍa. Furthermore, no single deity other than Vaiśravaṇa is mentioned in this text. Second, the arrangement of the altar is slightly different. The practitioner is not requested to paint any portraits. The only important thing is that each item should be placed correctly. Third, the instructions on the mantras and mudrās are much more precise and more elaborated; therefore, it seems this text represents a more mature format of the liturgy. Last, among all the scriptures in this category, the text is the closest to the Chinshō yasha rites regarding the selection of the mudrās.

3.2.5. Comparing Texts of Category II

All four texts above differ from each other in one way or another. Nevertheless, T. 1247 and T. 1250 share more common ground, as the following comparison table (Figure 6. Comparison between T. 1247 and T. 1250) explains.

As Figure 6 illustrates, the liturgies in T. 1247 and T. 1250 are similar: the former is a simplified and shorter version of the latter, despite some details being different in each section of these texts.

In contrast, T. 1248 and T. 1249 put more emphasis on narratives regarding the efficacy of Vaiśravaṇa. It must be remembered that, as mentioned earlier, both T. 1248 and T. 1249 were transcribed by Kaidō and Jijun, which at least implies the likelihood of being edited in its latest edition.

Generally speaking, both T. 1247 and T. 1250 put more emphasis on the parts of mantra and mudrās, whereas T. 1248 and T. 1249 are less similar to either T. 1247 or T. 1250. It appears that these four texts exhibit two streams of the rituals of Vaiśravaṇa; the streams may influence each other, but they had different emphases and foci. The Chinshō yasha-hō, the topic of the following section, is close to only one of them.

4. The Chinshō Yasha-Shidai

The main text under discussion in this paper is the Chinshō yasha-shidai. The other two ritual manuals from Saichō, the Chinshō yasha-mihō and the Chinshō yasha-himitsu-nenjuhō, are similar; they are simply more concise and contain only part of the mantras of the Chinshō yasha-shidai.

This ritual soon became one of the four major Tendai Esoteric rituals in medieval Japan, partly because of its practical effects on state protection. The structure of our main text Chinshō yasha-shidai runs as in Figure 7 (The outline of Chinshō yasha-shidai).

The liturgical structure in this manual is different from all the abovementioned texts in one particular aspect: it contains the practice of samādhi in the liturgy. The inclusion of contemplation in the liturgy makes this ritual manual very similar to some Northern Chan scriptures that Saichō encountered.20 Along this line, it is certainly possible that when Saichō edited the ritual manual, he added what he preferred to the new liturgy.

The conventional account states that the Chinshō yasha-hō was transmitted to Saichō from his Chinese master Shunxiao and that this ritual was based on T. 1247. However, as the following section will illustrate, rather than T. 1247, Saichō’s text is clearly closer to T. 1250. Regarding the mudrās specifically, the ritual in the Chinshō yasha-shidai contains similar mudrās to the ritual in T. 1250.

Now let us have a closer look at the mudrās in these two texts. The four mudrās in Saichō’s manual are: (1) the mudrā of the four heavens, (2) the incense mudrā, (3) the meal mudrā, and (4) the lamp mudrā. Those eight mudrās in T. 1250 are (1) the earth mudrā, (2) the mudrā of the four directions, (3) the empty-sphere mudrā, (4) the incense and flower mudrā, (5) the meal mudrā, (6) the lamp mudrā, (7) the mudrā of four heavenly gods, and (8) the invocation mudrā. These two sets of rituals may be regarded as different only in terms of length and complexity but are more or less similar in configuration. The following comparison table (Figure 8. Comparison between T. 1250 and Chinshō yasha-shidai) clearly illustrates the similarity between these rituals.

From Figure 8, it is evident that the liturgy of Chinshō yasha-shidai is a shorter and abbreviated version of that in T. 1250. Even the order of the mudrās is similar; the major difference is that the mudrā of the four heavens, which is placed at the beginning of the Chinshō yasha-shidai, appears quite late in T. 1250. Since there is a mudrā of the four directions at the beginning part of T.1250 and the mudrā of four heavenly kings at the later part of the same text, there could be an intention to merge these two mudrās and perform it only once just as in the Chinshō yasha-shidai. This suggests that the Chinshō yasha-shidai might have consulted T. 1250 or that these two were deviations from a similar source.

The Chinshō yasha-shidai might have drawn from multiple sources as well. Kiyota Jakun identified similar parts between the Chinshō yasha-shidai and other texts by checking each mudrā in the ritual of the Chinshō yasha-shidai. (Kiyota 1976) The results are represented in Figure 9 (Mudrās occure in the Chinshō yasha-shidai and other texts).

From Figure 9 above, the mudrā of the floral seat is probably borrowed from T. 1211 (Ganlu Juntuli pusa gongyangniansong chengjiuyigui 甘露軍荼利菩薩供養念誦成就儀軌), allegedly translated by Amoghavajra again. This text is the ritual manual of the Yakṣa King Amrta Kundalī (Ch. Juntuli, Jp. Kundari 軍荼利). Additionally, the meal mudrā is similar to the one in T. 1239 (Azhaboju yuanshuaidajiang shangfo tuoluonijing xiuxing yigui 阿吒薄俱元帥大將上佛陀羅尼經修行儀軌);21 this scripture is the fundamental scripture explaining the mudrā of Grand General Ātavaka and its effects. (Iyanaga 2002, pp. 159–61; Rambelli 2002; Faure 2016, p. 29).

