Shìmén zhāngfú yí yìngfǎ jì 釋門章服儀應法記
A Record on Conformity to Dharma in the Buddhist Liturgical-Robe Code by 元照 (Yuánzhào, 述); 良信 (Ryōshin, 合)
About the work
A single-fascicle Northern-Sòng commentary by Yúháng shāmén Yuánzhào 餘杭沙門元照 (元照, 1048–1116, the Língzhī Dàzhì lǜshī) on Nánshān Dàoxuān’s Shìmén zhāngfú yí 釋門章服儀 (T1894 / KR6r0015) — Dàoxuān’s foundational treatise on the proper zhāngfú 章服 (liturgical garments and emblems) of the Buddhist clergy. The Xùzàngjīng witness is the Japanese huìběn 會本 (interleaved-edition) collation produced by Liángxìn 良信 (Ryōshin, 良信) of Pútíān 菩提菴 in Nánjīng Xīshān (Edoperiod); the front-preface is signed by Dànzhēn 憺真 of the same monastery.
Prefaces
(A) Zhāngfú yí yìngfǎ jì huìběn xù 章服儀應法記會本序, signed Zhèngdé sān suìcì guǐsì liùyuè shíyī rì Nánjīng Xīshān Pútíān bǐqiū Dànzhēn tí 正德三歲次癸巳六月十一日南京西山菩提菴比丘憺真題 — i.e. Japanese Shōtoku 3 = 1713, sixth lunar month, 11th day. Dànzhēn explains that the editor Liángxìn (Ryōshin) had a strong commitment to the Vinaya tradition and during the present summer retreat had cut woodblocks for a huìběn edition. The preface is a Japanese-Edo statement, not a Sòng one: it situates the jì in the broader argument that qǐluó 綺羅 silks and zēngkuàng 繒纊 silk-paddings were originally unsuitable for clergy, citing Yuánzhào’s Zhīyuán 芝園 line on this point.
(B) Yìngfǎ jì internal opening, signed Dà Sòng Yúháng shāmén shì Yuánzhào shù 大宋餘杭沙門釋 元照 述. Yuánzhào opens by quoting the Gǎntōng zhuàn 感通傳: “the deva asked, ‘Of the Zhāngfú yí the Língshén deities are pleased; from the time the Buddhist dharma travelled east these six or seven hundred years, no Vinayamaster of north or south had this idea — why did the master alone bring it forth?’ The Patriarch [Dàoxuān] answered, ‘I read the Dàzhìdùlùn and saw that the Buddha wore a coarse hempen saṃghāṭi, and so I bore [the matter] in mind.‘” This zhuàn-citation grounds the entire treatise.
Abstract
The Yìngfǎ jì is the principal Sòng running commentary on Dàoxuān’s Zhāngfú yí, walking through the source-text section by section: the proper grade and material of the kāṣāya (cotton/hemp not silk, on grounds that silk requires the killing of silkworms — a violation of the first precept); the proper huàisè dyeing rules; the sevenpiece, ninepiece and twenty-five-piece patterns; the proper way of folding and prostrating; the zuòjù 坐具 (sitting-cloth); etc. Yuánzhào’s exegesis adds Sòng-period material on textile sources (e.g. silk from Lǐngnán vs. cotton from the western regions), and frames the whole as a polemic against late-Tang and Sòng laxity in monastic dress (shèngbù 繒帛 silk for prestige rather than discipline). Composition is bracketed by Yuánzhào’s mature scholarly career at Língzhīsì in Hángzhōu; notBefore–notAfter are accordingly set 1080–1116. The Edo Vinayarevival redactor Liángxìn (also 1660s–1730s, an active member of the Pure-Land + Nánshān Vinaya revival under Kanjō and Jiun) produced the huìběn edition reproduced here in 1713.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located in Western languages on this specific commentary. For Yuánzhào more generally see Daniel Stevenson and Ann Heirman in standard Vinaya bibliographies.
Other points of interest
- The Japanese huìběn preface (1713) is itself a valuable testimony to the Edoperiod Vinayarevival movement’s interest in the Sòng Língzhī corpus.
Links
- CBETA online: https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/X1097
- 元照 DILA
- Kanseki DB