zen 11

Remembering Dōgen: Eiheiji and Dōgen Hagiography

Author(s): William M. Bodiford

Source: The Journal of Japanese Studies , Winter, 2006, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter, 2006), pp. 1-21

Published by: The Society for Japanese Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25064606

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Japanese Studies

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WILLIAM M. BODIFORD

Remembering Dogen: Eiheiji and Dogen Hagiography

Abstract: Dogen (1200-1253) occupies a prominent place in the history of Japanese religions as the founder of the S?t? school of Zen Buddhism. This es

say examines the religious rituals and historical vicissitudes that helped elevate

Dogen to his present position of prominence. It uses the example of Dogen to il lustrate how new historical identities are constructed in response to social im

peratives and institutional struggles. It argues that we cannot fully understand

Japanese religions in general and S?t? 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 Dogen (1200-1253) is remembered as the founder of the S?t? 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 S?t? school. He is the subject of numer ous 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 Dogen, 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, Dogen 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 par ticular aggrandized Dogen to bolster its own authority vis-?-vis its institu tional rivals within the S?t? denomination. The power of ritual memory enabled Eiheiji to command tremendous respect and authority without ac tually possessing great wealth or power (analogous, somewhat, to Japan's

1 Journal of Japanese Studies, 32:1

? 2006 Society for Japanese Studies

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

royal house during the medieval period). In this essay I trace the history of the remembrance of Dogen and the special importance it has held for Ei heiji, and for Eiheiji's status within the S?t? Zen school, the religious order that looks to Dogen as its founder.

Today the S?t? Zen school constitutes the largest single religious de nomination in Japan. In this statement, one must emphasize the word "sin gle." Pure Land Buddhism boasts a greater number of temples?about 30,000 ?but they are divided among some ten (or more) separate legal en tities, the largest of which (J?do Shinsh? Honganjiha) commands the alle giance of about 10,000 temples. S?t? Zen, in contrast, consists of more than 14,000 temples and monasteries, all of which coexist within a single insti tutional structure.1 Unlike every other Buddhist denomination in Japan, this single organization recognizes not just one, but two separate head temples: Eiheiji and S?jiji.2 Only one of these two temples, Eiheiji, owes its existence to Dogen. Not only did Dogen found the temple complex that evolved into Eiheiji, but after his death D?gen'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 Dogen, it is doubtful if Eiheiji could have sur vived, much less thrived, as the head temple of the S?t? school. To under stand the precarious nature of Eiheiji's position, one need merely examine the affiliations of temples within the S?t? Zen denomination (see Table 1).

During the Tokugawa period, the S?t? 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 gov ernment (shogunate) ordered temple factions affiliated with the dharma lines of the monks Giin (centered at Daijiji and Fusaiji monasteries) and Meih? Sotetsu (Daij?ji 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 S?t? temples were affiliated with S?jiji.3 Today, of the 14,000 S?t? Zen temples in modern Japan, only 148 have di rect 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

1. Sh?ky? nenkan (Tokyo: Bunkach?, 1997), pp. 64-77. 2. Eiheiji is located in Fukui Prefecture (premodern Echizen Province) while S?jiji is now

located in Yokohama (near Tokyo). The original S?jiji is located on the Noto Peninsula in Ishikawa Prefecture.

3. Kagamishima S?jun, "Kaisetsu," in Enky?do S?t?sh? jiin honmatsuch? (typeset ver sion of 1747 and 1827 texts; 1944; reprinted and expanded edition, Tokyo: Meicho Fuky?kai, 1980). Giin (a.k.a. Kangan or H?o, 1217-1300) and Meih? Sotetsu (1277-1350) were two prominent leaders within early S?t? history in Japan.

4. Sakurai Sh?y?, ed., Eiheijishi (Fukui Pref.: Dai Honzan Eiheiji, 1982), Vol. 2, pp. 1516-25.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 3

Table 1 Number of Japanese S?t? Temples Affiliated with Each Head Institution

Eiheiji Sojiji Total Number of Temples

Tokugawa Period (circa 1750) 1,300 16,200 17,500 Today (circa 1980) 148 13,850 14,000

temples outside Hokkaido, only five or six maintained any formal relation ship to Eiheiji prior to the Tokugawa-period reorganization of S?t? temple relationships that was ordered by the military government.5

In other words, almost all S?t? temples, directly or indirectly, are affili ated with S?jiji, not with Eiheiji. S?jiji is a true head temple (honzan) in the sense that it stands at the head of thousands of branch and subbranch tem

ples (matsuji). Eiheiji is a head temple in name only, without any institu tional ties to the vast majority of S?t? branch temples. S?t? clerics some times describe this situation by saying that S?jiji is "head of all S?t? temple lineages" (jit? no honzan) while Eiheiji is "head of all S?t? dharma line ages" (h?t? no honzan).6

This statement warrants closer examination. The assertion that "S?jiji is the head of all S?t? temple lineages" concerns like terms, in that it says that one particular religious institution (S?jiji) enjoys special institutional rela tionships with other religious institutions. The statement that "Eiheiji is the head of all S?t? dharma lineages," however, mixes unlike terms, in that it ties a physical institution to the abstract religious concept of dharma line ages. In this equation, Eiheiji itself acquires abstract symbolic significance by standing at the beginning of a religious interpretation of S?t? history, in which all S?t? priests inherit spiritual authority through a diachronic ge nealogy that can be traced back to Dogen. Its symbolic power rests on a re fusal to admit any distinction between this religious image of Dogen as an ancient originator and Eiheiji's synchronie sovereignty over the ways other institutions can use that image. Eiheiji thus has been able to maintain its sta tus as head temple of the entire S?t? order by portraying itself as the em bodiment of that order's collective memory of Dogen.

