The Eihei-ji Monastery System in Dogen's Time
and Kenmitsu Buddhism

Reconsidering the Position of Dogen's Monastery
in the Kamakura New Religions Movement

Thank you for joining such huge numbers of audiences. Well, I would like to start my さよなら (Good-bye) talk right now.

　First of all, I would like to explain the title of today's talk. The phrase in the title, "The Eihei-ji Monastery System in Dogen's Time," means "Dogen's expectations for Eihei-ji Monastery." That is to say, the main content of this talk will be what kind of monastery, or what kind of community, Dogen aimed to create at Eihei-ji.
Most Dogen scholars, not only theologians but also philosophers and historians, have defined Dogen's thought as "clergy for clergy's sake" or "doctrine only for clergy." this is called 出家至上主義 (shukke-shijo-shugi) in Japanese.
Besides, they say, Dogen strongly insisted on this doctrine, especially at Eihei-ji more than when he was in Kyoto. This doctrine is the idea that only ordained monks can attain the enlightened state.

　However, I would like to say that this notion relies too much on the contents of the Kana Shobogenzo, one of his writings. In fact, it is his main work. But I am sure that the Shobogenzo did not reflect all of Dogen's attitudes toward Buddhism. In particular, they hardly address how he expected to run his original (or ideal) monastery in Japan.
Actually, this is not my original assertion. The late Professor Genryu Kagamishima (故鏡島元隆博士) has already suggested in his book;

哲学者としての道元は『正法眼蔵』に示され、実践者としての道元は、清規に示されるが、『正法眼蔵』あるいは『永平清規』からのみ禅師を見るものには、哲人あるいは実践者としての側面だけが拡大視され、他の面が看過されやすい。(『道元禅師全集』 巻４「解題」P.314)
Though the Shobogenzo shows us Dogen the philosopher, his writings about monastic regulations show us the practitioner Dogen. Those who interpret Dogen based only on the Shobogenzo or on his monastic regulation writings may overlook the other aspect of his character, by overemphasizing his character as a philosopher or practitioner. (Dogen Zenji Zenshu vol.4 bibliography p.314)

That is to say, Late Kagamishima asserted the importance of investigating the contents of the Eihei-koroku.
Kagamishima was, in fact, my supervising professor in my graduate student days. He died last month, on February 19th. I was planning to report to him my overseas research in the US soon after returning to Japan. However, I can no longer carry out this task. Hence, I will do this talk with the intention of offering a memorial address for him. His view is the starting point of my research on Dogen's thought.

　Yet, I would like to modify his idea just a little. Dogen's monastic regulations indicate not only his thoughts on practice, but also his concrete plans for his community. So I would like to discuss Dogen's characteristics as a monastery leader, using both the Eihei-koroku and his writings on monastic regulations and rules.

If we examine Dogen's other writings, e.g. the Eihei-koroku, Chiji-shingi and other short essays, it gives us another perspective on Dogen thought.

　To support this idea, I would first like to look at a short biography of Dogen.

<Please refer to Dogen's short biography>

The second and third columns from the left are the numbers of volumes of the Shobogenzo and jodo (formal discourses in the dharma hall) recorded in the Eihei-koroku every year.
Dogen began writing the Shobogenzo in 1233. That year he also established Kosho-ji temple in Kyoto. But shortly after that, he took a break from writing the Shobogenzo. Instead, he held informal dharma talks, which are recorded in the Shobogenzo-zuimonki. Subsequently, he began writing the Shobogenzo again in earnest in 1238. The jodo, or formal discourses, began in 1236, the year the monks' hall of Kosho-ji was completed.
In 1239, Dogen wrote three volumes of the Shobogenzo. Subsequently, the numbers of volumes he wrote each year gradually increased. In 1240, he wrote eight; in 1241 he wrote 11; and in 1242 he wrote 17 volumes.

　I would like to emphasize that Dogen worked most on the Shobogenzo in 1242 and the first half of 1244. During this period, Dogen had no temple in which to serve as abbot. Prof. Makoto Funaoka (船岡誠, a historical scholar of Dogen) says that Dogen wrote many volumes of the Shobogenzo during this period to confirm his own thought in the midst of an unstable situation. That is, Dogen's motivation to write the Shobogenzo might have been to clarify and solidify his ideas. (道元と『正法眼蔵随聞記』(評論社, 1980) 参照)

　In fact, Dogen's motivation to write seemed to decrease after he became abbot of Daibutsu-ji, 大仏寺 (this is the previous name of Eihei-ji, 永平寺) in Echizen, 越前 in central Japan. The number in the second column clearly shows this. After he renamed Daibutsu-ji as Eihei-ji, he wrote just one volume, entitled "Hachidai-ningaku" (八大人覚), in 1253, except for those works whose dates are uncertain.
Instead of writing the Shobogenzo, he held formal dharma discourses, or jodo, frequently at Eihei-ji. These are the formal dharma discourses recorded in the Eihei-koroku. We can easily see this tendency in the third column from 1245 to 1252. Many jodo were held at Eihei-ji.
In 1245, Dogen held 15 times of jodo. Subsequently, the numbers of jodo he jeld each year rapidly increased. In 1246, he held 74; in 1247 he held 35 in eight months; in 1248 he held 52 times of jodo; and from 1249 to 1252 he held over 50 jodo in each year.

