Dōgen (1200–1253) occupies a prominent place in the history of Japanese religions as the founder of the Sōtō school of Zen Buddhism. This essay examines the religious rituals and historical vicissitudes that helped elevate Dōgen to his present position of prominence. It uses the example of Dōgen to illustrate how new historical identities are constructed in response to social imperatives and institutional struggles. It argues that we cannot fully understand Japanese religions in general and Sōtō Zen in particular unless we become more sensitive to the ways that these historical, social, and institutional factors shape our received images of the past.
Today Dōgen (1200–1253) is remembered as the founder of the Sōtō school of Buddhism. As such, he is afforded high status as one of the most significant Buddhists in Japanese history. His image adorns countless altars in temples and households affiliated with the Sōtō school. He is the subject of numerous biographies and studies. His works are available in multiple editions and translations. His ideas are taught in university classrooms, in and outside Japan, as being representative of Japanese spirituality. In these respects, he exemplifies many aspects of founder worship, a practice widespread among sectarian religious organizations in Japan. The remembrance of Dōgen, the ways his memory has been used and developed over time, illustrates not just the importance of founder worship in Japanese religious history but also the structures that give it life. However great his personal religious charisma while alive, Dōgen was never prominent. After his death, he soon faded into obscurity. He would have remained forgotten but for several specific ritual techniques that brought his memory back to life, imbued it with mythic qualities, and then exploited its power. The rural monastery Eiheiji in particular aggrandized Dōgen to bolster its own authority vis-à-vis its institutional rivals within the Sōtō denomination. The power of ritual memory enabled Eiheiji to command tremendous respect and authority without actually possessing great wealth or power (analogous, somewhat, to Japan's [End Page 1] royal house during the medieval period). In this essay I trace the history of the remembrance of Dōgen and the special importance it has held for Eiheiji, and for Eiheiji's status within the Sōtō Zen school, the religious order that looks to Dōgen as its founder.
Today the Sōtō Zen school constitutes the largest single religious denomination in Japan. In this statement, one must emphasize the word "single." Pure Land Buddhism boasts a greater number of temples—about 30,000—but they are divided among some ten (or more) separate legal entities, the largest of which (Jōdo Shinshuū Honganjiha) commands the allegiance of about 10,000 temples. Sōtō Zen, in contrast, consists of more than 14,000 temples and monasteries, all of which coexist within a single institutional structure.1 Unlike every other Buddhist denomination in Japan, this single organization recognizes not just one, but two separate head temples: Eiheiji and Sōjiji.2 Only one of these two temples, Eiheiji, owes its existence to Dōgen. Not only did Dōgen found the temple complex that evolved into Eiheiji, but after his death Dōgen's memory or, rather, the exploitation of that memory has ensured Eiheiji's survival and growth for more than 700 years. Without special efforts by Eiheiji's leaders to promote Eiheiji as the sacred locus for worship of Dōgen, it is doubtful if Eiheiji could have survived, much less thrived, as the head temple of the Sōtō school. To understand the precarious nature of Eiheiji's position, one need merely examine the affiliations of temples within the Sōtō Zen denomination (see Table 1).
During the Tokugawa period, the Sōtō denomination consisted of more than 17,500 temples. These were grouped into networks identified with the dharma lineages of prominent monks. Of these temples, the military government (shogunate) ordered temple factions affiliated with the dharma lines of the monks Giin (centered at Daijiji and Fusaiji monasteries) and Meihō Sotetsu (Daijōji monastery) to affiliate with Eiheiji. The addition of these two network lines gave Eiheiji a total of about 1,300 affiliated temples. The approximately 16,200 remaining Sōtō temples were affiliated with Sōjiji.3 Today, of the 14,000 Sōtō Zen temples in modern Japan, only 148 have direct ties to Eiheiji.4 Of these 148, approximately one-third are minor temples located in Hokkaido, where they were founded after the Meiji government began colonization of that island at the end of the nineteenth century. Of the [End Page 2] temples outside Hokkaido, only five or six maintained any formal relationship to Eiheiji prior to the Tokugawa-period reorganization of Sōtō temple relationships that was ordered by the military government.5
Number of Japanese Sōtō Temples Affiliated with Each Head Institution
In other words, almost all Sōtō temples, directly or indirectly, are affiliated with Sōjiji, not with Eiheiji. Sōjiji is a true head temple (honzan) in the sense that it stands at the head of thousands of branch and subbranch temples (matsuji). Eiheiji is a head temple in name only, without any institutional ties to the vast majority of Sōtō branch temples. Sōtō clerics sometimes describe this situation by saying that Sōjiji is "head of all Sōtō temple lineages" (jitō no honzan) while Eiheiji is "head of all Sōtō dharma lineages" (hōtō no honzan).6
This statement warrants closer examination. The assertion that "Sōjiji is the head of all Sōtō temple lineages" concerns like terms, in that it says that one particular religious institution (Sōjiji) enjoys special institutional relationships with other religious institutions. The statement that "Eiheiji is the head of all Sōtō dharma lineages," however, mixes unlike terms, in that it ties a physical institution to the abstract religious concept of dharma lineages. In this equation, Eiheiji itself acquires abstract symbolic significance by standing at the beginning of a religious interpretation of Sōtō history, in which all Sōtō priests inherit spiritual authority through a diachronic genealogy that can be traced back to Dōgen. Its symbolic power rests on a refusal to admit any distinction between this religious image of Dōgen as an ancient originator and Eiheiji's synchronic sovereignty over the ways other institutions can use that image. Eiheiji thus has been able to maintain its status as head temple of the entire Sōtō order by portraying itself as the embodiment of that order's collective memory of Dōgen.
For the past 500 years or more, Eiheiji's leaders have employed a variety of strategies to exploit Dōgen's memory. They have sought the endorsement of the royal court, demanded attendance at memorial services for Dōgen, asserted that only Eiheiji maintained the traditional practices advocated by Dōgen, placed their imprimatur on publications of Dōgen's writings, [End Page 3] organized celebrations of Dōgen's birth, and promoted scholarship concerning Dōgen. Extant sources do not document every step in the evolution of these strategies, but they provide sufficient details to offer us a view of how the promotion of Dōgen served the institutional needs of Eiheiji. Even a brief examination of the development of these strategies will help us better understand how Dōgen and the concept of "Dōgen Zen" acquired such importance for Sōtō Zen teachings and such prominence in modern accounts of Japanese religious history.
