Yuánjiè zhǐzhǎng 圓戒指掌
The Round Precepts at One’s Fingertip by 敬光 (述)
About the work
A three-fascicle systematic introduction to the Tendai Round-Precept tradition by Keikō 敬光 (1740–1795), the Anraku-in 安樂院 Tendai master at Mt. Hiei and the leading Edo-period theorist of the Tendai yuánjiè school that had been the principal antagonist of the Edo Shingon-Risshū of Jōgon and Shūkaku-Jiki (see KR6t0058). The work is one of the “seven essential works” (qīquán 七筌, “seven nets”) of Keikō’s published corpus, designed to make the yuánjiè doctrine “as clear as if pointing to one’s palm” — hence the title.
Abstract
Authorship. The preface, by Kanyo Egon 冠譽慧嚴, Zōjō-ji Daisōjō and a graduate of the Mii-dera precept-stream, refers to the work as composed by “the Mii Manifest-Way Great Preceptor 三井顯道大和上” — i.e. Keikō (the catalog meta gives the Dharma name 敬光; “Manifest-Way” 顯道 is his sobriquet). The original work was composed by Keikō and published posthumously, with the Ansei 7 = 1860 publication by Jundō 純惠 of Sasatani 獅谷, the Anraku-in lineage continuator.
Date. No internal composition date. Keikō lived 1740–1795 and was active as a teacher and writer from the 1770s onward. The Taishō text bears the Ansei 7 = 1860 reprint colophon, indicating the work was already established in the school by then. notBefore = 1770, notAfter = 1795 (Keikō’s death) is conservative.
The preface, written by Kanyo Egon (Zōjō-ji daisōjō), narrates the historical trajectory of the yuánjiè tradition: “The propagation of the one-vehicle marvellous precepts in our country surged up with Saichō Dengyō Daishi and was greatly extended by Ennin Jikaku Daishi (圓仁) and Enchin Chishō Daishi (圓珍). The school’s regulations once established, the precept platform then arose. Responding to the karmic ripeness of the Great Vehicle and the dispensation’s flow, [the school] propagated Vairocana’s direct-teaching vinaya. The round-sudden precept studies have spread copiously throughout our domain. How could this not be the realization of the vow-power of the successive patriarchs?”
The preface then identifies the modern problem: “But as years and months passed, the world has lacked clear teachers, and the marvellous precepts have not been without their high-and-low fluctuations as the times have varied. Heterodox views have come down in confusion; complaints have arisen on every side; eventually [the precept tradition] has gone with the flow without being able to return to its source. This is a thing to deplore. The Mii-dera Manifest-Way Great Preceptor [Keikō] saw this and turned back the wild waves, kindling the bright lamp. He drafted detailed treatises, accumulating fascicles into chapters. The most essential of these are the seven nets (七筌). The Yuánjiè zhǐzhǎng is one of them. The provisional and actual two teachings and the great-and-small two precepts appear with a glance, with no surplus matter. This is why it is called “at-one’s-fingertip.”
The closing paragraph of fascicle 3 contains Keikō’s manifesto for the distinctive Tendai-Anraku-in position vis-à-vis the contemporary Shingon-Risshū and Hossō scholars: “The Northern Peak [Hiei-zan] transmits the vinaya — three sighs and more; transmits the esoteric, and unites it with Zen; subtly merges the Tendai teaching. The white-snow of Ying-zhōng — its tune still leans toward the lower [popular] register, but the new school’s name [Tendai-Round-Precepts] is no less fitting. Now these three trainings are equipped; the pure-rule is doubly high. The four-house metal-stone strings up the shāng pitch and engraves the yǔ — but if not finely selected, one slips into common vulgarity. Reverently respect the unsurpassed song and exert yourself in harmonious cultivation.”
The work is the canonical Edo-period theoretical statement of the Tendai yuánjiè school and the principal source for understanding the Anraku-in tradition’s claim to be the rightful heir of Saichō’s Mahāyāna precept platform. It is the doctrinal counterpart to KR6t0058 from the Shingon-Risshū side, and the two together document the major 17th–18th century Japanese inter-school debate over the precept tradition.
Translations and research
- No complete Western-language translation located.
- Paul Groner, “The Lotus Sutra and Saichō’s Interpretation of the Realization of Buddhahood with This Very Body,” in The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1989), for the Edo Tendai yuán-jiè school’s theoretical foundation.
- Sonoda Kōyū 薗田香融, Heian bukkyō no kenkyū 平安佛教の研究 (Hōzōkan, 1981), for the Saichō-Anraku-in lineage.
- Akamatsu Toshihide 赤松俊秀, “Jōgon to Shingon Risshū” 淨嚴と眞言律宗, in Nihon bukkyōshi (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1979).
Other points of interest
The work’s bracketed framing of the contemporary precept controversy — the contrast between Saichō’s original yuánjiè vision and the Shingon-Risshū’s joint-observance position of Jōgon/Shūkaku-Jiki — provides one of the clearest insider statements of the 18th-century Edo Tendai apologetic for the yuánjiè alone position. The “four-house metal-stone” allusion in the closing paragraph references the four Edo precept schools (Tendai, Shingon-Risshū, Sōtō Zen, Pure Land) and acknowledges the polemical landscape.