For the past 500 years or more, Eiheiji's leaders have employed a variety of strategies to exploit D?gen's memory. They have sought the endorsement of the royal court, demanded attendance at memorial services for Dogen, asserted that only Eiheiji maintained the traditional practices advocated by Dogen, placed their imprimatur on publications of D?gen's writings,

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, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1993), pp. 122-39.

6. E.g., Takahashi Zenry?, "Honmatsu seiritsu to Tokugawa bakufu no sh?ky? seisaku ni tsuite," in the 1980 reprint of Kagamishima, ed., Enky?do S?t?sh?jiin honmatsuch?, p. 5.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

organized celebrations of D?gen's birth, and promoted scholarship concern ing Dogen. 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 Dogen served the institutional needs of Eiheiji. Even a brief examination of the development of these strategies will help us better understand how Dogen and the concept of "Dogen Zen" acquired such im portance for S?t? Zen teachings and such prominence in modern accounts of Japanese religious history.

Royal Endorsements

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. Nonethe less, according to entries in the diary of the court noble Nakamikado Nobu tane (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 S?t? Lineage" (honch? S?t? daiichi d?j?).s Receipt of this plaque constituted

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 Japan ese Studies, Vol. 9 [1983], p. 10): "It is unfortunate that in modern times tenn? (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 tenn? did not possess." Indeed, not only has Japan never possessed a ruler com

manding 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 S?t? documents, the ruler most frequently is designated simply as ? (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 ky?ki (diary of Nakamikado Nobutane, 1442-1525), entries for 11.23 and 12.16, in Z?ho Shiry? Taisei Kank?kai, ed., Z?ho Shiry? 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'y? tenn? (1358-93), awarded by him to Eiheiji in 1372. It reads:

Nihon S?t? daiichi d?j? (literally, the number one training center of Japan's S?t? lineage)?not honch? S?t? daiichi d?j?. It is extremely doubtful, however, if Eiheiji received calligraphy from Goen'y? or any other royal honors as early as the fourteenth century. No direct or indirect doc umentary evidence among either S?t? or non-S?t? sources attests to this earlier award. More over, 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 honch?. Other inconsisten cies also exist. Nakamikado Nobutane reports that Eiheiji originally had requested a different word order (honch? daiichi S?t? d?j?), 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'y? more than 130 years earlier. See Imaeda Aishin, Ch?sei Zensh?shi no kenky? (1970; second edition, Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shup pankai, 1982), pp. 395-96, 397 note 10.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 5

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 senju), but also the prestigious purple robe (the royal color) as well as bestowal of a royal Zen master title (zenji go). Eiheiji used the fees col lected 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 S?t? 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 proclama tions name the title itself, such as "Zen Master of Great Merit in the Legit imate Tradition" (Daik? Sh?den Zenji, awarded in 1509), as well as a brief statement praising the recipient of the award. These words of praise proba bly reflect the terminology suggested by Eiheiji, since the court would not have been familiar with either the honor?e or the Zen vocabulary used to praise him. Significantly, many proclamations?especially the earliest ones?specifically praised the recipients as being the "legitimate descen dants of Dogen" (Dogen no tekison). The repeated use of this phrase suggests that Eiheiji's status rested on its being recognized as D?gen's

monastery.12

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 sta tus: gozan (as many as 11 centers), jissatsu (as many as 32), and shozan (as many as 186). Except for one or two possible exceptions, S?t? 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, Ch?sei Zensh?shi, pp. 394-97.

10. Bodiford, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 135-36. 11. For these titles, see Shosh? chokug?ki (circa 1311 to 1660), in Hanawa Hokiichi and

Hanawa Tadatomi, eds., Zoku gunsho ruij? (1822; reprinted Tokyo: Keizai Zasshisha, 1902), Vol. 28B.

12. Hirose Ry?k?, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukk? undo," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 1, pp. 384-86.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

Eiheiji subsequently cited its royal recognition whenever its status as head temple was threatened, both in its many struggles with S?jiji and dur ing 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 fac tions, such as S?jiji. Naturally S?jiji's leaders worked hard to insure that cooperation would not be forthcoming. S?jiji 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 S?t? order from recognizing purple robes awarded at Eiheiji. Among S?jiji's branch temples, only those affili ated with the Ry?an faction proved defiant and continued to seek honorary titles at Eiheiji. In exchange for their financial donations, though, the Ry?an leaders demanded that Eiheiji refuse to grant honors to monks from rival factions.13

Memorial Services

The second most prominent strategy used to link Eiheiji to D?gen'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 S?t? dharma lineages. In stark contrast to their subsequent importance, however, there is no evidence that Dogen memorial services assumed a role of any importance during Eiheiji's early history. In fact, there is no documentary evidence for any Dogen memorial service at all until after the passage of 350 years.

Surely memorial services must have been observed. We know, for ex ample, that the Eiheiji community observed memorial services for D?gen's teacher Rujing (Japanese, Nyoj?; 1163-1227) during the years 1246 to 1252 while Dogen was alive.14 Likewise, the recorded sayings of the S?t? 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

13. Bodiford, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 135-38. Ry?an Emy? (1337-1411) was a prominent leader in medieval S?t?. His name is used to identify one of the smaller networks of S?t? temples affiliated to S?jiji.