Of these various strategies, none was more important than currying favor with the royal court.7 Eiheiji always has been poor, geographically isolated, and without extensive land holdings or wealthy patrons. Nonetheless, according to entries in the diary of the court noble Nakamikado Nobutane (1442–1525), in 1507 the abbot of Eiheiji succeeded in having the court award his temple with calligraphy for a gate plaque that proclaimed Eiheiji to be the "Number One Training Center of Our Kingdom's Sōtō Lineage" (honchō Sōtō daiichi dōjō).8 Receipt of this plaque constituted [End Page 4] not just royal proclamation of Eiheiji's preeminence, but signified the establishment of new financial arrangements with the court. In the same way that the warrior government (bakufu) received payments for each inauguration of an honorary abbot at one of the official Five Mountains (gozan) Zen monasteries, henceforth the court received payment for each honorary abbot at Eiheiji.9 This arrangement enriched Eiheiji as well, since it also collected fees for each honor. Monks who paid sufficient fees could receive not just the honorary title of "former abbot of Eiheiji" (Eihei senjuū), but also the prestigious purple robe (the royal color) as well as bestowal of a royal Zen master title (zenji gō). Eiheiji used the fees collected for these honors to erect new monastic buildings or to rebuild ones that had been damaged by winter snows or fires. Throughout the medieval period, Eiheiji repeatedly sought to finance monastic construction projects by issuing solicitations for more Sōtō monks to seek honorary titles.10
Today no records survive to tell us how Eiheiji won court recogni-tion. We cannot know with certainty even the names of Eiheiji's leaders at that time. Our only clues concerning Eiheiji's relations with the court, therefore, are found in the wording of the royal proclamations by which the court awarded Zen master titles to abbots of Eiheiji.11 These proclamations name the title itself, such as "Zen Master of Great Merit in the Legitimate Tradition" (Daikō Shōden Zenji, awarded in 1509), as well as a brief statement praising the recipient of the award. These words of praise probably reflect the terminology suggested by Eiheiji, since the court would not have been familiar with either the honoree or the Zen vocabulary used to praise him. Significantly, many proclamations—especially the earliest ones—specifically praised the recipients as being the "legitimate descendants of Dōgen" (Dōgen no tekison). The repeated use of this phrase suggests that Eiheiji's status rested on its being recognized as Dōgen's monastery.12 [End Page 5]
Eiheiji subsequently cited its royal recognition whenever its status as head temple was threatened, both in its many struggles with Sōjiji and during the reorganizations of religious institutions that occurred under the Tokugawa and Meiji regimes. Eiheiji's attempts to raise funds by granting honorary titles, however, suffered from one major weakness: payments for these titles had to come from outside Eiheiji. In other words, they required the cooperation of monks from temples that were affiliated with other factions, such as Sōjiji. Naturally Sōjiji's leaders worked hard to insure that cooperation would not be forthcoming. Sōjiji recruited many times the number of honorary abbots as did Eiheiji, and it issued orders forbidding monks from its branch temples from seeking honors at Eiheiji. It even sought to prevent temples outside the Sōtō order from recognizing purple robes awarded at Eiheiji. Among Sōjiji's branch temples, only those affiliated with the Ryōan faction proved defiant and continued to seek honorary titles at Eiheiji. In exchange for their financial donations, though, the Ryōan leaders demanded that Eiheiji refuse to grant honors to monks from rival factions.13
The second most prominent strategy used to link Eiheiji to Dōgen's memory is memorial services. It is these services more than any other event that eventually came to emphasize Eiheiji's status as head of all Sōtō dharma lineages. In stark contrast to their subsequent importance, however, there is no evidence that Dōgen memorial services assumed a role of any importance during Eiheiji's early history. In fact, there is no documentary evidence for any Dōgen memorial service at all until after the passage of 350 years.
Surely memorial services must have been observed. We know, for example, that the Eiheiji community observed memorial services for Dōgen's teacher Rujing (Japanese, Nyojō; 1163–1227) during the years 1246 to 1252 while Dōgen was alive.14 Likewise, the recorded sayings of the Sōtō monk Giun (n. d.), who became abbot of Eiheiji in 1314, include reference to the thirty-third memorial service that he observed in 1331 for his teacher, Jakuen (1207–99).15 This reference is important because it demonstrates observance [End Page 6] at Eiheiji of the standard Chinese sequence of memorial services on the third, seventh, thirteenth, and thirty-third years.16 More important, a memorial hall specifically for Dōgen, the Jōyōan (since renamed Jōyōden), was erected at Eiheiji shortly after his death.17 It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that regular memorial services for Dōgen were a standard part of Eiheiji's annual calendar of events even before the 350-year memorial.18
At the same time, we must also note that Dōgen's memorial hall, the Jōyōan, was not the only one found at Eiheiji during the medieval period. A memorial hall (called the Reibaiin) for Giun also existed. As mentioned above, Giun became abbot of Eiheiji in 1314. In so doing, he established control over Eiheiji by members of the Jakuen lineage.19 According to a 1495 inventory of Eiheiji's endowment, the Reibaiin derived income from lands covering about two and a half times as much area as the lands of the Jōyōan. The inventory further reveals that while the Jōyōan's endowment consisted only of land donated immediately following Dōgen's death, the Reibaiin had repeatedly received donations of additional land over a period of many years.20 Therefore, based on the lack of records concerning memorials for Dōgen and on the substantially greater wealth of Reibaiin, one can conclude that medieval-period leaders at Eiheiji placed more emphasis on memorial services for Giun (i.e., for ancestors of their own Jakuen line) than for Dōgen.
About the same time that Giun served as abbot at Eiheiji, another Sōtō monk named Keizan Jōkin (1264–1324) strove to promote memorial services for Dōgen. Keizan's base of operations, however, was not Dōgen's Eiheiji, but Yōkōji, a new temple he had just founded in Noto Province. In 1323 Keizan erected a memorial hall (the Dentōin) at Yōkōji, in which he enshrined relics from the previous four ancestors of his lineage: Dōgen's [End Page 7] teacher, Rujing; Dōgen; Dōgen's disciple, Ejō (1198–1280); and Ejō's disciple (i.e., Keizan's teacher), Gikai (1219–1309). Keizan ordered that all Sōtō monks must revere these ancestors and contribute to memorial services held in their honor at Yōkōji so that Yōkōji might function as the new head temple of the Sōtō order.21 The fact that mandatory attendance at memorial services figured so prominently in Keizan's plans for empowering Yōkōji should alert us to the ultimate significance of memorial halls. In Keizan's eyes they sacralized a temple by giving concrete form to the abstract concept of dharma lineage, and in so doing they commanded support from other temples associated with monks in that same lineage. At this time in medieval Japan, many new religious orders coalesced around rites of shared worship at their founders' mausoleums. For example, among Pure Land devotees, the grave site of Hōnen (1133–1212) at the Chion'in temple became the center of the new Jōdoshuū, and the grave site of Shinran (1173–1262) at the future Honganji temple became the center of the Jōdo Shinshuū.22 Keizan's ambitions for Yōkōji nonetheless failed. As mentioned above, it was not Yōkōji but Sōjiji that rose to power as the head temple of the Sōtō order.23
Keizan's activities at Yōkōji did produce one important result, however. They helped to popularize observation of memorial services for Dōgen throughout Japan. The written liturgical calendar that Keizan implemented at Yōkōji naturally included instructions for Dōgen memorials. This calendar, the Tōkoku gyōji jijo (later known as the Keizan shingi), eventually was widely imitated by monks at other Sōtō temples, both within and outside Keizan's lineage. In this way, by the middle of the sixteenth century many, [End Page 8] but certainly not all, Sōtō centers for monastic training observed annual memorial services for Dōgen.24
An Eiheiji abbot named Monkaku (d. 1615) organized the first notable memorial service for Dōgen, which occurred in 1602 to mark the three hundred fiftieth memorial. This service was noteworthy because Monkaku organized a fund-raising campaign to finance it and because he used these proceeds to rebuild Eiheiji's main gate (sanmon). Sometime during the 1570s many of Eiheiji's buildings were destroyed or damaged by fire.25 Since that time, many of them had been rebuilt by Monkaku's predecessors, who relied primarily on funds raised through the awarding of honorary titles. Monkaku also raised funds with that method: his first known act as abbot of Eiheiji was his 1599 appeal for temples to nominate more monks for titles so that Eiheiji might be rebuilt.26 Linking the rebuilding of Eiheiji to Dōgen's memorial, however, created a powerful new fund-raising tool. It provided a convenient deadline that encouraged other temples to donate funds sooner rather than later.