To highlight the mudrā of Chinshō Yakṣa in particular, this mudrā is the same as the one that appears in T. 1159A: the Jizōdaidōshin kusakuhō 峚窖大道心驅策法. According to the Bussho kaisetsu daijiden, the Jizōdaidōshin kusakuhō is probably a forgery, and its contents came from a mixture of Buddhist and Daoist scriptures.22 The main part of the Jizōdaidōshin kusakuhō proclaims the efficacious mantra of Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva. It is intriguing that a mantra of Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva is identical to that of Chinshō Yakṣa in Saichō’s ritual manual.

In a nutshell, since it is rather unlikely that the ritual of Chinshō Yakṣa originated in China, it is more likely that this ritual began from Saichō. Therefore, Saichō had to explain its Chinese origin to assure the legitimacy of the Tendai school. It is, however, very unlikely that Shunxiao could have passed on such a text to Saichō. The name of Chinshō Yakṣa (Chinshō yasha) is patently dubious considering the fact that no Chinese texts contain any information about this deity. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that this text had anything to do with Shunxiao, judging from the fact that Saichō’s catalogue from Yuezhou mentions no such text.

On the other hand, even if Saichō composed this ritual manual, it might have certain Chinese origins from sources that Saichō did not explain explicitly. For instance, its similarity with Chinese Tendai rituals in the first section of the ritual manual implies that Saichō might have consulted Chinese Tendai ritual manuals when creating his ritual manual. Moreover, its similarity to T. 1250 indicates that he could have learned from a source very close to T. 1250. Given that T. 1247 and T. 1250 were forged in the Tang dynasty, it is possible that the Tang dynasty, and her neighbour Japan, saw a period of active ritual invention.

5. Naḍa in the Ritual Texts

In addition to the liturgical comparisons, it is also interesting to explore a striking difference in their mention of Vaiśravaṇa’s children, either Janeśa23 or Naḍa, in most cases. Figure 10 (Mentions of Vaiśravaṇa’s son) provides a straightforward table for their disparity in bringing in Vaiśravaṇa’s son(s).

As Figure 10 illustrates, these texts contradict each other regarding the identity of the deity Naḍa. It is quite obvious that the texts in Category I and Category II depart from each other in their choice of Vaiśravaṇa’s son. Both texts in Category I opt for Janeśa, whereas none of the texts in Category II mention Janeśa. Category II, however, is not always consistent in introducing Naḍa. In the section of the offering ritual in T. 1248 and T. 1249, Naḍa is referred to as the third son of the Vaiśravaṇa, while in the text T. 1247, Naḍa was a grandchild of Vaiśravaṇa.

Category III, on the contrary, shows no interest in Naḍa at all. The shorter ritual manual, the Chinshō yasha-mihō, is not examined for its liturgy in the previous section of this paper, but it is worthy to note that it includes the mudrās of eleven deities but no mention of Vaiśravaṇa’s son. Similarly, another related text attributed to Saichō is the Bishamonten-kōshiki 毘沙門天講式, which is included in a longer text called the Rokuten-kōshiki 六天講式.24 The Bishamonten-kōshiki, however, is not a ritual manual but an introduction to the deity Bishamon, about his background and main role. It mentions that the son of Vaiśravaṇa is Janeśa, not Naḍa. Here, the Bishamonten-kōshiki brings out a contrastable viewpoint: the Bishamonten-kōshiki differs from all other texts of Saichō’s compositions in identifying Vaiśravaṇa’s son.

It is not fully understandable to us why and how this variance took place. The difference in the narratives of Naḍa’s identity is an indication that there were multiple origins of these ritual manuals.

6. Concluding Remarks

This study tackles the ritual manual of Chinshō Yakṣa from liturgical and textual perspectives. This paper starts by consulting Japanese catalogues for scriptures relevant to the ritual of Vaiśravaṇa. These catalogues, rather than resolving the issue of textual relationship, brought up more questions for discussion. This study hence moved forward to scrutinise the ritual manuals for liturgical evolution.

If the deity Chinshō Yakṣa was indeed a Tendai variation of the Indian god Vaiśravaṇa, the transmission should have been by way of Tang China. However, the fact the catalogues from the eight traveller monks into the Tang dynasty did not mention T. 1247 or Chinshō Yakṣa implies that the ritual manual of Chinshō Yakṣa had very little to do with Vaiśravaṇa’s ritual texts from the Tang dynasty. Furthermore, judging from the fact that Saichō’s catalogue from Yuezhou mentions no such text, it is very unlikely that this text had anything to do with Shunxiao. To be more specific, no Chinese texts contain any information about this deity.

On the other hand, even if Saichō composed this ritual manual, it might have certain Chinese origins from sources that Saichō did not explain explicitly. The Chinshō yasha-shidai might have drawn from multiple sources: by checking each mudrā in the ritual of the Chinshō yasha-shidai, similar parts between the Chinshō yasha-shidai and other texts were identified. Also, the fact that the texts contradict each other about the identity of Naḍa, as either the son or grandchild of Vaiśravaṇa, implies that these scriptures had multiple origins.

Moreover, its similarity with Chinese Tiantai rituals in the first section of the ritual manual implies that Saichō must have consulted the Chinese Tiantai ritual manuals when creating his ritual manual. Its similarity to T. 1250 indicates that he could have learned from a source very close to T.1250. Given that T. 1247 and T. 1250 were forged in the Tang dynasty, it is possible that the Tang dynasty, and her neighbour Japan, saw a period of active ritual invention.