14. Eihei Dogen osh? k?roku (1598 copy by Monkaku), reprinted in ?kubo D?sh?, ed., Dogen zenji zensh? (Tokyo: Chikuma Shob?, 1970), Vol. 2,j?d? Nos. 184, 249, 274, 276, 342, 384, 515. Regarding the dates of these lectures, see It? Sh?ken, '"Eihei k?roku' setsuji nendai k?," Komazawa Daigaku Bukky? Gakubu ronsh?, no. 11 (1980), pp. 185-88.

15. See Giun osh? goroku, reprinted in S?t?sh? zensho (revised and enlarged edition; Tokyo: S?t?sh? Sh?much?, 1970-73), Vol. 5, "Goroku" No. 1, p. 9a.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 1

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 Dogen, the J?y?an (since renamed J?y?den), was erected at Eiheiji shortly after his death.17 It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that reg ular memorial services for Dogen were a standard part of Eiheiji's annual cal endar of events even before the 350-year memorial.18

At the same time, we must also note that D?gen's memorial hall, the J?y?an, 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 con trol over Eiheiji by members of the Jakuen lineage.19 According to a 1495 in ventory of Eiheiji's endowment, the Reibaiin derived income from lands cov ering about two and a half times as much area as the lands of the J?y?an. The inventory further reveals that while the J?y?an's endowment consisted only of land donated immediately following D?gen's death, the Reibaiin had re peatedly received donations of additional land over a period of many years.20 Therefore, based on the lack of records concerning memorials for Dogen and on the substantially greater wealth of Reibaiin, one can conclude that medieval-period leaders at Eiheiji placed more emphasis on memorial serv ices for Giun (i.e., for ancestors of their own Jakuen line) than for Dogen.

About the same time that Giun served as abbot at Eiheiji, another S?t? monk named Keizan J?kin (1264-1324) strove to promote memorial serv ices for Dogen. Keizan's base of operations, however, was not D?gen's Eiheiji, but Y?k?ji, a new temple he had just founded in Noto Province. In 1323 Keizan erected a memorial hall (the Dent?in) at Y?k?ji, in which he enshrined relics from the previous four ancestors of his lineage: D?gen's

16. The observance in Japan of the Chinese sequence of memorial services is discussed by Tamamuro Taij?, S?shiki bukky? (Tokyo: Daih?rinkaku, 1963), p. 171.

17. Zuich? hon Kenzeiki (1552 version of Kenzei's chronicle, recopied by Zuich? in 1589), reprinted in Kawamura K?d?, ed., Shohon taik? Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Ken zeiki (Tokyo: Taish?kan Shoten, 1975), p. 85.

18. There exists a manual for Dogen memorial services titled Eiheiji kaisan kigy? hokke k?shiki that was published in the early 1900s at Eiheiji. According to its postscript, this text was

revised by Menzan Zuih? in 1747 based on an original by Giun that had been stored at H?ky?ji. 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 Dogen memorial services (J?y? daishi h?on k?shiki) that he compiled for D?gen's five hundredth memorial in 1752. Moreover, we know that a manual for hokke k?shiki (Lotus

S?tra ceremony) was donated to Eiheiji in 1759 by the abbot of Keiy?ji (in Edo) for the express purpose of being used for Dogen memorial services. That Keiy?ji text is the most likely origin of the Eiheiji kaisan kigy? hokke k?shiki. See Kumagai Ch?k? and Yoshida D?k?, "Sh?t? fukko undo to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, vol. 2, p. 985.

19. Bodiford, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 70-80. 20. Hirose, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukk? undo," pp. 477-81.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

8 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

teacher, Rujing; Dogen; D?gen's disciple, Ej? (1198-1280); and Ej?'s disciple (i.e., Keizan's teacher), Gikai (1219-1309). Keizan ordered that all S?t? monks must revere these ancestors and contribute to memorial services

held in their honor at Y?k?ji so that Y?k?ji might function as the new head temple of the S?t? order.21 The fact that mandatory attendance at memorial services figured so prominently in Keizan's plans for empowering Y?k?ji 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 con cept of dharma lineage, and in so doing they commanded support from other temples associated with monks in that same lineage. At this time in me dieval 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 Honen (1133-1212) at the Chion'in temple be came the center of the new J?dosh?, and the grave site of Shinran (1173-1262) at the future Honganji temple became the center of the J?do Shinsh?.22 Keizan's ambitions for Y?k?ji nonetheless failed. As mentioned above, it was not Y?k?ji but S?jiji that rose to power as the head temple of the S?t? order.23

Keizan's activities at Y?k?ji did produce one important result, however. They helped to popularize observation of memorial services for Dogen throughout Japan. The written liturgical calendar that Keizan implemented at Y?k?ji naturally included instructions for Dogen memorials. This calen dar, the T?koku gy?jijijo (later known as the Keizan shingi), eventually was widely imitated by monks at other S?t? temples, both within and outside Keizan's lineage. In this way, by the middle of the sixteenth century many,