Monkaku's decision to emphasize the importance of Dōgen's memorial might very well be related to the fact that he was the first abbot at Eiheiji in 300 years who was not affiliated with the Jakuen line. Monkaku was an outsider from the Kanto region of eastern Japan, originally affiliated with a temple network known as the Tenshin lineage faction. As an outsider, his [End Page 9] only link to Eiheiji was through the fact that both the Tenshin lineage and the Jakuen lineage shared Dōgen as a common ancestor. Dōgen's memory provided the necessary link that gave Monkaku the status to assume office at Eiheiji.27
After Monkaku, Dōgen's memorial services became a major source of revenue for Eiheiji. The memorial services observed at 50-year intervals in particular provided crucial opportunities for Eiheiji to assert and rebuild itself. For this reason, the history of Eiheiji during the Tokugawa period can be told largely in terms of Eiheiji's observances of major memorials for Dōgen.28 For example, in 1652, for Dōgen's four hundredth memorial, hundreds of monks gathered at Eiheiji for ten days of ceremonies. The sangha hall (sōdō, where residents sleep, eat, and meditate), bath (furo), and main gate along with its images of arhats (rakan) were either rebuilt or substantially repaired. Eiheiji also built a new scripture library (kyōzō) and received a copy of the recently printed Tō Eizan (i.e., Tenkai) edition of the Buddhist canon.29 In 1702, for the four hundred fiftieth memorial, Eiheiji raised funds to rebuild its buddha hall (butsuden), its sanngha hall, its corridors (ryōrō), its study hall (sōryō), its guest quarters (hinkan), and a new memorial hall (tōin) for Dōgen. In 1752 for the five hundredth memorial 23,700 monks gathered at Eiheiji for the ceremonies. The main gate was rebuilt yet again.30 In 1802 for the five hundred fiftieth memorial Eiheiji rebuilt its sangha hall and its study hall. In 1852 for the six hundredth memorial Eiheiji rebuilt its retired monks' dormitory (furōkaku) and its scripture library. It also cast a large bronze monastic bell (daibonshō). In 1902 for the six hundred fiftieth memorial Eiheiji rebuilt its buddha hall, its sangha hall, and its infirmary (chōjuin). Major repairs were made to its kitchen office (kuin) and other buildings. Eiheiji again cast a large bronze monastic bell. The bell that had been cast 50 years earlier for the previous memorial service had disappeared for some undisclosed reason.31 (Perhaps it had been confiscated by the government following the Meiji Restoration of 1868.)
The 1902 memorial service was significant as the first major Dōgen memorial of the new Meiji period. Only about 300 monks participated in the [End Page 10] services, but over the course of the months leading up to the ceremonies and during the ceremonies themselves, about 30,000 lay people visited Eiheiji. Therefore, compared to previous occasions during the Tokugawa period (such as 1752 when 23,700 monks are said to have participated), the number of monks in attendance had decreased dramatically, but the number of lay people had increased exponentially.32 The participation of large numbers of lay people in Dōgen memorial services had begun in the 1830s. Saian Urin (1768–1845), who served as Eiheiji's abbot from 1827 to 1844, actively encouraged the formation of lay fraternities (known as Kichijō kō) dedicated specifically to Dōgen's memory throughout Japan. These fraternities existed for the purpose of sending representatives to Eiheiji every year to participate in Dōgen's memorial.33 By 1902, therefore, the practice of lay pilgrimage to Eiheiji had become well established.
Dōgen memorials have continued down to the present. The seven hundredth occurred in 1952 just seven years after the end of the Fifteen-years War (juūgonen sensō; i.e., 1931–45). At that time Japan still had not recovered economically from its wartime devastation and defeat. For this reason, major new building projects were out of the question. In place of buildings, Eiheiji decided to sponsor publications about Dōgen. Its leaders drew up a list of the types of works they wanted to publish: Dōgen's writings; commentaries on those writings; academic books about Dōgen; a dictionary of Dōgen's vocabulary; and biographies of Dōgen. Ultimately, 16 monographs related to Dōgen were published.34 The seven hundred fiftieth memorial was commemorated by a newly commissioned kabuki play, Dōgen no tsuki (Dōgen's moon, by Tatematsu Wahei), which was performed at theaters in many of Japan's major cities.
War has not been the only historical calamity that restricted Eiheiji's ability to stage memorials for Dōgen. Earlier, during the Tokugawa period, agricultural famines, government policies, and conflicts with its rival head temple, Sōjiji, had severely limited the scope of the five hundred fiftieth and six hundredth memorials in 1802 and 1852. Beginning in 1774 the Agency of Temples and Shrines began to restrict direct solicitations of donations by Buddhist temples because of the economic burdens they placed on the country's economy.35 These restrictions applied to Eiheiji and to Sōjiji equally, of course, but hurt Eiheiji more because of its relatively small economic base. In 1788 Sōjiji, in order to preserve its own economic base, ordered that monks in Gasan's lineage (i.e., the lineage of all the temples affiliated with Sōjiji) could no longer seek monastic titles from Eiheiji. In other words, just [End Page 11] when the government would no longer allow Eiheiji to solicit funds, its revenue from honorary titles also dried up.
Sōjiji's new policy had one more important implication. Until this time the warrior government had appointed new abbots to Eiheiji from three Kanto-area Sōtō temples (the so-called Kan sansetsu) which remained affiliated with Sōjiji. Therefore, after Sōjiji forbade its monks from receiving honors at Eiheiji, none of the senior monks from those three Kanto temples would accept a government appointment to Eiheiji. As a result, Eiheiji's abbotship went vacant for three years between 1792 and 1795.36 At the beginning of 1795 Eiheiji had no abbot, no fund-raising campaign, and almost no income from honorary titles. Dōgen's five hundred fiftieth memorial would occur in 1802, just seven years away. In 1795, therefore, any neutral outside observer probably would have concluded that Eiheiji would be unable to afford any special events or special constructions.