　Besides, as we can see in the fourth column, many monastic regulations, rules, and etiquette guidelines were published during the same period. I have underlined them in the fourth column. This tendency was first pointed out by Professor Shuken Ito, 伊藤秀憲 (he is a former professor at Komazawa University, now working at Aichi-gakuin University).(「語録・公案と只管打坐」(『懐奘禅師研究』祖山傘松会,永平寺 1981) As you know, Professor Steven Heine also adheres to this idea.
Well, what does this tendency tell us?

　According to traditional interpretation, the reason is that at this point Dogen's motivation shifted to the establishment of his original, ideal monastic system. Hence Dogen leaned more toward "doctrine only for clergy." (出家至上主義)
In fact, Dogen did not aim to achieve popularity, such as getting many monks to join his community; rather, he aimed to train even one or one-half a monk who would inherit his true dharma. This is called 'Ikko-hanko-no-settoku' ,一箇半箇の接得 in Japanese.

　This is the traditional interpretation of Dogen's behavior in Echizen, and it appears in many passages of his own writings.
However, please think about this. If he completely ignored his relationship with secular society, how could he have operated his monastery? How did he train heirs to inherit his dharma?

　Even in India, in early Buddhist society, monks were able to live by begging, that is, through lay people's support. I am sure that there is no monastery which has no economic support from laity. We should never ignore the existence of lay believers when considering a Buddhist monastery. Even though Dogen adopted the view of "doctrine only for clergy," we need to consider how Dogen treated lay people who were connected to Eihei-ji.
For this purpose, I would like to examine Dogen's remarks to lay people. In fact, we find hardly any of these kinds of remarks in the Shobogenzo. Even his remarks to his monastic clergy are rarely found in the Shobogenzo. Therefore, many Dogen scholars have overlooked them until recently.

　As I mentioned earlier, I would like to clarify the meaning of this tendency in Dogen's other writings, the Eihei-koroku and the Shingi (monastic regulations) in this talk.

　This is the reason I have been researching Dogen's thought in his writings other than the Shobogenzo. I have not avoided the Shobogenzo because of its difficulty.

　I will now introduce Dogen's remarks to his monastery, recorded as the formal dharma discourses in the Eihei-koroku, to clarify what kind of vision he had for Eihei-ji. Then I will pick out some remarks about lay people from his dharma discourses and regulations, to shed some light on what kind of arrangements Dogen made for them.

Well, before going into more detail, I would like to propose today's conclusion.
Please look at the illustrations on another page.

<Go illustration page>

　There are three illustrations which I drew. No.3 is my hypothesis about Eihei-ji, Dogen's community system.
First, I would like to assert that Dogen basically adopted the Chinese Zen/Chan monastery style in his monastery.

　The Chinese style is no.1 on illustration page. However, this style was limited to the temple yard. Dogen just adopted the clergy system from the Chinese Chan regulation book, called the Zen'en-Shingi/Chanyuan-chingkuei. He ignored the part of the system that dealt with the relationship with political affairs and the laity in the Chinese regulations.

　Instead, Dogen expected to build up another strategy to maintain his monastery. I call it 'the emphasis on the virtue of participation'.
This concept is, in fact, quite close to the Kenmitsu Buddhist system. As you know, this theory was proposed by Kuroda Toshio, and subsequently, became popular among Japanese historians.
No.2 is the rough sketch of the Kenmitsu system. The most prominent similarity between Dogen and Kenmitsu is that both of them had an independent economic system.
I mean they were completely independent of any political affairs and their economic background.

　From this perspective, I am very suspicious of Kuroda and his follwers' definitions of the Kamakura New Buddhist Movement.
That is, if Dogen's concept of economic strategy for his monastery was similar to Kenmitsu's, then Kuroda's definition will no longer work. This is because he treated Dogen's monastery as heresy. he asserted that Dogen opposed Kenmitsu Buddhism.

　Of course, I cannot deny treating Dogen as a reformer of old, traditional Japanese Buddhism.
And Kuroda's theory is correct regarding temple economic systems in medieval Japan. I want to challenge only his definition of Kamakura New Buddhism.

　Now, I am considering the possibility that Prof. Matsuo Kenji's definition may be better. He divides Old and New Buddhism according to whether or not it promised individual salvation.

　My ideas about this are still narrow, however, so I need to do much more research and investigation on the other founders of Kamakura New Buddhism.
Please understand that today's talk mentions just one founder of Kamakura Buddhism.

*

Now, I will show you the evidences of my theory.

　I will begin by listing Dogen's remarks at his monastery, from the formal dharma discourses (jodo) in the Eihei-koroku, to clarify what kind of concept he had for Eiheiji. Then I will introduce some remarks about lay people from his dharma discourses and monastic regulations, to clarify what kind of arrangement Dogen made for the laity.

Go Chapter 1

Bibliography