21. The following four documents help reveal Keizan's ambitions for Y?k?ji: (1) T?koku dent?in gor? gosoku narabi ni gy?g? ryakki (originally dated 1323.9.13, but included in a 1718 version of T?kokuki; reprinted in Koh? Chisan, ed., J?sai daishi zensh?, 1937; reprinted and enlarged, Yokohama: Dai Honzan S?jiji, 1976), pp. 411-16; (2) T?koku jinmirai honji to nasubeki no okibumi (originally dated 1318.12.23, but included in the 1515 copy of Sh?b?genz? zatsubun; reprinted in Matsuda Fumio, "Keizan Zenji no jinmiraisai okibumi ni tsuite: Y?k?ji kaibyaku no haikei," Sh?gaku kenky?, No. 12, 1970), pp. 133-34; (3) T?koku jin

miraisai okibumi (originally dated 1319.12.8; reprinted in ?kubo D?sh?, ed., S?t?sh? komonjo, Tokyo: Chikuma Shob?, 1972), No. 163, Vol. 2, pp. 120-21; and (4) T?kokuki (copy dated 1432 at Daij?ji, reprinted in ?tani Teppu, ed., "Daij?ji hihon 'T?kokuki,'" Sh?gaku kenky?,

No. 16 (1974), pp. 231-48. Regarding these documents, see Matsuda, "Keizan Zenji no jinmi raisai okibumi ni tsuite," but note that at the time of Matsuda's analysis the 1432 Daij?ji copy of T?kokuki 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, Vi sions 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, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 95-97.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 9

but certainly not all, S?t? centers for monastic training observed annual me morial services for Dogen.24

An Eiheiji abbot named Monkaku (d. 1615) organized the first notable memorial service for Dogen, which occurred in 1602 to mark the three hun dred fiftieth memorial. This service was noteworthy because Monkaku or ganized a fund-raising campaign to finance it and because he used these pro ceeds 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 D?gen'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 D?gen'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 out sider from the Kanto region of eastern Japan, originally affiliated with a temple network known as the Tenshin lineage faction. As an outsider, his

24. The original text of the T?koku gy?jijijo probably was compiled by Keizan's disciples at Y?k?ji after his death. The earliest surviving copy was completed in two fascicles by Fusai Zenky? in 1376 and is owned by Zenrinji temple (Fukui Prefecture). The standard edition of Keizan osh? shingi, which was published in 1680 by Manzan D?haku, was edited and enlarged based on texts and practices that were not yet in existence during Keizan's lifetime. It is cru cial, therefore, when using the Keizan shingi as a source for Keizan's monastic practices to ver ify each passage by comparison to earlier manuscripts. In the case of Dogen memorial serv ices, the instructions found in the 1680 published text (fase. 2, p. 353) can also be found in the earliest extant manuscript copy, Gy?jijijo (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 Sh?b? shingi (1509; reprinted in S?t?sh? Zensho Kank?kai, ed., Zoku S?t?sh? zensho [Tokyo: S?t?sh? Sh?much?, 1974-77], Vol. 2, "Shingi?K?shiki," fase. 1, pp. 67-68) and

Ry?taiji gy?jijijo (1559; reprinted in Zoku S?t?sh? zensho, Vol. 2, pp. 110-11). The K?takuzan Fusaiji nichiy? shingi (1527; reprinted in S?t?sh? zensho, Vol. 4, "Shingi," p. 653a), a com pletely unrelated liturgical text, likewise gives elaborate instructions for the observance of D?gen's memorial. Other medieval liturgical manuals, such as the Seigenzan Y?takuji gy?ji no shidai (circa 1582; reprinted in S?t?sh? zensho, Vol. 4), however, do not include memorial services for Dogen. Moreover, analysis of monastic events mentioned in medieval-period tran scripts of lectures also omit D?gen's memorial (see Bodiford, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, p. 160). Of the four texts mentioned above, two were used at temples (Ry?taiji and Y?takuji) affiliated with S?jiji and two were used at temples (Sh?b?ji and Fusaiji) that functioned as in dependent heads of their own factions. It is significant to note that Fusaiji's instructions com mand the participation of representatives from affiliated branch temples.

25. Hirose, "Eiheiji no suiun to fukk? undo," pp. 472-77. 26. Ibid., p. 527.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

10 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

only link to Eiheiji was through the fact that both the Tenshin lineage and the Jakuen lineage shared Dogen as a common ancestor. D?gen's memory provided the necessary link that gave Monkaku the status to assume office at Eiheiji.27

After Monkaku, D?gen'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 it self. 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 Dogen.28 For example, in 1652, for D?gen's four hundredth memorial, hun dreds of monks gathered at Eiheiji for ten days of ceremonies. The sa?gha hall (s?d?, where residents sleep, eat, and meditate), bath (furo), and main gate along with its images of arhats (rakan) were either rebuilt or substan tially repaired. Eiheiji also built a new scripture library (ky?z?) and received a copy of the recently printed T? 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 sa?gha hall, its corridors (ry?r?), its study hall (s?ry?), its guest quarters (hinkan), and a new memorial hall (Win) for Dogen. 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 sa?gha hall and its study hall. In 1852 for the six hundredth memorial Eiheiji rebuilt its retired

monks' dormitory (fur?kaku) and its scripture library. It also cast a large bronze monastic bell (daibonsho). In 1902 for the six hundred fiftieth me morial Eiheiji rebuilt its buddha hall, its sa?gha hall, and its infirmary (ch?juin). 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 gov ernment following the Meiji Restoration of 1868.)