Eiheiji escaped from this crisis by asserting that it alone preserved the traditional monastic practices that had been taught by Dōgen. In 1795 Gentō Sokuchū (1729–1807) assumed office as Eiheiji's new abbot. Sokuchū had been affiliated to the Meihō line (via Entsūji), a lineage whose members had fought against Sōjiji in the past. Once he entered Eiheiji, Sokuchū immediately began working to restore his new monastery's fund-raising capabilities. He wrote a series of long missives to the Agency of Temples and Shrines in which he argued three main points (summarized from the original documents):
1. Eiheiji must be recognized as the single, unequaled comprehensive head temple (sōhonzan) of all Sōtō dharma lineages in Japan. This status had been granted to Eiheiji by the court in medieval times. Sōjiji is wrong to deny it. Therefore, Sōtō monks in Gasan's dharma lineage must be allowed to appear at Eiheiji for honorary titles.
2. In accordance with the regulations established by the Eastern Shining Divine Ruler (Tōshō Shinkun, i.e., Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1542–1616), all Sōtō monks in Japan must adhere to Eiheiji's house rules (kakun, standards).37 [End Page 12] Recently, however, the monastic ceremonies performed by Japanese Sōtō monks have become corrupted by influences from "new styles of monastic regulations based on Chinese Ming-dynasty elaborations" (Minchō karei no shinki). Japanese Sōtō monks have been turning their backs on Eihei's standards (Eihei no kakun, i.e., Dōgen's teachings). In so doing, they are unfilial. This unfilial behavior must be reformed. Sōtō monks who refuse to adhere to Dōgen's old regulations (koki) should be punished by the government.
3. In order to reform Sōtō monks, it is absolutely necessary that Eiheiji be allowed to build a new sangha hall and study hall in accordance with Dōgen's old regulations. The new sangha hall and study hall must be ready in time for Dōgen's five hundred fiftieth memorial in 1802. Dōgen wrote that he (i.e., Dōgen) had erected the first sangha hall ever built in Japan. Therefore an old-style sangha hall constitutes the very basis of Dōgen's Buddhism. For these reasons, (Sokuchū argued) Eiheiji must be permitted to raise funds for these important construction projects. Otherwise, Eiheiji will be unable either to uphold its court-recognized status or to adhere to the dictates of the divine ruler (Tokugawa Ieyasu).38
Gentō Sokuchū's arguments carried the day. In 1801 the Agency of Temples and Shrines authorized Eiheiji to implement Dōgen's old regulations by building a new sangha hall and study hall. Sokuchū immediately compiled new monastic regulations that would explain how ceremonies, including Dōgen's memorial services, were supposed to be performed in accordance with his so-called old standards. In 1803 he published these new regulations in three fascicles as Eihei shō shingi (Eihei's little regulations). The word "Eihei" in this title simultaneously refers to Eiheiji monastery and to Dōgen as the founder of that monastery. Moreover, the title as a whole alluded to a compilation of temple regulations attributed to Dōgen, popularly known as Eihei shingi (Dōgen's regulations), that Sokuchū had published in 1799 during his negotiations with the government.39 With these two publications, Sokuchū established Eiheiji's reputation as the center for ancient monastic traditions, which he identified as the ancient unchanging essence of Zen itself.
The timing of these events is very significant. Sokuchū's Eihei shō shingi was published in 1803, but the procedures it described had been implemented at Eiheiji in time for the five hundred fiftieth Dōgen memorial in 1802. One can easily imagine how the "old" procedures would have impressed visitors. Senior monks from Sōtō temples throughout Japan came to Eiheiji to [End Page 13] participate in the memorial rites. In previous years they had few occasions to think about Dōgen. Throughout this year, however, they had to work to raise money for the journey on behalf of Dōgen's memory. At Eiheiji they experienced a new form of monastic practice, unlike what they performed at home. They found a new sangha hall and new study hall, both of which differed in many ways from what they had known at their home temples. The daily routine of ceremonies and the memorial services also differed. These differences impressed upon them Eiheiji's unique status and authority. The assertion that Eiheiji alone preserved the traditional monastic practices that had been taught by Dōgen was not just rhetoric. The visiting monks were made to experience it for themselves. Their eyes, ears, and bodies told them Eiheiji was unique. They discovered in Dōgen's memory a new importance for his temple.
Eiheiji used these same tactics for the five hundred fiftieth Dōgen memorial in 1852. At that time Gaun Dōryuū (a.k.a. Kamimura Dōryuū, 1796–1871) served as Eiheiji's abbot. In 1850 he sent a detailed missive to the Agency of Temples and Shrines in which he repeated the same assertions mentioned above, especially that all Sōtō monks in Japan must adhere to Eiheiji's house rules (kakun, standards) as dictated by the Eastern Shining Divine Ruler (Tokugawa Ieyasu). He also added a new twist. According to Dōryuū, Eiheiji's house rules demand that all monks wear Buddhist "robes that accord with the dharma" (nyohō e). Of course, exactly what kind of robe accords with the dharma has never been exactly clear. At the very least, robes that accord with the dharma correspond to the kind worn at Eiheiji but not found at other Buddhist temples in Japan. Dōryuū's request, therefore, that the agency issue new regulations requiring Sōtō monks to observe this standard was an attempt to force all Sōtō monks to acknowledge Eiheiji's supremacy.
Unlike the previous case, however, on this occasion the Agency of Temples and Shrines did not issue a ruling in favor of Eiheiji's position. Not waiting for the government to act, on the eleventh day of the fifth moon of 1852, Gaun Dōryuū sent a letter to Sōjiji notifying it that any monks who wore improper robes would not be permitted to enter Eiheiji. In other words, any temple representatives who came to Eiheiji to participate in the five hundred fiftieth Dōgen memorial—just three months hence—would not be admitted unless they first changed into new robes acceptable to Eiheiji. The implications of this position should be crystal clear. Senior Sōtō monks from throughout Japan who came to Eiheiji for the five hundred fiftieth Dōgen memorial would experience Eiheiji's authority—Eiheiji's ability to define Dōgen's memory—in concrete ways. They felt Eiheiji's power not just in its different kinds of buildings, not just in its different kinds of ceremonies, but also in their own new clothes.40 [End Page 14]
After the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the new regime's anti-Buddhist policies severely reduced the nationwide population of ordained monks and nuns, Eiheiji enlisted Dōgen's memory to cement closer ties with lay people. On the tenth day of the fifth month of 1899, a year corresponding to the seven hundredth celebration of Dōgen's birth, Eiheiji organized its first lay ordination ceremony specifically tied to Dōgen's birth rather than his death. Lay men and women were invited to spend seven days at Eiheiji to observe ceremonies, listen to Buddhist sermons, and to receive ordination with the Sōtō lineage's special version of the bodhisattva precepts. This event, officially called "Ordinations to Repay Kindness" (hōon jukai e), proved so successful that the following year (1900) it was made an annual event at Eiheiji. The date of the ceremony, however, had to be changed. May 10 was inconvenient for the monks at Eiheiji because it came too close to the start of the summer training period (ango, which begins on May 15) and it was impractical for lay people, most of whom were farmers, because it conflicted with the spring planting. In 1899, therefore, the ceremony was advanced one month to April 28.41 Finally, in 1900 Sōtō leaders officially designated January 26 as Dōgen's birthday and ordered all Sōtō temples in Japan to celebrate it.42 Of course no one knows the actual day of Dōgen's birth. The Teiho Kenzeiki (Annotated Keizei's chronicle), an extremely influential biography of Dōgen edited and annotated by Menzan Zuihō (1683–1769), gives the date of Dōgen's birth as the second day of the first moon of 1200. None of the earlier manuscript versions of this text, however, provides any evidence from which Menzan might have derived this date.43
Mention of Menzan's Teiho Kenzeiki brings us to the final component in Eiheiji's efforts to promote Dōgen's memory, the one that has exerted the greatest influence on ordinary people both inside and outside Japan whether affiliated to sectarian Sōtō institutions or not. I refer, of course, to scholarship. Documentary investigation into Dōgen's life and times began at Eiheiji during the fifteenth century when one of its abbots, a man named Kenzei, compiled a chronological account of Dōgen's life, supplemented by copious quotations from Dōgen's own writings, letters, and other historical records. This work was originally titled Eihei kaisan gogyōjō (An account of the activities of Eiheiji's founder) but is more widely known as Kenzeiki (Kenzei's [End Page 15] chronicle). It is, without a doubt, the single most influential biography of Dōgen ever written. Since 1452, when Kenzei finished his account, down to the present day, almost all biographies, histories, encyclopedia articles, and other works that mention Dōgen repeat, either directly or indirectly, information found only in Kenzei's chronicle.
The year 1452 when Kenzei wrote his history is significant because it corresponds to the two hundredth memorial of Dōgen's death. In his record, however, Kenzei never mentions memorial rituals and does not suggest that Dōgen's memory served as a motivation for his chronicle.44 It is possible that Kenzei did not consciously choose 1452. After all, his chronicle does not end with Dōgen's death but continues with the early history of Eiheiji down to about the year 1340.45 Nonetheless, we can be certain that Dōgen memorial services played a major role in preserving the text for later generations. The most accurate extant manuscript version of Kenzei's chronicle (the so-called Zuichō hon Kenzeiki), for example, was copied in 1552 to commemorate Dōgen's three hundredth memorial.46 It is reasonable to assume that Kenzei's scholarship had been motivated by a similar desire to memorialize Dōgen.
To commemorate Dōgen's five hundredth memorial in 1754, the Sōtō monk and scholar Menzan Zuihō published his annotated edition of Kenzei's chronicle, the aforementioned Teiho Kenzeiki.47 In his version of the text, Menzan deleted anything not directly related to Dōgen. All events after Dōgen's death were eliminated. Moreover, Menzan added considerable amounts of new material concerning Dōgen's biography, such as his parentage, training on Mt. Hiei, meeting with Eisai (a.k.a. Yōsai, 1141–1215), relations with his teacher Myōzen (1184–1225), trip to China and travels there, move to Echizen, trip to Kamakura, miracles, relationship to Sōtō medicinal products, and so forth. Menzan's deletions and additions narrowed the focus of Kenzei's chronicle and converted it more clearly into a hagiographic account of Dōgen's life and a comprehensive overview of Dōgen's environment. More important, they inserted Menzan's authorial voice into Kenzei's chronicle in ways that are not always readily apparent and to a degree much greater than the title Teiho Kenzeiki might suggest. This point is significant because until 1975 Menzan's version of Kenzei's chronicle was the only one readily available.
Fifty years later, in celebration of Dōgen's five hundred fiftieth memorial, Eiheiji published an illustrated version of Menzan's annotated chronicle, the [End Page 16] Teiho Kenzeiki zue (preface dated 1806, but actually published 1817).48 This illustrated edition was ideally suited for lecturing to an audience of lay people since the lecturer could describe the contents of the illustrations without being confined by the words of the text. It played a key role, therefore, in encouraging lay people to become more closely involved in Sōtō activities.49 In 1828, for example, Saian Urin (1768–1845) instigated a new policy of encouraging the formation of lay fraternities (the kichijō kō), the members of which would send representatives to Eiheiji every year to participate in memorials for Dōgen. Donations to Eiheiji by the members of these lay fraternities helped maintain the monastery through times of severe economic hardship such as the Tenpō period (1830) when Japan suffered many famines. Without the illustrated version of Kenzei's chronicle to encourage lay devotion to Dōgen, it is questionable if Eiheiji would have been able to solicit finances from poor people.50
Publication of the illustrated Teiho Kenzeiki zue led to another tactic that Eiheiji used to encourage lay pilgrimages by members of kichijō fraternities. By the middle of the 1800s, Eiheiji had begun erecting monuments (kinen hai) to commemorate the major events in Dōgen's life that are illustrated in the Teiho Kenzeiki zue. Of course, no one knew for sure where most of these events might have occurred—if in fact they did occur. Nonetheless, the monuments were erected. Members of the Kichijō fraternities stopped at these sites along their route to and from Eiheiji.51 These monuments made the pilgrimage to Eiheiji more interesting and also provided incentive for some people to participate in the pilgrimage even if they could not travel the entire length of the route to Eiheiji.
The popularity of Kenzei's chronicle along with Menzan's additions and the subsequent illustrations among such a wide audience throughout all levels of Japanese society helped to firmly establish Dōgen as a familiar figure among Japan's eminent monks. Until 1975 all accounts of Dōgen's life, whether written for popular consumption or for scholarly consideration, were based almost entirely on Menzan's annotated version of Kenzei's chronicle. There simply were no other sources beyond the meager biographical details found in Dōgen's own writings. By 1952, for example, more than 21 separate biographies of Dōgen had been published. Most of these biographies were published during the years 1852, 1902, and 1952—corresponding to [End Page 17] major Dōgen memorials—and all of them simply repeated or abridged the text of Kenzei's chronicle or the captions to its illustrations.52
For this reason, our understanding of Dōgen's biography entered a new era when, in 1975, Kawamura Kōdō published a compilation of six early manuscript versions of Kenzei's chronicle. This book, the Shohon taikō Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzei ki (Collated editions of all the manuscripts of the activities of Eiheiji's founder, the Zen master Dōgen, chronicled by Kenzei), reprints manuscripts that were originally copied as early as 1472 and that, therefore, much more closely adhere to Kenzei's own pen than Menzan's annotations had allowed. Examination of these early versions revealed for the first time just how extensively Menzan Zuihō had altered Kenzei's account. We now know that Menzan's version of Dōgen's biography cannot be trusted. In other words, since all previous biographies of Dōgen were based on Menzan's work, none of them can be trusted. Even the 1953 biography by Ōkubo Dōshuū, his celebrated Dōgen zenjiden no kenkyuū (Biographical studies of Dōgen) must be used with caution. Since the full extent of Menzan's distortions was not immediately understood, many encyclopedia entries, reference works, and statements by Western and Japanese scholars published after 1975 repeated the erroneous accounts in Menzan's annotated version of Kenzei's chronicle. One cannot trust anything written about Dōgen's life, therefore, unless one first ascertains whether its author made full use of Kawamura's early manuscripts.