The 1902 memorial service was significant as the first major Dogen me morial of the new Meiji period. Only about 300 monks participated in the

27. Ibid., pp. 525-30; and Hirose Ry?k?, "Bakufu no t?sei 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 ofthat text is devoted to records of Dogen memorial services.

29. Hirose, "Bakufu no t?sei to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 1, pp. 666-67. The sa?gha hall (s?d?), along with the buddha hall (butsuden) and dharma hall (hatt?), repre sents the presence of the three jewels (sanb?) within the monastery. As such, the translation of s?d? 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, "Sh?t? fukko undo to Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, pp. 836-37, 976-78.

31. Kumagai Ch?k?, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, p. 1293.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 11

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 Dogen memorial services had begun in the 1830s. Saian Urin (1768-1845), who served as Eiheiji's abbot from 1827 to 1844, actively en couraged the formation of lay fraternities (known as Kichij? ko) dedicated specifically to D?gen's memory throughout Japan. These fraternities existed for the purpose of sending representatives to Eiheiji every year to participate in D?gen's memorial.33 By 1902, therefore, the practice of lay pilgrimage to

Eiheiji had become well established. Dogen memorials have continued down to the present. The seven hun

dredth occurred in 1952 just seven years after the end of the Fifteen-years War (j?gonen sens?; 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 Dogen. Its leaders drew up a list of the types of works they wanted to publish: D?gen's writings; commentaries on those writings; academic books about Dogen; a dictionary of D?gen's vo cabulary; and biographies of Dogen. Ultimately, 16 monographs related to Dogen were published.34 The seven hundred fiftieth memorial was com memorated by a newly commissioned kabuki play, Dogen no tsuki (D?gen'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 Dogen. Earlier, during the Tokugawa period, agricultural famines, government policies, and conflicts with its rival head temple, S?jiji, 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 coun try's economy.35 These restrictions applied to Eiheiji and to S?jiji equally, of course, but hurt Eiheiji more because of its relatively small economic base. In 1788 S?jiji, 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 S?jiji) could no longer seek monastic titles from Eiheiji. In other words, just

32. Yoshioka Hakud?, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," in ibid., pp. 1380-89. 33. Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," p. 1266. 34. Yoshioka Hakud?, "Taish?-Sh?wa ki no Eiheiji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2,

p. 1455. 35. Kumagai and Yoshida, "Sh?t? fukko undo to Eiheiji," pp. 991-92.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

when the government would no longer allow Eiheiji to solicit funds, its rev enue from honorary titles also dried up.

S?jiji's new policy had one more important implication. Until this time the warrior government had appointed new abbots to Eiheiji from three Kanto-area S?t? temples (the so-called Kan sansetsu) which remained affili ated with S?jiji. Therefore, after S?jiji 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 ab botship went vacant for three years between 1792 and 1795.36 At the begin ning of 1795 Eiheiji had no abbot, no fund-raising campaign, and almost no income from honorary titles. D?gen'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 af ford any special events or special constructions.

Traditional Practices

Eiheiji escaped from this crisis by asserting that it alone preserved the traditional monastic practices that had been taught by Dogen. In 1795 Gent? Sokuch? (1729-1807) assumed office as Eiheiji's new abbot. Sokuch? had been affiliated to the Meih? line (via Ents?ji), a lineage whose members had fought against S?jiji in the past. Once he entered Eiheiji, Sokuch? immedi ately began working to restore his new monastery's fund-raising capabili ties. He wrote a series of long missives to the Agency of Temples and Shrines in which he argued three main points (summarized from the origi nal documents):

1. Eiheiji must be recognized as the single, unequaled comprehensive head temple (s?honzan) of all S?t? dharma lineages in Japan. This status had been granted to Eiheiji by the court in medieval times. S?jiji is wrong to deny it. Therefore, S?t? monks in Gasan's dharma lineage must be al lowed to appear at Eiheiji for honorary titles.

2. In accordance with the regulations established by the Eastern Shining Divine Ruler (T?sh? Shinkun, i.e., Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1542-1616), all S?t? monks in Japan must adhere to Eiheiji's house rules (kakun, standards).37

36. Kumagai Chuko, "Koki fukko to Gento Sokuchu zenji," in Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, Vol. 2, pp. 1017-22.

37. The designation "T?sh? shinkun" is the exact wording used by Gent? Sokuch? 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 ?kubo, ed., S?t?sh? komonjo, No. 28, Vol. 1, pp. 20-21. Regarding the interpretation of kakun, see William M. Bodiford, "Dharma Transmis sion in S?t? Zen: Manzan D?haku's Reform Movement," Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1991), p. 450.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 13

Recently, however, the monastic ceremonies performed by Japanese S?t? monks have become corrupted by influences from "new styles of monastic regulations based on Chinese Ming-dynasty elaborations" (Mincho karei no shinki). Japanese S?t? monks have been turning their backs on Eihei's stan dards (Eihei no kakun, i.e., D?gen's teachings). In so doing, they are unfilial. This unfilial behavior must be reformed. S?t? monks who refuse to adhere to

D?gen's old regulations (koki) should be punished by the government.