Aside from publishing Dōgen's biography, the second major way Eiheiji has influenced the way we remember Dōgen is through its efforts to promote study of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō (True dharma eye collection)—now one of the most well-known religious books of Japan. Today, when someone remembers Dōgen or thinks of Sōtō Zen, most often that person automatically thinks of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō. This kind of automatic association of Dōgen with this work is very much a modern development. By the end of the fifteenth century most of Dōgen's writings had been hidden from view in temple vaults where they became secret treasures.53 After textual learning was revived during the early Tokugawa period, most Japanese Sōtō monks still studied only well-known Chinese Buddhist scriptures or classic Chinese Zen texts.54 Eventually a few scholarly monks like Menzan Zuihō began to study Dōgen's writings, but they were the exceptions. Even when scholarly monks read Dōgen's writings, they usually did not lecture on them to their disciples. In fact, from 1722 until 1796 the government authorities actually prohibited the publication or dissemination of any part of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō.55 [End Page 18]
The government ban on publication of the Shōbōgenzō was lifted as a result of petitions submitted by Gentō Sokuchū, the monk who assumed office as Eiheiji's new abbot in 1765 and whose efforts to implement Dōgen's "old regulations" at Eiheiji were summarized above. Upon accepting Eiheiji's abbotship, Sokuchū had vowed to publish Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō in time to commemorate Dōgen's five hundred fiftieth memorial in 1802. The exact wording that Sokuchū used to advance the case for publication has not survived, but he probably sounded arguments similar to those cited earlier. At least the same line of reasoning can be detected in the official order lifting the publication ban where it specifically recognized the Shōbōgenzō as constituting Dōgen's house rules (kakun), which must be followed by all members of his Sōtō lineage.56 Work on the publication project began immediately, so that two Shōbōgenzō chapters were printed in 1796. The task proved to be so onerous—collating variant manuscripts, editing texts, rearranging the order of chapters, inserting unrelated works, retitling chapters, carving woodblocks, and raising money to finance publication—that the project was not completed until 1815, seven years after Sokuchū's death (see Table 2).57 In spite of its numerous textual inaccuracies, the version of the Shōbōgenzō published by Eiheiji (known as the "Head Temple," honzan, edition) remains the one most widely read even today.58
Eiheiji not only published Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō but also promoted its study by Sōtō monks and lay people. Beginning in 1905 Eiheiji organized its first Shōbōgenzō conference (Genzō e). Academics, popular writers, interested lay people, and monks attended a series of workshops in which they read and discussed specific Shōbōgenzō chapters. This first Genzō e was successful beyond all expectations. Since 1905 it has become an annual event at Eiheiji, and over time it gradually changed the direction of Sōtō Zen monastic education. In earlier generations only one Zen teacher, Nishiari Bokusan (1821–1910), is known to have ever lectured on how the Shōbōgenzō should be read and understood. One of Bokusan's disciples, Oka Sōtan (1890–1921), served as the first leader of the Genzō e. Sōtan's lectures provided a model that could be emulated by each of the other Zen [End Page 19] monks who came to Eiheiji.59 This model has become the norm, not the exception. Today every Sōtō Zen teacher lectures on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō.
Dōgen's memory has helped keep Eiheiji financially secure, in good repair, and filled with monks and lay pilgrims who look to Dōgen for religious inspiration. Eiheiji has become Dōgen's place, the temple where Dōgen is remembered, where Dōgen's Zen is practiced, where Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō is published, where it is read, and where one goes to learn Dōgen's Buddhism. As we remember Dōgen, we should also remember that remembrance is not value neutral. It cannot be a product of pure, objective scholarship. We should perhaps remind ourselves that the Dōgen we remember is a constructed image, an image constructed in large measure to serve the sectarian agendas of Eiheiji in its rivalry with Sōjiji. We should remember that the Dōgen of the Shōbōgenzō, the Dōgen who is held up as a profound religious philosopher, is a fairly recent innovation in the history of Dōgen remembrances. However important that modern Dōgen may be for our time, he [End Page 20] might not be so important for Kamakura Buddhism or for medieval Buddhism or for most of Tokugawa-period Buddhism. Instead, it is the Dōgen of sectarian agendas, the Dōgen who stands above Keizan, the Dōgen who works miracles, and so forth, who commanded the memory of earlier generations of Japanese. As we remember Dōgen for the twenty-first century, we must not forget about these other, older images of Dōgen. Finally, in remembering Dōgen, the time is ripe for someone to write a new, more accurate biography of Dōgen, one that sorts out what can be known and what was only remembered or invented by Menzan Zuihō and the artists of the illustrated version of Kenzei's chronicle.
William M. Bodiford is a professor in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is editor of Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya (Hawai'i, 2005), associate editor of Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Macmillan, 2005), and author of "Medieval Period" in Swanson and Chilson, eds., The Nanzan Guide to Japanese Religion (Hawai'i, 2005). His current research is on Buddhist reform movements in Tokugawa Japan.
1 . Shuūkyō nenkan (Tokyo: Bunkachō, 1997), pp. 64–77.
2 . Eiheiji is located in Fukui Prefecture (premodern Echizen Province) while Sōjiji is now located in Yokohama (near Tokyo). The original Sōjiji is located on the Noto Peninsula in Ishikawa Prefecture.
3 . Kagamishima Sōjun, "Kaisetsu," in Enkyōdo Sōtōshū jiin honmatsuchō (typeset version of 1747 and 1827 texts; 1944; reprinted and expanded edition, Tokyo: Meicho Fukyuūkai, 1980). Giin (a.k.a. Kangan or Hōō, 1217–1300) and Meihō Sotetsu (1277–1350) were two prominent leaders within early Sōtō history in Japan.
4 . Sakurai Shuūyuū, ed., Eiheijishi (Fukui Pref.: Dai Honzan Eiheiji, 1982), Vol. 2, pp. 1516–25.
5 . Reliable data on temple relationships prior to the start of Tokugawa-period regulation of religious institutions are unavailable. For an overview, see William M. Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1993), pp. 122–39.
6 . E.g., Takahashi Zenryuū, "Honmatsu seiritsu to Tokugawa bakufu no shuūkyō seisaku ni tsuite," in the 1980 reprint of Kagamishima, ed., Enkyōdo Sōtōshū jiin honmatsuchō, p. 5.
7 . As John Whitney Hall explained in the pages of this journal (see "Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History: An Inquiry into the Problems of Translation," Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 9 , p. 10): "It is unfortunate that in modern times tennō (or tenshi) has so unquestionably been rendered 'emperor'. . . .The translation 'emperor,' whether drawing upon European or Chinese usage, carrie[s] overtones of grandeur and autocratic personal power that the Japanese tennō did not possess." Indeed, not only has Japan never possessed a ruler commanding supreme authority (the usual meaning of "emperor"), but except for a brief moment in the twentieth century the Japanese never extended rule over a vast territory approximating an empire. Moreover, in premodern Japanese Buddhist literature, especially Sōtō documents, the ruler most frequently is designated simply as ō (king). For these reasons, in this essay I refer to the ruler's court and its titles with the adjective "royal" instead of "imperial."
8 . Nobutane kyōki (diary of Nakamikado Nobutane, 1442–1525), entries for 11.23 and 12.16, in Zōho Shiryō Taisei Kankōkai, ed., Zōho Shiryō taisei (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1965), Vol. 45, pp. 218b, 221b. Today on Eiheiji's main gate there is a wooden plaque that is said to represent calligraphy by Goen'yū tennō (1358–93), awarded by him to Eiheiji in 1372. It reads: Nihon Sōtō daiichi dōjō (literally, the number one training center of Japan's Sōtō lineage)—not honchō Sōtō daiichi dōjō. It is extremely doubtful, however, if Eiheiji received calligraphy from Goen'yū or any other royal honors as early as the fourteenth century. No direct or indirect documentary evidence among either Sōtō or non-Sōtō sources attests to this earlier award. Moreover, if earlier royal calligraphy had established a precedent for use of the word Nihon, it is highly unlikely that a subsequent award would have changed it to honchō. Other inconsistencies also exist. Nakamikado Nobutane reports that Eiheiji originally had requested a different word order (honchō daiichi Sōtō dōjō), which had been rejected, and that the calligraphy was written by the nobleman Sesonji Yukisue (1476–1532), not by a royal sovereign. It is hard to imagine that in 1507 Eiheiji would have requested an unacceptable word order or would have received calligraphy written by a mere nobleman if the temple already possessed a wooden plaque representing calligraphy awarded by Goen'yū more than 130 years earlier. See Imaeda Aishin, Chuūsei Zenshuūshi no kenkyuū (1970; second edition, Tokyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982), pp. 395–96, 397 note 10.
9 . The designation "five mountains" refers not to a particular number of places but is the name of a broad category of Buddhist monasteries and temples divided into three levels of status: gozan (as many as 11 centers), jissatsu (as many as 32), and shozan (as many as 186). Except for one or two possible exceptions, Sōtō institutions were not affiliated with the Five Mountains. Regarding bafuku fees for appointments to abbotships, see Martin Collcutt, Five Mountains: The Rinzai Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 228–36. Regarding Eiheiji's case, see Imaeda, Chuūsei Zenshuūshi, pp. 394–97.
10 . Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 135–36.
11 . For these titles, see Shoshuū chokugōki (circa 1311 to 1660), in Hanawa Hokiichi and Hanawa Tadatomi, eds., Zoku gunsho ruijuū (1822; reprinted Tokyo: Keizai Zasshisha, 1902), Vol. 28B.
12 . Hirose Ryōkō, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukkō undō," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 1, pp. 384–86.
13 . Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 135–38. Ryōan Emyō (1337–1411) was a prominent leader in medieval Sōtō. His name is used to identify one of the smaller networks of Sōtō temples affiliated to Sōjiji.
14 . Eihei Dōgen oshō kōroku (1598 copy by Monkaku), reprinted in ōkubo Dōshuū, ed., Dōgen zenji zenshuū (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1970), Vol. 2, jōdō Nos. 184, 249, 274, 276, 342, 384, 515. Regarding the dates of these lectures, see Itō Shuūken, "'Eihei kōroku' setsuji nendai kō," Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyō Gakubu ronshuū, no. 11 (1980), pp. 185–88.
15 . See Giun oshō goroku, reprinted in Sōtōshū zensho (revised and enlarged edition; Tokyo: Sōtōshū Shuūmuchō, 1970–73), Vol. 5, "Goroku" No. 1, p. 9a.
16 . The observance in Japan of the Chinese sequence of memorial services is discussed by Tamamuro Taijō, Sōshiki bukkyō (Tokyo: Daihōrinkaku, 1963), p. 171.
17 . Zuichō hon Kenzeiki (1552 version of Kenzei's chronicle, recopied by Zuichō in 1589), reprinted in Kawamura Kōdō, ed., Shohon taikō Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzeiki (Tokyo: Taishuūkan Shoten, 1975), p. 85.
18 . There exists a manual for Dōgen memorial services titled Eiheiji kaisan kigyō hokke kōshiki that was published in the early 1900s at Eiheiji. According to its postscript, this text was revised by Menzan Zuihō in 1747 based on an original by Giun that had been stored at Hōkyōji. The genealogy of this text, however, remains unknown. In Menzan's otherwise well-documented life, there is no evidence that he ever saw this text. He did not mention it in the manual for Dōgen memorial services (Jōyō daishi hōon kōshiki) that he compiled for Dōgen's five hundredth memorial in 1752. Moreover, we know that a manual for hokke kōshiki (Lotus Suūtra ceremony) was donated to Eiheiji in 1759 by the abbot of Keiyōji (in Edo) for the express purpose of being used for Dōgen memorial services. That Keiyōji text is the most likely origin of the Eiheiji kaisan kigyō hokke kōshiki. See Kumagai Chuūkō and Yoshida Dōkō, "Shuūtō fukko undō to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, vol. 2, p. 985.
19 . Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 70–80.
20 . Hirose, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukkō undō," pp. 477–81.
21 . The following four documents help reveal Keizan's ambitions for Yōkōji: (1) Tōkoku dentōin gorō gosoku narabi ni gyōgō ryakki (originally dated 1323.9.13, but included in a 1718 version of Tōkokuki; reprinted in Kohō Chisan, ed., Jōsai daishi zenshuū, 1937; reprinted and enlarged, Yokohama: Dai Honzan Sōjiji, 1976), pp. 411–16; (2) Tōkoku jinmirai honji to nasubeki no okibumi (originally dated 1318.12.23, but included in the 1515 copy of Shōbōgenzō zatsubun; reprinted in Matsuda Fumio, "Keizan Zenji no jinmiraisai okibumi ni tsuite: Yōkōji kaibyaku no haikei," Shuūgaku kenkyuū, No. 12, 1970), pp. 133–34; (3) Tōkoku jinmiraisai okibumi (originally dated 1319.12.8; reprinted in ōkubo Dōshuū, ed., Sōtōshū komonjo, Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1972), No. 163, Vol. 2, pp. 120–21; and (4) Tōkokuki (copy dated 1432 at Daijōji, reprinted in ōtani Teppu, ed., "Daijōji hihon 'Tōkokuki,'" Shuūgaku kenkyuū, No. 16 (1974), pp. 231–48. Regarding these documents, see Matsuda, "Keizan Zenji no jinmiraisai okibumi ni tsuite," but note that at the time of Matsuda's analysis the 1432 Daijōji copy of Tōkokuki had not yet been published and the correct year of Keizan's birth was not known. For a comprehensive study of Keizan and his religious world, see Bernard Faure, Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
22 . James C. Dobbins, "Envisioning Kamakura Buddhism," in Richard K. Payne, ed., Re-Visioning "Kamakura" Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1998), pp. 32–33.