3. In order to reform S?t? monks, it is absolutely necessary that Eiheiji be allowed to build a new sa?gha hall and study hall in accordance with D?gen's old regulations. The new sa?gha hall and study hall must be ready in time for D?gen's five hundred fiftieth memorial in 1802. Dogen wrote that he (i.e., Dogen) had erected the first sa?gha hall ever built in Japan. There fore an old-style sa?gha hall constitutes the very basis of D?gen's Bud dhism. For these reasons, (Sokuch? 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 dic tates of the divine ruler (Tokugawa Ieyasu).38

Gent? Sokuch?'s arguments carried the day. In 1801 the Agency of Tem ples and Shrines authorized Eiheiji to implement D?gen's old regulations by building a new sa?gha hall and study hall. Sokuch? immediately compiled new monastic regulations that would explain how ceremonies, including D?gen'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 sh? shingi (Eihei's little regulations). The word "Ei hei" in this title simultaneously refers to Eiheiji monastery and to Dogen as the founder ofthat monastery. Moreover, the title as a whole alluded to a com pilation of temple regulations attributed to Dogen, popularly known as Eihei shingi (D?gen's regulations), that Sokuch? had published in 1799 during his negotiations with the government.39 With these two publications, Sokuch? 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. Sokuch? 's Eihei sh? shingi was published in 1803, but the procedures it described had been implemented at Eiheiji in time for the five hundred fiftieth Dogen memorial in 1802. One can easily imagine how the "old" procedures would have impressed vis itors. Senior monks from S?t? temples throughout Japan came to Eiheiji to

38. For the original documents summarized above, see Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gent? Sokuch? 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, Gent? Sokuch?'s revised 1799 version became the standard (rufu) edition. The history of this text prior to 1667 is not known.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

14 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

participate in the memorial rites. In previous years they had few occasions to think about Dogen. Throughout this year, however, they had to work to raise

money for the journey on behalf of D?gen's memory. At Eiheiji they experi enced a new form of monastic practice, unlike what they performed at home. They found a new sa?gha hall and new study hall, both of which differed in many ways from what they had known at their home temples. The daily rou tine 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 Dogen 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 D?gen's memory a new importance for his temple.

Eiheiji used these same tactics for the five hundred fiftieth Dogen memo rial in 1852. At that time Gaun D?ry? (a.k.a. Kamimura D?ry?, 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 S?t? 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 D?ry?, Eiheiji's house rules demand that all monks wear Buddhist "robes that accord with the

dharma" (nyoh? 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 Bud dhist temples in Japan. D?ry? 's request, therefore, that the agency issue new regulations requiring S?t? monks to observe this standard was an attempt to force all S?t? monks to acknowledge Eiheiji's supremacy.

Unlike the previous case, however, on this occasion the Agency of Tem ples and Shrines did not issue a ruling in favor of Eiheiji's position. Not wait ing for the government to act, on the eleventh day of the fifth moon of 1852,

Gaun D?ry? sent a letter to S?jiji notifying it that any monks who wore im proper 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 Dogen memorial?just three months hence?would not be admitted unless they first changed into new robes acceptable to Eiheiji. The implica tions of this position should be crystal clear. Senior S?t? monks from throughout Japan who came to Eiheiji for the five hundred fiftieth Dogen memorial would experience Eiheiji's authority?Eiheiji's ability to define D?gen'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

40. Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," pp. 1291-1311. Reference works disagree as to the exact dates of Gaun D?ry?'s life. Here I provide the ones given in Eiheijishi.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 15

Birth Celebrations

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 D?gen'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 D?gen's birth, Eiheiji organized its first lay ordina tion ceremony specifically tied to D?gen's birth rather than his death. Lay

men and women were invited to spend seven days at Eiheiji to observe cere monies, listen to Buddhist sermons, and to receive ordination with the S?t?

lineage's special version of the bodhisattva precepts. This event, officially called "Ordinations to Repay Kindness" (h?onjukai 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 train

ing period (ango, which begins on May 15) and it was impractical for lay peo ple, most of whom were farmers, because it conflicted with the spring plant ing. In 1899, therefore, the ceremony was advanced one month to April 28.41 Finally, in 1900 S?t? leaders officially designated January 26 as D?gen's birthday and ordered all S?t? temples in Japan to celebrate it.42 Of course no one knows the actual day of D?gen's birth. The Teiho Kenzeiki (Annotated Keizei's chronicle), an extremely influential biography of Dogen edited and annotated by Menzan Zuih? (1683-1769), gives the date of D?gen's birth as the second day of the first moon of 1200. None of the earlier manuscript ver sions of this text, however, provides any evidence from which Menzan might have derived this date.43

Scholarship

Mention of Menzan's Teiho Kenzeiki brings us to the final component in Eiheiji's efforts to promote D?gen's memory, the one that has exerted the greatest influence on ordinary people both inside and outside Japan whether affiliated to sectarian S?t? institutions or not. I refer, of course, to scholar

ship. Documentary investigation into D?gen'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 D?gen's life, supplemented by copious quotations from D?gen's own writings, letters, and other historical records. This work was originally titled Eihei kaisan gogy?j? (An account of the ac tivities of Eiheiji's founder) but is more widely known as Kenzeiki (Kenzei's

41. Yoshioka, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," p. 1390. 42. Sakurai, ed., Eiheijishi, p. 1555. 43. See Teiho Kenzeiki (reprinted in S?t?sh? zensho, Vol. 17, "Shiden," No. 2), p. 15.

Cf. Kawamura, ed., Shohon taik? Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzeiki, p. 2.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

16 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

chronicle). It is, without a doubt, the single most influential biography of Dogen 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 Dogen repeat, either directly or indirectly, infor mation 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 D?gen's death. In his record, however, Kenzei never mentions memorial rituals and does not suggest that D?gen'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 D?gen's death but continues with the early history of Eiheiji down to about the year 1340.45 Nonetheless, we can be certain that Dogen memo rial 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 Zuich? hon Kenzeiki), for example, was copied in 1552 to commem orate D?gen's three hundredth memorial.46 It is reasonable to assume that Kenzei's scholarship had been motivated by a similar desire to memorialize Dogen.

To commemorate D?gen's five hundredth memorial in 1754, the S?t? monk and scholar Menzan Zuih? published his annotated edition of Kenzei's chronicle, the aforementioned Teiho Kenzeiki.41 In his version of the text,

Menzan deleted anything not directly related to Dogen. All events after D?gen's death were eliminated. Moreover, Menzan added considerable amounts of new material concerning D?gen's biography, such as his parent age, training on Mt. Hiei, meeting with Eisai (a.k.a. Y?sai, 1141-1215), re lations with his teacher My?zen (1184-1225), trip to China and travels there, move to Echizen, trip to Kamakura, miracles, relationship to S?t? me dicinal products, and so forth. Menzan's deletions and additions narrowed the focus of Kenzei's chronicle and converted it more clearly into a hagio graphie account of D?gen's life and a comprehensive overview of D?gen'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 de gree 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 D?gen's five hundred fiftieth memorial,

Eiheiji published an illustrated version of Menzan's annotated chronicle, the

44. Kawamura K?d?, "Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzei ki kaidai," in Kawamura, ed., Shohon taik? Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzeiki, p. 201a.

45. Kawamura, ed., Shohon taik? Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzeiki, p. 126. 46. Ibid., p. 136. 47. Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gent? Sokuch? zenji," p. 1223.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 17

Teiho Kenzeiki zue (preface dated 1806, but actually published 1817).48 This illustrated edition was ideally suited for lecturing to an audience of lay peo ple 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 en

couraging lay people to become more closely involved in S?t? activities.49 In 1828, for example, Saian Urin (1768-1845) instigated a new policy of en couraging the formation of lay fraternities (the kichij? k?), the members of which would send representatives to Eiheiji every year to participate in me morials for Dogen. Donations to Eiheiji by the members of these lay frater nities helped maintain the monastery through times of severe economic hard ship such as the Tenp? period (1830) when Japan suffered many famines.

Without the illustrated version of Kenzei's chronicle to encourage lay devo tion to Dogen, 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 kichij? fraterni ties. By the middle of the 1800s, Eiheiji had begun erecting monuments (kinen ha?) to commemorate the major events in D?gen's life that are illus trated 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 Kichij? 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 Dogen as a familiar figure among Japan's eminent monks. Until 1975 all accounts of D?gen's life, whether written for popular consumption or for scholarly consideration, were based almost entirely on Menzan's annotated version of Kenzei's chron icle. There simply were no other sources beyond the meager biographical de tails found in D?gen's own writings. By 1952, for example, more than 21 sep arate biographies of Dogen had been published. Most of these biographies were published during the years 1852, 1902, and 1952?corresponding to

48. Ibid., pp. 1222-23. The Teiho Kenzeiki zue (illustrated by Zuik? Chingy? and Daiken H?ju) is reprinted in S?t?sh? zensho, Vol. 17, "Shiden," No. 2. New editions of this text, some with full-color illustrations, were issued recently in time for D?gen's seven hundred fiftieth memorial.

49. Kumagai, "Bakumatsuki no Eiheiji," p. 1272. 50. Ibid., pp. 1266, 1271. 51. Ibid., pp. 1276-81.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

18 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

major Dogen 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 D?gen's biography entered a new era when, in 1975, Kawamura K?d? published a compilation of six early manuscript versions of Kenzei's chronicle. This book, the Shohon taik? Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzei ki (Collated editions of all the manuscripts of the activities of Eiheiji's founder, the Zen master Dogen, 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 Zuih? had altered Kenzei's account.

We now know that Menzan's version of D?gen's biography cannot be trusted. In other words, since all previous biographies of Dogen were based on

Menzan's work, none of them can be trusted. Even the 1953 biography by ?kubo D?sh?, his celebrated Dogen zenjiden no kenky? (Biographical stud ies of Dogen) must be used with caution. Since the full extent of Menzan's distortions was not immediately understood, many encyclopedia entries, ref erence works, and statements by Western and Japanese scholars published af ter 1975 repeated the erroneous accounts in Menzan's annotated version of Kenzei's chronicle. One cannot trust anything written about D?gen's life, therefore, unless one first ascertains whether its author made full use of

Kawamura's early manuscripts. Aside from publishing D?gen's biography, the second major way Eiheiji

has influenced the way we remember Dogen is through its efforts to promote study of D?gen's Sh?b?genz? (True dharma eye collection)?now one of the

most well-known religious books of Japan. Today, when someone remem bers Dogen or thinks of S?t? Zen, most often that person automatically thinks of D?gen's Sh?b?genz?. This kind of automatic association of Dogen with this work is very much a modern development. By the end of the fifteenth century most of D?gen's writings had been hidden from view in temple vaults where they became secret treasures.53 After textual learning was revived dur ing the early Tokugawa period, most Japanese S?t? monks still studied only well-known Chinese Buddhist scriptures or classic Chinese Zen texts.54 Eventually a few scholarly monks like Menzan Zuih? began to study D?gen's writings, but they were the exceptions. Even when scholarly monks read D?gen'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 D?gen's Sh?b?genz?.55