23 . Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 95–97.
24 . The original text of the Tōkoku gyōji jijo probably was compiled by Keizan's disciples at Yōkōji after his death. The earliest surviving copy was completed in two fascicles by Fusai Zenkyū in 1376 and is owned by Zenrinji temple (Fukui Prefecture). The standard edition of Keizan oshō shingi, which was published in 1680 by Manzan Dōhaku, was edited and enlarged based on texts and practices that were not yet in existence during Keizan's lifetime. It is crucial, therefore, when using the Keizan shingi as a source for Keizan's monastic practices to verify each passage by comparison to earlier manuscripts. In the case of Dōgen memorial services, the instructions found in the 1680 published text (fasc. 2, p. 353) can also be found in the earliest extant manuscript copy, Gyōji jijo (1376, leaves 31–32). The exact same instructions also are found in versions of this liturgical calendar that were adapted for use at other temples, such as Shōbō shingi (1509; reprinted in Sōtōshū Zensho Kankōkai, ed., Zoku Sōtōshū zensho [Tokyo: Sōtōshū Shuūmuchō, 1974–77], Vol. 2, "Shingi—Kōshiki," fasc. 1, pp. 67–68) and Ryuūtaiji gyōji jijo (1559; reprinted in Zoku Sōtōshū zensho, Vol. 2, pp. 110–11). The Kōtakuzan Fusaiji nichiyō shingi (1527; reprinted in Sōtōshū zensho, Vol. 4, "Shingi," p. 653a), a completely unrelated liturgical text, likewise gives elaborate instructions for the observance of Dōgen's memorial. Other medieval liturgical manuals, such as the Seigenzan Yōtakuji gyōji no shidai (circa 1582; reprinted in Sōtōshū zensho, Vol. 4), however, do not include memorial services for Dōgen. Moreover, analysis of monastic events mentioned in medieval-period transcripts of lectures also omit Dōgen's memorial (see Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, p. 160). Of the four texts mentioned above, two were used at temples (Ryuūtaiji and Yōtakuji) affiliated with Sōjiji and two were used at temples (Shōbōji and Fusaiji) that functioned as independent heads of their own factions. It is significant to note that Fusaiji's instructions command the participation of representatives from affiliated branch temples.
25 . Hirose, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukkō undō," pp. 472–77.
26 . Ibid., p. 527.
27 . Ibid., pp. 525–30; and Hirose Ryōkō, "Bakufu no tōsei to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 1, pp. 664–65.
28 . I was prompted to explore this topic when I read Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi and noticed how much of that text is devoted to records of Dōgen memorial services.
29 . Hirose, "Bakufu no tōsei to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 1, pp. 666–67. The sangha hall (sōdō), along with the buddha hall (butsuden) and dharma hall (hattō), represents the presence of the three jewels (sanbō) within the monastery. As such, the translation of sōdō as "monks hall" is incorrect. I thank T. Griffith Foulk and Yifa for drawing my attention to this point.
30 . For the 1702 and 1752 services, see Kumagai and Yoshida, "Shuūtō fukko undō to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, pp. 836–37, 976–78.
31 . Kumagai Chuūkō, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, p. 1293.
32 . Yoshioka Hakudō, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," in ibid., pp. 1380–89.
33 . Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," p. 1266.
34 . Yoshioka Hakudō, "Taishō-Shōwa ki no Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, p. 1455.
35 . Kumagai and Yoshida, "Shuūtō fukko undō to Eiheiji," pp. 991–92.
36 . Kumagai Chuūkō, "Koki fukko to Gentō Sokuchū zenji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, pp. 1017–22.
37 . The designation "Tōshō shinkun" is the exact wording used by Gentō Sokuchū in this document. Although Ieyasu's official posthumous title was that of a local buddha or bodhisattva (daigongen), he was just as commonly referred to as the divine ruler. For the regulations in question, see Eiheiji sho hatto (1615), in ōkubo, ed., Sōtōshū komonjo, No. 28, Vol. 1, pp. 20–21. Regarding the interpretation of kakun, see William M. Bodiford, "Dharma Transmission in Sōtō Zen: Manzan Dōhaku's Reform Movement," Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1991), p. 450.
38 . For the original documents summarized above, see Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gentō Sokuchū zenji," pp. 1125–90.
39 . Because the preface to this work is dated 1794, that same year usually is erroneously listed as its date of publication. See ibid., pp. 1057–58. Although the Eihei shingi first appeared in print in 1667, Gentō Sokuchū's revised 1799 version became the standard (rufu) edition. The history of this text prior to 1667 is not known.
40 . Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," pp. 1291–1311. Reference works disagree as to the exact dates of Gaun Dōryuū's life. Here I provide the ones given in Eiheijishi.
41 . Yoshioka, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," p. 1390.
42 . Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, p. 1555.
43 . See Teiho Kenzeiki (reprinted in Sōtōshū zensho, Vol. 17, "Shiden," No. 2), p. 15. Cf. Kawamura, ed., Shohon taikō Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzeiki, p. 2.
44 . Kawamura Kōdō, "Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzei ki kaidai," in Kawamura, ed., Shohon taikō Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzeiki, p. 201a.
45 . Kawamura, ed., Shohon taikō Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzeiki, p. 126.
46 . Ibid., p. 136.
47 . Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gentō Sokuchū zenji," p. 1223.
48 . Ibid., pp. 1222–23. The Teiho Kenzeiki zue (illustrated by Zuikō Chingyū and Daiken Hōju) is reprinted in Sōtōshū zensho, Vol. 17, "Shiden," No. 2. New editions of this text, some with full-color illustrations, were issued recently in time for Dōgen's seven hundred fiftieth memorial.
49 . Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," p. 1272.
50 . Ibid., pp. 1266, 1271.
51 . Ibid., pp. 1276–81.
52 . Kawamura, "Eihei kaisan Dōgen zenji gyōjō Kenzei ki kaidai," pp. 202–4.
53 . Bodiford, Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 134–35.
54 . Yokozeki Ryōin, Edo jidai Tōmon seiyō (Tokyo: Bukkyōsha, 1938), p. 825.
55 . Ibid., pp. 909–12.
56 . Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gentō Sokuchū zenji," p. 1035.
57 . Today the Honzan edition of the Shōbōgenzō consists of 95 chapters. Five of those chapters, however, were not added until 1906. In 1796 when publication of the Shōbōgenzō as a whole was permitted, publication of five chapters ("Den'e," "Busso," "Shisho," "Jishō zanmai," and "Jukai") remained prohibited because they concerned religious secrets (such as dharma transmission ceremonies). See Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gentō Sokuchū zenji," p. 1035.
58 . For most scholarly purposes, the best small edition of Dōgen's writings is ōkubo, ed., Dōgen zenji zenshuū (two volumes plus a supplement). For detailed textual investigation of the various premodern versions of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, though, one must turn to the Eihei shōbōgenzō shuūsho taisei (25 volumes plus a supplement) (Tokyo: Taishuūkan Shoten, 1974–82).
59 . Yoshioka, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," pp. 1393–95.