52. Kawamura, "Eihei kaisan Dogen zenji gy?j? Kenzei ki kaidai," pp. 202-4. 53. Bodiford, S?t? Zen in Medieval Japan, pp. 134-35. 54. Yokozeki Ry?in, Edo jidai T?mon seiy? (Tokyo: Bukky?sha, 1938), p. 825. 55. Ibid., pp. 909-12.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 19

The government ban on publication of the Sh?b?genz? was lifted as a re sult of petitions submitted by Gent? Sokuch?, the monk who assumed office as Eiheiji's new abbot in 1765 and whose efforts to implement D?gen's "old regulations" at Eiheiji were summarized above. Upon accepting Eiheiji's ab botship, Sokuch? had vowed to publish D?gen's Sh?b?genz? in time to com memorate D?gen's five hundred fiftieth memorial in 1802. The exact word ing that Sokuch? 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 publi cation ban where it specifically recognized the Sh?b?genz? as constituting D?gen's house rules (kakun), which must be followed by all members of his S?t? lineage.56 Work on the publication project began immediately, so that two Sh?b?genz? 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 wood blocks, and raising money to finance publication?that the project was not completed until 1815, seven years after Sokuch?'s death (see Table 2).57 In spite of its numerous textual inaccuracies, the version of the Sh?b?genz? published by Eiheiji (known as the "Head Temple," honzan, edition) re mains the one most widely read even today.58

Eiheiji not only published D?gen's Sh?b?genz? but also promoted its study by S?t? monks and lay people. Beginning in 1905 Eiheiji organized its first Sh?b?genz? conference (Genz? e). Academics, popular writers, interested lay people, and monks attended a series of workshops in which they read and discussed specific Sh?b?genz? chapters. This first Genz? 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 S?t? Zen monastic education. In earlier generations only one Zen teacher, Nishiari Bokusan (1821-1910), is known to have ever lectured on how the Sh?b?genz? should be read and understood. One of Bokusan's disciples, Oka S?tan (1890-1921), served as the first leader of the Genz? e. S?tan's lec tures provided a model that could be emulated by each of the other Zen

56. Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gent? Sokuch? zenji," p. 1035. 57. Today the Honzan edition of the Sh?b?genz? consists of 95 chapters. Five of those

chapters, however, were not added until 1906. In 1796 when publication of the Sh?b?genz? as a whole was permitted, publication of five chapters ("Den'e," "Busso," "Shisho," "Jish? zanmai," and "Jukai") remained prohibited because they concerned religious secrets (such as dharma transmission ceremonies). See Kumagai, "Koki fukko to Gent? Sokuch? zenji," p. 1035.

58. For most scholarly purposes, the best small edition of D?gen's writings is ?kubo, ed., Dogen zenji zensh? (two volumes plus a supplement). For detailed textual investigation of the various premodern versions of D?gen's Sh?b?genz?, though, one must turn to the

Eihei sh?b?genz? sh?sho taisei (25 volumes plus a supplement) (Tokyo: Taish?kan Shoten, 1974-82).

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

20 Journal of Japanese Studies 32:1(2006)

Table 2 Chronology of Eiheiji's Honzan Edition of the Sh?b?genz?

Year Number of Sh?b?genz? Chapters Published

1796 2 1797 14 1798 11 1799 9 1800 22 1801 14

1802 5 1803 8 1804 1 1805 3 1811 1

1815 boxed set of entire edition

Total 20 years 90 chapters

Based on Kumagai Ch?k?, "Koki fukko to Gent? Sokuch? zenji," in Sakurai Sh?y?, ed., Eiheijishi (Fukui Pref.: Dai Honzan Eiheiji, 1982), pp. 1086-1102.

monks who came to Eiheiji.59 This model has become the norm, not the ex ception. Today every S?t? Zen teacher lectures on D?gen's Sh?b?genz?.

Concluding Remarks

D?gen's memory has helped keep Eiheiji financially secure, in good re pair, and filled with monks and lay pilgrims who look to Dogen for religious inspiration. Eiheiji has become D?gen's place, the temple where Dogen is re membered, where D?gen's Zen is practiced, where D?gen's Sh?b?genz? is published, where it is read, and where one goes to learn D?gen's Buddhism. As we remember Dogen, 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 Dogen we remember is a con structed image, an image constructed in large measure to serve the sectarian agendas of Eiheiji in its rivalry with S?jiji. We should remember that the Dogen of the Sh?b?genz?, the Dogen who is held up as a profound religious philosopher, is a fairly recent innovation in the history of Dogen remem brances. However important that modern Dogen may be for our time, he

59. Yoshioka, "Meiji ki no Eiheiji," pp. 1393-95.

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bodiford: Dogen Hagiography 21

might not be so important for Kamakura Buddhism or for medieval Bud dhism or for most of Tokugawa-period Buddhism. Instead, it is the Dogen of sectarian agendas, the Dogen who stands above Keizan, the Dogen who

works miracles, and so forth, who commanded the memory of earlier gener ations of Japanese. As we remember Dogen for the twenty-first century, we must not forget about these other, older images of Dogen. Finally, in remem bering Dogen, the time is ripe for someone to write a new, more accurate biography of Dogen, one that sorts out what can be known and what was only remembered or invented by Menzan Zuih? and the artists of the illustrated version of Kenzei's chronicle.

University of California, Los Angeles

This content downloaded from ������������131.179.158.19 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:50:37 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms